When expensive colour TV arrived in the UK about 1970, they didn't have to ban BW TVs to force people buy the new expensive colour TVs. When expensive LCD TVs arrived about 15 years ago, they didn't have to ban CRT TVs to force people to buy the flat screens.
The bad LED bulb manufacturers must be happy, "We know our LED bulbs are rubbish, - but they'll have to buy them anyway!" 
Why do so many people in this thread sound like they suffer from persecutory delusions? Somehow people love to convince themselve the EU is trying to trick them against their best interests, it's a military conspiracy or it's a LED cartel bamboozling us. That it might actually be a collection of nations trying to make the world a slightly better place doesn't seem to be considered.
I remember there once were incandescent bulbs with built in series diodes to allow the use of shorter but thicker filaments, in order to boost lifespan without compromising efficiency. Those didn't last very long before CFLs took over, but I wonder how much validity there is to the idea.
They had additional problems, annoying flicker, they wouldn't work properly on dimmers amongst other issues. The pinnacle of domestic incandescent lamp technology was the Philips halogen capsule lamps that had a spherical capsule coated with an efficient IR reflective dichroic coating to reflect heat back at the filament. They had a ~800 lumen lamp that consumed only 40W, a pretty significant improvement over standard incandescent without the limitations of CFLs.
Once LED lamps came down in price even those high tech incandescent lamps became obsolete.
The average Joe isn't THAT stupid. They know LED bulbs are more effecient. We don't need to have the gonvernment tell us how to use OUR ELECTRICITY that WE PURCHASED. If I want to waste 10KW blasting terrible music out into the desert with giant tube amps for no reason, I have the right to do so. It's not the consumers fault some countries have trouble switching to renewables.
Yes, the average Joe really *is* that stupid, otherwise incandescent lamps would have all but vanished from general use 20 years ago. The only reason the government got involved is because the general population demonstrated that they are absolutely clueless on these matters.
If we left this sort of thing entirely up to the free market we'd still have people buying cars with carburetors getting 10mpg, houses with little insulation, low efficiency furnaces, boilers and air conditioners, single pane windows, etc because the upfront purchase price is lower and most people are utterly clueless. The much greater energy consumption would mean higher energy prices and more pollution for everyone, not just the stupid people. I've long been baffled as to why this is, but the average consumer looks ONLY at the up front purchase price.
The average Joe isn't THAT stupid. They know LED bulbs are more effecient. We don't need to have the gonvernment tell us how to use OUR ELECTRICITY that WE PURCHASED. If I want to waste 10KW blasting terrible music out into the desert with giant tube amps for no reason, I have the right to do so. It's not the consumers fault some countries have trouble switching to renewables.
Yes, the average Joe really *is* that stupid, otherwise incandescent lamps would have all but vanished from general use 20 years ago. The only reason the government got involved is because the general population demonstrated that they are absolutely clueless on these matters.
If we left this sort of thing entirely up to the free market we'd still have people buying cars with carburetors getting 10mpg, houses with little insulation, low efficiency furnaces, boilers and air conditioners, single pane windows, etc because the upfront purchase price is lower and most people are utterly clueless. The much greater energy consumption would mean higher energy prices and more pollution for everyone, not just the stupid people. I've long been baffled as to why this is, but the average consumer looks ONLY at the up front purchase price.
IMHO the numbers aren't that clear, at least it very much depends on how you interpret them...
Like this has been shown already:
LED(10W): initial cost 3USD, total consumption: (30000hrs*0.01kW*0.15USD/kWh)+3USD = 48USD
incadescent (60W): initial cost 0.5USD, total consumption: (30000hrs*0.06kW*0.15USD/kWh)+30*0.5USD = 285 USD
Dramatic, yes? But please consider this is over 30000 hours (~3.5 year) non stop operation, that is practically more than a (human) lifetime of usage in an average household... for that period, the gain ain't that much.
Also, most likely the money saved on the electricity will be spent on other activities those are also polluting the air/consuming electrical power (more or less?), so not much gain there either...
Ideally, what you save on using LED bulbs should be spent to help others to replace their incadescent bulbs to LED, if we'd really care about our energy consumption...
