But you still haven't cited any authoritative references. All I see is supposition on your part. Moreover, saying that the average age of a home in the U.S. is 40 years does not imply that they fall apart after that time. As older houses continue to age, new construction will keep the average lower. Even if zero older homes were demolished, new construction could keep the average age constant. Aslo, if what you contend were true, we would be seeing demolition work going on in every town every day. It just ain't happening -- except maybe in Detroit, but that's another story.
-Phil
I don't see 40 year life cycle as a norm either.
The houses in my neighborhood, (approximately 250), were all built in 1952-1953. Only 5 were demolished because they wanted to expand to a lager square footage, and the new flood plane laws made them fill in the basements. It was easier to start over for them, but only because of zoning, not old structural issues. .
FWIW, I've never heard anything of that sort - that homes have an anticipated 40-year duration. My entire life I've been presented with the notion that a home can last indefinitely if it is maintained properly. My father's home looks nicer now than the day it was made, and that was 49 years ago. A former college roommate - now a realtor - lives in a fabulous 100-year-old home.
Meanwhile, like Phil points out, where is all the demolition? Completely non-existent.
It makes about as much sense as wasting perfectly good moonshine to run SUVs. - Has anyone seen a credible accounting of the cost in petroleum/petro-chemicals to plant, fertilize, treat with pesticides, harvest, transport, process and then transport again. ADm and Monsato would have any such report quashed from the federal level. - The one thing this country has that most other countries do not have is the best legislators that money can buy.
I think older buildings are much more desirable. I grew up in Louisville, KY where some of the best places to live are the oldest. I lived for many years in what is known as "Old Louisville" and I really miss it a lot. I actually feel sorry for people who have never known anything but these thin, vinyl wrapped, 2x4 framed constructions that are sold as homes these days.
It seems that it's the end of the road for incandescent lamps, aka light bulbs, in the USA soon.
They disappeared from shops in Europe a while ago.
Needless to say Heater is very distressed about this
On the face of it the new legislation outlawing the light bulb makes no sense at all:
1) In most places have lived if the lights are on it's also cold, winter in northern Europe for example. Whatever energy is saved by not having heat generated by lighting must be made up for my cranking up the heating system.
2) I find it hard to believe, taking into account the total life time of lamps, manufacturing to disposal, that a complex LED or CFL lamp is consuming less energy overall than a simple filament light bulb.
3) Environmentally I cannot imagine that manufacturing LEDs or CFLs is not a total disaster compared to a simple filament bulb what with all the complex materials and processes required.
4) I don't want to get into politics but if LEDs and CFLs were such a good idea people would switch to them anyway. No regulation required.
Does anybody have any hard information on these issues? Nothing I can find googling around convinces me it makes any sense.
Based on his history, if Edison was alive today he would be out in front leading the charge to replace the incandescent bulb with newer technology.
Forcing the replacement of energy wasting devices with better technology is a good thing.
Forcing the replacement of energy wasting devices with better technology is a good thing.
I totally agree.
It's just that looking at the size, mass, and complexity of the replacements I'm still not convinced the energy savings and environment impact of a CFL or LED lamp over a tiny little filament are real. Taking into account the entire life time from digging up and processing the raw materials to disposal.
My suspicion might be unjustified but it's still there.
You should check you history more closely. Based on history, if Edison was still alive he would be electrocuting elephants or something equally gross to prove that his filament lamps are better than the new technology that threatens his monopoly. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech_0104
Edison was a dangerous lunatic. 66000 volts to kill an elephant to prove that AC was more dangerous than his stupid DC system. And they say Tesla was nuts!
Forcing the replacement of energy wasting devices with better technology is a good thing.
I agree. I saw a report on the news yesterday that the country's net electric energy use, along with emissions from coal-fired generating plants, is down -- lowest since the 70's -- despite a rising population. And it's mainly because of gains in the efficiency of energy-using devices. Lighting is only one area where legislated mandates have a positive effect. Such mandates run the gamut from stricter building codes to standards for household appliances. And they seem to be working.
