Talk:Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs

Article title

Ban is a strong word, especially since some of the measures, actually a lot of the measures noted in this article are voluntary agreements and not being done via legislation and therefore not an actual ban. I propose a more suitable, less sensationalist title, e.g. Phasing out the incandescent bulb, etc. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree that "phasing out" is better than "banning". Johnfos (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

In almost all cases mentioned here, there is legislation that forbids selling incandescent bulbs, or will forbid it in the near future. These are effectively "bans". It doesn't seem that many measures noted here are "voluntary agreements". Moreover, I think that "phasing out" should refer to the temporary allowance of incandescent bulbs while waiting for the "ban" to be enforced; so using "ban" in the title would be more appropriate. Filipporiccio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. There may be people voluntarily phasing out incandescents, but the focus of this article is on countries that have banned them. Binarybits (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The process in which they're being banned is through phasing out, thus I'm not sure changing to a more POV title would be appropriate. The end result is the same. Nja²⁴⁷ 16:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of banning doesn't happen "through phasing out?" Bans of consumer products almost never take place instantaneously. "Phase-out" fails to make clear that what we're talking about is a legislative prohibition on the use of incandescent bulbs. Binarybits (talk) 19:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What kind of phasing out doesn't result in "banning"? I agree with nja. The term "ban" is misleading and unnecessarily POV. Bob A (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

"Banning" is compulsory. "Phasing out" is often voluntary. Businesses have phased out the use of typewriters, but typewriters haven't been banned. What's misleading about "ban?" Are we not in fact talking about legislation that makes it illegal to sell incandescent bulbs? Binarybits (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, does the article include *any* examples that are not compelled by legislation? I'm not seeing any. Binarybits (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the end point is the same, and to use dramatised wording only serves to add POV. As for examples, for one, in the UK, the phase out has been made voluntarily by large retailers to stop carrying certain wattages of bulbs in stages, ie a phase out. A ban would imply they're somehow illegal or illicit, which from what I can tell no one anywhere will be prosecuted for possessing or selling old bulbs. Nja²⁴⁷ 06:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The possession of incandescent bulbs is not being made illegal (like some kind of recreational drugs are 'banned substances'). Many are still needed for specialist uses like inside domestic ovens etc. It is a 'phasing-out' of manufacture and sales, by the large companies and retailers who manufacture and sell them to the public for normal, everyday lighting of their homes and workplaces. --Nigelj (talk) 10:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, its absolutely correct to say communist 'ban' instead of 'phase out', bus conductors have been phased out in many cities around the world...but havent been banned...you can have a bus conductor if u can afford it. With these light bulbs...you cant buy them even if you are ready to pay $100 tax on each bulb. So it is in fact a totalitarian ban. Tri400 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

"Ban" is the correct word. There are no opinions invloved here, only facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.160.144.78 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Spam or not ?

Does the link currently at the end of the "Cost and existing fixtures" section count as a spam link or not ? It proves that dimmable CFLs can be purchased, but it's also an advertising link...... CultureDrone (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I considered WP:SPAM, and the way this is used does not seem to be a blatant example of it. It makes the point that the general statement that CFLs do not dim is not true in all cases. Being a reseller does not in itself mean they cannot provide relevant facts. If this ref wasn't used as a citation, but rather was an external link saying "Buy dimmable bulbs" or even something less obvious, then I would believe it to be more akin to spam. As with most policies, when the potential offending text is not a clear cut example, the policy becomes open to interpretation and the context in which it's being used must be considered. In my opinion, as it stands I do not think it is an obvious example of spam as it's being used as a citation and not to advertise directly. And whether they indirectly get a sale of two from someone actually checking the reference and following the link is not particularly the biggest issue Wikipedia has. If a better ref can be found that would be wonderful as well. Nja247 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Personally i think "phasing out" is weasel-wording in situation that legislations _effect_ in a BAN of TRADE. perhaps just mere change of 'phasing out' to 'trade ban' could be more 'compromise', but personally i think ban is enough clear word, and article should just explain mechanism and range of the ban.

"Phase-out" is also 'weasel-wording' in my opinion because it occurs not as phenomenon due to developing of superior technology, none of 'new' technologies really replaces old one. customers do not pick new technologies by themselves. Legislations to remove classic lightbulbs are not introduced by customers themselves. main arguments of ban creators are that when there will be greater market interest in alternative light sources, they will be developed, and their prices more affordable. this means effective ban of lightbulbs in specific area of their usual use. this basically means sponsoring of specific industry branches out of pockets of consumers, which are not willing to do otherwise, and as method of violence which makes them do it - ban is introduced. i do not see 'phase-out' as correct definition for that, as choice of light sources is not any 'process' govern by any national or international bodies, it is often compromise inbetween aesthetics, efficiency , and cost, made by individual consumers or companies, thus individual social phenomenon, not just a branch of governments bodies.

