Why ban incandescents? Is it because CFLs and LEDs are more efficient (better) than the incandescent?

I think it's just people playing politics. I buy CFLs because it saves me money, not because I'm trying to save the environment or anything. I don't think incandescents are making that big a dent in the environment. Why doesn't the governments outlaw CRT TVs and monitors or throw people in jail for driving old, less fuel efficient cars around? They're all stupid ideas since the market will handle the phasing out of old technology. Once government steps in to intervene in the economy, the market gets messed up and all of a sudden, when incandescents get banned, you'll have an insane markup on CFLs, since there's no competition for other technology. LEDs are expensive, have a high wattage per lumen (not much less than incandescents), and don't output much light.

That isn't really true anymore. There are multiple companies who are developing more efficient LED's. From wikipedia: "In September 2003 a new type of blue LED was demonstrated by the company Cree, Inc. to give 24 mW at 20 mA. This produced a commercially packaged white light giving 65 lumens per watt at 20 mA, becoming the brightest white LED commercially available at the time, and over four times more efficient than standard incandescents. In 2006 they demonstrated a prototype with a record white LED efficacy of 131 lm/W at 20 mA. Also Seoul Semiconductor has plans for 135 lm/W by 2007 and 145 lm/W by 2008, which would be approaching an order of magnitude improvement over standard incandescents. [5]. Nichia Corp. has developed a white light LED with efficacy of 150 lm/W at a forward current of 20 mA[6].

It should be noted that high-power (≥ 1 Watt) LEDs are necessary for practical general lighting applications. Typical operating currents for these devices begin at 350 mA. The highest efficiency high-power white LED is claimed by Philips Lumileds Lighting Co. with a luminous efficacy of 115 lm/W (350 mA)."

So, they aren't a technology which is much use today but in a couple of years time they will be.

CFL bulbs are full of lead and mercury. Until they do something about that, I can't support their wide-spread use. LEDs will be cool in a few more years.

The bigger question should be does the government have the right to dictate to consumers what they can a can't buy when it isn't an issue of safety?

thay are murcury vapor discharge tubes.
mercury vapor emits light if a large voltage is aplyed across it, or it is heated. the mucury emits mostly uv light, witch causes phosphors on the inside of the tube to floress, this is why thay have the white stuff inside the tubes. floresent tubes tend to emit a fairly cool bluish light.

insted of baning incandesent lights, make it law to fit infa red sensors so you carnt leev the light on. and turn off all the pointless lighting in american cites

It is actually an issue of safety- in the long term. You can't buy giant jars of mercury at <random store> because it's a risk to others. If incandescent light bulbs would result in harm to society it's worth banning.

Fluorescents bulbs should be on there way out. Regulating the disposal of consumer bulbs is a good way to get rid of them. Costs will be driven up and eventually they will be pushed out of the main stream market for general lighting purposes.

LED lamps are very efficient. Much more reliable and last a very long time.
The two current drawbacks are the "white" problem and cost.
Cost will come down as demand for these bulbs increases and the market for them gets stronger. The "white" problem will eventually be solved. A lot of folks are turned off by the blue hue to a white light LED lamp.

Bad idea. Thats all we need is another government mandate. The marketplace should decide if and when Edison's bulb should go. A person should be able to decide for themselves what products to use.

I've been slowly changing bulbs in my home to CF bulbs. As long as you dispose of them properly, the Hg issue with CF bulbs shouldn't be a problem. Each bulb only has enough mercury in it to form a globule the size of the ball on a ballpoint pen. That's nothing compared to old-school mercury thermometers we used to put in our mouths...

And IIRC, even with the mercury in the CF bulbs, if everybody switched over to them, less mercury would be released into the environment than if we stuck with incandescent bulbs. That's because the additional power used to light incandescent bulbs comes mostly from burning coal, which releases quite a bit of mercury vapor into the atmosphere.

Incidentally, a couple local reservoirs now have catch-and-release rules for fishing - you can't eat the fish anymore because they're contaminated with mercury. The mercury came from emissions from a nearby coal-burning power plant.

Ideally, even CF bulbs should be replaced with LEDs. LED lighting is doable today, but very expensive. The technology will improve, resulting in cheaper LED lights and better aesthetics, coming from better light color & more compact fixtures. That and LEDs don't have mercury in them.

My Mom replaced all bulbs in our house to CLF bulbs. They emight a better colour, and greatly save energy. But I would say let the people decide what type of bulbs they want.

Extreme Coder

leds emit a verry harsh light witch is horable to look at.
to me what is normal lighting looks dasaling to me. ban the use of lighting during the day, problem solved

if you are into fishceeping then floresnt tubes are the only sutable lighting, becose you need a spasific spectram.

The problem with old light bulbs is that a lot of people simply don't care and keep buying them, even though it would all the sense to buy energy efficient light bulbs - both economically and ecologically.

There we're talks about banning the old light bulbs in the whole European Union a few months ago and it will probably go through soon.

Is the ban issue in the EU for buying the old light bulbs or for using them? I'm almost sure it's for buying, but sometimes wierd stuff can happen :/

Extreme Coder

That's what it says:

This move by the European Union was caused by the same decision by Australia. There has been some criticism on it though, but I can't see anything significant.

Right, this might be a stupid question... But the reason they're inefficient is that they give out heat... So doesn't that just make them mini-heaters? As i'm running a heater in my room anyway i don't see how it could hurt...

I am simply worried about the lavalamps...

White LEDs are probably the most energy efficient - but also require more energy to produce compared to a standard incandescent. However that initial energy + production cost is offset by very high efficiency and long life.

Banning would only create a black market + enforcement issues. Better to reward people at the local level AND reward local governments with tax breaks or federal dollars.

Joe and Jane spend $400 to buy new LED lights for their home or business - they get some type of energy rebate back from their city or state (maybe power credits to apply against power bills) - the city or state then get rewards from the Feds for lowering power waste --- thats what incandescents do is waste power.

banning single use batterys would be mutch more efective, thay are verry poloting. you are suppost to resycle them, but there isent anywere to do so.

incaldesent light bulbs would act as mini heaters, but becose hot air rises. all thay doo is heat the celing!

never use the term "heet rises" heet is the vibration of attoms, so canot exist without matter. u/v heet is em radiation, so dusent rise, only increses the enegy of a atom.

Germany’s Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel has urged the European Commission to ban inefficient light bulbs in the EU in the fight against global warming. The EU could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 25 million tonnes a year if energy saving light bulbs were used in both the domestic and services sectors.

I heavily support the ban.

carbon dioxide dus not afect globel worming! carbon dioxide folows globel worming

the data in this documentary prove this

Would you believe a documentary stating Hitler was dating Elvis Presley?

CO2 absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm and 14.99 µm thus enhances the greenhouse effect.