digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

U.S. May Start Phasing Out Incandescent Light Bulbs In Favor Of CFL's

newstarget.com — The Energy Committee of the U.S. Senate is drafting a bill that would phase out the use of incandescent light bulbs in the United States. The move to ban incandescent bulbs is part of a wider attempt to curb U.S. energy usage in order to address the problem of global warming.

Who dugg this? Made popular Nov 28, 2007

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

277 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • macrymble, on 11/28/2007, -5/+68This sounds like a good plan, but just wait until Big Lightbulb gets involved and pays off the senators on the committee.
  • skeetshot, on 11/28/2007, -20/+81How the hell I'm I supposed to fit a Canadian Football League in a light bulb socket?
  • badqat, on 11/28/2007, -5/+65While I think the feds have no business telling me what sort of lights I can use, I find it strange that they completely overlook LED units, which are even better.
  • slashbot, on 11/28/2007, -4/+47We should also be phasing in a program to encourage the proper disposal of these CFLs as well as making it more convenient to do so.
  • Veretax, on 11/28/2007, -8/+49The government should stay out of this. People will switch to more efficient bulbs once the price and size of bulbs is such that it fits in all kinds of fixtures. In my house, half the fixtures wouldn't fit the new bulbs with the globe over it. So its kind of hard to justify buying them wheN I have maybe three lamps (a total of maybe 10 bulbs in ceiling fans basically) they could work on :/
  • lpmiller, on 11/28/2007, -2/+39Most of my lights are CFL's and have been for 7 years now. I have a few incandescents just because for some things, it's just a better light, so I'd hate be forced to use nothing BUT CFL's, but it is a good idea to use as many as you can.
  • MrFoof82, on 11/28/2007, -1/+38Before the CFL haters come in, I'm going to list the applications where you should use CFLs, and the applications where using CFLs will produce suboptimal results (from a lighting perspective).

    Use CFLs for...

    * Common household lamps and open fixtures
    * In poorly lit rooms -- you can use more bulbs for the same wattage, but increase lumen output.
    * In hard to reach locations that are 12 feet or lower -- you won't have to change the bulbs as often.
    * Near window treatments -- less heat = lower fire risk
    * Reading lamps

    CFLs will produce suboptimal results in...

    * Closets -- CFLs do have a warmup time, and last longer when allowed to be on for long periods of time.
    * Timers -- trickle voltage will drastically reduce the life of a CFL
    * Dimmers -- there are CFLs designed for dimmers, but most are not.
    * Recessed or enclosed fixtures -- CFLs do get warm and their life will be reduced in sealed fixtures.
    * Spotlights -- Fluorescents are not capable of providing a narrow, concentrated beam of light
    * Freezing temperatures -- CFLs work better at warmer temperatures. There are CFLs that are rated for low temperature use, but most are not.
  • shoelace414, on 11/28/2007, -0/+26LED's aren't ready for mass production yet.. too expensive. But they will replace CFL's someday
  • MiDri, on 11/28/2007, -0/+24The most delicious of the trans-metals!
  • Sorvan, on 11/28/2007, -0/+21What the hell am I supposed to do with my Easy Bake Oven if this happens?
  • vanimal, on 11/28/2007, -0/+19This is out of date information. With the current exchange rate, they now get 5.
  • oldhick, on 11/28/2007, -15/+34Awesome. Let the government control more and more of your lives... They always no whats best!
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -3/+21Absolute ***** government regulation. Unbelievable really. What about all the applications in which light AND heat are desired? I use incandescent bulbs for my pet reptile, yet I do use CFLs in my bathroom and whatnot. And of course there's the fact that you can't just throw away CFLs when they're done for. They're supposed to be specially disposed of and I've yet to get a working one that will operate in my 3-way lamp (yes I've had the 3-way CFL bulbs).
    In conclusion, can the government please stop trying to tell me what is best for me? Educate the people on the advantages of CFLs for many applications (but definitely not all, as pointed out previously), but don't force anyone to do it. This is almost as idiotic as, oh I dunno, a local government banning the use of plastic bags! Oh wait...
  • Hoogs, on 11/28/2007, -8/+25How can the government "ban" a certain type of light bulb? Talk about taking away freedoms. I would much rather use incandescents because they don't give me headaches like the CFL's do. Don't they irritate anyone else?
  • andshewas, on 11/28/2007, -4/+21Exactly. I wish the government would get the hell out of our personal business. I see nothing wrong with them simply suggesting we all try to convert to more energy-efficient lighting, but creating a ban on less efficient lighting seems like a waste of time and money.
  • oldhick, on 11/28/2007, -13/+30Many people get sick from CFL's. I personally get headaches when exposed to them for any length of time. They suck and giving away freedoms to the government is a fundamentally ridiculous concept. Now I know you're going to hit me with all the other freedoms we've given away, but do we need to keep giving more and more away? Also, being against this doesn't mean you're pro-wasteful energy consumption. It simply means you're anti-government regulations.
  • AbsurdParadox, on 11/28/2007, -11/+27This is so ridiculous on so many levels.

    1. Lets assume this global warming boogey-man is real for a minute. How much off the energy in the US is generated from sources that truly contribute to global warming (again, assuming the carbon-emission models are actually correct). What about those using nuclear or hydroelectric power, etc?

    2. I pay for my electricity. I can't use it how I damn well please?

    3. Why aren't these tools coming up with solutions like, oh, I dunno, allowing people to build highly clean and efficient nuclear power stations?