Here's a document that summarizes the history of our efficiency mandates:
Habit and inertia sometimes require a nudge, especially when the benefits of change are long-term and require short-term sacrifice (i.e. higher up-front cost).
CFLs are a disater, IMO. Their touted longer life may hold up when mounted upright in open air. But they will overheat when mounted in any other orientation or when enclosed, shortening their lives considerably. Plus, their mercury content makes them hazardous waste.
I've been rather well impressed with the LED-based lighting that's coming out lately. The quality of the light is pleasant enough, and the prices do seem to be coming down. I'm sure that they will spell the death knell for CFLs in the not-too-distant future.
Once incandescents are gone, I wonder how much longer we will have to endure the Edison socket and what standard will emerge to replace it. "Screwing in a light bulb" will become as anachronistic as "dialing a telephone," which people still say, despite punching buttons instead.
-Phil
Well said.
With the longevity of LEDs, I would expect manufacturers to eliminate the socket..saving a fraction of a cent to increase profits..and thereby making fixtures a permanment thing.
With customers moving an average of 7 years, any owner will not see the need or incur the cost of installing fixtures that have sockets.
Lightbulbs got outlawed some years back here in Australia. There are loopholes though - 'fancy' bulbs, eg candle shaped ones are allowed, and it seems halogen lightbulbs are also allowed as they are a bit more efficient.
I've been running experiments with fittings that have 3 sockets - I put one standard bulb, one CF and one LED bulb in the socket. Here is what I have found:
1) CF bulbs take several minutes to turn on. If you have a standard bulb in the socket, at least you get some of the light straight away
2) CF bulbs lose brightness as they age. You think your eyes are aging as you can't read a book but it is the bulb. If you also have a standard bulb in the fitting you can use that as a brightness reference.
3) LED lights are brighter and come on straight away. But they flicker at 50Hz. You can see the strobe effect if you move your hand quickly. Not sure how that goes with people who get migraines. I think the manufacturers are supposed to use a constant current regulator, but they cheat and save costs by just using the AC.
4) LED lights are supposed to last forever. I just noticed on one that is a year old that a whole bank of leds is not working.
5) In high use areas like the kitchen, it is the standard lightbulbs that need replacing all the time. As the official lightbulb replacer in the house, I like not having to do this job any more than necessary!
I'll keep doing experiments and buying bulbs from different manufacturers. I think the ideal light will be a LED light with a constant current driver and also where it has been designed well within the heat/current recommended range rather than (as I suspect) being pushed right to the limit.
My current thinking is different bulbs for different places - eg for the closet, hardly every used and the incandescent will last forever. But for the kitchen and living areas, I quite like the hybrid approach.
The constant current driving portion could easily be in a intermediate part that the LED screws into...that is if the industry had the smarts to set standards. LOL..fat chance that will happen.
Oh, you had to go for the political point. I do agree that sometimes a nudge or "jump start" is required for the long term good of society. My problem with this as that I'm not totally convinced that the goal of the legislation, saving energy, is actually achieved taking into account the total life cycle of a light bulb vs a LED lamp. Hence my question about the technical realities of this.
Despite my user name I have been a LED fanatic since I got my first 4mm red LED in the early 1970's. WTF, it's a diode and it lights up? You're kidding me!
However I don't even want to get into the aesthetics of filaments vs CFL, vs LED here.
I agree CFLs are a disaster.
The adoption of a new technology highlights those who adopt and those who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Take some time and review old newspapers discussing the adoption of then new incandescent bulbs when candles, lamps and gas lights were in place..same discussions...just the names and dates are different.
I am very upset with the demise of the old filament lamp. As my handle implies I'm a toy train collector and the light from tube and compact flourescent lamps is damaging to the plastic colors in the train bodies. So far I have been able to replace the lamps over my layout with halogen lamps but I am not certain whether this is not having an effect on the trains. Since I need to have my lights dimmable that makes cfls unusable. LED lamps are still in the grossly overpriced range. Hopefully this pricing wil come down before too many of my bulbs blow out. Just my two cents worth.
