The Most-Common Fluorescent Light Tubes Are Going Away This Year

[AllDone]

Well I just bought 4 pairs of T12's. Wow, they aren't cheap either. Over $30 for 8 of them. Looks like $100 worth will provide me 3 sets and that should cover my lifetime needs.

You'd better stock up on ballasts too. Although the last time I tried to change a T12 ballast, I discovered that a new T8 fixture was cheaper.

 

[Mulligan]

You'd better stock up on ballasts too. Although the last time I tried to change a T12 ballast, I discovered that a new T8 fixture was cheaper.

You think they will go out? I don't know much about them. In fact I still haven't replaced the original bulbs installed almost 10 years ago. I never have the direct light on overhead when downstairs watching TV. They may be on at most an hour a month.

 

[Ronstar]

You think they will go out? I don't know much about them. In fact I still haven't replaced the original bulbs installed almost 10 years ago. I never have the direct light on overhead when downstairs watching TV. They may be on at most an hour a month.

i've been changing MIL's bulbs since 1982 and I haven't need a ballast yet. It's weird - I change one of her bulbs about every 6 months. I've never replaced a bulb in my house. I swapped out the original 10 yr old 4' T12's for 8' T12's about 10 yrs ago. Never had a problem with bulbs or ballast

 

[AllDone]

Eventually the stupid thing will die. That's what causes fluorescent lights to hum and flicker. A T8 fixture will give you almost 50% more light per watt and replacing the fixture just means removing and replacing 3-4 screws and two wire nuts. I would replace the humming T12s in the soffits in my office with LEDs except that I've already been burned once by a 33% drop in the price of LEDs. I'm too lazy to figure out which one is humming and replace just that ballast or fixture.

I'll point out that I'm a girl and can easily hold a fluorescent fixture against the ceiling with one hand and do the necessary with the cordless drill and while doing an absolute minimum of cursing.

 

[ls99]

Seems the 100 Watt light generating heater, AKA the edison bulb may have a reprieve.

Shortly after the US Department of Energy helped broker a deal that would see television set-top boxes save their users a billion dollars' worth of electricity, another branch of the government has decided to undercut energy efficiency efforts. As part of the new budget deal announced today, Congress has voted to eliminate standards for light bulb efficiency, standards that would see incandescent bulbs phased out in favor of technologies that convert far more electricity into light.

Bald added by me

At one time I had the bright idea to sell 100 Watt edison base electric heaters. They just happened to emit some light as well. Hey they worked on my 1972 Volkswagen beetle as an engine compartment heater in wintertime.

Edit 2: then someone read the bill:
quietquakeSmack-Fu Master, in training jump to post Technical clarification: according to the Washington Post, "The bill eliminates funding to enforce the new efficiency standards for light bulbs..."
This means the standards are not being repealed; they remain in place. However, the budget resolution includes no money to enforce the standards.
This also means the standards can be enforced in the future if money is appropriated, though.


Edit add: Hopefully by continuing to sell incandescents, the price of newfangled overpiced ugly white colored lighting devices will drop drastically. I can dream!

As part of budget deal, Congress blocks light bulb efficiency standards | Ars Technica

 

[AllDone]

That would be too bad. The improved efficiency standards for lighting are really low hanging fruit in terms of energy conservation. The original bill was bipartisan and really non-controversial when it became law in 2007. We have more stringent standards here in California that were promoted and signed into law by the Govenator.

 

[samclem]

Seems the 100 Watt light generating heater, AKA the edison bulb may have a reprieve.http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...gress-blacks-light-bulb-efficiency-standards/

Good. I can think of a few thousand more important things for Congress to do than to force people to buy a certain type of light bulb. Pretty hard to see why this is a concern of gubmit.
OTOH, if wasting time on this keeps them (and their staffs) from directing more vital parts of our lives, maybe it's a worthwhile distraction

 

[powerplay]

Orchard Supply has 2 40W fluorescent tubes for $3.99 in their ad this week. They are GE brand and probably T12 given they are 40W. Looks like they are still available.

