LED lighting goes mainstream! It's at Wal-Mart!

[RobertSmalls]

7000K, or 7000 Kelvins, is a temperature: 12140°F. Your bulbs emit light that looks somewhat like an incandescent black body at 12140°F. Lower temperatures are more orange, hotter ones are more blue.

Color temperature has nothing to do with the amount of light emitted. That is measured in Lumens, and a 55W halogen headlamp gives off 700-1500Lm depending on what you have.

Incandescent bulbs have never been an option for me. Sure, they're cheap to buy, but they're many times more expensive to run, plus they burn out ten times as fast as regular bulbs. Incandescent bulbs should be taxed into Hell ($2/bulb would be fine) so that slow-to-adopt consumers, and people who stubbornly fail to understand that fluorescents are cheaper, will finally switch.

[thaelin]

I just wished that thoes that use HDI would see to having them aimed so as not to blind the other drivers. I would enjoy having them on my van but not available, too old. I drive to work in the dark and usually have 10% of the cars with them.
I was recently at a car show and the rep from mazda said some new vehicles would come with LED lights but most not. Want to drive them and see the difference.

thay

[rgathright]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

Incandescent bulbs should be taxed into Hell ($2/bulb would be fine) so that slow-to-adopt consumers, and people who stubbornly fail to understand that fluorescents are cheaper, will finally switch.

Whoa hold on a second. Keep this kinda talk private since Barrack Obama's emissaries could be reading and pass the tax overnight.

[bennelson]

Originally Posted by rgathright

Barrack Obama's emissaries could be reading and pass the tax overnight.

Tax? Heck no! Why bother when there are already provisions in place to just plain get rid of them!?

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act had provisions in it for phasing out hot-lights, starting with getting rid of the 100 watt bulb in 2012 and working the way down the list to the 40 watt bulb in 2014.

Notice that this is for "Energy Independence and Security"! Apparently, the government thinks it IS a matter of national security. In most peoples homes, the lighting is one of the biggest users of energy.

A few months back, I switched out all the bulbs in a friends house with CFLs. Half the bulbs in her house were 100 watts, and most the rest were 75. In the first month after I changed the bulbs, she moved into a home office in her basement, where she needed to run extra lights (no windows) run and electric space heater (cold down there) AND run a humidifier upstairs for a sick pet reptile.

Her electric bill DROPPED $10 that month. The change in light bulbs more than made up for the other additional electrical use.

When people use more efficient lighting, that reduces the need for energy, and new power plants. By changing bulbs, we need fewer nuclear power plants (threat of terrorism) coal plants (strip mining, air pollution, trapped miners) natural gas plants (limited resource, CO2 production) and transmission lines to move the power around.

Taxes have been historically used to encourage "proper" public behavior. Sin taxes on tobacco and alcohol help to discourage their use. Typically, revenue from those taxes is earmarked for programs that deal with relevant programs, for example, public health.

The bulb "ban" exempts bulbs less than 40 watts or over 100 watts, as well as specialty bulbs (3-way, rough service, appliance, etc.)

So yes, you can still have your X-mas lights, and your oven light, and your three-way reading lamp.

But for typical lighting we will all be saving a lot more energy (and money!)

I do hope that LED lights improve. I have been very happy with CFLs, but the Wal-Mart LEDs have not been very good. I do know there is currently a government program in place working with the industry to standardize how LED lighting is tested and manufactured to improve the technology.

[Snax]

The problem is that like with gasoline, we here in the US continue to fail to pay the true cost for the energy we use until something like the spill in Gulf of Mexico occurs. Now, just like with the Valdeze, the oil company is again hemming and hawing on responsibility, exempted from liability over $75M, and likely to drag out any judgements against it for decades. In the interim, we the tax payer get to cover the cost - and will probably never be rightfully repaid for their careless profit mongering.

As with Valdeze, the highest costs of this incident will be borne by the local population in the form of increased pollution, poor health, and a damaged economy.

My point is, that like with oil, we the taxpayer are subsidizing other forms of energy; Sources like coal and nuclear plants with their own legacy of poisoning our planet for a few extra watts. If we paid what those sources really cost us every month, every one of us would be using as much low wattage lighting as we could.

