# Canada's ban on incandescent light bulbs



## Paddy (Jul 13, 2004)

The CBC's Ontario Today did a segment this morning on the upcoming ban on incandescent bulbs. I think it's premature for a number of reasons - and perhaps actually wrongheaded in Canada. (WITHOUT getting into the whole global warming debate - we know who you are and what you believe in on that front - let's keep this to light bulbs, ok?  )

What are your thoughts?

Some reading material: Light Bulb Clarity: New Electric Politics

Ban the bulb? What kind of bright idea is that? - CBC News

I'd like to see good, reasonably priced LEDs on the market before we ban incandescents. CFLs are riddled with issues, from the poor quality of the light, long warmup times, and poor functioning outdoors to the very large disposal issue.

NOTE: sorry for the typo in the poll - apparently I cannot edit that!!


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

I hate the quality of the new bulbs, _but_ people should have a choice. I wouldn't want to impose my idea of what is good on all consumers simply because I don't like it.


----------



## Mckitrick (Dec 25, 2005)

The CFL's (at least every one I've tried) emit a high pitched noise that only I seem to be able to hear and it drives me CUCKOO!


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

the problem is people do not dispose of CFL properly, they throw them in the garbage.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Yep. The CFL's buzz. They take too long to warm up, they don't always work properly with rheostats, they cat an ugly light, and they are an environmental hazard. Under any other circumstances than a drive toward a nutty version of environmentalism, these bulbs would not be approved for sale.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I am concerned about the mercury contained in these bulbs, and thus, how does one properly dispose of them, but I do use them. I really like the daylight bulbs, especially at night during the winter.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

I've bought these at costco many times. I've found they certainly don't live up their claims of greater longevity. In fact I've found them worst than traditional bulbs. Anyone else finding they're replacing these things way too often? Maybe its just the brand Costco is selling.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacGuiver said:


> I've bought these at costco many times. I've found they certainly don't live up their claims of greater longevity. In fact I've found them worst than traditional bulbs. Anyone else finding they're replacing these things way too often? Maybe its just the brand Costco is selling.


No. I find that all of the brands have very short lifespans. I have stopped using them entirely.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Dumb Dumb Dumb idea. 

CFBs are not green because of the poisons such as Mercury and Phosphors that are essential to making the bulb work.

In Canada all that "wasted" energy goes into aiding in heating our homes so net energy savings are zero. The three months a year that additional heat is not required, we don't need anything but the sun to illuminate our homes and lights can be turned off altogether during normal waking hours.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

The CFL's seem to be less tolerant of minor current fluctuations than the incandescent bulbs. I find myself replacing them more often in certain sockets, while others do seem to last considerably longer - but nowhere near the 7x (or whatever) longer the boxes proclaim.


----------



## adagio (Aug 23, 2002)

I used to be a big fan of CFL's. When they first came out they worked as advertised and lasted for years. Ever since governments have decided to ban incandescent bulbs the CFL's are crap, lasting no longer than our old bulbs but triple the price. I've tried every brand from cheap to the most expensive and found no difference.

The mercury content really bothers me. Lets face it, a good portion of used CFL's are going to landfill. There is no quick and easy way of properly disposing them. I no longer feel that the energy savings out way the hazards of these new bulbs. My mind has completely changed.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The upcoming U.S. Ban on incandescents is going to be revoked soon anyway.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

because the mercury content is what bothers me, I displose of them by taking them to the local Canadian Tire store or to my local recycling depot.

But for how long they last for me , they have lasted forever. I have one that is one for 8 hours a day 365 days a year, and its has been going for 6 years now. Actually all of the CFL's I put in my house when I moved in 6 years ago are still going and I haven't replaced one. I don't know if a incandescents would last this long but the cost savings to me and my pocket book is what matters to me as well.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

adagio said:


> I used to be a big fan of CFL's. When they first came out they worked as advertised and lasted for years. Ever since governments have decided to ban incandescent bulbs the CFL's are crap, lasting no longer than our old bulbs but triple the price. I've tried every brand from cheap to the most expensive and found no difference.
> 
> The mercury content really bothers me. Lets face it, a good portion of used CFL's are going to landfill. There is no quick and easy way of properly disposing them. I no longer feel that the energy savings out way the hazards of these new bulbs. My mind has completely changed.