 

[brewer12345]

OTOH, if wasting time on this keeps them (and their staffs) from directing more vital parts of our lives, maybe it's a worthwhile distraction

+1000

 

[ERD50]

That would be too bad. The improved efficiency standards for lighting are really low hanging fruit in terms of energy conservation. The original bill was bipartisan and really non-controversial when it became law in 2007. We have more stringent standards here in California that were promoted and signed into law by the Govenator.

Totally, and vehemently disagree. I can decide for myself, and do it better than someone in DC or my State capital which light bulbs are best to put in the sockets in my home. And it is totally insulting to tell me I'm too dumb to do this for myself. It aggravates the heck out of me.

I use a bunch of CFLs where they make sense. I use incandescents where they make sense (seldom used sockets, or where I need instant on, even in -20 degree weather). And I've got a bunch of lights on dimmers (highly touted as an energy conservation measure years ago), and I don't want to pay extra for the dimmable CFLs. When LEDs come down in price a bit more, I'll be looking at them some more (I'm already reading the real life expectancy is being exaggerated - the LED may last, but the power supply capacitors won't).

When my porch light doesn't come on when someone rings my bell on a cold night, will my Congressman come and hold a flashlight for me? No, so stop making decisions like this for me!

If energy conservation is a priority, there are far better ways to do it than to micro-manage my light sockets from a Capital building.

-ERD50

 

[AllDone]

Yikes! Nobody was dictating your choice of light bulb, the 2005 and 2007 laws were just dictating that manufacturers have to produce bulbs that meet certain efficiency standards. Incandescent, straight tube fluorescent, CFL and LED all continue to be available. Since California's more stringent title 24 was passed, there has been an explosion in choices of improved, energy efficient lighting. Anyway, it turns out that yesterday's budget deal doesn't really affect the standards, there's just some language in the bill that was thrown in as a sop to one of the radio ranters.

Next week I go to visit my parents so that my dad and I can do a father-daughter job of lighting revision in their new house. He is equally obsessed with lighting, but at 83 I don't want him climbing ladders. He'll be thrilled by Philips' T12/T8 LED retrofit kit.

Anyway, Ford can sell all the Edsels they want, just as long as they meet efficiency and safety standards.

 

[ERD50]

Yikes! Nobody was dictating your choice of light bulb, the 2005 and 2007 laws were just dictating that manufacturers have to produce bulbs that meet certain efficiency standards. ...

That is dishonest wording. It's like Henry Ford saying you can have any color you want, as long as it is black.

The efficiency standards effectively outlawed the cheap, effective, dim-able, standard bulbs because they can't meet that efficiency standard. So that choice was eliminated- if that isn't dictating my choice, I don't know what is. Yikes! indeed.

I'm in favor of energy conservation - and that is why I want choice. It takes more energy to make a CFL or LED than the old cheap bulbs. And when I need to replace one in a seldom used closet, attic, or basement light - I want to make the choice to use the cheap old style, because over its life it will use less energy than any other bulb. In other cases, I just prefer the old style. But someone can load up on the latest lights, and use more energy than me because they run a pool filter 24/7, and they are the 'heroes' I guess, 'cause they got cool new lights.

My point is that it is all twisted. You can't micro-manage energy use, you need to look at the big picture (including the embodied energy in the product). I think having published standards to inform consumers of the energy usage of a product is a good idea (if done correctly, it often isn't). Then let them make an informed decision - don't have the govt legislate a 'one size fits all' approach.

-ERD50

 

[brewer12345]

Anyway, Ford can sell all the Edsels they want, just as long as they meet efficiency and safety standards.

Another load of bollocks, particularly with respect to efficiency. Let the automakers respond to consumer demand with appropriate products. Higher MPG vehicles aren't hard to sell in the right product categories, regardless of gubmint interference/coercion.

 

[AllDone]

That is dishonest wording. It's like Henry Ford saying you can have any color you want, as long as it is black.