Train Nut
You can filter for UV light..and in an environment that you are discussing should be.
FWIW...any light degrades pigments..the shorter the wavelength like UV, the faster it happens.
The incondescent bulb emits 95% of its radiation in the form of IR...heat...and that IR radiation does degrade materials..that is why they tell you to store items in COOL, dry environments...heat (IR radiation) degrades items in many ways...in respect to trains pigments, lubricants and materials like plastic would take a hit.
Lightbulbs got outlawed some years back here in Australia. There are loopholes though - 'fancy' bulbs, eg candle shaped ones are allowed, and it seems halogen lightbulbs are also allowed as they are a bit more efficient.
I've been running experiments with fittings that have 3 sockets - I put one standard bulb, one CF and one LED bulb in the socket. Here is what I have found:
1) CF bulbs take several minutes to turn on. If you have a standard bulb in the socket, at least you get some of the light straight away
2) CF bulbs lose brightness as they age. You think your eyes are aging as you can't read a book but it is the bulb. If you also have a standard bulb in the fitting you can use that as a brightness reference.
3) LED lights are brighter and come on straight away. But they flicker at 50Hz. You can see the strobe effect if you move your hand quickly. Not sure how that goes with people who get migraines. I think the manufacturers are supposed to use a constant current regulator, but they cheat and save costs by just using the AC.
4) LED lights are supposed to last forever. I just noticed on one that is a year old that a whole bank of leds is not working.
5) In high use areas like the kitchen, it is the standard lightbulbs that need replacing all the time. As the official lightbulb replacer in the house, I like not having to do this job any more than necessary!
I'll keep doing experiments and buying bulbs from different manufacturers. I think the ideal light will be a LED light with a constant current driver and also where it has been designed well within the heat/current recommended range rather than (as I suspect) being pushed right to the limit.
My current thinking is different bulbs for different places - eg for the closet, hardly every used and the incandescent will last forever. But for the kitchen and living areas, I quite like the hybrid approach.
Even if you are using incandescent bulbs as *cough* heaters, I assume that in such cold climates most actual heating systems are gas or oil based. Burning the fuel to heat your house on site is still a lot more efficient than burning it in a power plant, converting to electricity, sending it down wires, and making a filament hot.
In the "cough" past ;<) they used to use light bulbs in livestock heaters to prevent the waters from freezing...since the bulb put out the vast majority of its illumination as heat. Those folks still doing this have to come up with a different heater element.
How right you are. If us oldies had our way you would still be using green screen text terminals and saving your files on paper tape:)
However that observation says nothing about whether switching away from filament lamps is actually beneficial in the long run.
This oldie, being a LED fanatic since the 1970's, hopes everything is what it seems.
However there is still that nagging doubt that there are not unforeseen consequences to all this. Not all "progress" is good. Remember when asbestos was a great new idea or DDT or Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ?
They can use heat lamp type bulbs, which will continue to be sold for that purpose. I suspect an ordinary bulb, with some coating or other small change to be classified as something other than a simple illumination device would continue to be sold as well.
I have not yet run into LED lights switching at 50/60Hz. Using one of those for illumination would be harmful! It's bad enough to see way too many car rear lights doing the same thing. At night, it's a real and growing problem. Seems we can easily sort out high frequency or constant illumination sources at night easily. Our brains handle that reasonably as a standard feature. However, a flickering image seems to just replicate all over our vision until it fades. Annoying.
I have some cough * Real* LED systems and they have No flicker...I use them for video ........ the issues here is the quality of the lamp.
Best ones use a few HP dice . not tons of the dinky indicator LEDs . and the good lamps use a Real CC CV switch mode power supply to regulate the power at 10s of KHz .
Xmas lights are just a diode and a resistor in some cases .
My PAR spot bulbs where 10 USD a pop but are normally in the 40 dollar range ...
but they will out last ME so I see them as a investment!