This is where we're at, too.

I have some CFL's I purchased Stateside, advertised to be dim-able. They are and 2 of the 5 still work, after being used for nearly 13 years. One crapped out in a year or so, the other two died last year. I recall paying quite a premium for them ($19 USD) at the time. I don't know if we saved any electricity or money or what...

Since then, we've been putting them here & there, & not getting much life out of them. The originals were also near max output at startup, we have one in a fixture in the dining room that needs to be fired up 5 minutes before you need the damn thing in order to see anything.

Have a little plastic bucket in the garage with a half dozen or so burned out CFL's in it, still trying to decide if I should call up HazMat to dispose of them or just dump 'em in the trash. I really don't know the "proper" place to dispose of them and, frankly, after the snow job, I just don't care...

That & the price will be going up after the gov't subsidies end, anyways...

Spoke to the spice about this a couple of weeks back, next trip to Montana we're going to pickup a case or so of incandescents & to hell with CFL's, LED's, ABC's & XYZ's.


----------



## Joker Eh (Jan 22, 2008)

FeXL said:


> Have a little plastic bucket in the garage with a half dozen or so burned out CFL's in it, still trying to decide if I should call up HazMat to dispose of them or just dump 'em in the trash. I really don't know the "proper" place to dispose of them and, frankly, after the snow job, I just don't care...


Please don't dump them in the trash.

Anyone try the new LED bulbs?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

From the US Environmental Protection Agency site:



> *Cleaning Up a Broken CFL*
> 
> What to Do if a Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulb Breaks in Your Home: Overview
> 
> ...


----------



## Chagwa (Apr 23, 2009)

Once again, we've been fooled by our government. With all the energy being saved, Ontario has to pay millions to the US and other provincesto take our electricity surplus, talk about backward engineering and money well wasted...
Ontario paying millions to subsidize hydro consumers outside province: NDP


----------



## The Doug (Jun 14, 2003)

Depending on the brand I find CFLs acceptable in service / utility areas that are not in constant use, and in the basement. However everywhere else in the house I prefer incandescent bulbs, and low watt ones at that (I like it kind of dark much of the time). 

I don't believe the longevity / reliability claims - I've had a few CFLs go _bzzzt!_ in the first ten minutes of use, while others just get more and more annoying over time as they take longer to reach maximum brightness as they age. 

I've tried a couple of LED lights but they're not ready for prime time yet and I've yet to see one that provides a true white or even a warm light. To my eye most of them have kind of a violet cast. They're okay in cheap flashlights though.

Overall I think the incandescent ban is a farce.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

CFLs can certainly be a challenge until you find a reliable brand with a pleasant light spectrum. Disposal is easy in BC though. 
http://www.productcare.org/BC-lights-depots

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

I have them in almost every lamp in my house and don't mind them at all. They have all lasted a remarkably long time. In fact only one has burned out in years. I have also noticed a difference with my Hydro Bill.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Our current favorites are silviana soft white micro-mini instant on. 

They have 11 year warranties, so we can take them back if they fail. 

These are new enough that none have failed yet. We keep all the packaging and receipts, writing on the package where they are used.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jamesB (Jan 28, 2007)

What with the lousy performance and hazardous disposal potential I flatly refuse to use CFL's.
I've been trying some Halogen bulbs, so far so good.
I like the instant start and the light quality is very similar to what I'm used to with incandescents.
As a bonus the price is much better then led's also a better size-power range.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> Our current favorites are silviana soft white micro-mini instant on.
> 
> They have 11 year warranties, so we can take them back if they fail.