83.18.229.190 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

adverse reactions US, Mercury, headaches

http://www.purepowercanada.ca/InvestigativeReport2.htm

only the led's are safe. the old bulbs that are 'not environmentally friendly' release much less UV radiation.

The very dubious web page you show seems to have nothing to do with lamps at all. Nothing is safe - after all, LEDs contain deadly arsenic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Leds can also emit a lot of UV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.216.169 (talk) 18:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Panic buying?

"There is evidence of panic buying of incandescent bulbs ahead of the EU lightbulb ban" Is it accurate or NPOV to describe this as panic buying? That terminology implies an irrational and fear-based reason for buying things that you think is going to be in short supply (often causing such shortages in the process). However, in this case, it is a known fact that the bulbs are going to be banned, so it seems entierly rational for people who prefer them to the alternatives to buy a supply of them while they can. 62.172.108.23 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "panic buying" is a generally wrong term in this case, but since the article uses also the terms "bulk purchasing" and "stockpiling" I think that overall it is OK. I "stockpiled" some types of incandescent bulbs due to a (in my opinion) rational decision, but I hear also of lamp sellers here in Italy saying that some people (especially older people) went to buy incandescent bulbs out of fear that they wouldn't be able to find "equivalent" bulbs in the future; some would describe this as "panic buying". Filipporiccio (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Howard Brandston's opinion

We now have a whole sub-section on the opinions of this bloke. He is an irrelevance in my part of the world, but what is he in the US? Is he some important government advisor or leading public opinion shaper in that country? Or is he just an acquaintance of the anon editor who added all the new material? (Or was that actually him?) I removed some of the worst self-aggrandisement and personal editorialising, but I don't know if he has a public standing and world influence that means we ought to keep the rest. --Nigelj (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

His notability seems doubtful to me. I would recommend removing the paragraph. Bob A (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In the US, he's widely acknowledged within the lighting profession. I am a former associate of his, and I am the author of the original paragraph, though I have had no connection or communication with him since I ran into him at a wedding of a mutual friend more than two years ago. I apologize if you found my original contribution to the page to be inappropriate. That was not my intent. Apologies also for the formatting errors, as this is the first time I've ever contributed to the wiki world. If there are formatting errors in this reply, then apologies in advance. [edit - cannot get this to indent, for instance...]

I think that his contributions as an opponent to the ban of incandescent lighting are an asset to the wikipedia article. I also thought that I'd included his qualifications in that original paragraph. Perhaps I phrased them poorly, because you seem to have interpreted much of them as "self-aggrandizement and personal editorialising" and removed them. Perhaps he needs his own wiki page so he can simply be referenced from this article.

In that vein, some of what you excised from the original paragraph was actually a demonstration of his qualifications. For instance, you excised the fact that he presented his paper on 'phasing out the incandescent light bulb' at the 2009 "Light Fair International." If you are unaware, Light Fair International is the world's largest annual architectural and commercial lighting trade show and conference. So, when this information is excised from the article, his qualifications as an opponent are also diminished. Somebody must think he's relevant and qualified, since they invited him to present at Light Fair.

For futher demonstration of his qualifications as a lighting authority, Mr. Brandston has been honored by a long list of professional associations. Heck, CIBSE honored "this bloke" with an Honorary Fellowship (apparently it's highest honor and limited to just 25 living people). Last I checked, CIBSE was a British group. He has been practicing lighting design for 50 years, and has been a professor at several architectural schools and lighting programs for much of that time. He is widely published in the architectural trade. Some of his firm's highest profile projects include lighting for the renovated Statue of Liberty (New York City), the Petronas Towers (Kuala Lampur), the Osaka Aquarium, and the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center (Washington, D.C.). He presented to Congress during the energy crisis of the '70s (as part of the committee).

In summary, I'd put forward that Mr. Brandston is relevant, and you would be hard-pressed to find a more qualified voice from the lighting industry to have joined the opposition to this "phase out." I hope the wiki community finds that Mr. Brandston's postion, qualifications, and efforts are relevant in regard to his public opposition of the phase out. 66.234.232.42 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC) BR, NYC.

What contributions has he made? The only thing the article mentions is something about the american department of energy's formulas. The paragraph makes him look like the equivalent of a global warming denier. How prominent is he in the controversy in the united states? Have there been any major publications about him? Bob A (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He has presented at Light Fair to lighting professionals; he's been interviewed by the New York Times and FoxNews; and he's published an alternative proposal in the Wall Street Journal, as cited. You may disagree with his position, and you wouldn't be the only one to do so, but he's credible and published as being opposed. Does that not meet the criteria for inclusion under "Public Opposition?" 72.225.153.177 (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

His credentials as a lighting designer don't contribute much to his notability on this particular topic. All the publications you've mentioned are self-published, self written or interviews. These don't really establish enough notability for him to be mentioned without giving wp:undue weight. By the way, "bloke" means "guy"; it's not really derogatory. Bob A (talk) 06:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The 'topic' is phasing out the use of one of the available light sources, which are the tools of lighting designers who use them to transform architecture and public spaces. Howard Brandston is at the top of that profession and world-recognized for his contributions. And, he helped establish the first energy efficiency guidelines in the U.S. He is a lighting expert with 50 years experience and recognized by just about every lighting organization in existence. He is as notable as any other opponent mentioned in the article, though where none of the others have any relevance in the U.S, Howard does. If he weren't notable, then he wouldn't have been invited to present at Light Fair or interviewed/published by credible sources in our national media. Not just anybody gets an interview or editorial in the NYTimes and Wall Street Journal.

