Light Bulb Ban

Sounds a lot like a Texas Ice House !!

I'm confused on the timeline here. I grew up in Texas and remember the whole Coors mystique, but when Coors started shipping around the country in mid-70's, folks realized it's not a great beer. I had family in Golden and toured the Coors brewery as a wee lad. Lite was introduced by MeisterBrau, taken over by Miller in mid-70s also. Both were crappy beers (still are). Marketing made them the gorillas they are now.

Quote: zippyboy

I'm confused on the timeline here. I grew up in Texas and remember the whole Coors mystique, but when Coors started shipping around the country in mid-70's,

I left MI in '76 and Coors was unavailable here. It was a
big cult beer and a truck driver sold us a case in the
early 70's. I thought it tasted like dog piss.

There was a joke in Texas that Coors tasted like dishwater, and Coors Light was like dirty dishwater.

Q: How is Coors Light like making love in a canoe?
A: Both are fucking close to water.

Quote: zippyboy

There was a joke in Texas that Coors tasted like dishwater, and Coors Light was like dirty dishwater.

Q: How is Coors Light like making love in a canoe?
A: Both are fucking close to water.

Bahaha! Awesome. Can't get 'em for false advertising though. Everytime I see that waterfall in the commercial, "yup, tastes about the same".

Quote: zippyboy

I'm confused on the timeline here. I grew up in Texas and remember the whole Coors mystique, but when Coors started shipping around the country in mid-70's, folks realized it's not a great beer.

The same thing is happening with Yuengling now.

Yeah, but Yuengling is the oldest brewery in America (Molson is oldest in all of North America) so they must be doing something right. Just having a great product isn't enough, you gotta have marketing. Sometimes, marketing is enough, even without the product.

And now, back to light bulbs.

Quote: zippyboy

There was a joke in Texas that Coors tasted like dishwater, and Coors Light was like dirty dishwater.

Coors tastes like beer flavored water. I don't know how people
drink it. When I drink beer, its Sam Adams dark or nothing.

Let me modify something I said earlier. The commercial use of electricity is flagging, and the transportation use is contracting. The growth of use of electricity in the last 12 months is about equal to the entire residential lighting market.

Earlier I said 6 months. But the point is that by changing residential lighting it will make very little difference in overall consumption of electricity. The really bad actors like refrigeration, air conditioning, hot water heating, home heating, and above the industrial use of electricity is what matters.

The average residential use of lighting is only a little more than burning a 100 watt bulb 24/7 for the entire year.

Electron stimulated luminescence is the latest in high end lightbulbs, at roughly $20 per bulb. It seems to claim a nicer light than LED's with none of the problem with mercury of a CFL.

If someone has tried one or seen one, please give impression. Though it seems expensive, it looks like it might be cheaper than LED's.

Quote: zippyboy

Yeah, but Yuengling is the oldest brewery in America (Molson is oldest in all of North America) so they must be doing something right. Just having a great product isn't enough, you gotta have marketing. Sometimes, marketing is enough, even without the product.

I tried my first Yuengling on tap this past summer while on vacation in Orlando. Loved it! Tried to find it here in St. Louis with no luck. I guess they don't sell it here. :^(

Quote: pacomartin

The average residential use of lighting is only a little more than burning a 100 watt bulb 24/7 for the entire year.

This certainly highlights the imperative that any new touted bulb absolutely must live up to claims they are longer lasting. CFLs have really disappointed me in this matter.

Quote: Toes14

I tried my first Yuengling on tap this past summer while on vacation in Orlando. Loved it! Tried to find it here in St. Louis with no luck. I guess they don't sell it here. :^(

When I lived in WNY some people who went to college in PA loved it and had me bring some back. The order went from 1 to 4 or so cases over the week it was known I would be visiting family. I joked that there is a fine line between bringing people back a case and organized bootlegging. On one trip I had so many orders for a local candy, smilely cookies from a local place, and Yuengling it took me hours to both pick it up and deliver it. The cookies were so good I had to put them in my trunk to assure they made the trip.

BTW: If you go to Philadelphia and want a Yuengling you just say "Larger." To say "Yuengling Larger" is redundant and unnesecary.

