ban on incandescent light bulbs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71QEU4XIf1U

Looks like it runs on AC.  And just before it starts it makes a burping sound.

^^^ I doubt that anybody has run a lumen output versus wattage input analysis for your pickle light !  Of course it does get 'cooked' for free LOL !

Are you saying that LED's put out less light after six months?  That's the first I heard that.

Actually, I experienced this big time.  The fall before last, I invested in some 15 x 15 = 225 LED grow lite arrays to keep my potted dwarf lemon trees 'happy' indoors through my northern NY winter.

http://www.ledwholesalers.com/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=263

When I moved the trees indoors for this winter, and I also added a couple of identical but new 225 LED array for additional trees I recently acquired , there was a HUGE difference in lumen output between the old LED arrays and the new LED arrays.

I'm not sure what this really means in terms of efficiency loss, since the LED array only consumes 14 watts while putting out the same lumens as 40+ watts worth of flourescent grow light, but it sure came as a surprise.  A friend actually 'loaned' me a gadget called a 'variac' to boost the voltage from 120v to 132v for my two year old LED arrays to restore 'equal' light output versus the newly purchased ones.

Actually, the manufacturer lists a 15 year rated life span.

Pickle lights work on 110V. I'm not sure how much current they draw, but they don't produce all that much light. They're noticeably brighter and higher-efficiency than chomping on hard candy, but they're more of a fun/slightly dangerous science demonstration than an actual light source.

As to getting around the ban, I just saw this news story about a German company which sells small 100W or so heating devices that happen to put out some whitish light from the tungsten heating element, said element being contained in a blown-glass encosure filled with inert gas at low pressure. Not that they're lightbulbs, not at all: they're heaters built the way old-fashioned lightbulbs used to be made.

Heatball merchants

Melonie wrote:
Actually, I experienced this big time.  The fall before last, I invested in some 15 x 15 = 225 LED grow lite arrays to keep my potted dwarf lemon trees 'happy' indoors through my northern NY winter.

http://www.ledwholesalers.com/store/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=263

When I moved the trees indoors for this winter, and I also added a couple of identical but new 225 LED array for additional trees I recently acquired , there was a HUGE difference in lumen output between the old LED arrays and the new LED arrays.

I wonder if a possible explanation is that the newer bulb has newer, brighter, LED's.  In other words, it isn't that the old bulbs wore out a bit, but that the new bulbs are using a newer, brighter technology.

I saw some lightbulbs at the local conventional grocery store.  They looked exactly like incandescent, but they claimed to put out 20% more light.  The box was covered in marketing, but I couldn't figure out how they were doing it.  It just seemed like a regular light bulb.

paul wheaton wrote:
I saw some lightbulbs at the local conventional grocery store.  They looked exactly like incandescent, but they claimed to put out 20% more light.  The box was covered in marketing, but I couldn't figure out how they were doing it.  It just seemed like a regular light bulb.

What's happening is that the bulbs are trading light for life.  The "long-life" incandescent bulbs have lower "Lumens" rating than ordinary ones -- they last longer, but don't give as much light.  My guess is that if you compare the lumens emitted by these bulbs with other bulbs on the shelf that's what you'll find.

I want to make a rocket candle.

travis laduke wrote:
I want to make a rocket candle.

would that be similar to a cold blast lantern?

I didn't know what cold blast lantern meant until I just looked it up, but yes. 

Over-volting LEDs will tend to overheat them, diminishing their life. I suspect the grow lights you purchased are moderately over-volting to begin with, to maximize the amount of lumens produced per cost of components. Expect diminishing returns if you keep the lumens constant.

*  *  *

A fun sort of lighting project would be to build an algae tank where it gets plenty of sun, collect the pure oxygen from it, and use that plus some calcium carbide to power a high-efficiency limelight at night.

The exhaust from the limelight would be collected into the algae tank, to refresh its supply of CO2.

Eventually, you'd have to harvest the algal biomass, replenish the nutrient bath, and  over-burn some more lime.

Safety first, though: don't try this unless you understand all the hazards involved. The same cycle could, of course, use lantern mantles with an appropriate chemistry for the spectrum of light you need, if limelight isn't right for your application.