However, I do agree that this paragraph should not be about him, but about the efforts to raise public awareness of the pitfalls he anticipates. Perhaps the paragraph can be edited further to avoid wp:undue weight, removing some of the irrelevant material about his background:

"One opponent of the phase out in the United States is the lighting design expert Howard Brandston. -insert citation- He opposes phasing out the incandescent light bulb because he believes the replacements provide an inferior quality of light and that the energy efficiency gains have been overstated by the Department of Energy. He has used his position as a lighting expert to raise public awareness of the phase out and he has asked people to write their congressmen. -insert citations- He has offered an alternative proposal. -insert citation-" 72.225.153.177 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And the use of "bloke" or "guy" in this context is derogatory. It demonstrates bias about the author's opinion of Mr. Brandston or his position. Otherwise the sentence would have read "We now have a whole sub-section on his opinions," instead of "We now have a whole sub-section on the opinions of this bloke." The use of "bloke" or "guy" is a common linguistic tool for dismissing the person being referenced. 72.225.153.177 (talk) 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Umm...that's an example of restraint, compared to what pops to my mind on reading the .PDF file cited as a reference. Not exactly an exhaustive scientific treatise, is it? "This number is no good. You've got to use this number instead, which I like better. Some random light fixtures have a higher CU with incandescent bulbs than some other random light fixtures have with unspecified CFLs. " Unconvincing in the extreme. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Google "Brandston" and "Lighting Expert" and you get 93 hits. He does know his stuff. Perhaps this link needs to be added to the citations: http://www.tedmag.com/news/news-room/special-report/Special-Report/Special-Report--6-4-2009.aspx It provides an unbiased trade-review of Brandston and his presentation at Light Fair, and also one by a representative from EPA's Energy Star program. Each opposes the phase out. 72.225.153.177 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As big-scale 'lighting designer' he might even have a vested interest in the status quo - maybe he has a large amount of stock to shift before the US phase-out begins. I think we need more citations of his work than we've got before giving him WP prime time. --Nigelj (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Check the 93 google references you get above. I think you need to admit that he's an expert with whom you were unfamiliar, and with whose opinion you disagree. 72.225.153.177 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Bloke" is informal. It's nothing to do with your opinion of the referent. Bob A (talk) 19:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jeepers. Motion sensor lights. We shouldn't phase out incandescents because CFLs don't work in motion sensor lights. My goodness, now I'm convinced. That's got to be about 0.3% of all household lighting energy use, after all? I'm sorry,I'm not finding these arguments believable. Sounds like some much repsected but evidently cranky 50-year industry veteran is having a little trouble adapting to the brave new world of 25 cent a kwh electricity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So does anyone else support removing mention of him for the time being? Bob A (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, this has been a learning experience for me about Wiki, and I respect and appreciate your viewpoints. As of this writing, the article includes one sentence demonstrating his expertise in the industry and another on his efforts to raise awareness of the issue. Three citations are provided from national media and another is a favorable trade review of his presentation at an international trade show. If the three (or more) of you decide to completely remove mention of Mr. Brandston's efforts, then I'd be curious to know what you would consider 'notable' enough for inclusion? Simply put, what would be your minimum criteria to be included under "Public Opposition" to the phase out? Thanks in advance. 71.168.231.173 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already linked to the page about undue weight. That's the guideline. The criteria for inclusion of articles about people are listed under wp:bio. Bob A (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, and I've read the page you referenced. This section of the article is about the public opposition to the phase out, and so I'm asking what you believe is 'notable' in this context. Thanks in advance. 66.234.232.42 (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

@66.234.232.42: the way we decide is by discussion and consensus. Watch and learn. @Bob A: Well, I'd never heard of him and there's nothing I've seen here that makes me think that he is a major player in US (let alone world) politics, policy shaping or public opinion formation, so yes, I'd remove mention of him. --Nigelj (talk) 14:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

All I can say is that he is a very big deal in architectural lighting design worldwide. He's practically a founder of the profession as it is practiced today. His position on this or any lighting-related topic is usually known within our industry, and his stature therein is such that national media will trouble themselves to publish his interviews and/or editorials.

It is also fair to say his opinion on the phase out is controversial, even within the industry. However, those who disagree with him usually preface their disagreement by saying, "With all due respect to Mr. Brandston," etc.