To boymimbo on light bulb heat
#post47714

Quote: boymimbo

Let's say for argument's sake that you have 10 sixty watt light bulbs incadescents going in your home at one time and that the efficiency of a light bulb is such that 90 percent of its output is heat. .....If you are running those light bulbs for a month to heat your home...from a cost perspective, it's much cheaper to heat your home using natural gas over light bulbs to the tune of about $25/month. And given that you would be replacing your light bulbs every month under this formula, you would spend anohter $6/month replacing light bulbs.
It's a non-issue, even in hydro rich Kabec!

You miss the point.

No-one chooses to heat their room with light bulbs.
They light their room with light bulbs.
When it's dark, it's often cold - the heat is simply a useful extra.
Whatever the heat contribution, it takes away from the cost of using light bulbs as lighting.
In fact, the heating is a useful energy saver, relative to total light bulb energy usage,
as referenced http://ceolas.net/#li6x with international research

(the incandescent bulbs work against air conditioning cooling, but their use is always optional, and might then be preferred for light quality or other reasons)

Generally on the light bulb regulations

USA and Canada regulations, and updates on US repeal bills federally and by state
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

Legislated Texas June 2011, to allow local manufacture of the incandescents.
As seen, 2 weeks ago, Canada Government officially postponed a ban to (at least) 2014,
citing further research and information is needed.

Unlike what Americans are being told,
the standard specifications means that it is a progressive ban on all known incandescents, by 2020 at the latest.
So the touted Halogen type replacements will also be banned.

Dept of Energy and other official data, as referenced, shows just 1-2% grid electricity is saved.
Light bulb manufacturers have pushed for a ban for profit reasons, again as documented.
More on the deception behind the ban on Freedom Light Bulb

Quote: PantaRei

USA and Canada regulations, and updates on US repeal bills federally and by state
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx

Dept of Energy and other official data, as referenced, shows just 1-2% grid electricity is saved.

I am looking at a 100-watt Sylvania three-way incandescent bulb with two filaments and 3-contact medium aluminum base. There are levels of wattage (30/70/100). Average rated life of 1200 hours. Line voltage. Price $3.95. This light bulb is exempt from the ban, and if you put it in a regular lamp, you will just get the 30 watt setting.

What is to prevent a manufacturer from producing a three way lightbulb with wattage of (60/70/130) ? It would be more expensive than a standard 60 watt incandescent bulb, but it would still be a lot less expensive than the LED or other high end bulbs. It would get around the ban, but people could purchase it instead of a standard 60 watt bulb, and get their favorite lighting?

I am not surprised by the 1% to 2% of the grid saved. And in exchange we have a mammoth problem with mercury pollution. I am looking at the Department of Energy residential use of energy for one state with a fairly low population increase. Over the last five decades, energy use (for residential use) has actually declined slightly, but electricity and gas and LPG have replaced coal, wood, and fuel oil. People are just using electricity to heat and cool their homes and water.

I have noticed a savings in power by replacing utility bulbs with CFL's in the basement, closets and garage. But so far I have not replaced any incandescent bulbs in the normal lights.

Quote: PantaRei

To boymimbo on light bulb heat
#post47714
https://wizardofvegas.com/forum/off-topic/general/3973-light-bulb-ban/2/#post47714


You miss the point.

No-one chooses to heat their room with light bulbs.
They light their room with light bulbs.
When it's dark, it's often cold - the heat is simply a useful extra.
Whatever the heat contribution, it takes away from the cost of using light bulbs as lighting.
In fact, the heating is a useful energy saver, relative to total light bulb energy usage,
as referenced http://ceolas.net/#li6x with international research

(the incandescent bulbs work against air conditioning cooling, but their use is always optional, and might then be preferred for light quality or other reasons)

I was responding to a person stating that lighting their home using light bulbs would be better than using another source. I think that incadescent light bulb ban is purely profit motive. I know that about six months before the ban, I'll be buying about 80 bulbs of the 60W / 100W variety which will last my entire house for about 3 years. I have CFLs in my basement and garage.

The page referenced indeed shows the bias of the government towards moving away from incandescents -- no argument here. And yes, your heating bill will be marginally lower if you use incadescents over CFLs and the effect will be magnified slightly because the lights are on in rooms that you use. If you're sitting 1 meter away from a lit bulb, does that light bulb give off enough heat to prevent you from turning on the central heater? That's really the question at hand.