They are rated for 11 years of service life--and not 11 years straight. You do not have an 11-year warranty on these bulbs.

It was this product that was the last CFL bulb I purchased, by the way. Family members noticed how unpleasant the light from one flood looked. Also, it did not respond to a dimmer switch--it stayed lit at full power by design. It wasn't a defect.


----------



## singingcrow (May 6, 2005)

I don't mind them in certain areas, but if they're not any better / worse for the environment, what's the point? I found areas I like "daylight" light bulbs I go for the incandescent ones, as well, for my spotlight type fixtures the CFL's just don't fit due to length and girth. The only place I put the CFL's is in the stairway and in a lamp that has a shade that blocks and changes the actual light. Don't get me started on LED lights, they're so harsh on the eyes they make me cringe.


----------



## imnothng (Sep 12, 2009)

I have stopped buying CFL's. I am sick and tired of changing the damn things.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

I use them in my basement where I work. They go on in the morning and go off at about 9:00 or 10:00 at night. In that use, I may actually be getting some energy saving.

They are a flourescent light, so they must have some sort of built in balast. Placing them in a location where the light goes on and off all of the time could actually use more power.

I bought some cheap ones (the offending brand was Sunbeam) that were downright dangerous. They over heated in the socket.

I do not like the fact that they have mercury and the longlevity from my experience is over rated.

They have a ban in Europe on incandescent bulbs. It is being circumvented by importing them as enery efficient heaters:

Light Bulbs Marketed As Heaters Avoid Ban In Europe « Light Bulb Central


No one has mentioned it, but (a) I worry about the effect of not having full spectrum light over time and (b) I am not that crazy about having all lights in my environment flicker at 60 cycles per second. I remember in high school playing basketball in the gym and the flourescent lights disorienting me once I started really running around.

I really do not like the lack of choice. The insulation technology is there pretty much such that you could have a home heated by the sun during the day and the incandescent light bulbs at night. Safe, affordable high tech maintenance free. If you are using all of the energy that your house produces, it does not smatter if it comes from a dedicated heater or from a bulb. One is just as efficient as the other.

I am seeing a lot of "green initiatives" that really boggle my mind. It is bumping up cost for no good reason and are really short sighted...umm ... I should quit ranting about now or I'll be into McGuinty and destroying capacity ...Quitting now.


----------



## dona83 (Jun 26, 2005)

I use CFLs but I prefer incandescents in the bathroom. Bad move...


----------



## Guest (Mar 9, 2011)

Hmm let's see .. mercury in the water table due to improper disposal of CFL bulbs ... or bulbs that use more electricity but are better for the environment. Since electricity is a renewable resource and our environment is not .. I think they are a bunch of a$$hats for enforcing this on us.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

singingcrow said:


> I don't mind them in certain areas, but if they're not any better / worse for the environment, what's the point? I found areas I like "daylight" light bulbs I go for the incandescent ones, as well, for my spotlight type fixtures the CFL's just don't fit due to length and girth. The only place I put the CFL's is in the stairway and in a lamp that has a shade that blocks and changes the actual light. Don't get me started on LED lights, they're so harsh on the eyes they make me cringe.


The point is that some manufacturers are providing kickbacks to the government if they endorse only one product. It's criminal, really, like the way Apple is currently shut out of the computer offerings of many school divisions at the moment. So much for freedom of choice for the consumers. Besides, if 90% of the energy of an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat, that's less heat you need from your furnace to heat your home. Also some people are extremely sensitive to the light that CFL's produce, resulting in headaches and such. Me, I just don't like 'em. Too cold and whitish/bluish. Much prefer the warmer, yellower end of the spectrum that incandescents are known for.

And one more thing: they are terrible for recording studios due to noise interference.


----------



## hayesk (Mar 5, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Besides, if 90% of the energy of an incandescent bulb is in the form of heat, that's less heat you need from your furnace to heat your home.