I guess the root of my confusion is that this sub-section of the article is about "controversy" and "public opposition" to the phase out. That would seem to invite representation of minority views. I understand widespread stockpiling by the public is inherently public opposition to the phase out. But why are the charities mentioned in the previous paragraph? Are they major players in UK/world politics, policy shaping, or public opinion formation? Or are they another unheeded minority voice, similar to Mr. Brandston? 66.234.232.42 (talk) 15:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Flickering

The article omits mention of the 60 or 120 Hz flickering of fluorescent lamps in general and CFLs in particular. Research into the effects of flickering on humans, if any, has not yet been performed. David spector (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out the fluorescent lamp#Disadvantages and compact fluorescent lamp articles, also Light sensitivity; flicker has been known about since 1937 at least, longer if you count incandescent lamp flicker. Fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts don't flicker. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Most consumer grade CFL's have a 120hz flicker superimposed over the otherwise invisible high frequency flicker due to the ballasts not being adequately filtered. It is enough you can see it in fans. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Got a reference for this? My own experiments with an oscilloscope and a phototransistor were inconclusive...I didn't detect any 120 Hz flicker. I have not tried a fan, though. --Wtshymanski (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The flicker is due to the ballasts are not adequately filtered, also their voltage output is not strictly regulated. It happens to be at 120hz because it's just twice the mains frequency. So in 50hz countries, the flicker is at 100hz. Also the lamp doesn’t go completely out. Just think of the way AC current is actually at 0 volts part of the time, and the way the ballasts are not strictly regulated so it will intentionally let the output voltage vary. And then you have the filter capacitors are not big enough to prevent all of the varying output. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Shorter lifespan

I have observed that CFLs operated inside lighting fixtures that have insufficient means of cooling/ventilation have a dramatically shorter lifetime than that of incandescent bulbs. Since this is original research, a citation needs to be found so this information can be added to the article. The relevancy is that CFLs are much more expensive than incandescent bulbs (due to more expensive materials, including the required electronic ballast circuit). David spector (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for the CFLs in my kitchen globes to burn out - it's only been a couple of years so far, and the kitchen lights aren't usually on more about than 8 hours a day. (One 30-watt lamp is inside a 1 foot glass globe that used to hold a 100 watt incandescent, the other is a 23 watt in a small glass "jam jar" globe that had been rewired once because the incandescent lamp burned out the socket. The label says not to do this. As soon as they burn out I'm returning them to the store with a complaint about the shoddy quality of CFLs.)

Update- the 30 watter burned out April 16,2010 after about 2 1/2 years. The 16-watt is still working.--Wtshymanski (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The bad effect of heat on CFLs is listed in the Compact fluorescent lamp#Design and application issues article.

I agree, a $2.00 CFL is much more expensive than a $0.50 incandescent bulb (it's 400% of the cost!). It takes all of 215 hours to make up the difference in electricity cost (100 watts - 30 watts is 70 watts, at 10 cents/ kwh it takes 214 hours to use $1.50) - so for the first couple of months, you're being ripped off!

Tell the world of the great CFL conspiracy - not content to merely return to the new-fangled 1910 vintage tungsten-filament bulb, I don't doubt we'll see a resurgence of the true, original and authentic carbon filament lamp (which is a much more warm, organic, natural source than the harsh metallic glare of the tungsten incandescent bulbs, and which only take 2 or 3 times as much electricity as a tungsten bulb). (As you may have noticed, electronics these days are rather cheap.) --Wtshymanski (talk)

I have some very nice Panasonic commercial grade CFL's in my house operating in enclosed fixtures that I estimate have roughly 20,000 hours on them and still working. They were put in around August 2005. They haven't lost much light output either. They were 8-9 dollars per bulb. Unfortunately these aren't common. They *CAN* make very nice CFL's that would put LED to shame - ironically still cheaper than LED would be. It comes down to you get what you pay for, and as long as people keep demanding $2 CFL's, the mass retailers will continue to provide $2 CFL's to the people. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Opposition

Can't wait till we start seeing stories of the UN black helicopter troops, on instructions from the New World Order and the Bilderberg Group, using no-knock warrants to break into our homes and sieze our incandescent bulbs. You'll read it here first on the Wikipedia, provide there's no left-wing media censorship. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:37, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think they'll acquire no-knock warrants first? 72.225.153.177 (talk) 23:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Everyone knows they always acquire no-knock warrants; they're bad guys, it's what they do. 86.130.20.24 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not covered in the article, but I've seen it enough to think that it could warrant a mention in this article. At least in the United States, there are people who object to being forced to by the CFL bulbs because they are all made in China. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Electron stimulated luminescence

I see we have a section on this here now, and there's an article about ESLs too. They only seem to be manufactured by one company in the world (Vu1), and don't seem to be on the market yet. I can't find out anything sensible about them. Do they only fit in recessed ceiling fans? Do they use more or less energy than a CFL or an LED? Are they available in normal domestic brightnesses? Are they available anywhere at all? Prguy72 (talk · contribs) seems to be their main protagonist, in several places. One blog commenter said they are just a variety of LED lamp. They don't look notable enough for a whole section in this article, I don't think. --Nigelj (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