The efficiency standards effectively outlawed the cheap, effective, dim-able, standard bulbs because they can't meet that efficiency standard. So that choice was eliminated- if that isn't dictating my choice, I don't know what is. Yikes! indeed.


-ERD50

Except that I can go to any Home Depot and pick up a cheap, effective, dim-able, standard incandescent bulbs. Granted, they cost $2 instead of $1, but should last at least twice as long while using 72% of the energy. Win-win-win for the consumer, the country and the environment. The radio ranter in question was not bothered by the new standards in 2005 when they were passed into law by his own party. I would say it's "dishonest" to claim that incandescents were "outlawed" when they clearly weren't, except that I think it's really more a question of misinformation.

The other bad news is that China, where the bulbs are made, has just adopted the same standards.

 

[ERD50]

Except that I can go to any Home Depot and pick up a cheap, effective, dim-able, standard incandescent bulbs. Granted, they cost $2 instead of $1, but should last at least twice as long while using 72% of the energy. Win-win-win for the consumer, the country and the environment. ...

I guess you are referring to halogen bulbs, which are not 'standard' dimable incandescent bulbs. They are a special type of incandescent. And I don't like halagon bulbs. I've bought some fixtures that unfortunately came with them. The bulbs cost me 4x as much at least, and I don't like the color temperature. Does Home Depot carry 2700K 40 and 60 watt equivalents?

I've read up on them, and 'dimable' is questionable. From wiki -

Halogen lamps are manufactured with enough halogen to match the rate of tungsten evaporation at their design voltage. Increasing the applied voltage increases the rate of evaporation, so at some point there may be insufficient halogen and the lamp goes black. Over-voltage operation is not generally recommended. With a reduced voltage the evaporation is lower and there may be too much halogen, which can lead to abnormal failure. At much lower voltages, the bulb temperature may be too low to support the halogen cycle, but by this time the evaporation rate is too low for the bulb to blacken significantly. There are many situations where halogen lamps are dimmed successfully. However, lamp life may not be extended as much as predicted. The life span on dimming depends on lamp construction, the halogen additive used and whether dimming is normally expected for this type.

So does 'dimable' just mean that they can be dimmed but may have a much shorter life, or does 'dimable' mean they will last at least as long being dimmed. Dimming a 'standard' incandescent will greatly increase its life (about double with each 10% reduction in power).

And then there is the heat from a halogen -

Halogen lamps get hotter than regular incandescent lamps because the heat is concentrated on a smaller envelope surface, and because the surface is closer to the filament. This high temperature is essential to their operation. Because the halogen lamp operates at very high temperatures, it can pose fire and burn hazards. In Australia, numerous house fires each year are attributed to ceiling-mounted halogen downlights.[15][16] The Western Australia Department of Fire and Emergency Services recommends that home owners consider instead using compact fluorescent lamps or light emitting diode lamps because they produce less heat.[17]

So I still have a choice? Sounds like we are back to CFL or LED unless I want to increase the risk of burning down my house (how does that calculate into the ROI, or carbon footprint?). Is it really a win-win-win?

And regarding the win-win-win - if something is a true win-win-win, why the heck would the govt need to legislate it? I'd just use it. I don't recall any govt mandate that I use email, it is a win-win-win so I use it.

The radio ranter in question was not bothered by the new standards in 2005 when they were passed into law by his own party. I would say it's "dishonest" to claim that incandescents were "outlawed" when they clearly weren't, except that I think it's really more a question of misinformation.

I have no idea what 'radio ranter' you are talking about in this thread? I don't want to take this into partisan politics. I'm discussing the bill on its (lack of) merits, nothing else.

It's just playing with words to claim that standard incandescent were not 'outlawed' - the law set limits on efficiency, and a standard incandescent can't meet those standards. So therefore, standard incandescents are outlawed, though not by name.

Halogens aren't that much more efficient than standard bulbs (about 17% more efficient - not 'points' but in percentage improved), so 17% hardly seems like a place to draw a line in the sand.

