• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Incandecent Bulbs Made Illegal

Incandescent Light bulb ban.... do you care?

  • I care! The ban is foolish! I want my incandescent bulbs!

    Votes: 13 23.6%

  • I like the ban! Bring on new lighting technology!

    Votes: 17 30.9%

  • I dont care either way!

    Votes: 10 18.2%

  • I like incandescent bulbs and fluorescent ones. But dont make a law about them!

    Votes: 11 20.0%

  • OTHER / I dont know / Chimichanga

    Votes: 4 7.3%
  • Total voters
    55
jamesrage said:
I like my regular bulbs. They are cheap,I can throw them in the trash when they break or burn out and they are instantly bright.
Click to expand...

I throw the hazmat bulbs in the trash like the others. Broke one, swept it up and tossed it like tons of others have and will, and will continue to do so.

.
 
There's no reason to prefer the old bulbs except sheer bloodymindedness. Everyone would have switched over eventually.
 
Viktyr Korimir said:
There's no reason to prefer the old bulbs except sheer bloodymindedness. Everyone would have switched over eventually.
Click to expand...
If that is true then why the heavy hand of a busybody government? Did they have to make it a law that I could not purchase a 1990s technology computer any time after 2005? No. The market, people's desires, and the willingness of a company to provide a technology were sufficient.

This busybody approach to government where some bureaucrat somewhere determies what you will or will not be allowed to buy is tyranny. It must stop. We must stop it. Ballots first.
 
Misterveritis said:
Do you see the difference between you having a choice to make and a government busybody telling you that you must purchase "this" and won't be allowed an longer to purchase "that" all based on ideology? See how far you get if your choice is not approved by a government busybody.
Click to expand...

As I said, I don't really care what the government says. I already buy bulbs that meet the new requirements, so it doesn't affect me in the slightest. For the most part, I don't get too upset just based on principle.

Misterveritis said:
Start with a real flush toilet. Try to get something in the 6 gallons per flush range. Why do we allow this?
Click to expand...

Why would I want one of these, when I can get one that uses a quarter of the water and does just as good a job?
 
Whovian said:
LED versions cost more initially, but over their life will save a few hundred dollars each.
Click to expand...

That is true but right now is it cheaper to buy thirty 60-100 watt incandescent bulbs(which are $2.50 or less for a pack of eight) for my house right now which cost probably about ten bucks a month or less in electricity(because a lot of those bulbs are in the bathroom,hallway,kitchen and other rooms that are rarely used) than it is to buy thirty 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs(40 dollars and up per bulbhttp://www.earthtechproducts.com/p2637.html). Ten bucks a month for 10 years is 1,200, 40 dollars for twelve 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs is 1,200 or more and that is not even counting the cost of electricity or a problem that may occur. Right now the price of the LED bulbs does not justify me spending 1,200 or more on light bulbs( even if I never have to replace them against),especially since in five or ten years the prices will go down even further. IF I left those 30 light bulbs on in my house for 24 hours a day which would cost me about a 156 bucks a month then it would be justified buying thirty 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs.

Its like those hybrid cars.Good and actually cost efficient for people who do a lot of traveling by car, but not so good for people who drive a few miles to work a day and once a week going to walmart,shopping mall or grocery store that is a few miles away.
 
Last edited:
I put florescents in my outdoor security lights and it has saved me every penny of the cost and then some. But I don't see any reason to require others to do the same. Yes, I like florescent bulbs...no, I don't see any reason to force that preference on others.
 
jamesrage said:
That is true but right now is it cheaper to buy thirty 60-100 watt incandescent bulbs(which are $2.50 or less for a pack of eight) for my house right now which cost probably about ten bucks a month or less in electricity(because a lot of those bulbs are in the bathroom,hallway,kitchen and other rooms that are rarely used) than it is to buy thirty 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs(40 dollars and up per bulbhttp://www.earthtechproducts.com/p2637.html). Ten bucks a month for 10 years is 1,200, 40 dollars for twelve 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs is 1,200 or more and that is not even counting the cost of electricity or a problem that may occur. Right now the price of the LED bulbs does not justify me spending 1,200 or more on light bulbs( even if I never have to replace them against),especially since in five or ten years the prices will go down even further. IF I left those 30 light bulbs on in my house for 24 hours a day which would cost me about a 156 bucks a month then it would be justified buying thirty 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs.

Its like those hybrid cars.Good and actually cost efficient for people who do a lot of traveling by car, but not so good for people who drive a few miles to work a day and once a week going to walmart,shopping mall or grocery store that is a few miles away.
Click to expand...