ESLs are available now through the manufacturer's website www.vu1.com - they cost $20 each and are available in minimum quantities of 8 bulbs. These are R30 reflector-type bulbs for recessed "cans." Retail availability will be announced within weeks. I am curious why the ESL photo was removed from this page (possibly along with the ESL reference) - I have permission from the copyright holder to post and I believe I tagged the photo correctly. Prguy72 (talk) 02:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a declaration of fair use in the image file for each article that uses the image. It would e better if you could snap a picture of a bulb and GFDL license it, so as to prevent this nuisance. Gotta be litigation resistant, all it takes is one dog food maker to allege copyright infringement and the Foundation could be facing millions in legal expenses. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's a little bit of description at the WIPO patent site (see Talk:Electron stimulated luminescence for the link.) Works pretty much as you'd expect it to, there's a DC DC converter in the base to give a few KV of accelerating potential. It's been press releases for the last two years. I've found nothing with a lumens/watt figure yet. No product in the stores yet. No Energy Star tests. No explanation as to how you dim it. The company Web site is useless (they could at least give as much technical description as they must have had in their patent applications), but like all good stock promotions there's a place you can sign up to become a dealer. It's not an LED lamp, unless you want to generalize "diode" to include "thermionic vacuum diode" as well as "semiconductor diode". Interesting concept. If there was product on the shelves it'd be worth noting here, but so far it's just vaporware. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I get it, they're like a TV tube with no scanning. Like much brighter versions of those 'magic eye' tuning and level indicators that I remember from childhood radios and tape recorders. Well, if they ever get onto the market, there'll be plenty of coverage I'm sure. --Nigelj (talk) 18:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's what I would get from the patent application. If only their web page was more..."illuminating"? --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

United States Efficiency Standards Not a Ban

This is in response to an edit by Wtshymanski, but I think it's good to have the conversation in general.

There has been a lot of news coverage calling the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) a "ban" on incandescent light bulbs. This isn't exactly true, and this article needs to be careful with how claims about what is going on in the U.S. are phrased. Let's look at what EISA actually says about incandescent bulbs. The language does not ban any technology or mechanism of light production by name; it simply sets minimum standards for efficiency. The relevant information comes from Pub.L. 110-140, Subtitle B, Section 321 (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(cc); the important columns from the table are:

Lumens	Maximum Wattage	Effective Date
1490 - 2600	72	2012
1050 - 1489	53	2013
750 - 1049	43	2014
310 - 749	29	2014

The four lines in the table correspond roughly to modern 100, 75, 60, and 40 watt incandescent bulbs respectively. Those are certainly aggressive compared to the incandescent technology that we're using today. But it's not a "ban on incandescent bulbs" any more than recent U.S. automobile efficiency regulations are a "ban on internal combustion engines."

In fact, you can already buy, right now in 2010, a number of incandescent bulbs that meet these standards [1][2][3].

On top of this, we've seen some extremely promising advances in incandescent technologies, including laser treatment of filaments [4] and coatings that turn waste heat into visible light [5]. These are both incandescent technologies (in the same way that halogen bulbs are incandescent). Either of these alone would completely blow the short-term EISA standards out of the water, beating them by a margin of more than 30%. And there's no reason to believe that they can't be combined with each other for additional efficiencies.

Long term, there are additional EISA provisions that kick in January 1st, 2020; these require an efficiency of 45 lumens per watt or better. This will be more difficult (just like current gas engine fleet efficiency standards looked difficult in the '80's), but the kinds of advances I cite above are already close to this standard -- the laser technique gets you to 35 lumens per watt -- so even the 2020 provisions are unlikely to be a de facto ban on incandescent bulbs.