But my point was that the cost of energy to heat your home via natural gas is much cheaper than using light bulbs. Using the "heat" argument to support the continued existence of light bulbs doesn't wash.

The convenience, likability and mercury issues are enough to support not banning incadescents. I agree with PACO - government should be chasing other energy wasters rather than the good ol' Edison (or Woodward/Evans, whatever you believe).

Quote: boymimbo

The convenience, likability and mercury issues are enough to support not banning incadescents. I agree with PACO - government should be chasing other energy wasters rather than the good ol' Edison (or Woodward/Evans, whatever you believe).

The lowest residential users of electricity in the USA are the citizens of Maine who average 713 watts in devices running 24/7 (512 kWh per month). They are also by far the highest residential users of residential petroleum based products (Fuel Oil, Kerosene, and LPG) which power home heating and hot water. They don't need air conditioning.

So if Maine were concerned about the environment, they should make reticulated (piped) natural gas more available in the populated areas of the state. For the low population areas where home delivery is the only option, probably a lot more could be done by converting the oldest boilers (especially the ones that were converted from coal fired) to more energy efficient models. The use of LPG instead of fuel oil can be encouraged.

At any rate, this is just one example where creating a mercury problem in landfills is doing far more damage than the original problem.

Considering that we all seem to agree that modifying light bulb use should actually have low priority, folks opposed to daylight savings time have a case. Since it does seem to me that it logically can only affect light bulb use, how is it important for "saving energy" anymore?

Quote: odiousgambit

This certainly highlights the imperative that any new touted bulb absolutely must live up to claims they are longer lasting. CFLs have really disappointed me in this matter.

My lower 13 watt ones are doing okay. I'm still using the same ones when they first came on the market, with the exception of one I broke. I've tried not to use them where they get turned off in less than 10 minutes. (no bathroom use).

I've had problems with the higher wattage ones dying when used in enclosed spaces though, where the heat builds up (I assume that has something to do with it anyway) The one I used in an open space, just died the other day. I got that the same time I got the low watt ones.

Quote: odiousgambit

Considering that we all seem to agree that modifying light bulb use should actually have low priority, folks opposed to daylight savings time have a case. Since it does seem to me that it logically can only affect light bulb use, how is it important for "saving energy" anymore?

I think "saving energy" is and has always been just the side-benefit sell to DST. Ben Franklin sold it as a way to save candle wax, but it was really a logic play. Most people will eventually rise and retire around the same time. If they live by a clock in the city this is even moreso than for farmers way back. As we all know, it hurts your sleep when the sun peeks in an hour before you get up and we would rather have sunlight after work when we are at home and awake than "wasted" when we are commuting or worse sleeping.

But people are funny and need a better reason than, "look how much sense it makes, you can do something after work!" Saving energy is that sell.

In AZ there is no DST (except on Navajo Reservations) and in summer the sun is up at 4:30 AM. The logic is that it is so hot the last thing you want after work is ore sun. Trade workers shift their day, starting work at 5:00 AM because afternoon is too hot. Office workers shift to meet demand of the 47 other lower states that shift. TV shows shift time because AZ does not. I got used to it but DST works better in climates without 330 days of sunshine per year.

And it nearly started a huge blowout with a co-worker when I got back!

Quote: rxwine

My lower 13 watt ones are doing okay. I'm still using the same ones when they first came on the market, with the exception of one I broke. I've tried not to use them where they get turned off in less than 10 minutes. (no bathroom use).

I think the case of breaking one is important. We all break lightbulbs. There is one in the garage next to the stepladder that has been been broken many times.

Let's look at government recommended procedures for cleanup

Quote: EPA

1.Before cleanup
◦Have people and pets leave the room.
◦Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
◦Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
◦Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb.

2.During cleanup
◦Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
◦Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

3.After cleanup
◦Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
◦If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

A bathroom is a good example. Suppose you are in the shower in winter, or on the toilet. A lightbulb accidentally breaks somehow. Following the recommended procedure would be awkward at best. What if the person in the bathroom is a child or a house guest? Do you preserve dignity or risk mercury poisoning?