Paul and Andrew discuss CFL fluorescent lightbulbs in this podcast: podcast

They discuss the incandescent ban in Australia in 2008, and the upcoming ban in the states.

Just in

Good... landlords are not that keen on self installs of skylights so.... save me for awhile.

paul wheaton wrote:Just in

Good news. I am not finished stocking these nice heating devices. Another 9 months or more of LED development & manufacturing won't change much, but if these things are really going to last 15 years, even the most marginal improvement in performance will make a difference over time.

Over in Japan a few weeks ago, the electronic stores are devoid of anything but LED's and fluorescents. Can still buy incandescents at the 100 yen store or supermarket, but they are disappearing fast.

Overhead LED room light fixtures are $200 and up....way up.

Don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread, but dimmer switches are the best thing in the world for extending life of incandescents, not sure about other bulbs. Most bulbs blow out from the sudden jolt of juice when the light is turned on...a dimmer eases the lightbulb into it's awakened state.

20,000 hour light bulbs, incandescent.
http://bit.ly/BulbPolice

A possible explanation

I was thinking of the podcast Paul did the other day. I think it is a bit disingenuous to talk about the 100+ year light as a spectacular thing since it is only a about 4 watt light bulb, so it is of little practical use. I do love your show and enjoy listening to you. I know the point you are trying to prove, that you can make bulbs that last a long time, it is just a bit misleading without a disclaimer. Keep up the good work! Great video, btw.

The efficiency rules are intended to phase out of the old bulbs that are essentially unchanged since the time of Thomas Edison and a phase in of the more efficient bulbs such as halogen incandescent bulbs, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) or LED bulbs. With the development of technology and the Government Assistance, I think we can find the cheap LED light bulbs.

I think I use far less power than most people with fluorescent lights. And I far prefer incandescent lights. It seems wrong, to me, to ban incandescents.

If everyone were as conscious with their energy use then our energy issues would be much less severe. Because the cost of energy is kept artificially low through subsidies to industries that supply our dirty energy, there is not much motivation for the general public to change their habits.

I agree that an outright ban on incandescents would be wrong but they are only banning the manufacturing an resale of them. I know its not quite the same but I see it as the same type of government regulation that mandates a certain gallon per flush in new toilets, mpg in cars, or maximum energy use of appliances. Would it be better if they mandated that lightbulbs had to be more efficient than 20 Lumens per Watt?

I think that requiring a lumens-per-watt thing at this point is silly.

326) why regulate home lighting? The #1 reason lighting is currently taking up 7% of home energy use is that people are illuminating areas that they are not in. It seems to me that the education that is needed it how to turn off the damn lights.

327) if the government feels the need to regulate for the sake on conservation (as opposed to the reasons of somebody getting rich on the regulations) then I think they need to consider the full expense package:

327.1) full energy put into manufacture and disposal

327.2) expenses in loss of national productivity/innovation due to sickness/toxicity

Frankly, 98% of my concern in this space is that I think eco people would advocate the incandescent as the #1 bulb choice, by far, and the fluorescent should be on the list for getting banned. And yet I am frustrated by the idea that people waving the eco flag appear to want the opposite.

Incandescent light is amazingly clean and simple technology. I am a POWERFUL advocate of incandescent light. And the more I learn about CFLs, the more I think they should be outlawed. And I am not yet sure what to think about LEDs.

Forgive me for debating you on this one. We are both very passionate about the issues involved here but I think we have more in common than not. Allow me this final rebuttal and I will leave this thread alone forever.

326: Regulate home lighting because its the lowest hanging fruit available. There is tons of room for improvement and innovation which is exactly whats happening with LEDs. Totally agree with better education. People: Turn out the damn lights! Dont even get me started on Night lighting...

40-80% of most peoples environmental damage is due to the dirty energy use of homes and buildings. You mention 7% of this being form Lighting but for some its 25% and I think an accurate average is 12-15%. Thats a huge chunk of the dirty energy that is easier to regulate than the bigger chunks of Heating/Cooling and Water Heating. Appliances are probably about even in terms of energy usage but the regulations and Energy Star programs are pushing the appliance category lower than lighting which makes it a very attractive place to cut. In high performance homes, Lighting with incandescents could easily account for 40% of the homes energy use.

