EU Will Do More Harm Than Good In Banning The Incandescent Bulb
from the backwards-thinking dept
The EU has now followed the US and Australia in coming up with plans to ban incandescent lightbulbs in favor of more efficient bulbs, such as compact fluorescent bulbs or LED-based lighting. I understand why these bans are being put in place. The incandescent bulbs are inefficient and wasteful, and the thinking is that forcing the move to CFLs or other types of bulbs will be good for the environment.However, this doesn't take into account the unintended consequences of this move. Already, there's been a big push to move people to CFLs, and that's created a situation where the makers of CFLs have worked hard to improve the quality of the bulbs (a big complaint) as well as add in features that used to not be found in CFLs, such as dimming. It's also pushed the makers of CFLs to find efficiencies by which they can make the bulbs cheaper. They're doing this because they know they need to compete with incandescent bulbs -- and in many cases it's working.
Yet, banning incandescents from the market place means that the makers of CFLs now have a lot less competition. They don't have to work as hard to make the lights better. They don't have to work as hard to make them more efficient and cheaper. They've basically been given a gift that means they can slow down the process of making those bulbs that much better for the environment. That seems like a mistake.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: cfl, competition, incandescent lightbulbs, led, lightbulbs, markets
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
There will still be enough competition
Removing incandescent bulbs may even drive CFL prices down further. Most people still buy incandescent bulbs, and the CFL bulb is a premium product. Once it is the standard, the increased market, mass production, and decreased perceived value may cause the prices to drop.
I wish that the regulation wasn't necessary, but it is. In the long run, modern CFL bulbs cost less, but a lot of people will never discover that because they're cheap and/or skeptical. A lot of people have to be forced into change, even when it is better for them. A good example is my workplace, which is in the midst of a 'green' initiative. They pleaded for months with employees to start bringing reusable coffee mugs or water cups from home to decrease the waste from styrofoam cups. No result. Finally, they just took away the styrofoam cups. Guess what? Everybody now brings their own cups.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There will still be enough competition
Is that because magically the law of supply and demand will work in reverse?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There will still be enough competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: There will still be enough competition
When CDs were new, they were a premium product and cost far more than cassettes. Once cassettes stopped being made and CDs became the standard, prices dropped. I remember my first CD was $24.99 for a single disc album. Try getting someone to pay that now! Yet, the demand for CDs is far higher than it was back then. Same with DVDs and VHS. Not only are DVDs cheaper than they were when the demand was small, they are cheaper than VHS tapes ever were because the home video market is now so much bigger.
A large enough demand for a product means that production is cheaper and smaller margins are acceptable due to higher volume.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: There will still be enough competition
The fact of the matter is that the "premium" product will win out in the end only if people believe the benefits outweigh the switching costs. For a lot of people, that hasn't happened yet for CFLs or other alternatives to incandescent bulbs. If it does, then people will naturally switch over without any need for government intervention.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about new entrants and interbrand competition?
Doesn't that assume that there will be no more entrants into the field of lightbulb manufacture, or that the current makers of incandescent bulbs will not change to CFLs or LEDs and just drop out of the market? I would find it hard to believe that the banning of incandescent bulbs would suddenly create a monopoly, especially when most manufacturers of incandescent bulbs also manufacture CFLs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Law of Unintended Consequences
These laws often cause more damage than the good that it tried to do. Yet these politicians, looking for votes, legislate them anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Law of Unintended Consequences
In fact, many monopolies wouldn't have exist without government regulations. Copyright and patents being one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Law of INTENDED Consequences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Suck
But hey, as long as some politician has a talking point it's all good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is nanny-stateism at it's worst. Why shouldn't I be allowed to make my own choice? If CO2 is causing global warming (bullshit) incandescent bulbs are a very small fraction of that, and almost meaningless percentage. (my gaming PC at home burns about 4-500 watts on it's own) This is a law that is causing people aggravation for what is ultimately, merely a symbol, not even a very productive change.
There are people who claim that fluorescents give them migraines. I'm not one of them, but who am I to tell them what to use at home? Who am I to cause them pain for at best a theorectically marginal improvement?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
wait... that was a joke right?