We know that people often dispose of motor oil in an unsafe way. I think it is reasonable to assume that light bulbs will be disposed of in the same manner.

What about businesses like hotels? Will they decide that the liability of putting in a thousand CFL's is intolerable? Now they have to face a possible $20 per lightbulb to replace them with LED or some equivalent. People steal remote controls from hotels, so they will certainly steal $20 lightbulbs.

Quote: pacomartin

Let's look at government recommended procedures for cleanup

It depends on which government, you see. It can get worse. Here is the story of the lady who thought she should get some government "help".

Quote: rxwine

I've had problems with the higher wattage ones dying when used in enclosed spaces

This is where I've had the worst luck too

Quote: odiousgambit

It depends on which government, you see. It can get worse. Here is the story of the lady who thought she should get some government "help".

I think that for my parents who are approaching their '80s that the smart thing would be to use these 3-way bulbs in bedrooms and bathrooms with (50-100-140 watts). If the lamp has a three way base they can use the higher settings. If the lamp does not have a three way setting, then they will only be able to access the 50 watt setting. In either case the bulbs are 2 for $7 which makes them much cheaper than $20-$30 for a high end bulb. The CFL's will be used in the garage, basement, and utility closets.

Why are we talking about $20 cfls? I bought a package of 10 13 Watt cfls for about $15 and they still go on sale at that price regularly. That is only a $1.50 each.

pacomartin

Good point about the 3 way possibilities, also in your earlier comment

btw
reminder that Canada ban has just officially been put off, for at least 2 years...
And to paraphrase the Casablanca movie,
we may always have Paris.... or at least Paris, Texas :-)
(Texas are allowing the continued manufacture of incandescents, in local state bill enacted by Gov Perry, June 2011)


Some points about households saving money... or not..

1 Replacement savings might be great for the main lights
But US households have 45 lighting points on average
No "big savings" with upfront expensive lights in rarely used lamps.
Also, breaking/losing expensive lighting is a bigger loss...

2. The incandescent heat can as covered earlier save room heating costs
when it's dark its often cold, and use with air conditioning cooling
is of course optional

3. The so-called "power factor" (not the same as power
rating) of ordinary "energy saving" fluorescent bulbs means that they
use twice the energy at the power plant than do ordinary incandescent
bulbs, compared to what your meter says.
with references.
Electricity consumers of course eventually have to pay for this "hidden cost" in higher bills.

4. Conversely:
With any electricity saving the electricity companies make less money,
and they simply raise the electricity bills, or receive state
subsidies (out of citizens pockets) to compensate
Already happening in California, Ohio and other US states, the UK etc,
as described and referenced

Heads we lose - Tails they win :-(

Quote: boymimbo

Quote: PantaRei

You miss the point.
No-one chooses to heat their room with light bulbs.
They light their room with light bulbs.
When it's dark, it's often cold - the heat is simply a useful extra.... [etc]

I was responding to a person stating that lighting their home using light bulbs would be better than using another source. I think that incadescent light bulb ban is purely profit motive. I know that about six months before the ban, I'll be buying about 80 bulbs of the 60W / 100W variety which will last my entire house for about 3 years. I have CFLs in my basement and garage.
The page referenced indeed shows the bias of the government towards moving away from incandescents -- no argument here. And yes, your heating bill will be marginally lower if you use incadescents over CFLs and the effect will be magnified slightly because the lights are on in rooms that you use. ....
......But my point was that the cost of energy to heat your home via natural gas is much cheaper than using light bulbs. Using the "heat" argument to support the continued existence of light bulbs doesn't wash.
The convenience, likability and mercury issues are enough to support not banning incadescents. I agree with PACO - government should be chasing other energy wasters rather than the good ol' Edison (or Woodward/Evans, whatever you believe).

points taken, thanks
the heat benefit is indeed hardly an argument in itself (also eg from lighting up a room for a short while, and leaving again)
- it's just one of many arguments, a few more listed in another comment

Quote: PantaRei

Some points about households saving money... or not..
...
Heads we lose - Tails they win :-(

In multiple places, you cited a web page as if it might be a proper source of unbiased information. At first glance, that page appears to be a highly-biased, politics-oriented site taking a stand against the president on a particular topic. I doubt that many people would consider the RNC a good, unbiased source for information on political measures. Nor the DNC. You might try to cite a less-political source, if you want someone to believe in what you have to say. The info may or may not be correct, but referencing such an openly-biased source is not likely to sway many folks to your side.