I agree that the full expense package should be considered. I dont think 327.1,2 are insignificant but I do feel they dont come compare to the 12% of the 40-80% above. In fact I would suggest that the energy loss from incandescent lighting fixtures sucking conditioned air into the attic is probably a bigger expense than 327.1,2 for most homes.

How do you feel about off-grid living? I have mixed feelings about it myself (especially when it would be cheaper to connect). I bet 99% of off-gridders avoid incandescents at all costs. Its too much of a strain on the infrastructure. I think if those of us living on the grid used energy like off gridders (or Paul) then that 40-80% would be closer to 10%. I will shut up now.

Since you guys are talking politics. It's not good to use violence to force people to do something which you believe is right unless they are the aggressors and you are defending yourself. I don't understand why people like hurting one another.

Dang! I was just going to suggest we have a knife fight with broken lightbulbs. Pauls incandescent could do more flesh damage but my CFL might inflict a slower, more agonizing death. Thanks alot Jon.

Brian Knight wrote:..
40-80% of most peoples environmental damage is due to the dirty energy use of homes and buildings. You mention 7% of this being form Lighting but for some its 25% and I think an accurate average is 12-15%. In high performance homes, Lighting with incandescents could easily account for 40% of the homes energy use.
Regulate home lighting because its the lowest hanging fruit available.

Energy saving is not the only reason for choosing a light bulb you want to use.
All GLS incandescent lighting is effectively banned in the USA according to 2007 EISA (by 2020 at the latest, as defined by 2017 stopgap 45 lumen per W regulation)


Besides, Brian Knight's quoted savings (themselves questionable) miss the point.
Society regulations are about society savings - not individual savings
(or should be, unless "interference in people's lives" is a primary government objective).

So, for US national savings,
as US Dept of Energy and official EU and other statistics show, the overall lighting switchover savings are comparatively small,
less than 1% of overall energy use or (generously) 1-2% of grid energy,
referenced on http://ceolas.net/#li171x
which also goes into why the supposed consumer savings don't hold up,
and with better ways to save energy in dealing with electricity
generation, grid distribution and alternative consumption reduction
(from actual usage waste, rather than from consumer product choice) .

The object is to reduce electricity usage (especially coal) and to reduce CO2 emissions (for some).
Light bulbs don't burn coal, or release any CO2.
Power plants might.
If there's a problem - deal with the problem.

As for "low hanging fruit",
the USA light bulb savings are quoted in 2030 year terms,
by when a lot more relevant power plant / grid upgrade changes can be implemented, if desired.
Besides, if a government light bulb policy really is so important,
incandescent taxation, maybe covering energy efficient price lowering subsidies, is even easier than bans,
although not as good or justifiable as simply stimulating free market competition
(perhaps helping new inventions to the market, energy efficient or otherwise).

RE Stinkypants cartoon, and some of the long life bulbs mentioned in Comments

GE, Philips Osram etc operated a Phoebus cartel for several decades from the 1920's
http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol
A special 1000 hr life committee punished anyone producing longer lasting regular incandescents.
That is why 1000 hrs remains the standard today.
Communist longer lasting bulbs were kept out of Western markets.

For "low lifespan" profit , now read "energy efficiency" bulb profit:
The major manufacturers again came together after 2000 in the USA and EU,
and secured appropriate incandescent bans - helped of course by the new prevailing "environmental" mood.
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax

The simple question to ask, for a neutral observer,
is why the major manufacturers welcome a ban on what they can or can't make!

peter dublin wrote:
The simple question to ask, for a neutral observer,
is why the major manufacturers welcome a ban on what they can or can't make!

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

A student from the master of environment from the university of sherbrooke have made an essay on the subject. She conclude that it may be too early to ban the incandescent bulbs in Canada.

Maybe some of you know french!

You can get the complete result here

I'll vote for no ban. I like bright lights when I want bright lights. Most of the time, that means InCANdescent.