You are comparing the upfront cost of incandescent, with the most expensive upfront cost for replacements. Compact florescent can be gotten for under 10 a piece, and for places like you mention, will probably never need to be replaced.
 
jamesrage said:
That is true but right now is it cheaper to buy thirty 60-100 watt incandescent bulbs(which are $2.50 or less for a pack of eight) for my house right now which cost probably about ten bucks a month or less in electricity(because a lot of those bulbs are in the bathroom,hallway,kitchen and other rooms that are rarely used) than it is to buy thirty 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs(40 dollars and up per bulbhttp://www.earthtechproducts.com/p2637.html). Ten bucks a month for 10 years is 1,200, 40 dollars for twelve 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs is 1,200 or more and that is not even counting the cost of electricity or a problem that may occur. Right now the price of the LED bulbs does not justify me spending 1,200 or more on light bulbs( even if I never have to replace them against),especially since in five or ten years the prices will go down even further. IF I left those 30 light bulbs on in my house for 24 hours a day which would cost me about a 156 bucks a month then it would be justified buying thirty 60-100 watt equivalent LED bulbs.

Its like those hybrid cars.Good and actually cost efficient for people who do a lot of traveling by car, but not so good for people who drive a few miles to work a day and once a week going to walmart,shopping mall or grocery store that is a few miles away.
Click to expand...

Walmart sells 100W equivalent spiral lights (the icecream cone ones) at 12 for $32. That is a far cry from $40 a piece. They also have a 36pk of 60W equivalent for about $52. And they have site to store service for free so if your nearest Wally World doesn't have them in stock, just order them online and get them sent (although every Walmart I've been in the last 10 years has had these bulbs).

Walmart.com: Search Results for "light bulbs"

I don't understand what the problem is with these bulbs. They save money overall and they are better for the environment. They are a little more expensive, but not really to the point that picking between the two kinds will cause a huge hardship for the vast majority of people.

And I am a huge clutz and have dropped these bulbs a few times in the past and still have not had one break on me. I have had plenty of incandescent bulbs break on me though. They seem to break from being dropped very small distances.
 
Don't tread on me or step on my lightbulbs
 
I wonder if would be illegal for me to send incandecent bulbs from Mexico to the US.

I hate flourescent bulbs. They make me feel like I am back in school, and it frains all the life out of you.

Maybe a new business.
 
Mason66 said:
I wonder if would be illegal for me to send incandecent bulbs from Mexico to the US.

I hate flourescent bulbs. They make me feel like I am back in school, and it frains all the life out of you.

Maybe a new business.
Click to expand...

Reminder: you can still buy incandescent bulbs, and the new incandescent bulbs that put out the same light at a lower wattage are available at Home Depot.
 
Hey, my house is already 100% compact fluorescent so I wouldn't care.
 
Mason66 said:
I hate flourescent bulbs. They make me feel like I am back in school, and it frains all the life out of you.
Click to expand...

Actually, they make compact fluorescent bulbs now that have a warmer color of light that looks more like an incandescent bulb instead of the cooler bluish light that you expect from a fluorescent.
 
bulbwars720.png
 
The Giant Noodle said:
They will be soon. Already in CA its illegal. Has anyone read the damn article? Screw this..... Im getting a beer and watching American Pickers! Son of a..........
Click to expand...

They're not illegal in California, I can go out to any store right this minute and buy them.
 
What should be made illegal is not telling the truth, and what is worse is "spinning" the truth. There is far too much of this in our nation....IMO, the softer but fuller illuminate qualities from LEDs are much better, the high cost is not "much better".
Here, the educated wealthy have quite an advantage.
 
earthworm said:
Yeah!
Break out the coal oil torches; better yet, lets use whale oil....
Or, man should be kept in the dark.
Click to expand...

Maybe it would be better if the newer technology was allowed to sell the technology to the people rather than to coerce people into using it. The free market would decide which bulb was the preferred bulb. Isn't that a better way to determine the best bulb rather than dictate the policy?
 
LesGovt said:
Maybe it would be better if the newer technology was allowed to sell the technology to the people rather than to coerce people into using it. The free market would decide which bulb was the preferred bulb. Isn't that a better way to determine the best bulb rather than dictate the policy?
Click to expand...

The key word is "educated"....and I mean a good 100% education.
We are no longer number one in this firld, maybe we never were.
Plus, of course, to the best of my knowledge, the purchase of old-fashioed bulbs is still possible, the whale oil - probably under the counter..
The "free market" is profit orientated, this is not "people orientated".
 