That may be true, but it's an incredibly inefficient way to heat your home. The little extra heat you'd need from your furnace by using CFL bulbs costs way less than he heat generated by an incandescent bulb.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

hayesk said:


> That may be true, but it's an incredibly inefficient way to heat your home. The little extra heat you'd need from your furnace by using CFL bulbs costs way less than he heat generated by an incandescent bulb.


An incandescent light bulb is 100% efficient at creating heat energy.


----------



## Chris (Feb 8, 2001)

I've found that the CFLs do last longer than incandescents, but I have been trying LED bulbs in a fixture in my dining room. The bulbs are visible, so I wanted a clear glass finish, and, after the incandescent bulbs I bought started burning out, I found them at Home Hardware and Wal-Mart. They are less than $9, give off a warm white light that matches the remaining incandescent bulbs, and only use 1.5 watts, while giving off the light equivalent of the 40 watt bulbs! 

Not all LED bulbs are so reasonably priced (and these ones are pushing the financial limit for me), but they do seem to be coming down in price, and are becoming more widely available, so my intention is to start phasing them in as the CFLs (slowly) burn out.

Oh, and I take my burned out CFL bulbs to Canadian Tire, Home Depot or Rona for proper disposal. I do the same with dead batteries!


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

imnothng said:


> I have stopped buying CFL's. I am sick and tired of changing the damn things.


I think you meant 'incandescent'? I was changing an incandescent every week or two. Now that we are CFL we have maybe one replacent per season. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

vancouverdave said:


> I think you meant 'incandescent'? I was changing an incandescent every week or two. Now that we are CFL we have maybe one replacent per season.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


No, I think he said what he meant. CFLs are junk and useless lighting in far too many applications for me as well.

Incandescents give better light, more stable and easy on the eye light, last longer in my experience and post far less hazard to the environment. Bonus, they provide heat in winter and are off most of the summer.

Posted from my MBP from my home.

Gawd, why don't people turn off that tappa sent from my iPhone crap?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

_Sheesh_. It's just that the dude is using his iPhone, and people are jumping down his throat. How silly. Ignore what he's using... the man is contributing to the conversation. No need to grump out over such trivial details.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> ...why don't people turn off that tappa sent from my iPhone crap?


SINC--it's just a way to explain why someone makes errors in their posts.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Macfury said:


> SINC--it's just a way to explain why someone makes errors in their posts.


Uep. Thrt's it. =)


Sent from my iPhone using Trpatalk


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

VacnouverDave - dont mund the sourpisses. Keep doin whst your doing man.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Max said:


> VacnouverDave - dont mund the sourpisses. Keep doin whst your doing man.


Puzz iff!


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

I guess I am in the minority of those who find CFLs easier on the eyes (at least my eyes) than incandescents. I don't like the idea of being forced to go one way and only one way, but that is another issue. Still, as the sun is just now coming up in the east here in St.John's, and I have the option of using either an incandescent bulb or a CFL, I chose the daylight CFL. Still, that is me, and I have no problems with people choosing what they want for their situations. Paix, mes amis.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I replaced all of Mom's ceiling bulbs with CFBs. Had nothing to do with saving money and difference was undetectable on her utility bills. Mainly at 80+ year I did not want her attempting to stand on whatever was handy to change burnt out bulbs. 

The light quality is horrid especially for reading and I left her reading light untouched.

I did change the lights in her garage and on a recent visit left them on 24/7 as starting up at a temp of 50°F the bulbs took way too long to deliver any light. So whatever energy they would have saved in the 2 or 3 minutes a day they were needed was more than offset by leaving them on 24/7.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Don't get hung up on last year's technology. Other things being equal:

- You can get pleasant (warm) light spectrum

- You can get instant on

Check out my previous post for one example:
- sylvana soft white micro-mini instant on


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Dr.G. said:


> I don't like the idea of being forced to go one way and only one way, but that is another issue.