I did event production for classes/events in SoCal, London and Melbourne 2008-2010. We were on-site overseas for 4-5 weeks each visit, 3-4 times a year. I watched several hotels do major renovations, including complete swap-outs of lighting, many/most included LOTS of LED 'upgrades.' I noticed several of the once nicely(incandescent)-lit rooms being more stark and without personality with the fluorescent-lit rooms. Most Hallways were re-lit with LEDs and looked kinda cool when first installed (because of the beam-vs-flood illumination patterns of LED), but were noticeably dimmer at out next visit several months later. That didn't seem to be a problem for most Brits, as they are pretty accustomed to dimmer lighting due to their weather as well as lower wattage bulbs used for belt-tightening since WWII and even the 70s. (in the 70s, the US Dollar replaced the Pound Sterling as the World monetary standard, which shocked the UK into a bit of a recession and lifestyle shift)

the light from CFLs/Tubes look horrid to me, not only because of their flicker but also because of the not-even-close-to natural lighting. I've yet to see a real-spectrum fluor light that can even come close to approximating natural light the Human Eye is designed to use.

LEDs as of yet are also less-than-ideal, so I hope manufacturers are working to create natural full-spectrum bulbs, diodes or fixtures. I don't really care about a 50,000 hour bulb if it only gives 1/4 the lumens a full-light situation requires or noticeable dims at any point of that 50,000. I'm working to make my Townhouse able to be off-the-grid solar and I expect LEDs to play a part in the transition, so I hope manufacturers are working to make what people want to buy vs only what they are required to sell.

richard wafer wrote:A student from the master of environment from the university of sherbrooke have made an essay on the subject. She conclude that it may be too early to ban the incandescent bulbs in Canada.

Maybe some of you know french!

You can get the complete result here

Translation of summary from Google translate
(not taken the time to fix much better, but gets the gist of it...)

SUMMARY
In 2007, the federal minister of natural resources Gary Lunn, announced the
phasing out of the market for low-efficiency incandescent lamps by 2012. In
using the Amendment # 10 to the Energy Efficiency Regulations (SOR/94-651)
he intended to reduce emissions of greenhouse gas emissions of Canada's six million
tonnes per year.

After comparing, at all stages of their life cycle, four types of lamps or
incandescent, fluorescent, halogen and LEDs, this test is to
main purpose of reaching recommendations for use, for a
residential customer, with respect to alternatives to incandescent lamps,
and respect of the environment.

To do this, it was shown that certain types of lamps were superior to others, depending on the intended uses.
Impacts on the environment and human health of each type of lighting were considered.
From an environmental perspective, it was seen that the energy savings and reductions in greenhouse gas emissions were not always real or significant, either for Quebec or for the rest of Canada.

Finally, after asking a critical look at the regulations introduced in 2008, proposing the banning of incandescent lamps of low efficiency by 2012, recommendations were issued.
The latter especially deplores the lack of information and educational facilities available to consumers, both environmental and health and try to find solutions, particularly in respect
the recovery of various types of lamps, or safety of products already on the market or in development.

In short, it seems that the Canadian government has gone too fast in banning incandescent lamps
by 2012. It does not appear to have made all his duties by failing correctly all the impacts of a major decision such as this one.

Heavy sigh.

Ok the light in the fridge can be an LED light. I don't think that LED's run well at stove temperatures. Nor do they make good porch and garage lights even at 0 F.

CFL's still don't work in stoves, and I've yet to find a cold enviroment CFL that doesn't take 10 minutes to come up to brightness.

I want a bulb that:

I approach the kitchen door.
I flip on the porch light.
I bring in 3 chunks of wood.
I flip off the porch light.
I stuff the stove.

So far tungsten is the only one that does it below freezing temperatures.

S. G. Botsford wrote:Heavy sigh.
Ok the light in the fridge can be an LED light. I don't think that LED's run well at stove temperatures. Nor do they make good porch and garage lights even at 0 F....

also expanding on s comment

Tel Jetson wrote:
Federal legislation
Many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 in December 2007, requiring all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light [19] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions (historically, less than 40 Watts or more than 150 Watts). Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, "rough service" bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.
By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective; which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exempt from the Act are reflector "flood", 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.

If it helps, these are the gist of the rules...
( from http://ceolas.net/#li01inx, in turn referenced)


Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, light bulb regulations

2 phases, based on 2012-2014 and 2014-2020.
[A third phase may begin 2020: "DOE is also required under the EISA 2007 to initiate a rulemaking in 2020 to determine whether the standards in effect for general service incandescent lamps should be increased."]
Aim: to reduce the allowed wattage for incandescent bulbs by 28 percent starting in 2012, becoming a 67 percent reduction by 2020, in accordance with the defined annual review procedures.
Effective January 1, 2020, at the latest, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of such general service lamps that do not by then meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.