So, for the time being, could we please stick to the facts of the law and correctly refer to the U.S. legislation as efficiency standards? It seems that any editorializing to consider them a de facto ban falls squarely under the area of original research. -AdamRoach (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know the chocolate ration has been raised to 50 grammes this week and all, but "ban" is a nice compact way of saying "you can't buy these old inefficient bulbs any more". From what I've read you can't make an incandescent bulb that gies 45 lumens/watt, GE and others have tried with various infrared coatings, etc. and tungsten at its melting point falls short. The days of four-for-a-buck 750 hour 100 watt hotwire bulbs are severely limited. If it wasn't a ban, it would have no more effect than the Food guide pyramid does in preventing obesity. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, it's still your personal opinion that it constitutes a de facto ban, and therefore OR. If you can cite an expert in the field, that would change matters. As it stands, the legislation sets minimum standards. This is an encylopedia; we're supposed to stick to facts. The facts on the ground are that the U.S. is not banning any lighting technology by name. If you want to include anything else, find a source. (P.S. you might want to add the two articles I cite above to the list of "from what you've read.") --AdamRoach (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is interesting. Looking at the earliest history, this article was created under the name Incandescent lightbulb bans and looked quite 'pointy' in its earliest versions, "Belgium's Minister of the Environment Bruno Tobback is intent on banning incandescent light bulbs", "These proposals have met criticism due to shortcomings of CFLs (Compact Fluorescent Lamps) including consumer safety, environmental issues (CFLs contain small amounts of the toxic element mercury), the emission spectrum of fluorescent lamps, slow cold-weather starting, the increased costs of replacement, and the higher cost of dimmable fluorescent lamps.[citation needed]". Many editors have toned down the POV and it has been renamed a few times since then, of course. I wonder if Changes in electric light efficiency standards, or something, might be a better approach considering the wording of the kind of legislation we are actually discussing here? --Nigelj (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is the sort of discussion that you can only have on Wikipedia. The Marijuana Tax Act didn't "ban" the purchase of pot, you just needed to get a(n unobtainable) tax stamp to do it legally. I bet the legislation behind Prohibition didn't use the word "ban" anywhere. Auto companies aren't "banned" from selling vehicles such that their CAFE falls below thus-and-so, they just take advantage of light trucks not being considered passenger vehicles. You can sell a mercury battery but you'd better have cradle-to-grave tracking of it. And so on. Why whitewash this? The net result is four-for-a-buck incandescent bulbs will disappear from the stores by decree of the government, not due to (unregulated)market forces. I for one welcome our new laser-treated infrared-trapping halogen hot-wire bulb masters, and wish to remind them that as a Wikipedia editor I can be a useful drone. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not a whitewashing, it's just reporting facts without editorializing. Your edits are comparable to claiming that the US Government has banned the $3,000 Tata Nano, rather than more truthfully pointing out that the Nano doesn't meet efficiency and safety standards. (For what it's worth, the 18th Amendment didn't use the word "ban;" it opted for "prohibited.") --AdamRoach (talk) 22:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

<outdent> Yep, the "one lakh" car has been banned, effectively, by the legislation. What's the hangup with "ban" ? It's a perfectly good word and summarizes all the euphemisims in three letters. Plain language is not editorializing. Sometimes bans have good reasons. I imagine the legislation that prohibits using white lead to whiten bread doesn't say it "bans" it; but the activity is definitly banned. The point of the legislation is to wipe out the 4-for-a-buck bulb. If it doesn't forbid that, what is it doing, exactly? We expect our governments to ban things, that's one of the things we elect them for. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that this article is talking about banning a specific technology. And many countries do exactly that. In the U.S., the legislature has taken a very different approach: it has set difficult but obtainable goals for incandescent light bulbs to meet in order to be sold. Now, if you want to argue about the pricing, do keep in mind that six years ago, before the U.S. government raised the efficiency standards for A/C units from 9 SEER to 13 SEER, it was outrageously expensive to purchase a 13 SEER unit -- on the order of two to three times as much as a 9 SEER unit. Within a year of the new provisions going into effect, the price difference between what the older 9 SEER units cost and what the newer 13 SEER units did was scantly more than could be accounted for by inflation and an increase in copper prices. Even within the past year, the price for 65-watt equivalent LED can lighting has dropped by 50% (from ~$100/can to ~$50/can), and that's in advance of the regulations. Economies of scale is a staggeringly powerful market force. Your precious $0.25 light bulbs will probably be back, adjusted for inflation, before 2015 is out. And they'll be incandescent, too. You can already buy the Philips bulbs I cite above at Home Depot for about $2.50 each. Once they ramp up production, it'll be tons cheaper than that. Anyway, that's all a rather lengthy diatribe, the upshot of which is even the "4 for a dollar" light bulbs you're pining for aren't being banned. They're just moving forward to new technologies. --AdamRoach (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you could do 21 lumens/watt with a 72 watt bulb right now...should last about 250 hours. *That* will be popular. "Moving ahead with new technologies" is a pretty mealy way of saying "So long, cheap 1000 hour bulbs". That's the whole point of the ban; energy is saved, and money is transferred from the consumer's pocket to the bulb makers pocket. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