In fact, this legislation has hurt innovation. There were designs for a more efficient 'standard' incandescent, with none of the drawbacks, but since it fell just short of the legislated limits, they never brought it to market.

-ERD50

 

[veremchuka]

Stocking up on the current long bulbs is what I am going to do. I do not turn those lights on much anyways, and I will still sleep well knowing my personal carbon footprint is a 1000 times less than Mr. Gore's is despite me using these terrible things. Besides, it isn't like I special ordered them. If I don't buy them someone else will.

I agree but here's the rub. The shop light fixtures I buy at Home Depot don't last all that long. I've had to toss out a few after a few years use as they fail to light. The fixtures are inexpensive so it may be cheaper to buy new fixtures vs stocking up on T12 bulbs and then not have the parts to fix the fixtures.

Well I just bought 4 pairs of T12's. Wow, they aren't cheap either. Over $30 for 8 of them. Looks like $100 worth will provide me 3 sets and that should cover my lifetime needs.

Yep I found the T8 tubes much cheaper than the T12 when I was pricing shop lights. I have 1 T12 and had to buy T8 fixtures when I wanted 4 of them. I wasn't happy but the T8 do use less electricity. The 1 T12 I have is over the work bench in the basement that is at least 12 years old. It is slow to light and doesn't throw as much light as I think it should in winter so maybe one day that fixture will go in the trash along with the 2 tubes in it.

I bought a lot of 100 watt bulbs and some of the other sizes I use. CFL's don't work well or last very long in many applications.

 

[Al in Ohio]

I just bought five 30R LED flood lights (rated 22 year life) at Costco with an instant rebate offer by the local electric utility for $6.35 each. They were over $25 each last time I checked a year ago.

 

[bld999]

Totally, and vehemently disagree. I can decide for myself, and do it better than someone in DC or my State capital which light bulbs are best to put in the sockets in my home. And it is totally insulting to tell me I'm too dumb to do this for myself. It aggravates the heck out of me.

I use a bunch of CFLs where they make sense. I use incandescents where they make sense (seldom used sockets, or where I need instant on, even in -20 degree weather). And I've got a bunch of lights on dimmers (highly touted as an energy conservation measure years ago), and I don't want to pay extra for the dimmable CFLs. When LEDs come down in price a bit more, I'll be looking at them some more (I'm already reading the real life expectancy is being exaggerated - the LED may last, but the power supply capacitors won't).

When my porch light doesn't come on when someone rings my bell on a cold night, will my Congressman come and hold a flashlight for me? No, so stop making decisions like this for me!

If energy conservation is a priority, there are far better ways to do it than to micro-manage my light sockets from a Capital building.

-ERD50

I have no doubt that a healthy black market will emerge to supply the old style bulbs pretty quick if the law is that unpopular. Look what happened to freon.

 

[samclem]

The "great" part of this whole law is that it was pushed by those giant light bulb manufacturers. There's not much profit for them in cheap incandescent bulbs, even if they burn out a lot. CFLs, on the other hand--lots more expensive (and if anybody believes the rated lifetimes of these CFLs--well . . . I've got a whole bag of ded ones that stand in silent testimony to their far shorter life in real applications).
So, the bulb manufacturers lobbied the government to help ban everyone from selling these low-profit products.

People often assume green regulations like this represent the triumph of environmental activists trying to save the planet. That’s rarely the case, and it wasn't here. Light bulb manufacturers whole-heartedly supported the efficiency standards. General Electric, Sylvania and Philips — the three companies that dominated the bulb industry — all backed the 2007 rule, while opposing proposals to explicitly outlaw incandescent technology (thus leaving the door open for high-efficiency incandescents).

More here (NY Times) and here (Washington Examiner).

Simple rent-seeking behavior. It's just crony capitalism (regardless of which party/politicians are behind it).

 

[bUU]

Totally, and vehemently disagree. I can decide for myself ...