`(i) The term 'general service incandescent lamp' means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp that—
`(I) is intended for general service applications;
`(II) has a medium screw base;
`(III) has a lumen range of not less than 310 lumens and not more than 2,600 lumens; and
`(IV) is capable of being operated at a voltage range at least partially within 110 and 130 volts.


So note that from (I) and (II) smaller chandelier "candle" or "flame" shaped lighting, fridge lighting, small christmas lighting etc excluded,
and from (III) 25W and less and 150-200W regular incandescent bulbs in principle excluded, though ultimately dependent on lumen rating - and 150W+ (2,601-3,300 lumen) bulb sales will be monitored, such that if exceeeding 100% yearly sales increase, a 95W maximum is imposed for the 2,601-3,300 lumen range, and those bulbs may then only may be sold in 1 bulb packages -yes that's right, they even define that! Presumably buy 20 times for 20 bulbs ("packaging sustainability", not).


List of further exceptions:
Appliance lamps, Black light lamps, Bug lamps, Colored lamps, Infrared lamps, Left-hand thread lamps, Marine lamps, Marine’s signal service lamps, Mine service lamps, Plant light lamps, Reflector lamps, Rough service lamps, Shatter-resistant lamps (including shatter-proof and shatter-protected), Sign service lamps, Silver bowl lamps, Showcase lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, Traffic signal lamps, Vibration service lamps, G shape lamps with a diameter of 5” or more, T shape lamps that use no more than 40W or are longer than 10”, and all B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G-30, M-14, or S lamps of 40W or less.


Have they nothing better to do,
than to spend all this effort to define what safe and useful products you can or can't buy?
No.
(Have I nothing better to do than to complain about it...er, no )

I was not aware of all the exceptions. Thanks. Exceptions make for bad law, IMNSHO

A better way to do this sort of thing is taxing it rather than regulating it. Tax at the source -- the light bulb maker -- easy to collect (there are only a handful)

The tax goes up 25 cents a bulb each year. The bulb companies are faced with a declining market that is predictable. They can either improve the efficiency of their bulb or find something else to make.

Ideally the tax should be technology neutral. E.g Tax ALL bulbs based on their efficiency. The tax starts out at being the equivalent cost of the wasted electricity for running the bulb for a week. Next year the tax is for 2 weeks. etc.

A week is 168 hours. Duty cycle of 25% Let's round to 40. So a 100W bulb that is 95% efficient has a tax equal to the cost of 40 hours * 95 watts = 3.8 kwhr. At 10c per kwhr a hundred watt bulb carries a tax of 38 cents.

Next year it's 76 cents.

Next year it's 1.14.

Meanwhile the 25 watt appliance bulb started at 8 cents and after 3 years it is a terrifying 28 cents.

Perhaps better would be to tax on the basis of (Heat - light) So the original bulb is taxed on 95 - 5%. This favours higher efficiency lighting. Fluorescent bulbs are taxed at 65-35% or thereabouts.

Manufacturers could make a case for certain special application bulbs having different duty cycles and hence get a different rate. E.g. projector bulbs.

S. G. Botsford wrote:
I was not aware of all the exceptions. Thanks. Exceptions make for bad law, IMNSHO
A better way to do this sort of thing is taxing it rather than regulating it. Tax at the source -- the light bulb maker -- easy to collect (there are only a handful).....

See earlier comment and links...
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release any CO2 gas.. power plants might
If there's a problem (hardly, given the low overall savings as linked), then deal with the problem

But OK, say a policy is needed

Best, in my view, stimulation of free market competition
This is the most sutable option also to lower energy consumption, all the way along the energy usage chain:
Firstly, because electricity producers, just like manufacturers, are then more keen to keep down their own energy usage and cost.
Secondly, because manufacturers are then also pushed to deliver energy and cost saving products that the public actually want (and have always wanted, and do buy, even when costing more: batteries, cleaning fluids etc imaginately marketed, "expensive to buy but cheap in the long run"
- those manufacturers don't run along to the regulators, seeking to have cheap unprofitable alternatives banned! See Paul's Stinkypants cartoon).
New energy saving inventions can always be helped to the market.