You know - I just want a safe way of lighting my home that doesn't cost me a lot to replace when it breaks and looks neat in my antique lamps which showcase the bulb itself.

Is that too much for a girl to ask for?
 
earthworm said:
The key word is "educated"....and I mean a good 100% education.
We are no longer number one in this firld, maybe we never were.
Plus, of course, to the best of my knowledge, the purchase of old-fashioed bulbs is still possible, the whale oil - probably under the counter..
The "free market" is profit orientated, this is not "people orientated".
Click to expand...

I believe the sale of the old bulbs is still possible until midnight of December 31, 2011. That's my understanding.

The free market is based on liberty and not tyranny. With liberty, people can choose which lightbulb they prefer. With tyranny, the full range of choices are no longer available due to the fact that the few believe the many are too stupid to make their own decision. In this case, the "educated" are too stupid to understand that the people can think for themselves.
 
LesGovt said:
I believe the sale of the old bulbs is still possible until midnight of December 31, 2011. That's my understanding.

The free market is based on liberty and not tyranny. With liberty, people can choose which lightbulb they prefer. With tyranny, the full range of choices are no longer available due to the fact that the few believe the many are too stupid to make their own decision. In this case, the "educated" are too stupid to understand that the people can think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Some clarifications for those who don't realize exactly what is going on here.

1) incandescent bulbs are not being outlawed The government has said that light bulbs must meet certain energy requirements, which means that instead of a 100W bulb giving you 1500 lumens of light, now it will only take 70W of power to give off that same 1500 lumens of light. This has actually led to massive innovation in the incandescent lighting industry to make more energy efficient lights.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com
California switches off 100-watt bulb for new incandescents - latimes.com

HowStuffWorks "Are fluorescent bulbs really more efficient than normal light bu"

2) Most people don't actually need 1500 lumens of light for most of their rooms. I know even before the CFL lights got big, my family always bought 60W bulbs for our house, which is about 900 lumens of light.

Illuminance - Recommended Light Levels

But, even if they do need that much light, as stated before, 1500 lumens of light will still be available in either the CFL lights or from a new, lower wattage incandescent light.

3) Relying on light bulbs as a heat source for a person's home is very inefficient. Plus, the money a person saves from buying more energy efficient light bulbs can certainly go to getting them much more efficient heat sources for their home.

It is completely wrong to say that incandescent light bulbs are being made illegal. What is being done, is that all light bulbs are forced to meet certain energy requirements (which are high above those levels of CFLs and are currently being met by a newer generation of incandescent bulbs). This is really no different than automobile emission standards put into place in the 1970 (Clean Air Act) which forced car companies to improve their car designs (which greatly reduced automobile pollution).
 
roguenuke said:
Some clarifications for those who don't realize exactly what is going on here.

1) incandescent bulbs are not being outlawed The government has said that light bulbs must meet certain energy requirements, which means that instead of a 100W bulb giving you 1500 lumens of light, now it will only take 70W of power to give off that same 1500 lumens of light. This has actually led to massive innovation in the incandescent lighting industry to make more energy efficient lights.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com
California switches off 100-watt bulb for new incandescents - latimes.com

HowStuffWorks "Are fluorescent bulbs really more efficient than normal light bu"

2) Most people don't actually need 1500 lumens of light for most of their rooms. I know even before the CFL lights got big, my family always bought 60W bulbs for our house, which is about 900 lumens of light.

Illuminance - Recommended Light Levels

But, even if they do need that much light, as stated before, 1500 lumens of light will still be available in either the CFL lights or from a new, lower wattage incandescent light.

3) Relying on light bulbs as a heat source for a person's home is very inefficient. Plus, the money a person saves from buying more energy efficient light bulbs can certainly go to getting them much more efficient heat sources for their home.

It is completely wrong to say that incandescent light bulbs are being made illegal. What is being done, is that all light bulbs are forced to meet certain energy requirements (which are high above those levels of CFLs and are currently being met by a newer generation of incandescent bulbs). This is really no different than automobile emission standards put into place in the 1970 (Clean Air Act) which forced car companies to improve their car designs (which greatly reduced automobile pollution).
Click to expand...

You are correct about energy efficiency is the goal and the measurement of the law. The result is that the freedom to purchase the lightbulbs that many Americans want to use is stripped from them by government edict. As for auto emissions and the Clean Air Act, I believe these is a difference. The Clean Air Act certainly caused increases in prices for automobiles, but it did not end the wide-spread end of manufacturing of any automobile make or model. C.A.F.E. standards are more comparable to the lightbulb issue as both have caused the public to not have purchasing options that used to exist. And that is only going to worsen over the next few decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom