It appears that the Luddites are winning...

What will they use in the Easy Bake oven now?

LOL Greg!

On a serious note, what will we use in a REGULAR oven, when they ban the 40W incandescent appliance bulb? I can't imagine that a CFL would tolerate a 450 degree oven (or a 35 degree refrigerator, for that matter).

I should start stocking up on bulbs now, CFLs don't like traffic lights. (Hopefully by 2012, edison-base LED-bulbs will be cheaper, because I'm not putting LED modules in every light.)

Ian A.

I doubt these bulbs will ever be unavailable. They will just get a hefty tax put on them.

From the discussion I've heard on another list, the only bulbs that will be banned are "general use" bulbs, the standard A19/E26 types that are commonly used for residential and commercial service. "Specialty" bulbs and lamps, such as those used in the oven or theatrical fixtures, will still be OK.

Re: Easy bake oven... Infrared LEDs? I assume that's what is underneath those "ceramic" stove tops.

The local hardware store was selling 4x packs of incandescents of various wattages at 2 for $1 a few months ago. I bought a whole freaking pile of them... right before actually doing some pencil & paper calculations and realizing how much more expensive they are than CFLs, and wishing I'd have saved my $5.

Well, at least I've got pretty much a lifetime supply of bulbs to use on my dimmers, right? Heck, maybe if I hang onto them, they'll be worth something as collectables!

This issue is one that has precious little to do with the technical aspects of the trade - and everything to do with how politics influence our lives. In that respect, it's but the tip of the iceberg, the nose of the camel, the calm before the storm.

Before long, everyone will have a say in our trade - everyone, that is, except the electrician, or the consumer.

I happen to like CFL's for most uses; my home is full of them. It's not about the light bulb. It's about the right of government, and the ability of parties to manipulate government, to make our decisions "for our own good."

The fact that EVERY place that has embraced this political system either wallows in poverty, or has collapsed in chaos, does not deter these missionaries in the least. Perhaps they believe they'll have a place in one of the nicer circles of the Hell they'll invent. Or, as the proverb asserts, misery loves company.

These 'good intentioned' ideas are but pavers on the road to Hell.

As discussed in another thread, LEDs work quite well in a fridge. I don't think either one would do well in the heat of an oven. That's one place where the "waste" heat of an incandescent isn't really wasted, as it just helps to heat the oven.

Since appliance bulbs use a standard Edison base, people will just use those for general use, and manufacturers will start making more types of "appliance" bulbs.

A lot of them use a type of halogen lamp. I know some are even called "halogen cooktops".

The Easy Bake oven can just use an appliance bulb.

I'll have to agree with Renosteinke. And it's never enough for the do-gooders to sit back and be pleased with their accomplishments. They have to get another fix quick before the rush of satisfaction fades. What will it be next?

I'm waiting to hear the cries of outrage when the people of California realize all of the pricey dimmers they have been forced to buy since October of 2005 won't work on the CFL's they will be forced to buy in 2012. Who will they blame? Who will they sue?

After years of working around GSA (the agency that provides "handy man services" to the government) it is clear to me that they have never seen an electrical professional. This kind of legislation demonstrates that.

That's what's supposed to be happening here as well, although I'm just waiting for the politicos and the "greenies" to try to push the definition to include candle bulbs, then everything else beyond a GLS lamp.

We're getting city hall demanding certain fixtures in new construction as well, and the guidelines they're following from central government are that where a high-efficiency light is required it mustn't be a fixture with a standard BC or ES socket and a compact fluoro, so the homeowner can't just swap to a regular filament lamp later.

More here:
https://www.electrical-contractor.net/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/171581/page/1

you guys should read the actual text of the bill and the very long list of exceptions. It specifically allows special service bulbs like for your oven and fridge and ceiling fan and all those other things. It specifically allows anything with a base other than the standard one so you dont have to worry about your candelabra bulbs or anything like that. And it doesn't mention incandescent specifically, but rather places the limit on lumen output per watt. So if those guys who were working on the nano etched filament that released so much more light ever get a manufacturing process that works you wont have to miss regular bulbs at all. Was that GE or philips? I can't remember...

So I'm not terribly worried. That being said, I am picking up a box of 100 watt bulbs every time I go into the hardware store Those are about the only non CF or led bulbs that I still use in the house and I have them in overhead lights that are on dimmers that need to be bright sometimes. CF's with dimmers just dont cut it yet.

The federal government isn't bound to NEC or any state laws. DoD has adopted NEC in lieu of writing their own comparable code book, but as every command is its own AHJ, it's more a symbolic gesture than anything else. Gives something tangible to place in contracts, at least.

Derailed, you have a good point ... it's always good to read the actual documents. Yet ....

When you cut through the bull, laws are often written in convoluted ways for dishonest reasons. This also often happens in bid requests, as well. While the 'lawyers' know they're not supposed to write things to specifically favor / punish a specific party, they dance around with supposedly 'neutral' descriptions.
Sort of what would happen if ECN wrote special rules just for new members with 8-letter screen names, beginning with "D", ending with "D", from southern states. Could such be aimed at any but a specific person?

As for 'exceptions" .... as I said before, the light bulb is NOT what's at stake here. Accepting 'exceptions' is agreeing to the intrusion of government into an area where it does not belong. And, 'exceptions' have a way of disappearing over time. I can do without such generosity!

Speaking of exceptions, though .... I am unable to find the 'exception' to the limitations of government (called the "Constitution") that allows any part of any governing body to say anything on this issue. Like I said .... it's the nose of the camel ....

Well, if you take a "strict constructionist" view, 90+% of what the federal government does nowadays is unconstitutional. Afterall, there is nothing about building highways, regulating broadcast media, making certain drugs illegal, or banning lightbulbs written into the constitution, right?

For better or worse, they usually justify these regulations based on the "promote the general welfare" line from the preamble, or the part about "regulating interstate commerce".

In an unprecedented move the California Energy Commission actually did something right yesterday.
They withdrew their ridiculous proposal to have the utilities controlling our thermostats for us.
Our local assemblyman Rick Keene made the comment "What's the next step? They're going to put cameras in your house because they think they can cut down on domestic violence?"

I hope this kind of clear thinking continues.

The biggest constitutional catchall is the 14th amendment. They use the idea that states can't restrict a person's rights to allow federal law in places where it has no business. You have the "right" to be arrested for medical marijauna, even though you have a valid prescription given by a state licensed doctor in accordance with state law.

I see this thread going way political.

Think of it this way: Santa Claus brings you things. The Commerce Clause takes them away.
Joe

The ultimate solution to saving energy, being green, etc. is to have less people. But, sadly the trend is just the opposite--at an exponential rate. Too bad the "civilized" nations will probably never do anything to control their populations. Always someone who insists that it's their god-given right to have 20+ children, and make everyone else pay for the services they use.

As agent Smith in The Matrix said, humanity is a virus.

Actually, that is not true all. The birth rate in much of Europe and Asia is around or below break-even. The U.S. birth rate is around break-even. Canada is below break-even.

It's basically third-world countries that have exploding populations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate_world_map_2.png