Also, most likely the money saved on the electricity will be spent on other activities those are also polluting the air/consuming electrical power (more or less?), so not much gain there either...
Much true but really another big can of worms.
This is a shining example of why it was necessary for the government to intervene and phase out incandescent lamps. Large numbers of people for some reason simply cannot seem to grasp the fact that the vast majority of the total cost of ownership of an incandescent lamp is the electricity needed to light it. An incandescent bult that lasts twice as long will have a total cost much more than twice that of the shorter lived bulb. There are people right here in this thread who clearly don't understand this.
The average Joe isn't THAT stupid. They know LED bulbs are more effecient. We don't need to have the gonvernment tell us how to use OUR ELECTRICITY that WE PURCHASED. If I want to waste 10KW blasting terrible music out into the desert with giant tube amps for no reason, I have the right to do so. It's not the consumers fault some countries have trouble switching to renewables.
Don't be stupid, the average citizen IS stupid from an engineering point of view and you just demonstrated that. No one likes change hence the stupid attempt to make roof tiles with solar panels in them to keep stupid people happy that won't just buy regular solar panels that cost less. i am having solar panels installed because I am not stupid and don't hold on to the dream of living in a victorian looking house while moaning about the cost of electricity. I got smart and will never see an electric bill again. I sit opposite a stupid engineer every day who is a shit engineer because he lets his prejudices take priority and hates anything electric that means progress. if he had his way this so called engineer that is not that clever so should not be called an engineer (engineer derives from the ingenuity - the application of cleverness) he would run the world on steam engines!!!!!!
It is unkind to call other people "stupid" - particularly on a Forum. Even more so, if you are a "moderator".
Family of mine is heavily involved in renewables on more than one Continent . I can confidently inform you that you will see plenty "electric bill again". Also, your solar panel exercise reduces the reliability of my electricity supply and substantially increases my cost. You being an engineer I do not expect you to understand the economical dynamics of renewables and all I would care to say is that the benefits have been blown out of proportions. When proper audits of their impacts are made, they are nothing short of a disaster. Re-directing tax money from safety, housing, education and health towards towards renewables is not "economy" by any stretch.
Myself, living in a
massive block of flats, how am I going to duplicate your righteous example and why should I not be able to
?
When expensive colour TV arrived in the UK about 1970, they didn't have to ban BW TVs to force people buy the new expensive colour TVs. When expensive LCD TVs arrived about 15 years ago, they didn't have to ban CRT TVs to force people to buy the flat screens.
The bad LED bulb manufacturers must be happy, "We know our LED bulbs are rubbish, - but they'll have to buy them anyway!"
Why do so many people in this thread sound like they suffer from persecutory delusions? Somehow people love to convince themselve the EU is trying to trick them against their best interests, it's a military conspiracy or it's a LED cartel bamboozling us. That it might actually be a collection of nations trying to make the world a slightly better place doesn't seem to be considered.
Well, it might have something to do with their track record. The "collection of nations" doesn't seem particularly good at increasing the quality of life of their people.
This is a shining example of why it was necessary for the government to intervene and phase out incandescent lamps. Large numbers of people for some reason simply cannot seem to grasp the fact that the vast majority of the total cost of ownership of an incandescent lamp is the electricity needed to light it. An incandescent bult that lasts twice as long will have a total cost much more than twice that of the shorter lived bulb. There are people right here in this thread who clearly don't understand this.
The average Joe isn't THAT stupid. They know LED bulbs are more effecient. We don't need to have the gonvernment tell us how to use OUR ELECTRICITY that WE PURCHASED. If I want to waste 10KW blasting terrible music out into the desert with giant tube amps for no reason, I have the right to do so. It's not the consumers fault some countries have trouble switching to renewables.
Don't be stupid, the average citizen IS stupid from an engineering point of view and you just demonstrated that. No one likes change hence the stupid attempt to make roof tiles with solar panels in them to keep stupid people happy that won't just buy regular solar panels that cost less. i am having solar panels installed because I am not stupid and don't hold on to the dream of living in a victorian looking house while moaning about the cost of electricity. I got smart and will never see an electric bill again. I sit opposite a stupid engineer every day who is a shit engineer because he lets his prejudices take priority and hates anything electric that means progress. if he had his way this so called engineer that is not that clever so should not be called an engineer (engineer derives from the ingenuity - the application of cleverness) he would run the world on steam engines!!!!!!
