Hacker News Reader

Comment by warbastard | Hacker News Reader

In the EU, incandescent bulbs were banned as part of a directive [1] to reduce energy use, as only 10% of the energy put in was converted to light. That sounds like a sensible move to me rather than lobbying.

In the UK, CFL bulbs were also subsidised and/or given out free to households by the energy companies before incandescent bulbs were banned.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/aug/31/lightbulb...

View on HN

I'm all for decreasing energy consumption, but the last two flats I've rented have come as-built-new with dimmer switches which do not work with newfangled fixtures.

One was a set of many small ceiling fixtures for which only LED lamps could anymore be bought in shops, and those flickered because the switches were dimmers (which themselves would save energy, because most of the time 50% was enough).

The second flat had a $200 electronic dimmer switch, again as installed by the builders, and a halogen fixture with some sort of ballast or whatever you call it these days. This also flickered constantly, and worse, it burned out the dozen tiny $5 halogen bulbs every week. The fixture had to be replaced; the new one takes standard-size halogen bulbs and has no ballast thingy to make them flicker.

It has become quite unpleasant to move into new buildings and find that the electricals are not compatible even as built. And most shops won't sell some of the bits I need to fix it, because the government told them not to...but other less-convenient shops still do sell them.

There are plenty of LED lamps that can be dimmed. They are more expensive than non-dimmable LEDs, but they work fine.

The LED "bulbs" I had were dimmable, socket type MR8. The thing is, they still flickered. I think it was something about the dimmer switch itself being unhappy--the flickering was not constant, but it was impossible to stop completely, even at 100% brightness on the dial. My point is, these things have given rise to all sorts of weird incompatibilities that we didn't have before, and I am tired of it. Anything like "Well there are bulbs that will work but you just have to order them from this one guy" is not really a solution--we're talking about lights in a house, not the International Space Station. :) The government has forced us into using technology which is not ready for true mainstream use (as opposed to geek use).

Mine (bought at elkjop) makes a lot of noise, otherwise ok. Where did you get yours?

Amazon. I have about 4-5 different brands because I bought several different ones to test colour tone (most "warm white" leds are too cold white for me to want them in my living room).

This is the one I've liked best:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Philips-MASTER-Dimmable-Halogen-Repl...

Not as bright as they claim it to be, though. I have 4 of them in the living room, and there's no way it's equivalent to 4 x 50W halogen bulbs.

Factor in the energy cost of making CFL/LED bulbs (including the additional electronics and mining the required material and all the shipping it requires) and the energy costs of dealing with the toxic waste they contains, and now this doesn't seem as much like a sensible move.

When you compare retail prices and actual lifetime you notice that the new bulbs are significantly more expensive than the now banned traditional ones while having overrated life expectancies and now you understand that the manufacturers are getting more money and faster, suddenly this overpriced incompetence has a feel of greenwashing followed by an aftertaste of lobbying

I know of no study that agrees with your conclusion. Among others, Umweltbundesamt (German government), BUND (German NGO, parts of Friends of the Earth), Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science) have come out in favour of CFL bulbs.

I can't believe we're still having this discussion in 2014. To add to cygx's point, a quick break even sum:

A 60W equivalent costs around $1.50, and using ~12W of energy. Even if we use the lowest electricity cost for the US ($0.08/kWh), and assume the incandescent bulb was free:

cost of bulb / power difference * cost per Wh = break even time

1.50 / (60-12) * (0.08 / 1000) = 390 hours

So you only need to use a bulb for 390h to recover the total purchase cost. You can argue all you want about lifetimes, equivalence etc, but these are not marginal figures, especially when you factor in that real EU electricity prices tend to be 2-5x the figures I used-- with German or Danish electricity you'll have pay back times well under 100h.

Those like you and ekianjo make a good case for regulation. The EU banned incandescents, the world did not implode.

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion that CFLs and LEDs are more harmful to manufacture and recycle than incandescents?

This. I'm glad there are still sensible people out there on HN.

In EU you can very easily walk into any shop and still happily buy incandescent bulbs without any problems - 150W, 100W, 60W -despite the ban. Manufacturers very quickly caught on the fact that while incandescent bulbs for home use were banned, "specialist" bulbs were not and cannot be banned for a variety of reasons. So if I go into my nearest supermarket, I can buy a 100W incandescent bulb that is designed for "traffic lights use only, not for home use". Of course no one cares that everyone uses it at home, but it's perfectly legal to sell.

> In the EU, incandescent bulbs were banned as part of a directive [1] to reduce energy use, as only 10% of the energy put in was converted to light. That sounds like a sensible move to me rather than lobbying.

If it makes economical sense, let consumers judge for themselves. The cost at purchase of LEDs / CFLs is way higher than traditional light bulbs. Everyone should be able to have access to cheap lights.

As long as we haven't figured out and implemented a way to align economical and ecological sense, your suggestion is a non-starter.

Haha. We are not going to consume LESS energy in the future, unless you want to live in poor conditions. The working assumption is how do we create more, cheaper and in a cleaner way. There's a bunch of papers out there on how energy consumption and level of life are closely related.

Maybe you should have read what I wrote. I certainly do not advocate conserving energy no matter the cost.

I'm saying that at the present there is no economic incentive for consumers to save electricity large enough to make them switch to less energy intensive means of lighting.

We certainly won't maximize our standard of living by senselessly wasting energy. When there are two ways to light a room, yielding the same amount of light, but one uses much less energy, it is the superior one.

The tricky question is how to make it the economically sensible one for the consumer, as well.

When there are two ways to light a room, yielding the same amount of light, but one uses much less energy, it is the superior one.

Not necessarily. What about manufacturing costs? If manufacturing a CFL/LED is more labour or capital intensive then it's production uses resources that could have been used to produce other goods. If that's the case then a ban on incandescent light bulbs has a hidden cost.

You shouldn't look only at the visible effects but also at those invisible. A great essay That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen [1] by Frederic Bastiat comes to my mind. It explores this kind of situations.

[1] http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html

Do you have any evidence that supports the possibility of LED beings more labour or capital intensive, or is this a hypothetical, "well maybe it could be worse" in an effort to confirm your existing opinion?

I've seen numerous citations to the effect that we are consuming less energy these days on a per-capita basis.

Not seeing a whole lot of citations coming back from your side of the table.

Then why are we banning inefficient engines and impose huge tax on ones with large emissions? A car without a DPF costs less to buy and maintain than a one with it, yet no one makes the argument that "everyone should have access to cheap cars"?

Personally I would buy the car that has the most reliable and most powerful engine - even if it was a 6.0L V8 - but huge taxes on such thing are stopping me from buying it.

I think that the problem of pollution, and other externalities, can be best handled by Pigovian taxes, not by explicit bans or heavy-handed regulation.

cheap lights: http://hackaday.com/2011/03/08/soda-bottle-skylights/ http://www.juggaar.com/2013/08/bottle-roof-lighting-green-en...

That only 10% of the energy used by a lightbulb is converted to light does not mean that the bulb is wasting energy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com