Cost of CFLs to Triple in UK After Incandescents Banned

[RocketMan]

I'm just waiting on the LED lights to come down a bit more in price.  Screw the CFL's.

SWMBO and I are doing the same thing. We're constantly looking at LEDs at Home Depot, Lowes, etc.  We want to try them in a few limited applications at first as decent ones become available.  We'll probably have a few in service before May is done.

[tyme]

CFLs are "better" under many/most circumstances.  Banning incandescent is still wrong.

Even so, I'm opposed to making it a law you have to use them.

How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?

Were your incandescents lasting 6 months?

More...
I've LOST money on my trial with CFLs, and don't like 'em for other reasons to boot.

Clearly you were unlucky, or you turned those CFLs on and off all the time which is known to kill CFLs, or the particular CFLs you got were crap.  CFLs do last longer under most normal conditions.  I don't know what else to say.  The last couple sets I've gotten have a stated minimum start-up temperature of -20 degrees F.  Won't work in cold climates during winter, but other than that they should work just about anywhere.  (There are cold-weather ones designed to work in colder environments, but I live in TX and half the city would migrate south before it dropped below the -20 degrees F spec of my CFLs.)

Nevertheless, have you run the numbers based on your power costs?  I still doubt you lost money unless you got expensive CFLs or you were using lower-power (like 60W) incandescents, in which case the power differential was less so the power savings was less.

Next time you get bulbs at a hardware store ask them about the warranty, particularly if it's a larger chain like HD or Lowe's.  The Ecosmarts (a Home Depot brand) I get are rated for 10k hours.  That's over a year of 24/7 use.  You could ask them, if the CFLs die within a year, whether they'll replace the CFLs no questions asked.  That, plus the energy savings, will save you significant $ over incandescents.

Recycling:  Home Depot and Lowes both accept CFLs.  Just take the old ones in when you buy new ones.  See http://earth911.com/ (CFL works for item type) and http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/home-improvement/hardware-building-supplies/lightbulbs/cfls/overview/cfl-ov-.htm (second question).

I'd much prefer LEDs, but supply is too thin and selection is horrible.  Still, they seem to be about the same cost right now, based on claimed lifetimes and power consumption.  I see one LED 100W-equiv screw-in bulb that's rated for 50k hours, consumes 13W (vs 23W of the 100W-equiv CFLs I use, rated for 10k hours).  The LED bulb is $50.  My CFLs are $7.50 or so for 4.  Let's round to $10 for 5 of them.  50k hours at 13W = 650kWh or about $65, compared to 50k hours of 23W = 1150kWh or about $115 (both assuming an energy cost of $.10/kWh).  With the bulbs, that's $115 for the LED solution vs $125 for the 5-CFL solution over the same time period.

[Boomhauer]

How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?

You know, not everything needs to have a government solution...

For lightbulbs, it should be consumer choice. CFLs came on the market and sold without government mandate and that should be good enough.

[Regolith]

I remember a few Ford Explorers caught fire - the internal combustion engine is a load of something, or perhaps there was a fault with the Ford Explorer.

It was the cruise control switch.  Somehow it was shorting and causing a fire.   IIRC it has only happened on a few Explorers; less than two dozen or so.  They recalled every single Explorer that had that style of switch, though.

I haven't heard of any recalls on CFLs.

In any case, while I like and use CFLs, I see no reason to ban incandescents.  Incandescents work better in certain applications, and some folks simply like them better.  If they want to pay more for energy, that's their priority.

How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?

Incandescents don't waste that much energy.  And there are certain cases where using incandescents is entirely green, such as when the power source is either solar or wind.  A person with solar roof panels and a windmill could use incandescents and still generate excess energy into the grid.  So really, it's not the incandescents that are the problem, but the energy source.

[Marnoot]

And there are certain cases where using incandescents is entirely green, such as when the power source is either solar or wind.

Also in the winter, when the "waste" heat is beneficial in keeping the house warm. I'm also in the likes-and-uses-CFLs-but-doesn't-think-banning-incandescents-is-right-camp. CFLs are worthless as motion-activated spot-lights (especially in the winter), don't work well in frequent on-off applications, and even dimmable CFL bulbs powered by a CFL-specific dimmer switch are inferior for the application to incandescents.

[Northwoods]

CFLs are worthless as motion-activated spot-lights (especially in the winter), don't work well in frequent on-off applications, and even dimmable CFL bulbs powered by a CFL-specific dimmer switch are inferior for the application to incandescents.

That's yet another reason why I'm holding out for LED's.  They can be used in blinking applications, and are great for dimmer switches.  They also don't suffer the warm up time in cold weather.  They're just too expensive right now.  Yeah, I know one of the people above did calcs that in the run they're cheaper.  But that short term cost is still a barrier.

[RevDisk]

As ever, a lack of support for a knee-jerk reaction is construed as support for that which is being reacted to. In the dim light of a burning out CFL, I'll paint half my face blue and practice my cries of Freedom!