It is unkind to call other people "stupid" - particularly on a Forum. Even more so, if you are a "moderator".
When someone says stupid things like "I'm paying the electricity bill, so I can waste as much as I want!" then they're going to get called stupid.
Resources such as electricity are limited and even if someone has limitless cash, it doesn't mean they should waste it, because it messes things up for everyone else. If someone wants to waste their money on something which doesn't create problems for other, but when it does, they should be stopped.
Family of mine is heavily involved in renewables on more than one Continent . I can confidently inform you that you will see plenty "electric bill again". Also, your solar panel exercise reduces the reliability of my electricity supply and substantially increases my cost. You being an engineer I do not expect you to understand the economical dynamics of renewables and all I would care to say is that the benefits have been blown out of proportions. When proper audits of their impacts are made, they are nothing short of a disaster. Re-directing tax money from safety, housing, education and health towards towards renewables is not "economy" by any stretch.
Myself, living in a massive block of flats, how am I going to duplicate your righteous example and why should I not be able to ?
What the heck are you on about?
Renewable energy is just like any other form of energy.
Are you talking more about people having solar cells or wind turbines tied to the grid? If so, I agree, that can be a problem, as the infrastructure will not be designed for it.
And Simon talking about not paying an electricity bill again, yes that could happen, but only if he goes off grid. Otherwise the power still needs to be distributed and there will be a charge for that.
This is a shining example of why it was necessary for the government to intervene and phase out incandescent lamps. Large numbers of people for some reason simply cannot seem to grasp the fact that the vast majority of the total cost of ownership of an incandescent lamp is the electricity needed to light it. An incandescent bult that lasts twice as long will have a total cost much more than twice that of the shorter lived bulb. There are people right here in this thread who clearly don't understand this.
The average Joe isn't THAT stupid. They know LED bulbs are more effecient. We don't need to have the gonvernment tell us how to use OUR ELECTRICITY that WE PURCHASED. If I want to waste 10KW blasting terrible music out into the desert with giant tube amps for no reason, I have the right to do so. It's not the consumers fault some countries have trouble switching to renewables.
Don't be stupid, the average citizen IS stupid from an engineering point of view and you just demonstrated that. No one likes change hence the stupid attempt to make roof tiles with solar panels in them to keep stupid people happy that won't just buy regular solar panels that cost less. i am having solar panels installed because I am not stupid and don't hold on to the dream of living in a victorian looking house while moaning about the cost of electricity. I got smart and will never see an electric bill again. I sit opposite a stupid engineer every day who is a shit engineer because he lets his prejudices take priority and hates anything electric that means progress. if he had his way this so called engineer that is not that clever so should not be called an engineer (engineer derives from the ingenuity - the application of cleverness) he would run the world on steam engines!!!!!!
It is unkind to call other people "stupid" - particularly on a Forum. Even more so, if you are a "moderator".
When someone says stupid things like "I'm paying the electricity bill, so I can waste as much as I want!" then they're going to get called stupid.
Resources such as electricity are limited and even if someone has limitless cash, it doesn't mean they should waste it, because it messes things up for everyone else. If someone wants to waste their money on something which doesn't create problems for other, but when it does, they should be stopped.
Family of mine is heavily involved in renewables on more than one Continent . I can confidently inform you that you will see plenty "electric bill again". Also, your solar panel exercise reduces the reliability of my electricity supply and substantially increases my cost. You being an engineer I do not expect you to understand the economical dynamics of renewables and all I would care to say is that the benefits have been blown out of proportions. When proper audits of their impacts are made, they are nothing short of a disaster. Re-directing tax money from safety, housing, education and health towards towards renewables is not "economy" by any stretch.
Myself, living in a massive block of flats, how am I going to duplicate your righteous example and why should I not be able to ?
