<p>Okay I read Snopes–so much of the mercury problems with CFLs is TRUE. Okay I don’t need a hazmat suit or a clean team. So? Now I have to find a TOXIC WASTE DUMP to get rid of LIGHT BULBS that aren’t any good to start with.
And to use the dimmer-type? I have to replace all the dimmer switches in my house.
And the few I’ve tried burnt out fairly quickly–no energy or cost savings there certainly.
I’m investing in a candle company.</p>
<p>Actually if the new bulbs actually are better, more efficient, cost saving as claimed, they would be adopted by consumers and old bulbs would naturally phase out without a mandate.</p>
<p>How does this ban affect photographers, theaters,…?</p>
<p>I don’t read well under CFLs.</p>
<p>Should they ban big SUVs like Ford Expedition, big yatches,…?</p>
<p>coolweather, apparently, there is no law that mandates that incandescents have to be banned. The manufacturers are phasing them out - and it does not hurt their bottom line that the replacements have higher profit margins.</p>
<p>
This is not true, at least in the real world. New houses are more energy efficient because regulations were enacted requiring it starting back in the 1970s. Cars are more efficient because of CAFE regulations. Factories and power plants are cleaner because regulations required it. As long as the cost of the energy needed to power the bulbs is subsidized, the full cost of wasteful energy usage is masked, and the lower initial cost of wasteful technology remains attractive. In Venezuela, where gas prices are artificially low, people prefer gas guzzlers to efficient cars. If the full future cost of storing waste from nuclear power plants, medical costs from breathing polluted air from coal and petroleum powered plants, and the full cost of the effects of global warming from CO2 production were added to our electric bills people might be more inclined to voluntarily go to more energy efficient bulbs. But that won’t happen any time soon. And even if it did, many folks would look only to financial impact on the next three months, in which case the lower initial cost again would rule.</p>
<p>Of course, there will always be a willing cadre of folks to insist that it’s all a hoax perpetrated by crooked scientists, Al Gore, or the like, and proudly boast that they deliberately waste energy, because their lives are better that way. That won’t ever change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They use different bulbs, which (so far anyway) are not affected by the new regulations. </p>
<p>And BunsenBurner is right that this isn’t a ‘ban’; there are new efficiency standards in place, and if someone can come up with an incandescent bulb that meets those standards, they’re welcome to put it on the market. (I wish they would, as to me there’s nothing better for reading than the warm glow of a GE 100 watt soft white bulb. I miss them!)</p>
<p>We can return used CFLs at our Home Depot.</p>
<p>But kluge–you’re the one who said snopes said the allegations were false when most were true!
I totally disagree with you. Nobody wanted that “dangerous light bulb” that Edison invented–guess what? Society decided on it’s own without regulation that it was desirable. And you know improvements were made!
Inflating the claims of technology to get to an end result is not the way to go. It only breeds distrust in the public. Simply bad marketing. Even in our short discussion I saw the “they are better than they used to be” in reference to bulbs. Great. I want the better bulb–let it compete until then without an agenda. Why should there even be a discussion? I’ll buy them when they meet my needs. I’m positive the market place will make it worth my while with cost savings etc…eventually. AFTER they’ve ironed out the bugs.</p>
<p>Just as a side…article today in the newspaper said how much greater the eyesight was for older folks in the doctor’s office BECAUSE THE LIGHT WAS BRIGHTER. Candlelight isn’t so great after all…</p>
<p>kluge </p>
<p>your snopes link says that they are not safe.</p>
<p>They did the ridiculous over the top “grave danger” and listed that as false although they weren’t honest enough to say that “dangerous” and list that as true.</p>
<p>As far as cost savings go, look at the assumptions that they use for their calculations. They often use numbers that are more like the use in an office environment (8-12 hours a day) rather than home usage.</p>
<p>I have replaced far more CFL than I have regular bulbs. I suspect that my normal home usage (switch on, go to kitchen grab food, switch off) is not nearly as good for them as the keep them on for long periods of time.</p>
<p>Kluge–“there will always be a willing cadre of folks to insist it’s all a hoax…that won’t ever change.”
But public opinion does change.
Society has proved over and over that it changes most not to the whims of a few but the feelings of many. The changes may take time but important (and lasting) changes do occur. If changes are mandated, they may take a longer time to actually be incorporated into society.
Science (since you mention global warming, CO2 production) is not exact. There are differing opinions. Very scientific ones. Using inflammatory language-“proudly boast”, “deliberately waste” doesn’t help your cause. Your ears sound closed and the language closes the ears of those you want to reach.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is silly.
Cars today greatly exceed CAFE regulations? Why? Because people want to buy them.