Every single scientist reviewed paper on Global Warming (3000+ I think?)says that it exists due to CO2 emissions, and there isn't even one peer reviewed paper in the world that says otherwise. Not one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Okay, that's a flat lie. I agree with your main point, that we affect global warming by our actions. But you won't further your cause by spouting blatant falsehoods. There are, in fact, several serious, legitimate scientists who refute man's actions as a cause for global warming. There are even a few who refute global warming itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prove it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prove it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
problem with just using Google searchs....
3 Top links:
worldnetdaily.com -- pseudo-journalism right-wing website (not peer reviewed)
heartland.org -- think tank funded by exxon
newsbusters.org -- another right-wing pseudo-journalism site.
Next page includes things like:
"Refuting a Global Warming Denier (posting from Climate Science Watch)"
"YouTube - Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
harmful chemicals
/golfclap eu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Intra-Product competition will continue to be dominant force in the market. Car companies don’t compete directly with train/plane/boat companies on who gets to move people around. Ford competes with Toyota and GM to see who can come up with the best car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thats why we need to force YOU to change. We need to cut our waste of electricity. Your too priviledged to understand that. I already moved to CFL a few years ago. I hardly change bulbs anymore and I did see a drop in my electric bill. I'm not a big green person, but this does make sense even to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hope your being sarcastic there..."too priviledged?" what does that mean? He has the right to consume whatever he wants, and if that means he's changing the bulbs every couple of months and paying a few bucks extra a month, that's his business. When the gov't "force" people to change their buying habits, that's where things can go wrong. What if this guy has solar panels on his roof and uses his own electricity? Why should he have to use the newer bulbs? He's not "wasting" anything.
Just because right now they say "whose business is it what kindo f bulbs i buy?" doesn't mean their habits won't change. Of course they will. When that person realizes it's economical to change, then they will embrace it.
The only time I condone the gov't stepping in on banning products, is when majority of consumes are injured or killed because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumption is NOT a right
As the saying goes "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose".
We are fighting a optional war because our oil was under their sand. I would say it is high time that we stopped rewarding gluttony and see it for what it is: wasteful consumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consumption is NOT a right
But, you see, some people think they have many "natural rights." They have a right to throw their trash in my yard. They have a right to drive without lights at night. They have a right not to use turn signals when they change lanes. Yes, I know these things are all illegal, but the same people do them over and over again. Oh, and we do not want to forget about those people who think they have a right to driving without a seatbelt, raising everyone's insurance rates when they get hurt or killed in an accident.
You can lead a horse to water, but try making it pick up a $20 bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Consumption is NOT a right
In the United States you have always had this right, since its founding. The DMCA eats away at it a little, but in America, if its your property you can do as you please with it (with a few specific exceptions). Certainly in the last 8 years we have been encouraged to consume, gorge even, way beyond our ability to actually pay for it for example. I dont know where you live, but in America you not only have the right to wastefully consume, but under the Bush administration it has been considered your patriotic duty to do so. Frankly if you dont wastefully consume, AlQuida wins.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Consumption is NOT a right
However, your gluttony interferes with my liberty because I have to take additional medications with all the additional pollutants in the air. Also, you interfere with many other people's liberty because your incandescent light bulbs send us to new energy peaks, raising costs and rates even further. So your gluttony is financed even by those who strive to be "green."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
LED lights rock. I use them under my kitchen cabinets. When prices come down a little I'll start to use them in more places.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I got my first LED flashlight earlier this summer. Wow, what a difference. It still works after you drop it. The light is very intense. Yes, more expensive, by a lot, than a standard flashlight, but I expect it will last a lot longer too. I am looking forward to LED light bulbs. While LED's do not last forever, they last an extremely long time, and no ballast!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"As long as I'm willing to pay my electric bill, whose business is it what kind of climate control I buy?"
Thats why we need to force YOU to change. We need to cut our waste of electricity. Your too priviledged to understand that. I already moved to no heat and no air conditioning a few years ago. I hardly feel comfortable anymore but I did see a drop in my electric bill. I'm not a big green person, but this does make sense even to me.