Of course, most of the Fox News crowd might buy what you say without question.

Quote: kenarman

Why are we talking about $20 cfls? I bought a package of 10 13 Watt cfls for about $15 and they still go on sale at that price regularly. That is only a $1.50 each.

I wasn't saying that CFL's will cost $20.

The government only mandated a certain level of efficiency that must be met. The cheapest way is to go with CFL's, but if you have a problem with the mercury or you don't like the quality of the lights you have to go with a more expensive option. The initial LED bulbs put out by Phillips are retailing for close to $30 a bulb. Electron stimulated luminescence (ESL) is the latest in high end lightbulbs, at roughly $20 per bulb. It seems to claim a nicer light than LED's with none of the problem with mercury of a CFL.

Another way is to purchase a 50-100-150 watt three way incandescent bulb for about $3.50 (or less than $2 for a generic brand). These bulbs are considered specialty bulbs and are exempt from the requirement. If you do not have a three way light socket, then it will only work at 50 watts. While you are wasting money on an expensive 3 way bulb, it is still cheaper than LED OR ESL bulbs.

There is also rumored to be a 35 watt incandescent bulb which will use a new filament and give the same amount of lumens as a traditional 60 watt bulb. Such a light bulb will also be legal under the regulation. There is not a ban on incandescent bulbs, per se. It's just that with the standard tungsten filaments, you can't meet the wattage requirements specified in the regulations. The reason you can't buy it today, is that it is not cost effective until the 60 watt bulbs are prohibited.

looking into this power factor business, I was under the impression that fluorescent bulbs required direct current, and the base of the lamp did the conversion. But I seem to be mistaken? Wow,that has been a long time to be under the wrong impression.

So far "power factor" has stumped me.

I challenge Paco's notion that are daily lighting need is 2.4KW /day (1 100 W light bulb burning 24/7).

On average, at night at my house, there's probably 8 lights on in the house, for 8 hours (it's winter). in the daytime, there's three lights, and there's one light on at the middle of the night. Call them all 60W. So 60W (8 x 8 + 3 x 8 + 1 x 8) = 60 x 96 = 6KW. If I replace them all with 13W, I'm only using up 13 x 96 = 1.3KW. I save 4.7KW / day or about 47 cents. Per month that's $14.10. Per year that's $168. And because incadescents last for about 1,000 hours, i'm replacing 12 light bulbs 3 times a year (36 light bulbs) at a cost of about $28.80 (at 80 cents per bulb). CFLs are about $4 each now and last for 10,000+ hours, so I'm repalceing 3.6 bulbs a year for $14.40. I'm going to ignore the heating argument because in my part of Canada, the air conditioning is on about as much as the heater.

I don't think my lighting needs are excessive and I can see a decent savings by switching over.

The replacement of incadescent lamps might be more of an awareness thing rather than a energy savings move. If people start about saving energy around the home, the obvious thing is the light bulb. Less obvious is the energy efficiency of your washer, dryer, stove, furnace, and refridgerator, and things that are always in standby. Less obvious still is the usage rates that went into effect two months ago on our "smart meter".

But the awareness of the light bulb makes you think about such things.

We bought a new washing machine, and one of the things we were looking for was the energy star symbol. Laundry was done on the weekend, because it's in the cheapest rate. Lights are constantly being turned off when I am no longer in a room. CFLs are in use in the garage and basement. If you cook alot, then switching to a gas stove makes sense. Rather than turning off your TV at night, unplug it. Power down the laptop, and so on and so forth.

It's necessary to do these things because it's very very expensive to build out new power plants, find right of ways for new distribution lines, and so on and so forth. If you can replace population growth with efficiency, then it might be possible only to replace existing power plants than build new ones. So every little bit helps.

Quote: odiousgambit

So far "power factor" has stumped me.