 

Yes, it is a minor thing.  However, both of our countries are in their current problems due to several thousand equally minor "concessions".  They do add up, Iain.  

Had Americans taken your stance on CFLs on something like RKBA, we'd be lucky to have parity with UK on firearm rights.  A thousand "reasonable infringements" brought us to our lowest point during the AWB.  By "painting half our face blue and practicing our cries of Freedom!" on quite a number of honestly petty issues, we have not only halted the erosion of RKBA but actually made moderate improvements. 

Within my lifetime, the Hughes Amendment will be overturned.  Probably not NFA, but who knows.  We shall try. 

[Iain]

All I'm rolling my eyes at is the reaction to this sort of legislation, the reaction that says that CFLs are rubbish, hence my Ford Explorer comment - no-one would reasonably declare the car a worthless piece of technology because of the Explorer fires, or the Toyota brake problems, or even the large numbers of road deaths. And see those comments from the Wail article I initially quoted, I find it bizarre that one of the lowest ranked comments is a mildly worded reasonable statement about how inexpensive CFLs actually are. I don't particularly support the legislation, although tyme raises a serious point, but I and millions like me have no problem with CFLs.

The energy companies have sent me a half a dozen CFLs in recent years, I don't think I've actually bought one. Part of that is govt subsidy and part of that (having spoken to my brother who works in energy infrastructure) is that they're spending billions on up-grading power infrastructure, and if we keep demanding more and more power they'll have to spend billions more.

[Ron]

How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?

Is the problem incandescent bulbs or the powerful lobbies that have slowed to nearly a full stop the building of new nuclear power plants?

[HankB]

Yes, it is a minor thing.  However, both of our countries are in their current problems due to several thousand equally minor "concessions".  They do add up, Iain.

Exactly - if you don't sweat the small stuff, the big stuff will creep up on you. Rudy Giuliani put quite a dent in New York's crime rate when he was mayor by cracking down on ALL criminals - even the squeegee guys. So we should be vigilant and stop even minor erosions of liberty, lest we wake up one day and find we no longer have any.

[Ben]

I use and like CFLs. I've even found some that have an initial startup bright enough to work well as bathroom lights. They do suck as dimmer bulbs, and the ones I tried that are supposedly made for it for my chandelier thingy over the dining room table all died within six months, and that was just keeping the dimmer switch set to full blast, because the bulbs are only 15 watt equivalent output in a lamp that had 40 watt incandescents. I have yet to replace any of my other CFLs and it's going on four years now for many of them.

I am in complete agreement on forced use. This is the same as all the other "we know what's best for you" crap, like what car to drive and what food to eat. The nanny staters just don't get that with a solid block of Americans, their nanny laws have the opposite effect. As much as I like CFLs, when someone tells me I HAVE TO use them, I'm inclined to replace them all with incandescents.

Rev hit the nail on the head. There is still, I think, a (barely) majority of Americans that know these, "hey, it's just a little thing, it barely affects you" laws add up. But I am seeing that majority slowly drop as more people become complacent, apathetic, or actually embrace the nanny-ism.

The way things are going, if the US falls into socialism, it won't fall kicking and screaming with a last mighty roar. It will be with a whimper, as we lay on the floor bleeding out from a thousand small cuts.

[Iain]

As much as I like CFLs, when someone tells me I HAVE TO use them, I'm inclined to replace them all with incandescents.

This is exactly what I don't understand. This sort of reaction (writ much larger in comments here and on the Wail article) doesn't exactly make anyone see your position as a reasonable one.

Buying incandescents or trashing CFLs out of some sort of spite achieves what? It's the 'Sean Penn is a rubbish actor' phenomenon.

[French G.]

This is exactly what I don't understand. This sort of reaction (writ much larger in comments here and on the Wail article) doesn't exactly make anyone see your position as a reasonable one.

Buying incandescents or trashing CFLs out of some sort of spite achieves what? It's the 'Sean Penn is a rubbish actor' phenomenon.

It's the American way, we're allergic to being told what to do. I will stock up on incandescents for the same reason that I just bought another Coleman gas lantern. I can make light with them in a variety of ways that don't depend on stable metered power from somewhere else. Meanwhile I am quite happy with my LED desk lamp, I previously ran 2 incandescents to make my eyes not feel strained when sitting at the computer.

[Ben]

This is exactly what I don't understand. This sort of reaction (writ much larger in comments here and on the Wail article) doesn't exactly make anyone see your position as a reasonable one.

Buying incandescents or trashing CFLs out of some sort of spite achieves what? It's the 'Sean Penn is a rubbish actor' phenomenon.

I can only explain it as a distinctly cultural difference. Most of us here from the US can't understand why anyone would happily roll along with it.

I DON'T like sitting in a smoke filled restaurant. Banning smoking in restaurants (in my state) is good for me, and I like being in a smoke free restaurant. However, I despise the law. If a restaurant owner wants to make their eatery smoke free, they should be able to. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, they should be able to. People should then go to whichever restaurant they prefer.