But that's just the point. There is no legitimacy in "deciding for one's self" with regard to something that is intended in society's best interest. It simply isn't just all about ourselves all the time. It is one thing to work to improve the standards set forth for society so that those standards better support society's interests. It is another thing entirely to set aside society's best interests in favor of one's own, regarding how members of society use, exploit or abuse opportunities, when those opportunities have impact beyond one's own body, one's own home, and one's own worship. There is no escaping the fact that excessive energy usage is more than just a cost concern for the waste-er, but rather also weakens society itself, and therefore affect other people.

 

[samclem]

There is no escaping the fact that excessive energy usage is more than just a cost concern for the waste-er, but rather also weakens society itself, and therefore affect other people.

Ah, so much material here . . .
"Excessive energy usage": Okay, who decides what is "excessive"? I'm denied a cheap 60 watt incandescent bulb for my closet (total "on" time per year: 3 hours) but Bono can burn 40,000 lbs of jet fuel to take him from his 50 room estate to an environmental concert?

Are these mandated "efficient" bulbs even efficient in all applications? I assure you that using an incandescent bulb in my closet is more environmentally sound than putting a CFL in there (term of the day: "embodied energy").

If we decide as a society that energy use has costs to us all that go beyond the user, and if we decide that reducing this use is worth the cost (regulation, lost opportunity to do something more important with the money we'll spend), then the best way to reduce energy use is to just make it cost exactly what it "should" sell for if all these other externalized costs to society/the planet/etc were included. If energy was twice as expensive then demand for efficient bulbs would climb. More importantly, people would find ways to reduce energy use in many, many ways that work well for them and which go well beyond light bulbs.
But we still shouldn't do it. Problems:
- Setting the "proper" price.
- Acting alone: US consumers and producers suffer so China can pollute more making their own products and services with low cost energy.

This phase-out of incandescent bulbs is a government subsidy to manufacturers--masquerading as environmental do-goodism.

 

[bUU]

Ah, so much material here . . .
"Excessive energy usage": Okay, who decides what is "excessive"?

The point is that, when it comes to society, it's society's designated institutions that make the determination for society - it isn't you.

To understand how society works it is important to understand that one's self is not all that matters to society.

I'm denied a cheap 60 watt incandescent bulb for my closet (total "on" time per year: 3 hours) but Bono can burn 40,000 lbs of jet fuel to take him from his 50 room estate to an environmental concert?

So what you're saying is that the laws need to tax Bono's excessive usage to compensate society for the burden his abuse imposes to society. Can you see that that is what you're saying, or are you going to insist on seeing only how living in society with others "denies" you a 60 watt incandescent bulb?

Incidentally, instead of paying the 18.4¢/gal federal gasoline tax: "As of 2007, jet fuel (called "kerosene for aviation" by the IRS) is taxed at 21.9¢/gal unless it is used for commercial aviation (airlines such as American Airlines and US Airways and small chartered commercial jets)." Fuel taxes in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[samclem]

So what you're saying is that the laws need to tax Bono's excessive usage to compensate society for the burden his abuse imposes to society.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_the_United_States#Aviation_fuel_taxes

Quite the opposite: I said we shouldn't take these actions. But if "society" wanted to cut energy use as a goal in itself (again--I don't think it should), increasing the cost of energy would be more effective than these inane pinpricks of downward-directed "do things this way even though you know it is dumb."

I'm running my electric toaster oven on full blast and imposing many costs on others until you agree with my position.

 

[Redbugdave]

If I am paying for my electricity then I should be able to use it like I want. It's my electric bill. If I get tired of having a higher electric bill because I have not gone to a more expensive efficient bulb that requires a new fixture then that's my business. That's the way I feel about it. When my ballasts go bad, then I will change. I'm going to stock up on the bulbs till then.

 

[ERD50]

Totally, and vehemently disagree. ...

But that's just the point. There is no legitimacy in "deciding for one's self" with regard to something that is intended in society's best interest. ...

See samclem's response. He said everything I would want to, and since he woke earlier than me, he saved me a lot of typing energy.

-ERD50