But OK, taking taxation, on a more liberal (what a misnomer) ideology,
it is as you say also better - for ban proposing governments too (like bankrupt California )
The big potential Government income, from taxation on coal, electricity from coal, any electricity, or on individual products
(buildings, cars, TV sets, washing machines etc as well as light bulbs),
to appropriately reduce energy consumption, compared to legislating what consumers can or can't buy and use.

Looking at light bulbs alone:
1 1/2 - 2 billion annual pre-ban US sales of relevant incandescent light bulbs shows the potential Government taxation income just from them.
Meanwhile, consumers keep choice and are "not just hit by taxes",
in that the income can also go to lower the prices of energy saving alternatives.

Also: It is much easier to implement, to alter (as with the entry of new products),
and to remove taxation (eg sufficient low emission energy available) without changing production, than it is with regulation.
Light bulb taxation examples: http://ceolas.net/#li23x


Still, as said, I believe in good old fashioned un-subsidised competition among manufacturers to provide me with what I want, in the way of safe-to-use products... if electricity supply/emissions is an issue, deal with electricity supply/emissions.
How hard can it be ?!
And, yes, the bulb ban savings are quoted by the Obama administration under energy secretary Chu to be in a year 2030 perspective - when generation efficiency, alternative source supply, grid upgrades, emission reduction etc are all likely to have been undertaken anyway!

Rather than ban or tax the best, cleanest and most eco friendly bulb on the market (the incandescent), how about if the government looks into ACTUAL energy conservation instead of making-somebody-rich-in-the-name-of-green?

If the focus is on lighting, how about making consumers aware of stuff like turning off the lights when not in use. My experience is that the only people where switching to CFL can possibly save money is where they have lights they are leaving on 24x7.

Next up, rather than going over something that uses 7% of the home energy consumption, how about a little focus on the thing that uses 50%: heat. In my article about micro heaters, if just a few people actually adopt that then the savings will be far greater than anything that the light bulb stuff even claims to be.

Either of these paths require zero laws. It is just passing along some information.

paul wheaton wrote:Rather than ban or tax the best, cleanest and most eco friendly bulb on the market (the incandescent), how about if the government looks into ACTUAL energy conservation instead of making-somebody-rich-in-the-name-of-green?
If the focus is on lighting, how about making consumers aware of stuff like turning off the lights when not in use. My experience is that the only people where switching to CFL can possibly save money is where they have lights they are leaving on 24x7.
Next up, rather than going over something that uses 7% of the home energy consumption, how about a little focus on the thing that uses 50%: heat. In my article about micro heaters, if just a few people actually adopt that then the savings will be far greater than anything that the light bulb stuff even claims to be.
Either of these paths require zero laws. It is just passing along some information.

The light bulb ban always was a token issue...
Very visible for politicians to have Green credentials, waving a funny bulb around to "show they are doing something"!
In Philips home country they are getting a good bit of stick about their "green" stance
Dutch Researchers cover Philips involvement: The Unholy Alliance between Philips and the Greens
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/03/17/the-unholy-alliance-between-philips-and-the-greens-a-guest-weblog-by-joost-van-kasteren-and-henk-tennekes/

re switching off lights...


etc...
"LEDs leading to greater, not less energy use" according to article
http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/10/led-light-cfl-b.html

EU's "Mr LightBulb Ban" does not switch off his own lights..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1365740/Mr-Lightbulb-does-bit-save-energy--leaving-lamps-outside-luxury-home-day-night-weeks-end.html

peter dublin wrote:
Have they nothing better to do, than to spend all this effort to define what safe and useful products you can or can't buy? No.
(Have I nothing better to do than to complain about it...er, no )

To be clear, I meant the politicians and bureaucrats behind all these rules, have they nothing better to do...not S. G. Botsford and Tel Jetson, as quoted in the comment

Has anyone seen or tried these halogen bulbs from Sylvania? Lowe's carries them now and they advertise that they're 28% more efficient. Wonder how they could tweak them to boost that to 30% to be approved under the ban?