Now that the incandescent bulbs are gone, what's next?

Some people are still fuming about the incandescent bulbs. Now we are forced to buy an expensive bulb that lasts 10,000 hours even if the intention is to put it in a closet and run it for one hour per week. In theory, the capital investment today will mean our great great grandchildren will still be able to go in the closet and use the old light bulb.

Apparently the EU has now banned powerful vacuum cleaners, which meant a fire sale on certain models. Current EU legislation covers televisions, washing machines, and refrigerators in addition to vacuum cleaners but not most smaller electrical appliances.

The televisions make some sense to me. If all models go below 100 watts, then you will be able to power them with small wires that are the same thickness as telephone wires.

EU now has up to 30 devices on their target list.
The hair dryers mean that the professional stylists are upset since they will have to dry hair for longer which could aggravate repetitive motion injuries.
But lawn mowers, smart phones and kettles that could be covered by the EU's Ecodesign directive outlawing high-wattage devices.

The proposals will be a controversial flagship policy for Jean-Claude Juncker when he takes power as commission president in November in order to meet a binding target for energy savings of 30 per cent across the EU by 2030.

I just got some halogen incandescent replacement bulbs. They draw 53 watts and produce the same amount of light as a 75 watt incandescent.

They are for my garage door opener. For that application, I think it would quickly kill fluorescents, and are much less expensive than leds.

I think it is pretty ridiculous to reduce power draw just for the sake of reducing power draw.

For hair dryers, for instance - it takes a specific amount of energy (work) to dry someone's hair. If your hair dryer is lower power, you'll just have to run it longer to get the hair to the same dryness.

Candles?

Whale oil.

Quote: pew

Whale oil.

Too expensive in these days of workers compensation and liability lawsuits. One Nantucket sleigh ride gone bad would cripple the industry. ;)

Quote: Pacomartin

Some people are still fuming about the incandescent bulbs. Now we are forced to buy an expensive bulb that lasts 10,000 hours even if the intention is to put it in a closet and run it for one hour per week. In theory, the capital investment today will mean our great great grandchildren will still be able to go in the closet and use the old light bulb.

Apparently the EU has now banned powerful vacuum cleaners, which meant a fire sale on certain models. Current EU legislation covers televisions, washing machines, and refrigerators in addition to vacuum cleaners but not most smaller electrical appliances.

The televisions make some sense to me. If all models go below 100 watts, then you will be able to power them with small wires that are the same thickness as telephone wires.

EU now has up to 30 devices on their target list.
The hair dryers mean that the professional stylists are upset since they will have to dry hair for longer which could aggravate repetitive motion injuries.
But lawn mowers, smart phones and kettles that could be covered by the EU's Ecodesign directive outlawing high-wattage devices.

The proposals will be a controversial flagship policy for Jean-Claude Juncker when he takes power as commission president in November in order to meet a binding target for energy savings of 30 per cent across the EU by 2030.

The whole thing is a ruse. It is NOT about saving energy, it is about control and pulling demand forward.

Take a florescent light for instance. Those bulbs that were taken out of service have mercury in them. There was no provision that I know of to handle the mercury in the landfills, maybe a token barrel someplace, but the rest just got broken and the mercury and other chemicals just flowed wherever it wanted.
For the replacement bulbs for the florescent fixtures they needed to be rewired, causing millions of ballasts and xfmrs to be thrown away [again with a token dumpster full], but the rest, tossed away. The metals for the copper, tin, aluminum, all have to be re mined from somewhere and smelted, etc.

Item by item it can be broken down like this. So in order [supposedly] to save energy [or go green] after costing billions of wasted capital changing light bulbs, now they build windmills. It takes billions and billions of kilowatts to mine, smelt, form and construct one windmill. Millions and millions to build it at the site, to prepare it, a road to it, and it will never ever produce enough electricity to compensate for the watts used to build it in the first place.

So now, in true cost, every electrical item, lights, vacuums, tv's, etc. that are thrown away at enormous [ largely taxpayer] cost, and have to be replaced at more cost and powered by alternative energy [which is a fallacy], nothing has been gained except control, by the Junckers of the world, and the equity of a nation squandered.

Those old Hoover vacuums would last a lifetime, now they are replaced with junk, and plastics and the expense to purchase new, goes to foreign country's, mostly China. They also produce the windmills and the solar panels, which start losing efficiency the day they are installed.

If saving energy was truly their concern they would let the free market work it's magic. Instead of taxpayers subsidizing the energy companies which in the UK, they are. Quit subsidizing electric bills for all the social service people, at taxpayer expense, and they will voluntarily turn the lights off when they leave the room.

Changing bulbs for a country to conserve energy, pfft.

How do they rationalize taking in millions of refugees and immigrants who will have an energy cost, and making citizens replace their appliances to save watts?
It is not about saving energy. No way. Follow the money.

What would be extremely more effective for any 1st world nation to do to save energy, would be to put a deposit on recyclable containers. Put a nickel or dime on each water bottle, and they won't end up in the great pacific garbage patch, ending up in the food chain. There is a win, win, win, win.

Quote: Dalex64

I just got some halogen incandescent replacement bulbs. They draw 53 watts and produce the same amount of light as a 75 watt incandescent.

Yes, the law calls for a reduction in wattage from 27.5% to 30%. CFL and LED more than meet the law. We have only bought one plug in LED bulb, and it stays one for 10 hours at a time on certain days. Nightlights and battery powered lights are all LED.

Years ago I kept three 15W watt bulbs going
24/7 in the darker places in my house. They
were more expensive then regular bulbs and
were supposed to last 2000 hours. I kept a
log and never had one go past 1500 hours.

So I would send my receipt and an empty
package to GE, and a few weeks later a pack
of two 15W bulbs would arrive in the mail.
I bet I did this for 10 years, I don't know why
I stopped.

Quote: Evenbob

So I would send my receipt and an empty
package to GE, and a few weeks later a pack
of two 15W bulbs would arrive in the mail.
I bet I did this for 10 years, I don't know why
I stopped.

It's small print, but you can find the same offer on new CFL and LED bulbs

Quote: rxwine

It's small print, but you can find the same offer on new CFL and LED bulbs

Most people don't leave bulbs on 24/7
like I do. 1500 hours is only two months.
If I only turned them on as needed, they
would last for years. I use CFL's now that
are on all the time and they last over a
year, maybe longer, I don't keep track.
I prefer the light from an incandescent
though. it's easier on the eyes.