1. What the heck are you on about?
2. Renewable energy is just like any other form of energy.
3. Are you talking more about people having solar cells or wind turbines tied to the grid? If so, I agree, that can be a problem, as the infrastructure will not be designed for it.
4. And Simon talking about not paying an electricity bill again, yes that could happen, but only if he goes off grid. Otherwise the power still needs to be distributed and there will be a charge for that.
1. It's nice to be polite and sensitive to the PoV of others. Within reason, people live ( and work ) to be happy.
2. No, not AT ALL.
3. Not "more" but "also".
4. No, that will not happen in any situation, death included. Simon's tax money will still be at work somewhere, somehow. And "off the grid" with modern amenities and appliances is not really off the grid. One needs BIG power plants to manufacture all those gadgets the off the grid people desperately need. And then, we might need removing an appendix...
It's not inconceivable that fusion reactors will be up and running within 2-3 decades. Then, the expensive exercise with solar panels and wind farms will suddenly be just a mistake. Money down the drain which could've been better used for schools, hospitals, education, better food etc. At this present technological moment energy is not a problem.
It's good to talk about these things and share ideas. One should however keep in mind at all times that renewables are happening on borrowed money. And probably, that giving a Kenyan woman a small solar panel and a LED light is just patronizing BS. She's got much bigger problems.
When someone says stupid things like "I'm paying the electricity bill, so I can waste as much as I want!" then they're going to get called stupid.
Resources such as electricity are limited and even if someone has limitless cash, it doesn't mean they should waste it, because it messes things up for everyone else. If someone wants to waste their money on something which doesn't create problems for other, but when it does, they should be stopped.
So whats the point with all this money-based system ?
Because money directly means that I can do with my cash whatever I want, whatever pointless I want, no matter how angry you about it.
Introduce personal limits on electricity usage and dont bother with buying it and pricing it !
People use money on so many pointless things which waste resources.
Burning kerosene in aircraft because somebody wants to see Eiffel tower or Venice instead of watching these things on Google Streetview ? (the effect is basically the same).
When someone says stupid things like "I'm paying the electricity bill, so I can waste as much as I want!" then they're going to get called stupid.
Resources such as electricity are limited and even if someone has limitless cash, it doesn't mean they should waste it, because it messes things up for everyone else. If someone wants to waste their money on something which doesn't create problems for other, but when it does, they should be stopped.
So whats the point with all this money-based system ?
Because money directly means that I can do with my cash whatever I want, whatever pointless I want, no matter how angry you about it.
Introduce personal limits on electricity usage and dont bother with buying it and pricing it !
People use money on so many pointless things which waste resources.
Burning kerosene in aircraft because somebody wants to see Eiffel tower or Venice instead of watching these things on Google Streetview ? (the effect is basically the same).
What's the point in having laws?
When a resource becomes limited, then it will become rationed. This happened with many things in Europe during the world wars.
It's better to have laws which limit wastage, before more draconian ones involving rationing become necessary.
@AlexResch: They thought 50 years ago Fusion Power is just a few years away. To say it your way: Its not inconceivable that a cure for lung-cancer is found within 10 years, so why should i stop smoking now?
IMHO the numbers aren't that clear, at least it very much depends on how you interpret them...
Like this has been shown already:
LED(10W): initial cost 3USD, total consumption: (30000hrs*0.01kW*0.15USD/kWh)+3USD = 48USD
incadescent (60W): initial cost 0.5USD, total consumption: (30000hrs*0.06kW*0.15USD/kWh)+30*0.5USD = 285 USD
Dramatic, yes? But please consider this is over 30000 hours (~3.5 year) non stop operation, that is practically more than a (human) lifetime of usage in an average household... for that period, the gain ain't that much.
Also, most likely the money saved on the electricity will be spent on other activities those are also polluting the air/consuming electrical power (more or less?), so not much gain there either...
Ideally, what you save on using LED bulbs should be spent to help others to replace their incadescent bulbs to LED, if we'd really care about our energy consumption...
