Why Don't We Stop Producing Energy Inefficient Filament Bulbs?

Which one is more tasty, it depends on you. Or which one should be banned by Govr.

ridiculos

there is no match of a filament bulb with florosent lamp and ur example shows u dono abt any of them

thnx for nothing

we are not talking here for the exceptions but a general lighting system

i am sorry if i hurt you or any other color blind here

A lot of general lighting is already fluorescent -- offices, factories, shopping areas, signs and displays, to name a few examples. The items I mentioned can hardly be treated as exceptions; they make up a significant percentage of the use of artificial lighting.

The ban you are urging is already in place in many countries. The standard 100 Watt bulb is banned, or will soon be banned, in many places. Lower-wattage IL will also be banned in the future. I think the laws passed banning IL were well-intentioned, but based on ignorance and an overwhelming amount of lobbying. I hope that the costs of LED lighting comes down quickly, since this type of lighting has many (but not all) of the advantages of incandescent lighting. I also hope that the ban on lower-wattage lamps is delayed. Perhaps a gray market for IL will come about, where people can buy the bulbs over the internet out of the direct line of sight of the nanny state.

Ain't run cross you before Usbport.

I agree with your take.

All electrical lighting represents a negative impact on the environment. Go back to whale oil lamps, I say! Harumph!

Or moonlight! What's wrong with that? People worked by moonlight for thousands of years. Have we become too good for tradition? Oh, sure - some naysayers argue that our government is in the pocket of Big Moonlight. But they overlook all the good that moonlight companies do for our economy and how they put food on our dinner tables.

The government does not have to get involved and SHOULD NOT get involved. They typically make these matters worse by spending millions of taxpayers dollars on worthless studies and lame legislation which actually slows down the excellent progress that is already being made.

When there is an actual cost savings using CF or LED lighting, the CONSUMER will choose the best solution to save themselves money. This system works fine without any government intervention.

I have already voluntarily switched all interior lighting to CF and await the day when LED lighting becomes cost effective. Sales of incandescent bulbs have already dropped and someday they will be hard to find. I STILL NEED (2) incandescent bulbs for outdoor lighting because the CF bulbs don't work properly in the cold winters here. I understand these bulbs use more electricity, but I willingly PAY for this extra electricity and would be very annoyed if the government forced the issue when there is currently no viable option.

Governments are already too bloated, too expensive, too wasteful, and too involved in our personal choices. Take some personal responsibility, do what you can yourself, and please stop trying to inflict your choices on others.

Hasn't the US government set up a ban on incandescent lamps? As far as I understand the law was signed in 2007 and set to completely ban certain incandescent lamps, typically those between 40 and 100 watts with low light output, by 2014.

You are correct...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

...it's too late to avoid governmental involvement.

So I guess the question should be why the Government of Qatar has not banned incandescent lamps?

For the US -

The precise answer is NO! They have not banned the incandescent lamp in the US and no attempt is in the works.

All incandescent lamps between 40 & 100 watt must be made more efficient to meet new standards however.

For specialty lamps where the substitute lamps will not serve (and there are many such uses - ovens - fridges etc) incandescents will continue to be allowed.

The only incandescents I have in my new home are for motion activated lamps - CFLs don't work well there. The remainder are T8 tube lamps, CFLs or LEDs.

What are the enviromentalists going to say in a decade or so when all the mercury starts leaching from the landfills?

No one is stupid enough to call the EPA everytime that a fluorescent bulb burns out.

You can not mandate evolution in technology.

Demand drives innovation!

When the CFLs came out several years ago, I jumped at them - vastly greater efficiency, equivalent or brighter light output for same power consumed... I thought they'd be great.

What I found was they don't last as long as incandescents and the light output is not any better. They don't work well in the cold. They're no better at surviving a shock or a bump. And, I've had a couple go spectacularly incandescent on me (smoke and flames - not the bulb itself, but the power supply).

When you couple all that with the mercury content, they're a bad idea. Yes, it's a tiny amount, but multiplied be the millions that are sold and will be disposed of each year, has the potential of creating environmental nightmares around waste facilities. How many people actually hold on to spent FLs to turn them in at local hazardous waste facilities?

I'm holding out my hope for solid state (LED) lighting - perhaps this emerging technology will deliver on the promise of high efficiency without all the associated problems.

And we must let the market decide - government mandates are short-sighted, political by their very existance, and interfere with the free market we supposedly live in (here in the USA).