I agree with this. I think that a nice analogy would be for me to decide that coffee filters are wasteful and coffee makers use too much electricity keeping coffee warm--therefore, we must outlaw all coffee makers and paper filters, and allow retailers to sell only French Presses.

I would also point out that disadvantaged Canadians are more likely to be able to afford a 99 cent pack of incandescent bulbs. Asking them to suddenly switch to hugely expensive CFLs which require significant up-front investment does them no favours.

If CFLs are truly great, then they will ascend in the marketplace.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> Don't get hung up on last year's technology. Other things being equal:
> 
> - You can get pleasant (warm) light spectrum
> 
> ...


Only advantage of CFBs is not having to change them as frequently so suggesting that replacing an expensive toxic bulb before its time is madness. Garage bulbs need to be brighter than normal, so could not really be used indoors. Those bulbs will just have to stay on when I visit.

Does not solve the Radio Interference issue or the 60 cps on off issue. The latter has to be filtered out by the brain and gives many of us severe headaches especially in reading lights.

Not to mention that in Canada there are zero net energy savings, and the environmental footprint of CFBs is much more toxic. In my books, clean trumps energy savings every time.

Wanna really save energy hang those clothes out on the line. The savings of a 60Watt equivalent light bulb need about 110 hours of use to equal one cycle of that dryer.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> Don't get hung up on last year's technology. Other things being equal:
> 
> - You can get pleasant (warm) light spectrum
> Check out my previous post for one example:
> - sylvana soft white micro-mini instant on


In the eye of the beholder. I installed exactly that model last month in abasement stairwell and received nothing but comments from family members along the lines of: "What's wrong with that bulb?" or "Is there something wrong with the socket?" 

Nothing pleasant about it.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

The fundamental question here is 'what (if any) role should government legislation play in the development of technology?'

Without a ban on incandescent bulbs/gasoline only cars/holocaust-denying a$$holes, they will persist. There's a case to be made that they ought to have a right to persist, and if a significant number of people want that, they should be allowed to have it. I'm not taking sides here; the question is to what extent the government should exert its power to generate an economic incentive to develop new/better technologies? If they ban a poor technology too soon, they risk creating an artificial economy that promotes a poor technology; if they do nothing they risk allowing historical constraints preventing Canada from leading/exploiting emerging technologies... it's not a trivial problem. 

All I can say is that I wish we had people knowledgeable about emerging technologies (rather than a bunch of lawyers) making these decisions.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

hayesk said:


> That may be true, but it's an incredibly inefficient way to heat your home. The little extra heat you'd need from your furnace by using CFL bulbs costs way less than he heat generated by an incandescent bulb.


YEs, but that should be my choice, shouldn't it? If I am willing to pay for the extra cost of using incandescent bulbs, why is it anyone else's business? They're not causing cancer or giving people headaches.

It's like being told that PC's are far less expensive so from now on everyone will use PC's. No more expensive Apple crap. Are you OK with that?


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

bryanc said:


> The fundamental question here is 'what (if any) role should government legislation play in the development of technology?'
> 
> Without a ban on incandescent bulbs/gasoline only cars/holocaust-denying a$$holes, they will persist. There's a case to be made that they ought to have a right to persist, and if a significant number of people want that, they should be allowed to have it. I'm not taking sides here; the question is to what extent the government should exert its power to generate an economic incentive to develop new/better technologies? If they ban a poor technology too soon, they risk creating an artificial economy that promotes a poor technology; if they do nothing they risk allowing historical constraints preventing Canada from leading/exploiting emerging technologies... it's not a trivial problem.
> 
> All I can say is that I wish we had people knowledgeable about emerging technologies (rather than a bunch of lawyers) making these decisions.