Houses today greatly exceed efficiency regulations? Why? Because people want to buy them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That has been the case for years. When I started using flourescent bulbs two decades ago, I used them in long running places, but left the old incandescents in switch on for a short time and switch off places, simply because the benefits were greatest in the long running places, while the costs were greatest in the switch on for a short time and switch off places.</p>
<p>Several of my light switches light up when off, so you can find the switch. When I tried CFLs in any of the light fixtures operated by those switches, they strobe every 10 seconds. They also burn out in about 2 weeks. I just bought some halogen bulbs today to try instead. I feel like I’m in lightbulb h*ll. Every CFL I’ve ever purchased is FAR dimmer than the supposed equivalent. They are also yellow. Having a constant yellow hue to everything is beyond annoying. They also don’t work with half my lampshades. And they don’t come on right away. That delay is annoying. </p>
<p>I’ve also had more than one break spontaneously, within a light fixture. I didn’t realize how hazardous clean up is and now I’m wondering… just what are the long term effects if I vacuumed up mercury? Is the hazard of having millions of these bulbs a year as toxic waste worth the reduced energy reduction? Which will be more harmful in the long run? If the energy was coming from alternative sources (solar, wind), wouldn’t that be an easier fix than this lightbulb craziness? </p>
<p>Without realizing it, I bought a ceiling fan that uses a certain kind of CFL that I cannot find to replace the original bulbs. I’m down to one working one and I’m going to have to replace the ceiling fan after two years because I can’t find the bulbs that came with it. </p>
<p>I’m tempted to hoard 60 Watt incandescent bulbs at this point. I may find somewhere online where I can order them by the case. </p>
<p>Someone needs to find a better solution.</p>
<p>Yeah, I feel the same way about CFLs as I do cordless phones. They stink! Why do people put up with crappy phone reception? I can tell immediately whenever I call someone who has a cordless phone. Blech.</p>
<p>
CAFE standards today are far higher than they were when first instituted. Car manufacturers are required to meet them. In 2013 the manufacturers succeeded in exceeding the mandated standard - by .1 MPG. And part of the reason is that low MPG cars are deliberately priced high, so as to inhibit their sales, which hurt the corporations’ overall MPG, while high MPG cars are sold a a lower profit margin. It’s just business, as affected by regulations. Stated bluntly: if not for CAFE, actual corporate average fuel economy would be worse than it is.</p>
<p>As for homes, you can’t buy a new home that doesn’t comply with minimum energy standards. There are programs which provide bonuses for exceeding those standards by 15%. Those programs are undersubscribed. I installed solar panels on my house that have returned 10% of their purchase cost in the first year - tax free - and people still ask me dubiously if they’ll “pay off.”</p>
<p>No, it’s not silly. Many, many people will chose to save a buck today even if it’s going to cost them $10 over the next decade. Make it $1000 and it’s “most” people. That’s reality.</p>
<p>LUMENS are what count. You have to read the fine print- different CFL brands have different wattages and lumens for the same old watts.</p>
<p>It is harder to buy light bulbs. They still don’t make (cheap) torchieres with high enough shades to always cover the best CFL, especially 3 way bulbs. They also aren’t marketing many LED bulbs above the 60 watt replacement- I often want the lumens of a 100 watt incandescent! Hopefully those 75 and 100 watt LED replacements will come down a lot in price as well as be more available. I just was bulb shopping- we had replaced a bedroom/study ceiling fixture that couldn’t accommodate CFLs with a cheap one that could and the CFLs often buzzed, lesser lumen LED bulbs give plenty of light and do not buzz! You have to check stores and brands- Walmart GE LEDs were cheaper than Lowes or Home Depot available brands in this case.</p>
<p>I am willing to replace our ceiling CFL floods with LED floods- when they wear out now that they have some without the many dots of light. H wanted to replace them with LEDs but I pointed out 15 versus 13 watts (to get acceptable bulbs- it’s the lumens) wasn’t a big enough difference to justify throwing away good bulbs and spending a lot more. </p>
<p>We have several fluorescent lamps with the four connected small tubes- focused on desk or reading material instead of ambient light to the whole room. Makes less general lumens for a room more palatable. Especially for very myopic aging eyes.</p>
<p>In general I don’t mind the gradual increase in light of CFLs. Still using incandescents for garage door opener to get light immediately. Up north I replaced the garage outdoor floods with a higher wattage CFL equivalent years ago- marvelous increase in light and fast enough for snow clearing at night.</p>
<p>Next project is to find and replace two outside light fixtures with some that can use new bulbs attractively and with sufficient lumens (100 watt LED equivalents- please come down in price!). The old ones have 3 candelabra bulbs that won’t work with the CFL replacements I tried.</p>
<p>Confession: Bought 2 packs of 60 watt bulbs today-- on sale for $1.40</p>
<p>Reading the Snopes article, I’m inclined to wonder what lobby paid off the legislators responsible for even allowing, let alone mandating that incandescents be phased out in favor of CFL bulbs that are prone to create mercury contamination. </p>
<p>With typical, reasonable use, some bulbs will break. It’s absurd to think otherwise, and even more absurd to think that most folks will even know, let alone follow and be able to implement, the appropriate clean-up procedures.</p>
<p>More people would probably be buying up and stockpiling incandescent light bulbs if their storage rooms weren’t already jammed up and filled with all the ammo they’re hoarding.</p>