I agree completely with all but your comment about the mercury in CFLs because of a subtle nuance most people don't consider. The most predominant source of mercury pollution in the USA comes from coal fired power plants. Power plants by force of regulation are reducing this uncontrolled release. By using a CFL we are in the first place reducing the amount of coal burned for the same amount of illumination and therefore reducing the amount of uncontrolled mercury release. Now calculating how much less mercury will go up a stack during the expected lifetime usage of a CFL and then comparing this to the amount of mercury in a CFL is not a simple calculation. But I don't think that this needs to be calculated because of a critical nuance, most of the time the mercury in a CFL will be properly disposed by the community waste disposal recycling programs. So the mercury in a CFL will likely not be released into the environment.

But I also agree that LED based technology does appear to be the best of all. But lets not forget, this might also be another pipe dream for yet unseen reasons.

So, what about the plight of poor who cant afford filament bulbs which are 10-20 times costs more than IL?Have you give it a thought?If anybody innovates for a cheaper one poor can breath a life........

Actually filament bulbs are about 10 times CHEAPER than CFL's.

No the government should not ban on manufacturing of all energy inefficient electrical appliances like filament bulbs because they can save energy when recycling.

A fluorescent lamp is full of nasty pollutants and costs more to produce.

If you can generate all of your power needs from renewable energy incandescent lamps would be my preference they give a better quality light in my opinion and are easily dimmablein my opinion.

Now that's a non sequitur argument if I ever saw one.

Have you ever worried about all of those penguins off the coast of Sri Lanka?

Then again an Orca does have a right to eat.

I got a better idea, ban the government!

Have any of you had an integrated ballast CFL burst into flames on you? I have.

Have any of you had an IL do the same? I never have, And I fail to see any way it would be possible unless flammable fumes were present.

CFL's can be a fire hazard, but that small tidbit is usually glossed over. CFL's do not survive in enclosed fixtures or where the ballast is above the bulb for terribly long. they tend to overheat and shorten their lives.

I also have NEVER EVER had a CFL last anywhere NEAR the 5 - 7 year lifespan that is touted. Most last only somewhat longer than a conventional IL and cost over 10x the price.

oh, and getting most CFL's to live happily in a socket connected to a dimmer switch is a non-starter. you have to buy SPECIAL ones that cost 3 times MORE than the standard CFL which is already 10X the price of a lowly incandescent.

I have yet to hear such a bunch of uninformed, incorrect observations, rumors and half truths from a normally intelligent bunch of people. Many should study the topic just a small amount.

Sounds like a bunch of greens!

Wow, you have a strong opinion about this. I'm not sure what your opinion is but you certainly believe it wholeheartedly. Would you care to enlighten us by showing us a few of the studies that brought you to your opinion, whatever that opinion is.

In building new homes, my own plus others, I have done considerable research on many points - lighting being one. I am definitely not an expert on any particular area but I have looked at the details far more than many.

Usbport gave good answers - RedFred as well.

Anyone using incandescent lamps for general lighting is wasting money - especially in a business setting. However, today incandescents are the only thing for certain locations such as hot or cold.

The new generation of fluorescent tube lamps are very different from the older versions. The T8 and T5 are far more energy efficient. The electronic ballast allows rapid start and no noise. In many cases dimming can be done if the correct equipment is bought.

The stories about the incandescent being banned in the US are just plain wrong. In Europe, Canada, Australia and other places yes but the US no. 40 to 100 watt incandescents must be made more energy efficient to meet new government standards and that is well under way.

RedFred is correct about mercury. The entire mercury thing is something about every green site carries and is generally a non-event. The amount of mercury in new fluorescents is quite small - a serving of many types of fish will likely contain more mercury. We used to play with the stuff as kids. It should not be handled without care but if I happened to break a lamp I will sweep up the glass and forget about it.

I have read the MSDS for mercury and like so many of them it is a scare tactic more than reality.

The cost of any new lamp is high - same as anything else. There is such a big market for light bulbs that as soon as mass production starts the costs will drop very rapidly.

The fire hazard - if someone is dumb enough to put a CFL in a can where heat cannot escape - then what to do. That goes for many items in the home though.

The CFL that caught fire on me was in a wall sconce with the bulb in the upright position and an open top trumpet shaped glass shade. It was a textbook "perfect" setting for a CFL. It was also "perfect" because the glass shade prevented the fire from spreading before I could kill power to the fixture and put it out.