How about this: ban toasters. Who really needs toasted bread when regular bread is so much more energy efficient. Maybe we could ban electric stoves. Gas stoves have a lower energy cost. Why not ban plasma TVs? They suck electricity like nobody's business. LED TVs only; they're clearly more energy efficient. Heck, why not ban TVs over 36", or some other arbitrary number.
This has a certain logical consistency in a socialist country, but America isn't quite there yet. The slippery slope argument is logically fallacious, but it can also be true. We let the government control what spews out of factory smoke stacks (good thing), then in California they started telling you when you could and could not have a fire in your fireplace at home (questionable), and now the government wants to force you to save $10 a month on your electricity bill (WTF?).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reality check
Fact: In California's Central Valley, asthma rates are higher than in Los Angeles. This is because of particulates from diesel, farming operations and .... fires (in fireplaces or leaf burnings).
Fact: Energy consumption has remained constant per-capita in California because California has lead the way with laws and regulations forcing energy efficiency.
Fact: California has done this and still manages to have the largest economy in the nation. ... or maybe its because of this that our energy costs have been able to be reduced.[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stock up now
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competition will be for market share, and that will be driven by the quality of the product, ease of use, cost savings, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thus I will need to stockpile incandescents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incandesant Lights are not banned!!!!
Therefore, it's an incentive for bulb makers to increase efficiency (something they should have done years ago)
The same applies to TVs, fridges and several other appliances, they must meet a certain efficiency before they are allowed to be sold here.
And yet we can still buy gas guzzling cars, SUVs and boats..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
indeed
The only time I condone the gov't stepping in on banning products, is when majority of consumes are injured or killed because of it.
Unquote
With the contued use of inefficient products like incandescent light bulbs you will be killing the planet with greenhouse gases.
BUT CFL is not the answer LED technology is where we have to look,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A single CFL contains enough mercury to contaminate 6000 Gallons of water.
How will the anti-incandescent laws affect people using projectors, optical instruments, flash lights, vehicles, halogen stoves, motion picture lighting , etc?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Lighting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Lighting
HMI's are more expensive and tend to only be used where a daylight balanced light source is required, such as when shooting day exteriors.
It would be interesting to hear from someone in the affected countries to see if the laws make exceptions for theatrical lighting.
Don't worry, you can always come shoot in Canada with our cheap dollar and kick-ass crews.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If CO2 is causing global warming (bullshit)"...
Wake up and join the rest of the world..
I bet you think the apollo missions are staged too?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Number of pieces?
I personally believe CFL lamps are seen and being used by manufacturers to increase their profits by making a more complicated and costly lamp and using a false 'green' argument and ill-informed politicians to protect their ruse!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tax the incandecent light bulbs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Incandescent bulb efficiency
Not to mention that incandescent bulbs live *much* longer when they are dimmed than generally assumed, I have dimmed halogens that have been used for hours daily, for over ten years now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Incandescent bulb efficiency
You are quite correct regarding heating. Our last bathroom had 8, yes 8, 25 watt incandescent bulbs. With the door closed the temperature in the bathroom would go up dramatically, quickly. While this was quite nice during cold winter months, during the 7 months of the year when the air conditioner was on the bathroom was like an Easy Bake (R) oven. We switched to CFL's and have been thrilled with the result. Indeed, almost all our bulbs are now CFL's, and our electric bill has dropped about 20-25% in the summer with less electricity to power the bulbs and less electricity for the air conditioner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Equivalent to 100W incandescent" isn't.
And they don't work with thorister based dimmers and timer switches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Go for the stupidity and down with intelligence. I see Idiocracy coming to a life near you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
News flash... coal burning emits mercury!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: News flash... coal burning emits mercury!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LEDs are better in every way and just need investment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And second, they become impractical at high wattage values. And third, they make terrible outdoors flood lights.
A thought about global warming. Its the only theory I've ever heard of that has been elevated to a proven fact because of a majority vote. I thought theories required proof - repeatable and reproducable by multiple parties...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Could I Wind Up On America's 10 Most Wanted List
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ban By Technology
Look at diesel engines, for example. They WERE dirtier than gasoline, but that age has long since passed. However, because the technology was banned, rather than setting an intelligent floor on efficiency, now the US does not have high efficiency, clean turbo diesel passenger cars, like the rest of the world.