CFLs are a JOKE . horrible power factor and are toxic and have warm up issues ........ they were a gateway drug to the world of LEDs
I skipped the CFL craze .... I am all LED here and its pardon the pun . cool .. * I have ONE incanseset in my oven that I doubt a LED would fare well in it *
I think you touched on the PROBLEM...manufacturers are trying to product a product for VERY PRICE SENSITIVE market..and after a point quality suffers greatly with further production cuts.
I often wonder if we would be seeing all the whining about the adoption of new bulbs if the new products were cheaper than incandescent..a portion of the public is extremely adverse to spending more than they ever have to.
I would just like to mention that while CF's have their issues, the toxicity thing is way overblown. Early regular flourescent bulbs did have a noticeable amount of mercury in them but that hasn't been the case for decades, and CF's have negligible amounts of mercury too. Each bulb contains about 5 milligrams of mercury, It's enough that if you were to fill a landfill with millions of CF's there might be a problem, but the danger of breaking one in your house is trivial.
And if you're worried about the mercury in CF's you really don't want to know what chemicals are involved in the making of semiconductors.
We probably wouldn't. Some of us will do anything to see a lower price. Seeing it raised for any reason, even if it's a net value gain overall usually comes with a lot of noise about it.
Some of those could never be replaced by a higher-tech bulb. I have a lamp in my kitchen that serves as a nightlight. It has a skinny 25W "piano lamp" style bulb with clear glass and a long, skinny, uncoiled filament, mounted vertically. The light shines through a grille made of bamboo straws that are parallel to the filament. As the filament dances about ever so slightly, it produces a moving Moire effect that's quite pleasing. There's no LED alive that can match the natural shimmering coming from this lamp. So I hope that bulbs like this will be around for quite awhile longer.
BTW, in order to prolong the bulb's life, I wired a rectifier diode into the lamp's base to reduce the effective voltage that it sees. Still, though, a single-wire 25W filament is a very fragile thing, and I still have to replace the bulb about twice a year.
-Phil
Speciality bulbs will be produced "forever"..the investment is in place.
Not that retailers like Radio Shack won't charge an arm and a leg for them. ;<)
Speciality bubs represent a tiny portion of the market..and that is why they are excempt...their share of the energy misspent is tiny in respect to what the common household lighting wastes.
...a portion of the public is extremely adverse to spending more than they ever have to.
Yes of course. Most people are poor. It stings that a stupid light is 10 or more times more expensive than what you could get before when what you actually need to buy is food.
That is what capitalism is all about. It's not just the public it's every business as well. You know, the guys who do whatever they do to turn a profit.
Now you raise an interesting point: If LEDs and CFLs and such were such a good deal businesses, who don't care about the aesthetics of colour temperature in their worker droids offices and shops, would have switched to them voluntarily if the economics made sense.
Aside: Traffic lights switched over to LEDs around here a long time ago. The power saving is not the point. Rather, it's kind of expensive to send a man out to change a lamp in a traffic light pole. Better to minimize the number of times you have to do that.
FWIW...any light degrades pigments..the shorter the wavelength like UV, the faster it happens.
To a certain degree.
Many pigments (mostly the inorganic ones) are relatively unaffected by light. These are your basic titanium dioxide (white), iron oxide reds (primer red) and yellows, and carbon blacks. Carbon black is actually an excellent UV absorber/blocker, as is TiO2. The organics (bright blue/red/yellow) will pretty quickly change color due to both UV and visible light. The dyes used in cloth and carpeting, etc. are a whole different story.
I don't believe that government intervention to eliminate existing technology is a very good idea.
Look what happened when Cash For Clunkers program was going on.
Auto industry benifited, but maybe should not have had that advantage.
Prices of used cars went up.
The common person that needed an inexpensive mode of transportation has a hard time now, purchasing a car to get them
to work which I guess is really not a problem because common people without college education can't get jobs anyway.
You pay for the CFL's and LED's up front, Hoping that they will last for 10 or 20 years.
I consistently replace my CFLs after a couple of years because they are in enclosed not recommended installations, which are
almost any light fixture I can imagine.