Power factor is a quite difficult concept to get your head around but I will try to explain it. Ohms law give us, volts X amps = watts, this is true for direct current. It is not true for the alternating current the power company supplies us. However we pay by the kilowatthour (watts X 1000 X hour). This means that often the power company must provide more current (amps) of power to us than the meter records thus they don't get paid for that additional power.

This current can't do any work and is often described as simply being returned to the power company when trying to describe it in layman terms. Larger commercial/industrial users have a different type of metering and pay for this power.

Quote: boymimbo

I challenge Paco's notion that are daily lighting need is 2.4KW /day (1 100 W light bulb burning 24/7).

But the awareness of the light bulb makes you think about such things.

The U.S. HOUSEHOLD ELECTRICITY REPORT from Energy Information Administration says that in their survey 107 million household (at survey time) lighting accounted for 101 billion kWh (8.8 percent) of U.S. household electricity use.

So that is
101,000 million kWh / 107 million households = 943.9 kWh per household
943.9 kWh per household / 365 days = 2.586 kWh day
2.586 kWh day / 24 hours = 0.10775 kWh per hour =
108 watt bulb burning 24/7.
I rounded 108 watts down to a 100 watt bulb.

I agree that anything that increases consumer awareness does help. But you used the light bulbs to go after the big ticket items like the washing machine.

And I am not opposed to CFL's per se. I did install about 30 of them in the utility areas of my parent's house.

However, for places where you like the color of the incandescent light, you could also accomplish similar savings by using a motion detector switch if you forget to turn of the switch or if you fall asleep.

What will happen is middle class people will purchase LED lights for use in their bedrooms, nurseries, living room and kitchens, and put CFL's in the basement, garage, and utility closets. Poor people will purchase CFL's for everywhere. At some point you will get a rash of cases of mercury poisoning.

The report confirms that the fridge uses on average more electricity than everything else in the house. So, on top of asking people to switch to CFLs they should be mandating more efficient fridges and for people to turn up the settings on these devices so they don't use as much hydro.... amazing.

I think that the number seems low but I of course have no data to refute that.

Quote: boymimbo

The report confirms that the fridge uses on average more electricity than everything else in the house. So, on top of asking people to switch to CFLs they should be mandating more efficient fridges and for people to turn up the settings on these devices so they don't use as much hydro.... amazing.

I think that the number seems low but I of course have no data to refute that.

The number seemed low to me as well. I confirmed it with different data.

While it is hard to dispute that the light bulbs may make the consumer think about other things in the house, it also seems a panacea from making the more difficult, but more effective decisions. For instance, you could ban the sale of washing machines that fail to meet a certain efficiency, ditto for refrigerators, hot water heaters, and dishwashers.

Of course, the biggest one is to make it mandatory to let the power companies have control over individual central air conditioners to change the thermostat by a few degrees. Right now they do that as a voluntary program, but very few people are interested because the incentives are feeble.
It is the surge in air conditioning on a hot summer day that drives the entire entire electric grid design. It has nothing to do with average use.

I think I mentioned earlier that Maine has the lowest residential electricity usage in the entire country, the equivalent of running a 714 Watt machine per household 24/7/365. Not surprisingly, Maine is also the highest user of fuel oil in the entire country, a whopping 80% of the households use fuel oil as primary source of energy for home heating.

For those of you who are not from the Northeast, the price of home fuel oil has shot up in price so that it is drastically more expensive then gas. The price difference is so huge, that most people can afford a loan to replace their oil furnace with a gas furnace, pay the loan and the cost of the gas, and still spend less money per month. The only problem is that in the Northeast, many homes are nowhere near a gas line.

The governor of Maine wants to reduce the number of homes using oil from 80% to 40% in only three years.

Despite the very low electricity usage, the electric bill is still above the median for the country, because their rates are relatively high. Primarily because they closed their only nuclear power plant (which could supply a big part of the state) 15 years early because of environmental concerns.

Here is an example of a difficult decision

The governor is talking about changing out the furnace of 40% of the homes in the state, from oil to gas, and at the same time building the infrastructure to distribute this gas system. At the same time, the electricity distribution system in Maine is one of the oldest in the nation, containing only nine 345 kV power substations. It badly needs to be upgraded partly so that power from a proposed wind farm can be transmitted around the state without massive losses.