That's only *one* bulb though, how many light bulbs are in your house? I have several in each room, the energy consumption adds up quickly. My power bill dropped substantially when I went from incandescent to CFL, and noticeably going from CFL to LED. Now consider that there is more out there than just my house, in the USA there are many hundreds of millions of light bulbs in operation, a switch from incandescent to LED represents many megawatts of savings.
For the record, I *have* given LED bulbs to many other people, in some cases I gave away new ones as gifts so they would see how good they really are, and in other cases I have given less financially stable friends some of my older LED bulbs that I have upgraded to newer higher efficiency types that have come out.
this comes down to "freedom of choice",
vs
forcing people to follow central planners and eventually throwing people in gulags or "re-education centers" for not complying with some edict.
we have seen this type of slippery slope before, it ended with death camps and mass servailance of everyday life.
@stj: The only slippery stuff youre talking about is coming out of your ears and contains the last good brain cells you had, that are fleeing in pure terror because of the things you say.
That's only *one* bulb though, how many light bulbs are in your house?
We have a small household, about 48 sq.m, we have 7-8 bulbs, half of them are LED (those we most use) and it did not bring anything to our bills that is worth noting.
@stj: The only slippery stuff youre talking about is coming out of your ears and contains the last good brain cells you had, that are fleeing in pure terror because of the things you say.
well you obviously never studied either history, OR what was happening in the eastern sector of your own country for decades.
so i dont need insults from a fool.
this comes down to "freedom of choice",
vs
forcing people to follow central planners and eventually throwing people in gulags or "re-education centers" for not complying with some edict.
we have seen this type of slippery slope before, it ended with death camps and mass servailance of everyday life.
You still have the freedom of choice. Better yet, regulating some things means we will get to have a choice, rather than having that choice taken from us by the circumstances.
this comes down to "freedom of choice",
vs
forcing people to follow central planners and eventually throwing people in gulags or "re-education centers" for not complying with some edict.
we have seen this type of slippery slope before, it ended with death camps and mass servailance of everyday life.
How the heck is that relevant here?
Should most laws be abolished in favour of free choice?
No, then perhaps just all laws involving the minimum efficiency of household appliances and building thermal insulation should be scrapped?
Then you'll be complaining when there are power cuts and your energy bills are too high.
No, then perhaps just all laws involving the minimum efficiency of household appliances and building thermal insulation should be scrapped?
Then you'll be complaining when there are power cuts and your energy bills are too high.
Not scrapped, they should have never been introduced. If the high consumption is the problem (I am not saying it is not), then higher energy prices should have been introduced at first !
If prices are high, they should me make me consider to buy more effective devices or consider thermal insulating my house.
People would always waste energy resources on pointless things no matter what.
No, then perhaps just all laws involving the minimum efficiency of household appliances and building thermal insulation should be scrapped?
Then you'll be complaining when there are power cuts and your energy bills are too high.
Not scrapped, they should have never been introduced. If the high consumption is the problem (I am not saying it is not), then higher energy prices should have been introduced at first !
If prices are high, they should me make me consider to buy more effective devices or consider thermal insulating my house.
People would always waste energy resources on pointless things no matter what.
The trouble is higher prices alone will not make manufacturers and builders improve the efficiency of their products.
People will waste resources but legislation helps minimise this. Something clearly had to be done to help curb electricity usage to prevent blackouts becoming a common occurrence. You may not like this, but it's better than the alternative.
Something clearly had to be done to help curb electricity usage to prevent blackouts becoming a common occurrence. You may not like this, but it's better than the alternative.
I have a feeling that banning the incadescent lamps will be insufficient to prevent this, as we are at the dawn of electric cars which are pulling 40-50kWh overnight off the grid... (mean well)
Something clearly had to be done to help curb electricity usage to prevent blackouts becoming a common occurrence. You may not like this, but it's better than the alternative.
I have a feeling that banning the incadescent lamps will be insufficient to prevent this, as we are at the dawn of electric cars which are pulling 40-50kWh overnight off the grid... (mean well)
I agree with you there. All the more reason to restrict electricity usage and charging cars overnight, when people are asleep is an excellent idea.
One thing i'm concerned is whether the mass production of the Halogen lamps had more impact on polution from manufacture than the LED's. I