And carbon that could have gone into the atmosphere remains in the ground. I don't know why you're getting aerated about this, it's not a conspiracy by communists or anything, there is good thinking behind this. It's just that maybe we should tone down any conspiracy theory slant to our wording, if we have unintentionally picked one up from previous editors. This is on the basis of reading the sober sources, alongside the over-exitable tabloid press. --Nigelj (talk) 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Wikipedia prefers circumlocutions to direct speech. It's compact and descriptive to say "ban". Governments ban all sorts of things; fully-automatic weapons, trafficing in teenage girls for immoral purposes, etc. One word is hardly evidence of a conspiracy theory. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I grant that it has the benefit of being compact. It carries with it the downside of being incorrect. Most of the countries discussed in this article have legitimately banned incandescent lights, regardless of their level of efficiency. The U.S. is taking a radically different approach: rather than cutting off the technology wholesale, congress has set regulations in place designed to foster innovation and progress. it is useful to contrast this to what is going on elsewhere in the world. Your desire to gloss over the efficiency standards as a "ban" throws them in the same basket as the short-sighted and heavy-handed regulations being put into effect in most of Europe. --AdamRoach (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Got your stamp before you lit up that reefer? It's a water-dwelling egg-laying flying animal that goes "quack" but it's NOT a duck. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Many of the reduced wattage lamps introduced within the last 5 years are disappointingly dimmer than the standard bulbs. Miles well install dimmer switches. They can make a 72w bulb just as bright and last just as long, but as usual they choose general cheapness over quality. It's to do with the gas fill. Bigger gas atoms slow the evaporation of the filament. And yes, as pointed out earlier, a 72w bulb made to be as bright as a standard bulb, but with standard gas fill would only last 250 hours. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's fill the bulbs with radon - big heavy atoms, though it might be hard to tell if it was turned off. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Environmental Issues

The statement that: a 70% reduction in mercury output of power plants would result from the use of CFLs needs to be either removed or substantiated by reference. This statement assumes ALL power plant production is used for incandescent lighting whereas most is used in industrial processes, heating and cooling.--Xxam.mmm (talk) 15:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

An original interpretation of the text; where does it say that all power plant output is used for incandescent bulbs? However, the energy (and mercury) portion *used for incandescent lighting* can be reduced if more efficacious lighting is used. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that there is serious neutrality violation in such comparison. Even coal power plants contain filters and use techniques to reduce mercury emissions. that's first. second - coal power plants are not only source of power to power the lightbulbs. Nuclear, wind, solar, geothermal, hydroelectric sources - do not emit any mercury into environment.

There is also rising tendency to build sustainable housing, i.e. equipped with own energy sources, which reduces costs of energy transmission, and avoids customers being taxed by environmental taxes imposed into coal power plants (i.e. carbon tax) . also in some countries, coal power plants have no longer monopoly over the grid - customers can freely choose from who they can buy their energy from. this means that responsibility for i.e. mercury emissions lies solely in hands of the customers, and any effective bans of light sources make no real difference.

83.18.229.190 (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Heat ball

Where would mention of the "heat ball" fit in the articles about incandescents? -- SpareSimian (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

• https://www.heatball.de/en/
• http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/10/15/oukoe-uk-germany-heatballs-idUKTRE69E33320101015

Created an article at Heatball and added a section here Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs#Heatball. Nsaa (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Arsenic and old LEDs

There really is more arsenic in a human being than in an LED. Let's do the original research here. Chemical makeup of the human body says there's 7 milligrams of arsenic in a 70 kg human. Assume a power LED die is a 0.5 mm cube made of solid arsenic (it isn't), then it would be 0.66 milligrams of arsenic. Human beings are a menace to the environment and should be disposed of as toxic waste. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Totally Biased - this article

It says "encourage" the use of CFL and LED...when traditional light bulbs are banned, they are banned, we are being FORCED, not encouraged to use them. So we need to change the article to stop using gentle and incorrect words like "encourage" because this is a totalitarian ban. 210.50.36.46 (talk) 09:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

One word that you don't like does not make the whole article 'totally biased'. The sentence, before you started altering it, said, "The aim is to encourage the use and technological development of more energy-efficient lighting alternatives, such as compact fluorescent lamp (CFLs) and LED lamps." There are several statements in there, as is fitting for one of the opening sentences to a lead section, that summarises a whole encyclopedia article. First, there are many millions of incandescent bulbs already in use, no-one is phasing them out, they continue to exist. The new measures in many countries reduce (not prevent, as there are always exceptions) the importation and sale of these wasteful lamps. That is encouraging the use, because people can always use the old ones they have, stockpile more, and find alternative supply routes via the internet etc. No-one is forced to use anything, you don't have to buy the new lamps, and no one will ever force you to, regardless of which country you live in. Secondly, there is another clause to the sentence, "and technological development". The word encourage applies to both clauses. For some decades, the technologies of CFLs and LEDs have existed, but there has been little to no encouragement on the lamp manufacturers further to develop the technologies, so they have not progressed at the rates they could have done. No one is forcing these manufacturers to develop these technologies, but if they can't sell massive quantities of the old stuff, they may feel encouraged to do so. No, it is the right word, and your personal opinions don't stand up to prolonged scrutiny, I'm afraid. Someone else here may wish to take the time to look into the sources we cite to see what language they generally use in this respect. --Nigelj (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ban is the correct word based upon the actions being conducted. A phased Ban of something is still a Ban. The rate that the ban is conducted makes no difference. The test is easy to perform. A phase out is voluntary no one is volunteering to use the newer (long term less expensive) dirty light sources (dim, flickering, off-color CFLs with high mercury content) over the older (slightly more expensive long term but much cheaper short term) clean light sources. The Ban is actually directing the legal action of making it illegal to ship the clean light source of choice for several generations. It is not necessary to say whether this is good or bad only that it is a ban because it is in correct terms just that: a Ban. Opinion doesn't enter in to it. If you want to debate whether or not it should be so be my guest but the statement that "The ban is not a 'ban' it is a 'phase out'" really should never be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.3.37.68 (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

source Politics of the United States, States' rights

A States' Rights Battle over Light Bulbs. Conservatives challenge the federal law requiring incandescent bulbs to be replaced with fluorescents and LEDs. The bottom line: Politicians in Texas and three other states are invoking the 10th Amendment to defy a federal law phasing out incandescent bulbs.