Now, one possibility is that you change out the furnaces in almost 300,000 residences from oil to gas, and then risk that economic conditions might change in five years. Another possibility is that you upgrade the electricity distribution system, build more electricity plants (Maine has 95 tiny ones already). While electricity is an expensive option for home heating, the latest systems can easily control the thermostat in each room, turn rooms up and down at night, and quickly respond to motion detectors when someone is in a room. Cheaper electricity makes electric snuggies, and other devices that heat only the individual, and not the room more reasonable. Basically, you have the convenience and safety of electricity in the home, instead of fuel oil trucks and potentially hazardous gas lines.

The latest power plants can operate with different types of fuel depending on economic conditions.

These major infrastructure decisions are much more important than what light bulb you use.

Probably what will happen in Maine is that more gas lines will be installed, since that is what people are clamoring for. It is what they know. But the effort will fall far short of the goal of changing out 40% of the homes in Maine.

In the meantime, fear of 345 kV power lines will slow down the power companies. Maine has a fierce environmental lobby. In the meantime, the Chinese are experimenting with 1000 kV lines that will allow them to produce electricity in the remote desert and transmit it a thousand miles to the cities.

'electric snuggies'..

I lived for awhile where the central heating
was poor and you had to keep warm individually.
The furnace was set at 60, and we had to use
space heaters or wear layers of clothes. 60
sounds warm, but in the winter the humidity
is around 20%, so 60 is very cool.

It sucked. I was always cold, and when I
would go to somebodies house where it was
68, I felt like I was in a rich persons home.

Quote: pacomartin

Poor people will purchase CFL's for everywhere. At some point you will get a rash of cases of mercury poisoning.

I have to disagree with the mercury comment Paco. It is true that there is a very small amount of mercury in the CFL's but it is much less than is in other fluorescent and HID commercial lamps. The amount of mercury in the office tower work horse 4' fluorescent lamp is much greater and used to be even more. The most common complaint from office workers about these lamps is headaches not mercury poisoning. The HID lamps that are substituted for fluorescents also contain variable amounts of mercury depending on type.

We have had 100's of millions of fluorescent lamps used over the last half century and mercury poisoning from breakage has not been a problem. We can debate the effects of this mercury in the landfills and environment after they have been disposed of, but there has been no documentation of significant problems while they have been in use.

Quote: kenarman

We have had 100's of millions of fluorescent lamps used over the last half century and mercury poisoning from breakage has not been a problem.

I used to break them all the time when we had
the business and nobody ever warned me it
was dangerous. Now they have us so paranoid
over these stupid little bulbs, it makes no sense.

Quote: EvenBob

I used to break them all the time when we had
the business and nobody ever warned me it
was dangerous. Now they have us so paranoid
over these stupid little bulbs, it makes no sense.

I imagine nearly every person alive broke intact bulbs when they found them while out and about when they were a kid. (or was it just me?)

whats funy is that it is a federal crime to break a bulb with mercury, and they must be sent to a toxic waste dump.

Quote: kenarman

I have to disagree with the mercury comment Paco.

An environmentalist defense of the matter is that burning coal produces most of the mercury problem. Thus if we use less electricity and less coal, we are actually controlling the mercury better no matter what, and it is zero sum or nearly so. However, I don't think the CFL program has gotten the Imprimatur of the environmentalists generally.

Quote: kenarman

I have to disagree with the mercury comment Paco. It is true that there is a very small amount of mercury in the CFL's but it is much less than is in other fluorescent and HID commercial lamps. The amount of mercury in the office tower work horse 4' fluorescent lamp is much greater and used to be even more. The most common complaint from office workers about these lamps is headaches not mercury poisoning. The HID lamps that are substituted for fluorescents also contain variable amounts of mercury depending on type.

We have had 100's of millions of fluorescent lamps used over the last half century and mercury poisoning from breakage has not been a problem. We can debate the effects of this mercury in the landfills and environment after they have been disposed of, but there has been no documentation of significant problems while they have been in use.

Lightbulb sales are 1.5-2.0 billion per year. Our previous experience with 4' Flourescent bulbs are not really relevant. Plus, it is not customary to put a 4' bulb in playrooms or nurseries.