[Iain]

The only thing distinctive about the viewpoint is the over-reaction. I'm not in favour of a ban particularly, if I felt strongly I would sign a petition, if I thought it was the thing to do I'd go on a march, or even riot if it was that or the death of liberty. I'm not going to take up smoking because they keep putting up the tax on tobacco, or start drink driving because I decide that the Libertarian Alliance are right about drink driving laws.

I don't think it is a specifically American thing, judging by the comments on that article, or that I've seen elsewhere. Going back to the Daily Mail - Well a shop here sells them fo 30p each so this won't really break the bank. - that comment has a net ranking of minus 160. It's not rude, or false, it's just not in step with the weird lashing out that is the mood over there.

[Ben]

if I felt strongly I would sign a petition, if I thought it was the thing to do I'd go on a march, or even riot if it was that or the death of liberty.

Hence a distinctly cultural difference. There are certainly Americans that would go on a march or riot, but I would guess the percentage of American APS members that would do so is extremely small.

[Iain]

None of you considered going on the NRA march last April? This will derail the thread I guess, but you can't imagine a circumstance where you might riot? It's a bit less extreme than armed insurrection, for those pesky middle of the road problems when overthrowing the government is going a tad too far.

[Ben]

I stand corrected. They would likely attend a peaceful NRA rally. Another cultural difference in word meanings. Marches, such as "peace marches" and "anti-war marches" are often not peaceful. I cannot foresee any situation that would cause me to riot and destroy other people's property.

[Boomhauer]

None of you considered going on the NRA march last April?

I've been to rallies before, but mainly smaller, local ones. Having to attend a job to support myself, however, tends to cut into my time available to travel to larger regional or national events.

but you can't imagine a circumstance where you might riot?

I'm not fan of riots because riots tend to be very out of control and hurt innocent people and damage people's property. Rioting is an excuse to burn cars, loot stores, and attack innocents. I'm the kind of person that will shoot rioters.

Armed insurrection would be going after actual elements of an out of control government, not attacking innocents.

[roo_ster]

I've been to rallies before, but mainly smaller, local ones. Having to attend a job to support myself, however, tends to cut into my time available to travel to larger regional or national events.

I'm not fan of riots because riots tend to be very out of control and hurt innocent people and damage people's property. Rioting is an excuse to burn cars, loot stores, and attack innocents. I'm the kind of person that will shoot rioters.

Armed insurrection would be going after actual elements of an out of control government, not attacking innocents.

Yes, all of this.

[CNYCacher]

When incandescent bulbs are banned, what incentives have the CFL manufacturers to produce a CFL that outlasts the (now non-existent) incandescent bulb?

[Iain]

Yes, all of this.

In hindsight the Poll Tax is now seen as a very inequitable tax that was defeated by a popular public protest, which included rioting, there were no deaths but there was destruction of property. Very blunt weapon rioting, and comes with it's attendant problems of looting and indiscriminate violence.

Are we pretending innocents don't get killed in armed insurrections, or that the violence is actually any more focused? Human nature being what it is, any breakdown of law and order is an opportunity to loot, destroy and settle old scores.

The circumstances that justify either are very rare, and nearly never respectively.

[makattak]

When incandescent bulbs are banned, what incentives have the CFL manufacturers to produce a CFL that outlasts the (now non-existent) incandescent bulb?

PHHHHHHHHHWWWW.

Who cares about the effects of competition? Incandescent bulbs are PURE EVIL and must be banned.

CFL are butterflies and rainbows. There will never be anything bad about them.

In fact, we need to FREE the CFL bulbs from the evil of the market so their unicorns and gumdrops can finally be realized!!!

[AZRedhawk44]

When incandescent bulbs are banned, what incentives have the CFL manufacturers to produce a CFL that outlasts the (now non-existent) incandescent bulb?

LED bulbs.

CFL's will be a flash in the pan.  Especially when the LED manufacturers achieve price parity (or a reasonable difference) and provide better illumination...  and can market that THEIR bulbs don't require a $25k hazmat cleanup when you break one, and don't contain mercury, and don't start house fires.

[CNYCacher]

Making LED "bulbs" which are made to screw in to existent fixtures is fail upon fail.

If you NEED to sell a fixture that runs on 110VAC, they should be selling light fixtures with permanently-integrated LED illumination where "bulb" would normally go, and a power transformer / voltage regulator somewhere in the body.

The whole idea of taking 110VAC all the way to the "bulb", stepping it down to 3VDC to feed an LED array is obnoxious.

Even better, new houses should be built with centrally-switched low-voltage wiring for all illumination sources, and they should all be LED.

I know LED's are sometimes given a predicted life of 50k hours, but that is just someone doing CYA.  They used to say "Over 100k hours".  LEDs simply do not burn out when fed the proper power.