incandescent light bulb phase-out in the U.S. (are flood bulbs exempt?)

[krw]

The full moon was a couple of days ago. Did you oversleep again?

[Don Klipstein]

Two Philips A19 halogens and four GE A19 halogens meet the efficiency standard. Four other GE A19 halogens, "Reveal" ones, meet a lower efficiency standard that applies to "modified spectrum". The Philips ones achieve the efficiency spectrum by using "HIR" technology. The GE ones apparently to me use premium gas mixtures and shorter filaments to reduce heat conduction loss and also slightly increase filament temperature, along with achieving barely the lumen standard at the highest wattage the standard for a specific wattage range each lumen standard applies to.

I have seen the Philips ones at Home Depot, and the GE ones at Target.

Most R, BR and PAR incandescents with medium base and light output

310-2600 lumens already have to meet an energy efficiency standard that is fairly easy for incandescent to meet. The 2012-2014 "ban" does not make things any worse for these.

The 2012-2014 "ban" has many other exceptions:

• Design light output outside the range of 310-2600 lumens

• Design voltage outside the range of 110-130V

• Base other than E26/E27

• Globular at least 5 inches in diameter, tubular if over 10 inches long or not exceeding 40 watts

• Flame shape and "S" (partial sphere on a cone) bulbs and many popular globular bulb sizes if 40 watts or less

• "Specialty type" such as colored, bug, blacklight, infrared, silver-bowl-tip, left hand thread, shatter-resistant, rough/vibration service if 60 watts or less, appliance/"home oven" if 40 watts or less, traffic signal, plant light, mine service, marine, sign, and a few others

[Don Klipstein]

Did you not say before that you like clear incandescents of the kinds being banned (which are mostly A19)? GE has four A19 medium-base clear halogens that meet the energy efficiency standard for escaping the

2012-2014 ban. I have seen them at Target.

Philips has two soft-whitish A19 halogens that meet the energy efficiency standard. One consumes 40 watts to produce 800 lumens, not far short of 840-890 lumens typical of 60W 120V incandescents rated 1,000 hours. The other consumes 70 watts to produce 1600 lumens, which is about 93% of usual of a "full blast" name brand 750-hour-rated 100W 120V incandescent. And about 45% brighter than most dollar store 100W incandescents.

[Don Klipstein]

There is some fair number of Americans using electricity for home heating and water heaters. Air conditioning is a bightime electricity user, and refrigerators/freezers are very significant.

As of a few months ago, the most recent studies that I could easily find determined that about 9% of American electricity consumption and about 11% of American electric bills were for lighting.

Not that it does not help significantly to cut that 9-11% in half, which appears to me easily do-able. And many Americans have their lighting accounting for well-above-average percentage of their electric bills, and benefit greatly by using energy-efficient lighting. For example, most apartment renters in the metropolitan areas of NYC, Philadelphia and Chicago - where electricity cost is above national average. Also many residents of rowhouses/townhouses/"brownstones" and most with gas or oil heat.

[Don Klipstein]

I have a TV and a "Kill-A-Watt" meter. My TV consumes 12 watts when "off" and averaging about 70 watts when "on".

As a result, I have a power strip to cut power to my TV for the majority of the day when I am sleeping, at work or commuting, using my computer, or doing other activities besides TV-watching.

I spent my whole life in homes where heat and hot water were done with fossil fuels.

At USA national average, $2/month is about 18 KWH/month, or about 600 watt-hours per day. That is equivalent to all home lighting being restricted to a single 300W halogen torchiere restricted to 2 hours per day, or each day having combined-per-bulb 6 hours of running 100-watt bulbs or 10 60-watt bulbs. Since CFLs can easily cut this by as little as 2/3, make that 3 hours per day of combined operation of 3400W halogen torchiere fixtures, or

9 hours per day and bulb (combined-multiplied) for 100W bulbs, or 15 hours per bulb per day all-done with 60-watters. It appears strongly to me that most Americans use a lot more lighting than equivalent to 3 60-watt incandescents 5 hours a day or 5 of them 3 hours a day.

So you say...

[Jesee]

LOL!

[Sepp Ruf]

Am 16.09.11 07:21, schrieb Don Klipstein:

As for residential indoor consumption in pre-ban Europe, the figures were more like one-third of yours. Please check if your sources differentiate between residential and other.

But is there any law *forcing* these unfortunate people to use incandescent bulbs instead of cfl or led lighting?

And, by which logic do higher electric rates increase the percentage of electric bills caused by lighting? Wouldn't economics suggest that a high rate increases the incentive to save electricity where it subjectively hurts the billpayer the least? If the billpayer chooses to use compact mercury-fluorescent lamps instead of some incandescents, fine. They're not illegal, and first cost is pretty low thanks to darling China.

[willshak]

[e-mail] wrote the following:

All the cfls in my house are no more visible that the incandescents they replaced, except for one ceiling lamp in the basement. They are hidden by either lamp shades, lenses, or desk lamp reflector shells. I don't know about you, but I find an incandescent bulb hanging out of a fixture rather ugly itself.

[willshak]

It's a rider in the 'right to bear arms' amendment. :-)

[TKM]

>>

That's right, Vic. PAR 38 lamps are regulated, but that regulation is separate from the requirements for the A-line lamps. And, I didn't find anything that would apply to the PAR30.

Terry McGowan

[TKM]

The CFLs mounted inside of A-line bulbs (GE) look just like standard bulbs -- if looks are important; but I don't see why it matters if the CFL bulb is behind a shade or hidden in a fixture anyway.

Terry McGowan

[TKM]

To say nothing of the glare -- especially when they get to 30-40 watts and more.

Terry McGowan

[krw]

^^^^^^^^

Another clueless jerk heard from.

[krw]

Clear CLFs? LOL! You people are so green your brain is moldy.

[krw]

500W on/5W standby = 100x. Next.

Not worthwhile.

Goody for you. That isn't normal, here. Electric HW and heat pumps are the norm here. A few morons have bought into the "green" thing and have been suckered into LP tankless heaters, but 90% are electric tank heaters.

That's about right; maybe a *little* more. I do know how to calculate Wh.

Whoopie! I don't care. It's there with the pocket lint.

I did. You don't dispute.

[krw]

Only because the fixtures rather demand them.

I have them in a fixture in the kitchen. The shadows are much harsher when that fixture is on, than when the others with standard (clear) A19s are on. It's good light, for some things, but I won't put them in the other fixture because of the harsh light. OTOH, I had halogens in Sofitt cans (previous house) and they were great; very concentrated white light where it was needed.

Again, I'm not anti-halogen, just that there are some applications where they work and some not so much.

Clear? How you do that.

I don't have a 100W bulb in the house (two in the garage?).

[krw]

Oh, I never looked under that "shall not be infringed" penumbra. ;-)

[Victor Roberts]

>>>

Woops. I missed the PAR30 reference

Vic Roberts

Rogues Gallery reply via e-mail: replace xyz with vdr in the Reply to: address or use e-mail address listed at the Web site.

This information is provided for educational purposes only. It may not be used in any publication or posted on any Web site without written permission.

[Don Klipstein]

IIRC, my figures are residential ones.

[Don Klipstein]

12 watts * 22 hours/day * 365 days/1 year * 1KW/1000W * $.14/KWH = $13.49/year in the case of my TV. In my case, the power strip paid for itself in less than a year.