November 10, 2011 BusinessWeek by Chris Christoff 141.218.36.56 (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

An excerpt would be helpful ...

In 2007, George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act, requiring light bulbs to be at least 28 percent more efficient by 2014. Three-way bulbs and some specialty versions are exempt, but otherwise the law virtually guarantees that LEDs and compact fluorescents will gradually replace incandescents, starting with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the result will be lower energy bills and less pollution.

See related Talk:Tea Party movement#Add Energy Policy section? Resource: Get the Energy Sector off the Dole, U.S. Lighting Energy Policy, Energy in the United States, Energy Lobby, United States presidential election, 2012, Joe Barton & Tea Party Caucus, Michigan House of Representatives,

Some of the states, including Michigan, aren’t currently home to a light bulb manufacturer. The three largest light bulb makers—General Electric, Osram Sylvania, and Royal Philips Electronics —either don’t make regular incandescent bulbs in the U.S. or will phase them out in favor of technology that meets the new federal standards, according to the American Lighting Assn. “The future is LEDs,” says W. Lawrence Lauck, the association’s vice-president of communications. “That’s what the lighting industry is gearing its investments toward.” McMillin says that if his law passes, the birth of a light bulb industry in Michigan “could happen.” ... In May the Texas legislature adopted a measure almost identical to McMillin’s, despite opposition from environmental groups that argued it made Texas look like it was marching into the last century. Governor Rick Perry signed it into law in June.

99.181.147.59 (talk) 07:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently these various groups are unaware that the federal government has constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe they cling to the belief that States when conducting their own business have the obligation to decide for themselves what to do in their own state. Interstate comerce doesn't enter into in state production so the statement is a non-sequiter Bugs.

Those states' efforts to not be interstate commerce will fail if they cannot get all the raw materials (etc) entirely within that state.

Also, here are some related WSJ article links, Kate Linebaugh, November 30, 2011...

• The Math Changes on Bulbs; Modern LEDs, While Expensive, Save Companies on Labor.
• related video 97.87.29.188 (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/132.3.37.68 and User:Baseball Bugs, see Commerce Clause. 99.190.86.93 (talk) 04:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

NEWSFLASH: Wattage Requirements Repealed!

As noted by editor AdamRoach above, the portion of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which aims to regulate incandescent bulb wattage comes from a table located in Pub.L. 110-140, Subtitle B, Section 321 (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(cc).

According to the bill these regulations were to be added to Section 325(i)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6295). However, a quick look at Section 6295 the U.S. Code will confirm that these regulations never became law.

The reason for the exclusion of the wattage table becomes immediately apparent once we read the References Section for 42 U.S.C. 6295 which reads:

Subsection (i), referred to in subsec. (l)(4)(F)(ii)(I), was amended by Pub. L. 110–140, title III, §322(b), Dec. 19, 2007, 121 Stat. 1588, by striking out par. (1) and adding a new par. (1), and as so amended, subsec. (i)(1)(A) does not relate to maximum wattage requirements.

Hence, another section of the EISA bill - section 322(b) - acts by striking out Section 325(i)(1) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and overwriting it. Therefore, due to an obscure legislative error, the very same bill that wrote the light bulb wattage requirements, also repeals them!

So, what do other Wikipedia editors think? Should this article reflect what the law objectively is? Or, should it reflect what nearly everybody (outside of the Office of the Law Revision Counsel) believe the law is? Lenschulwitz (talk) 08:49, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I feel like I'm in Nineteen Eighty-Four. The day after I expose this legislative error on Wikipedia, and two days after I post this on YouTube, congress claims to have overturned the light bulb ban. Lenschulwitz (talk) 19:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

A bill or a law? See I'm Just a Bill. 99.181.136.19 (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.181.153.29 (talk)

Washingtontimes.com link above. 99.181.153.29 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Not enough discussion of LED lighting

Almost all the information on alternatives to incandescents focuses on CFLs, LEDs are mentioned as an afterthought. More information needs to be included about LEDs, including about their produced light spectrum (which I believe can substantially match that on an incandescent). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleeknub (talk • contribs) 19:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Defunct

Isn't the US ban of incandescents about to be defunct with the new spending bills and such that are likely to be signed by Barrack Obama?Bolegash (talk) 22:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)