You know, if they give the people that want to use incadescents as much time to switch as they did for those dead beats that couldn’t buy their own cable boxes, we could have these things for years.

I have used them outside in -30F and colder temperatures. No wind chill figured in, just real temperatures. They do “work”. However, they are very fragile when compared to regular flood bulbs, they ice up easily (no heat), and they take a long time to get up to full light output. No click and go when entering a cold building.

Van Jones revealed the truth about the enviros; they’re a trojan horse for communism.

I think the problem with LED’s in the house is the quality of light.

Personally I don’t have a problem with CFL’s for a number of applications. However up here CFL’s won’t work outside in the winter.

Liberals love tell everyone what they must do.

“Liberals love tell everyone what they must do.”

You can thank liberal President Bush for signing this into law. Or perhaps you’d prefer to thank any of the 86 liberal Senators that voted in favor of this?

Perhaps it’s government, not liberals, that likes to tell us what we must do.

LEDs have a nicer quality to the light than CFLs, in my opinion (and also last longer and use less energy while giving off more lumens). But they’re still a bit expensive.

“You can thank liberal President Bush…”

While I know this is sarcasm, it hits some truth. Bush was a pretty liberal President who governed from the left. Let’s not forget that when Democrats won in 2006, his famous comment was “Finally, now we can really get some stuff done.” And even his repeated vetoes of expanding SCHIP were not over a disagreement in ideology…but a disagreement in scope.

It’s not shocking that the liberal Bush sided with the nanny state leftists on the lightbulb ban.

Aren’t LED’s pretty directional though? How would they do in lighting a
room as opposed to focus light like in a flash light?
And isn’t it a pretty harsh light as compared to the softer incandescent
light?

Surprised to see you find more restraint among Democrats than Republicans (though perhaps you did not write what you wanted to say).

Anyway, my point was that “telling us what to do” is not confined to Democrats, and that fact should be recognized instead of automatically blaming “liberals.”

Bright white CFLs are great. Soft white….looks like someone peed all over the room….

right morr, both parties joined to enact the incadescent ban. This shows how far the econazis have impacted not only our society but the world.

On another blog, someone suggest LEDs as an option to CFLs. LEDs have already found a home in flashlight, I have several myself. Perhaps they will fill the void left by the incadescent ban.

The ban is wrong not just because CFLs aren’t popular:
it is wrong in itself,
also for the energy and emissions arguments behind it.

Americans (like Europeans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 8 to 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights – or improved CFLs etc – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
ordinary citizens -not politicians – pay for energy, its production, and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage of the finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1 renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2 the fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway,
for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research

About electricity bills:
If electricity use does fall, the power companies have to put up prices to cover their overheads, maintenance costs, wage bills etc (using less fuel doesn’t compensate much in overall costs).
As with other consumption, those who use less tend to pay more per unit used (and heavy users get discounts).

Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions,
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to (supposedly) reduce electricity consumption.

For those who favour bans, feeling that consumption needs targeting, taxation to reduce any such consumption would therefore make more sense,
also as governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few dollars/euros/pounds tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified for similar reasons to bans,
it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

My LED flashlights put out more light than my incadescent flashlights of similar power. For overhead they apparently already exist and will probably get better and more cost effective.
http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/renatec/product-detailhboJZgMKHnRE/China-Interior-Cabin-LED-Replacement-Bulbs-for-Overhead-Dome-Lights-F211-6D-W-.html

rob, I haven’t found the LED light to be harsh at all and it can be much more focused (may depend on how many LEDs in the light) than incadescent. Also the light is white light versus the yellow light from incadescents. They are more convenient to carry because of the smaller size. All of mine can be carried easily in a pants or jacket pocket with room left over for other things.