forums that also happen to have good coverage of light bulb issues. Also see his comprehensive CFL article, well linked with videos etc. And don’t miss his just completed (December 2011) Mr Stinkypants Cartoon on how manufacturers profit from the ban! [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta2ozf_uJJ8&w=580&h=350] The cooperation between light bulb manufacturers is no fairy tale, reflected in the Phoebus cartel: GE, Philips, Osram and others cooperating for several decades to keep lifespans down. That is why even today the standard incandescent lifespan is 1000 hrs. Recent German research shows how a special “1000 hr lifespan committee” punished those who manufactured any longer lasting bulb. Communist long lasting bulbs were blocked for Western markets…. Unsurprising then, to see renewed manufacturer cooperation in later years, regarding both subsidised CFL programs and indeed regulations that more forcibly ensures that more profitable “energy saving” bulbs are sold in place of the old cheap incandescents. This kind of manufacturer cooperation with public authorities has gone way beyond the USA or the EU: Note how the world’s 2 biggest light bulb manufacturers, Philips and Osram/Sylvania, are involved in the UN sponsored worldwide switchover program, en.lighten. As part of that, a recently announced “Efficient Lighting Toolkit” will be available in 2012, which will “provide comprehensive guidance to countries on how to transform their markets to energy efficient lighting”. More in a later blog post.
Send Your Light Bulbs To Washington
All light bulbs have usage advantages. People should feel perfectly free to use and enjoy CFLs and LEDs along with incandescents.
But pushing the use of any bulb is wrong: And CFLs are being pushed on consumers, in energy saving campaigns, in CFL replacement programs, and lately also via regulations, as the only practical replacement alternative, which also happens to be more profitable for the light bulb manufacturers.
"Hey, you can still use energy efficient incandescents like Halogens, and LEDs that show such promise!!" Certainly - as said - all light bulbs have their advantages. But that does not make them worthy replacements.
Replacement Halogen and similar incandescents are still different from simple incandescents in light quality and other respects, apart from costing much more for marginal savings, which is why neither consumers or politicians like them much. No "Halogen replacement program" in any American state!
Besides: All known general service incandescents including touted Halogens will progressively be banned on the enacted EISA 45 lumen per W end regulation standard. That's right. The politicians don't tell you that. USA regulations including updates on repeal bills in local states (legislated Texas June 2011)
LEDs meanwhile have still greater differences, cost much more, and have particular development issues around brightness, omnidirectionality, and broad spectrum light quality.
That is why the replacement push is to use CFLs - as also seen in post-ban Europe. Unfortunately, whatever the CFL energy saving advantages, politicians also choose to hide, obfuscate, or ignore the disadvantages relating to this type of lighting.Therefore this blog seeks to highlight some of these issues, with appropriate references. Not least of which is the issue of CFL disposal:
Improper disposal of compact fluorescent light bulbs is dangerous to your family and to the environment. In some states, it is illegal to put these light bulbs in your trash. It's easy to dispose of compact fluorescent light bulbs properly. Just send them to your Senator or Congressman in Washington. Or send them to the EPA.