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by bennelson

Tax? Heck no! Why bother when there are already provisions in place to just plain get rid of them!?

...

The bulb "ban" exempts bulbs less than 40 watts or over 100 watts, as well as specialty bulbs (3-way, rough service, appliance, etc.)

And that's why a tax is better than a ban. What's to stop a traditional slow adopter from buying a case of 3-ways and installing them in every fixture in the house? I'm also forecasting a surge in the sale of 101W and 39W incandescent bulbs.

There are applications where I prefer an incandescent bulb. They're still the right choice for very low duty cycle lamps, outdoors, and where immediate full brightness illumination is required. A prime example would be a closet. I run the bulb in my closet an hour a year, using almost no energy. CFLs take about 30s to reach full brightness, and that's not acceptable for a closet. I guess I'll have to keep a box of old incandescents around, or buy some on the black market. Maybe smuggle some in from Canada.

[rgathright]

Originally Posted by RobertSmalls

A prime example would be a closet. I run the bulb in my closet an hour a year, using almost no energy. CFLs take about 30s to reach full brightness, and that's not acceptable for a closet. I guess I'll have to keep a box of old incandescents around, or buy some on the black market. Maybe smuggle some in from Canada.

I use LED bulbs in several low traffic storage areas for this reason.

In fact, those bulbs are all solar powered from a convert APC SmartUPS 620 unit that I wired into my house power system over the winter (no, it is isolated from the 120VAC pole feed). Of course that is another story but I could have never attempted such a project without the convenience of low power LED bulbs.

[NeilBlanchard]

The problem with using an incandescent in a closet, is that it is prohibited by most/all codes. They get so hot, that they can be a fire hazard, and the possibility that it gets left on, and that it can be too close to items in the closet. As far as I know, you are required to use a fixture in a closet that would prevent anything but a low temperature bulb (fluorescent or LED?) from being installed.

I agree that there are times and places where incandescent bulbs are better/fine to be used. Particularly, I have been "using up" incandescent bulbs in the winter time, when the excess heat will not go to waste! And then in the summer time, I switch back to CFL or LED.

[Snax]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

I agree that there are times and places where incandescent bulbs are better/fine to be used. Particularly, I have been "using up" incandescent bulbs in the winter time, when the excess heat will not go to waste! And then in the summer time, I switch back to CFL or LED.

That's exactly what we do primarily with bathroom lighting. Our mirror lights are swapped out as well as the 250W heat lamp as soon as the outside high temperatures are consistantly in the mid 60's or more. By the look of the latest forecast here, that will be about next week.

[bennelson]

The only two incandescent bulbs in my house (other than appliance bulbs) are in an unheated side attic/closet and the crawl-space.

The instant-on and heat of the bulb works well there.

The intent of laws on light bulbs, whether a tax or a ban, it to reduce energy use. If you have a traditional bulb in a closet, where it is only on for a minute a day, it's not going to use much energy at all. Also, since the bulb is used so little, it should last a very long time. (For a really-long-lived bulb, put it on a dimmer switch where it dims from off to on. I know of light bulbs that last over ten years with regular use on that style switch.)

If the light over your kitchen sink is a 100 watt bulb, and it's on all the time, swapping out to a 25 watt CFL makes a HUGE difference in energy use!

I also swap between a heat lamp and a CFL in the bathroom for summer vs. winter.

And no, there isn't anything stopping somebody from buying a couple cases of bulbs and hoarding them. No special agents will bust into your house and arrest you for it.


Lets compare this to cars.
The government sets fuel-economy (CAFE) and pollution standards for new cars. You could still buy gas guzzlers, but why would you want to when you have to pay for the gas?

Actually, I guess that is a good comparison. I DO know a few people whose attitude is "If I want to drive a 3-miles-per-gallon 4x4 through to mud to the "Kill-It & Grill-It", that's my GOD-GIVEN RIGHT as an AMERICAN!"

Here's another comparison: CFLs use about one-quarter the energy of typical light bulbs. What uses one-quarter that energy of a typical car? An EV.

Think we'll see any bans on gas cars anytime soon?

Not until you can buy your EVs at Wal-Mart!