Lighting should be regulated like this: Set an efficiency and a material waste restriction: can't use dangerous amounts of toxic materials, must have an efficiency above 75% (or whatever), efficiency must reach 90% by 2015, etc. Don't just kill off incandescent. You CAN make an incandescent bulb that's 90% efficient, there's just no motivation to now that CCFLs and LEDs are the only legal lighting standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about lava lamps?
The market will take care of switching to CFLs without the governments help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about lava lamps?
Yes, the market will eventually, maybe, take care of switching to CFL's without the government's help. Unfortunately, that will only happen after electricity is multiple factors higher in cost than it currently is.
One of the big drives to eliminate incandescents is that lighting takes up to 25% of generated electricity. Imagine the nuclear power plants that need not be built or the oil that need not be burned or the coal that need not be mined if we could reduce our electrical usage by 20%. Yes, the market will drive us to CFL's, but by the time it happens, we will have lost the best reason for doing so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? How? What do you think effecient means?
You mean that a bulb can be made that emits 90% of its output in the visible range of the spectrum and the remaining 10% as heat?
Now there is something like that I've read about. Look up quantum dots...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heard of statistics?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Heard of statistics?
I have noticed that cheap CFL's, just like cheap incandescents, tend to die faster than better quality bulbs. Even then, I have had some early, unexpected failures.
Suggestion:
Buy yourself a Sharpie (R) or equivalent, and write the date of the receipt on the ceramic base of each bulb. Keep your receipts. If the bulb dies within the warranty period, take it back. We have had enough early failures (of course, with nearly every bulb in our house a CFL, we have a lot of bulbs) to make it worth the trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No "3 strikes and you're out" rule here
Actually, the mistake will be made by those who "slow down" the process rather than innovate to make them better and help lower the cost.
We have a few CF bulbs in our house and they're okay, but the LED light I have is much better. It's brighter and doesn't have a delay when I flip the switch to turn it on.
Regardless, this whole "going green" is yet another concept to which the stupid things in life are being focused on while the bigger things continue as normal, defeating the whole damn purpose of "going green".
30 MPG. Seriously? When one looks at the "average" daily drive, this doesn't really make much sense when nearly the same level of pollutants are still being exhausted into the atmosphere. Where are the electric cars? Hydrogen cars?
Oh, right. Still sitting on drawing boards because they're much too expensive to push into production.
Somehow, the 1970s didn't teach Americans a damn thing about oil prices, recessions, or pollution because, 30 years later, we're right back at doing the same finger pointing, excuse making, and enacting the "quick fix" mentality (light bulbs???) which will all wane as soon as things get back to "normal".
I find it (ironic?) comical that so much information is dispensed at changing out light bulbs but electronic devices continue to suck more power when they're off than an incandescent bulb does when it's on.
Don't go green. Go red for having to deal with the incompetence delivered by those who survived the 70s but failed to do anything about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huh?
Dont they compete with each other?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quite the opposite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Quite the opposite
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dimmers
Older dimmer switches, and I presume some cheap new dimmer switches, function exactly as you state. Increase resistance, make yourself a little heater, and dim the light. No energy efficiency there.
Modern (and more expensive?) dimmers use a triac to chop the voltage sent to the bulb, thus reducing energy consumption. The same chopping technique is also the reason that modern dimmers do not work well with CFL's.
Older homes with a dimmer are probably using a rheostat (variable potentiometer or resistor) to control light output. Turn the lights on and dim them for a while. If the dimmer feels warmer after the lights have been on and dimmed for 10 or 15 minutes, chances are that your dimmer is a variable resistor versus a triac.
One question is whether you truly save any electricity even with a triac dimmer. Unless you are using the dimmed light as a night light (electroluminscent and LED are cheaper in the long run) or for mood lighting (which electroluminescent and LED can probably also do for you), you probably need the light you turned on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An electricity tax would do 100 times more good
The politicians have found it safer to just ban one token product rather than take a real stand - shame on us for voting in people who support this kind of useless legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]