I still believe that middle class people will purchase expensive bulbs of some type (LED probably) for use around children or in bedrooms or near food. The poor will have no choice but to buy CFLs. This will cause all kinds of potential exposure that didn't exist near 4' flourescents.

--------------------------
My basic point is that the lighbulbs are a distraction. The difficult decisions are still like my example in Maine. The decision to try to convert 300,000 homes from oil to gas (40% of the stock of homes in Maine) is based on the current state of commodity pricing. It does not address real issues of efficiency.

Maine produces very little electricity, because of the decision to close the nuclear power plant 15 years early, the resistance to high voltage lines, and other concerns. The investment could be made in geothermal systems (powered by electricity) that might involve a real increase in overall efficiency.

Maine may lose it's status as the lowest per capita consumer of electricity, but their net increase in energy efficiency may increase by a huge amount. It's a lot more important decision than lightbulbs.

double post

Quote: pacomartin

Lightbulb sales are 1.5-2.0 billion per year. Our previous experience with 4' Flourescent bulbs are not really relevant. Plus, it is not customary to put a 4' bulb in playrooms or nurseries.

I think you are under estimating the number of larger fluorescents that are used. I am including a web address for some western Canada recycle data and estimated number of both types of lamps in the system (sorry still having trouble doing a proper link). This data shows the number of lamps available of full size fluorescents and CFL's as being close to the same. http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/epd/recycling/electronics/reports/pdf/pca-2010.pdf

As far as locations you have never been in a commercial kitchen or school with 4' fluorescents?

Missing You - The Incandescent Light Bulb Song by GoRemy

I really don't think that poor family's use of CFLs will measurably result in a increase in mercury poisoning. At least the statistics would be wiped out by other statistics that are overwhelmed by poor people. A broken CFL will result in short term airborne exposure that at worst (I believe) would result in short term poisoning which is reversible. Inotherwords, the local effect of mercury caused by a single broken CFL will be negligable.

However, I would agree that the long term effect of having CFLs in the landfills will have a much more major effect.

Quote: miplet

Missing You - The Incandescent Light Bulb Song by GoRemy

As I understand it, they have not banned incandescents light bulbs per se.

But current lighbulbs more or less follow this relationship between "lumens" and "wattage".

Lumens	Watts
500	40
700	50
800	55
850	60
1,000	65
1,100	70
1,200	75
1,450	90
1,600	95
1,700	100

What the government did is specify the Max Wattage that a lightbulb can have to produce a certain amount of light.

Lumens	max Wattage	min Lifetime	Date Start
1490-2600	72	1,000 hrs	1/1/2012
1050-1489	53	1,000 hrs	1/1/2013
750-1049	43	1,000 hrs	1/1/2014
310-749	29	1,000 hrs	1/1/2014

CFL's easily meet these requirements, but if someone can make an incandescent bulb meet the requirements then it will be legal. For example, a CFL that is only 13-15 Watts will put out over 800 lumens, but if an incandescent can be made with less than 43 Watts, it will be legal.

The three-way bulbs are exempt. They are more expensive than a regular bulb, but still cheaper than LED or ESL bulbs. You can still put a three way bulb in a regular lamp, but you can only access the lowest setting. The current three way bulbs usually have a very low intensity setting for the first setting, since you are supposed to turn it up for close in work or reading. But they might begin manufacturing new bulbs just to get around the ban.

Of course, that may trigger a new round of regulations.

I'm finally running out of my stashed incandescent
bulbs and went to the store for CFL's today. They
had none. All they had were expensive LED's that
are guaranteed to last 12 and 14 and 17 years.

My question is, who will remember 5 years from
now that it didn't last 15 years as promised.
In the 80's I had 3 bulbs that were on 24/7. I
used 15W incandescent that were guaranteed
2400 hours. I always wrote down the date I
screwed them in and not one of them ever
came close to 2000 hours, let alone 2400.

I would save the receipts and the packaging
and GE always sent me two free bulbs in
the mail. I paid for no bulbs for 12 years.

No way these expensive LED's will last 15
years. The one I got today is 40W and little
bigger than a ping pong ball. We'll see.
Do they even make CFL's now, the store
had 2 aisles of LED and Halogen and no CFL's.