    4. Most people I know buy these, simply because they're more cost effective. Personally, I have a 100 year old house with mostly original wiring, and these are even most of a benefit for me, because I blow incandescents after like a month of use. So, even if this were some sort of world saving good idea, legislation in this area is unnecessary because the free market has already sorted this out
  • dood, on 11/28/2007, -4/+20It's certainly a valid point. However, you can take much of the hazardous waste out of the equation by properly disposing of the CFL bulbs. The mercury in them can be recycled.
    How much mercury is released into the atmosphere while generating the additional electricity to run an incandescent bulb? Some blog says 7.6mg, more mercury than is in the average CFL bulb.
  • solidfusion, on 11/28/2007, -14/+30What's worse, energy consumption or hazardous waste? Personally I tend to lean towards hazardous waste.
  • bblande, on 11/28/2007, -3/+18....and may in a few years start phasing out CFLs in favor of LEDs.
  • andshewas, on 11/28/2007, -2/+17Yeah, and at $129 a pop for a single lamp-sized "bulb" we can just stock up!

    They are awesome, I can't disagree with that, and totally efficient, but until they drastically drop in price, middle America won't buy them.
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/28/2007, -2/+17I was under the impression people in the US were free to choose what product they were going to use, not the government, and especially not the federal government.
  • lpmiller, on 11/28/2007, -1/+15well, they certainly "know" when to say "know"
  • greenm1981, on 11/28/2007, -4/+17Try LED lights instead. Really low energy usage and they provide plenty of warm light.
  • hipsterelitist, on 11/28/2007, -6/+18About time. CFL's also last a lot longer, but you can't just throw them away because of the mercury. Delicious, silvery mercury... in very small amounts.
  • spyd3rweb, on 11/28/2007, -0/+12Used to be the government had to pass a constitutional amendment to ban things. See the 18th Amendment.
  • avengingturnip, on 11/28/2007, -1/+13If incandescent light bulbs are outlawed, only outlaws will have incandescent bulbs.
  • NeoSporin, on 11/28/2007, -7/+19I was under the impression that almost everyone used these already. I mean, come on, you save 70% of your lighting costs on your bill.
  • brufleth, on 11/28/2007, -1/+13I'm still pissed about the lead paint ban. This new stuff doesn't taste nearly as good.
  • wendelgee2, on 11/28/2007, -0/+12I have a hard time switching because:
    a) It's nearly impossible to determine what the light will look like. Some that say "soft natural light" and end up being harsh blue and institutional. Others look just like incandescent. We need standards, because buying the wrong bulb means you're out $6-$8.
    b) dimmers. They're out there, but CFL bulbs that can be dimmed are rarer than hen's teeth, and expensive to boot.

    That said, I have CFL's in every room in my apt, just not every lamp/socket.
  • jester11, on 11/28/2007, -5/+16Can anyone say loss of personal rights, yes I like saving money but where in the Constitution does it say that the gov't can decide what an individual does in there own house or private business.
  • badqat, on 11/28/2007, -1/+12Too dim? My LED flashlight is blinding!
  • kr0n0s82, on 11/28/2007, -7/+18It is very short sighted to ban a technology. Instead what should happen is efficiency standards should be set based on lumens per watt, or similar measure.
  • jerbaker, on 11/28/2007, -2/+13"Personally I tend to lean towards hazardous waste"

    That's because you're not calculating the hazardous waste created by generating that energy you are consuming. Not only that, but the hazardous waste in CFLs is easily diverted from the environment.
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -1/+12There are much bigger fish to fry than incandescent lighting when it comes to "affecting others."
  • slashbot, on 11/28/2007, -4/+14Not the all powerful light bulb lobby! noooooooo
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -0/+10Good lord, a reasonable comment? I'm impressed...and I'm in whole-hearted agreement. There is no sense in pushing this if the bulbs wind up in a landfill.
  • tonyzahn, on 11/28/2007, -6/+16Meh. I have a few CFL bulbs in the house, but I really don't like them as well. For starters, they don't actually get bright until a few minutes after you turn them on, which is annoying, and the color temperature is much different than incandescent bulbs, making everything look rather pallid.
  • strictnein, on 11/28/2007, -9/+19I'm looking through the constitution and trying to find where we are guaranteed a right to use whatever type of light bulb we want...

    You also can't use lead paint in your house. Was that you losing your freedoms, or was that just common sense?
  • toekneebullard, on 11/28/2007, -3/+13It's called shortsightedness. It's what the government is all about.
  • psion01, on 11/28/2007, -1/+10Where do you draw the line? _Everything_ affects others at one level or another. This kind of collectivist nonsense leads to nothing but more and more legislation.
  • inactive, on 11/28/2007, -3/+12I dont use CFLs because they are not capable of copying incandescent light, which is preferable to me not only personally, but in professional applications. Dusting the glass with yellow powder does not make an CFS incandescent, and it really, really shows. The problem is the difference between point-source lighting (tungsten filament) and diffused-source lighting (excited gas in a tube). Diffused-source lighting creates unnatural shadowing and results in a "flattening" the visual environment, which for a great many applications is simply not acceptable.
  • sonicdevo, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9You're guaranteed any freedom that you don't give away to the government. He's simply arguing that it's not necessary to give this one up, and I agree. If you want everyone to adopt CFL's, support efforts to make them cheaper to manufacture, etc. The heavy hand of government needs to be used less, not more.
  • bigteebo, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9I swear at my local IKEA they have a bin for recycling CFLs.
  • zomgz, on 11/28/2007, -5/+14now.... where to put all this mercury....
  • edstate, on 11/28/2007, -3/+12I guess I'm the only one who wants a ***** choice here?
  • offspring06, on 11/28/2007, -1/+9Yeah we do and you only get 3 downs.
  • PhiKapChappy, on 11/28/2007, -1/+9And confuse the hell out of 19th century people!
  • AbsurdParadox, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7"Sir, we'll need to see your incandescent bulb license"
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 280 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.