My point is that the electronic ballasts have more than one failure mode and some of them can and do result in fire. This is NOT the case with IL bulbs.

There is one side argument I want to add to this discussion on the efficiency of IL. I do not dispute at all that in very warm climates, the non-luminous energy is an inefficient waste product. But when the outside temperature is sufficiently cold, the heat produced by an IL is not going to waste. This heat is a useful co-generation of energy that the lamp produced.

Credit for heat from incandescent lamps - There are studies available on the net concerning that point.

I don't remember the precise number now but I believe you get something like 10 or 15% credit for that heat as it is already on the ceiling - not in a useful area.

In a multi-floor building where the heat can rise the percentage of credit would go up.

One thing that is never mentioned when CFL problems are mentioned is the brand but the name brands out perform the Brand X by a significant margin - cost more as well.

Hi, msmir1116!

Sorry for coming across your post at such a late date.

The discussion regarding the issue as to whether or not incandescents, straight fluorescents or CFLs is a better usage for lighting purposes is a misdirection away from the real issue.

If electrical generation shortages never occurred, there would be no need for the discussion. The misdirection gives rise to all kinds of interesting comparisons and conjectures:

Efficiency/Usage As incandescent bulbs have a superior footprint in eco-friendliness and lower production and purchase costs while having an equal lifespan to CFLs, and straight fluorescents are adaptive to a wide range of glare output, far less expensive to run for equal or greater candle power than incandescents and are thus more useful for some open interior spaces, we misdirect the merits of use based upon electricity cost rather than placement.

Production Cost Comparisons Production costs per incandescent bulb are far less in both gearing up and materials for manufacture than both bulb-style and straight fluorescents, but this is partly offset during distribution to purchasers because incandescents are more costly in terms of value per candle power output per unit than straight (not compact) fluorescents, but we are ready to be charged more for 'more efficient' lighting.

Heating Assistance "Bulb" heating is another question that has its own merits as potentially a side-benefit rather than a drawback of incandescents, because while the CFLs certainly get hot, they don't equal their caloric output and contribution to overall heating costs in colder weather. The argument would never have occurred if the energy supply was not woefully inadequate.

Ecological Arguments However, the bottom line of a comparison between CFLs and incandescents is that Compact Fluorescents are viewed (perhaps not incorrectly due to their mercury content) by ecological band-waggoners as an eco-detrimental plague whose existence would be less controversial if they were not considered to be the choice for replacing local lighting in order to save electricity, and whose disposal were to be more tightly regulated.

All these interesting arguments notwithstanding, to claim that CFLs are superior to incandescents is simply a judgement forced on persons interested in saving electricity by a misdirection away from the real question of the sufficiency of electrical supply. The real issue is the creation of sufficient green electrical generation to maintain the production and preference of localized incandescent lighting placement, or, as you have pointed out, other non-efficiency appliances, until something equally as eco-friendly may be developed.

Moreover, the lack of green energy is probably due to the tendency of the mob intellect to jump aboard whatever energy-production bandwagon looks greenest with profit motivations overriding engineering honesty in evaluating it thoroughly prior to its implementation.

There are other examples of the same kind of misdirection. For example, "saving" water is a direct result of not being able to efficiently manage sufficient water production rather than actions and technology designed to band-aid the wastage of that otherwise plentiful resource; the damage being done to oceanic ecosystems by excessive production of CO₂ being a more present danger than its effect on global warming and temperature rise where the money for grants exists, and so on.

In every case, the accumulation or promise of quick wealth overrides the basic remedial search for a correction of the root cause, instead concentrating engineering energies on research into the effects of the band-aid technologies where the money is. Engineers have to eat, after all.

While this kind of misdirection is ultimately the result of a failure of all levels of government to recognize which priorities they need to support in order to maintain the benefits of a balanced human existence/ecological stasis, it must be noticed that there are commercial interests whose health can be seen to increase by it.

Government faces a constant uphill battle to resist getting sidetracked and to become more discerning about where to place its interests between accumulation of wealth and human survival, its two main concerns (often the latter just to serve the former). That's easy to write, but hell to implement. The implementation of engineering for human survival is instead currently being improvised by NGOs because of their total focus on the humanity side of the equation.

Engineering faces a constant uphill battle to catch up technology with both sufficiency and eco-balance on every front where government favours wealth over health.

-Mark