The so-called energy saving aspect of CFBs has been debunked a number of times at least as far as Northern climates go. The "wasted" energy is heat and in Canada that energy is useful anywhere from 9 to 11 and a half months of the year. The other three months indoor lights can be turned off altogether as Canadians enjoy very long periods of daylight during the summer months.


----------



## Lichen Software (Jul 23, 2004)

bryanc said:


> The fundamental question here is 'what (if any) role should government legislation play in the development of technology?'
> 
> Without a ban on incandescent bulbs/gasoline only cars/holocaust-denying a$$holes, they will persist. snip...


In most cases one of the standard responses when people for some reason do not want to solve the problem is " Well ... the problem won't solve itself". I think in this case it is the wrong answer.

LED lights will come down more in price. So far they seem to have everything going for them except price, at least for most people. As the price comes down, the problem will solve itself.

- No committee necessary
- No legislation necessary
- Light bulb police free
- Lawyer free
- Tax free
- Pollution free ( as far as I know)
- Vastly more energy efficient.

.... All on it's own

Amazing


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Lichen Software said:


> In most cases one of the standard responses when people for some reason do not want to solve the problem is " Well ... the problem won't solve itself". I think in this case it is the wrong answer.
> 
> LED lights will come down more in price. So far they seem to have everything going for them except price, at least for most people. As the price comes down, the problem will solve itself.
> 
> ...


+1

Typically, the elephantine government is backing yesterday's horse.


----------



## Dr T (May 16, 2009)

*130 V incandescents*

On my trip into the Big City tomorrow, I plan to stock up on 130V incandescents. They hold up for years under the power fluctuations here in the Islands, whereas a compact fluorescent thingie might last a coupla weeks.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Macfury said:


> If CFLs are truly great, then they will ascend in the marketplace.


Exactly, let the free market decide. 

I don't like the light cast by CFLs, nor do I appreciate the disposal hazard. However, I do use them in infrequently used spaces and hard to change the lightbulb places. Combined with natural light from a window or a supplementary incandescent bulb, the resulting light shed is easier to take.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2011)

KC4 said:


> Exactly, let the free market decide.
> 
> I don't like the light cast by CFLs, nor do I appreciate the disposal hazard. However, I do use them in infrequently used spaces and hard to change the lightbulb places. Combined with natural light from a window or a supplementary incandescent bulb, the resulting light shed is easier to take.


I might also point out that it's not just a disposable hazard we're talking about here, it's a very serious health and safety risk to your person to even use these things! If you drop one when trying to put it in and it breaks you are releasing toxic gases in direct proximity to your person and anyone/anything in the immediate area! You, your kids, your pets, whoever.

I'm really really amazed that these are even allowed on the market due to this, it just goes to show how deep the pockets behind them truly are. If you don't believe me, just try and release something to market that contains things with this level of toxicity and see how it's received.

At the very least they should come with huge warnings all of them showing how toxic and dangerous they actually are ... of course that would probably hurt their sales (boo hoo).


----------



## lighthouse10 (Mar 17, 2011)

Re Poll

*"I think consumers should have the choice - at least until light bulb options improve"*
is the most popular choice

Note the lack of logic,
which of course reflects the lack of logic of the ban itself

If light bulbs do improve, people would presumably buy them voluntarily 
- no need for a ban

If light bulbs don't improve, people prefer the bulbs they have
- so why ban them

Think about it.

The ban is of course wrong for many other reasons, as Paddy's link to
Light Bulb Clarity: New Electric Politics
shows, in the lack of supposed savings, 
and the questionable need to target consumers who pay for the electricity they use, when there is no present or future electricity shortage, 
given all the alternative sources.


----------



## lighthouse10 (Mar 17, 2011)

That Light Bulb website also covers Canada

Light Bulb Clarity: New Electric Politics: Canada Section
( ceolas.net/#li11x )
Light Bulb regulations in Canada and similar countries: 
Smaller savings, no energy shortage, low emissions, cold conditions, 
more time indoors in varied surroundings etc


----------