I truly believe that LED is the lighting of the future.
LED Costs will come down, maybe.
I have recently installed equivalent 60W LEDs in my outdoor fixtures.
Incandecents do not work because of slamming doors and vibrations from garage door closings.
CFLs don't work because when temperature gets down to about 20 degrees F, they take forever to warm up.
So far, after two months of operation, the LEDs are working well in my outdoor applications.
Garage doors opening-closing and front door slamming and cold weather down to -10 degrees F have not stopped
the LEDs from working.
When the 8track and cassette tape started to influence the 33 rpm record disks, no one really thought that the 33rpm records
were going to be obsolete.
When CD's came along, it spelled the death of vinyl records.
I still have my stack of 33LPs
I don't think any government intervention was needed to see that the CD technology was better than the vinyl record technology.
I think what happened is known as Creative Distruction.
That process actually works.
I believe that if people want the lowest initial cost lighting, they should be able to purchase whatever technology they want.
You pay now for something that may not be cost efficient in the long run
or
You pay over and over for something that may or may not work in the long term.
Thats my two cents worth.
Thanks for listening.
Garyg
I think I might disagree.
I have been a part of many programs where if the Government had not encouraged R&D, it would have never happened.
And the world we live in would be very different.
It is ironic that I cannot think of even one technology that we use today that did not have government assistance.
I see the whole situation in a Darwinian context. A species -- let's give it the name incandescium -- dominates the econosystem. It's not the most adaptive of creatures, but it's been around a long time and, by virtue of its sheer numbers, it's able to keep competing species at bay. Along comes a virus, governmentium, which has been benign up to this point but suddenly mutates into a killer pathogen that targets incandescium. Like the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs, it quickly eridicates incandescium, allowing smaller creatures, like lumendiodium to survive. And guess what happens next? The plants that incandescium gobbled voraciously to near extinction begin to thrive again and live in balance with the lumendiodia. Of course, that's not to say that lumendiodium would not ultimtatley have prevailed on its own, but incandescium may have decimiated the plants it lived upon before dying out, to the detriment of the whole econosystem. So it may be concluded that governmentium, despite being a destuctive pathogen, might ultimately have been a positive force for good.
I guess my -- completely apolitical, mind you -- point is that, in any ecosystem or free-market econosystem, perturbations will occur, whether they're initially seen as constructive, benign, or destructive. But it's the nature of such systems, when left alone again, to self-stabilize. What may be a detriment to one species will be an opportunity for another. I mean, where would we be if the asteroid had not wiped out the dinosaurs? We are the lumendiodia, the beneficiaries of that terrible event. And I can't say the world is worse off as a result.
-Phil
LOL..good one.
FWIW...if the true cost of electricity was paid by the customer, trashing incandescent bulbs would be the first cost reduction measure they would take.
I don't see it as a question of personal liberty. Nobody is saying you can't have incandescent lights in your house, any more than saying you can't own an analog TV set or analog cellphone. In the past, we've phased out DDT, PCBs, CFCs, and analog TV broadcasts, all for good reasons. As a matter of policy and national priorities, this is really no different. Certainly, as a consequence, some industries benefit while others suffer. But I see no government/industry conspiracy beyond the promotion of more rational energy usage.
-Phil
LOl..there is no conspiracy...only conspiracists.
The oil companies love energy waste...so the Country is still not energy dependent.
Those advocating for incandescent bulbs are supporting Chinese industry..but never note that irony.
As you pointed out, if a person is willing to pay the price for running Chinese infrared generators that happen to emit 10% visible light they can.
I have owned a few red cars in my time. They all faded to muddy pink after a few years.
Yeah, that would fall into "bright organics" category, those will shift color if you look at them cross-eyed. GM had a serious problem in the early 70s when the bright blue (phthalo blue pigmented) paint they used on some cars was actually very transparent to UV and the primer underneath was epoxy based and easily degraded by UV light. Apparently the paint quickly fell off in sheets shortly after the customers took possession.
I was an early adopter of CFLs, buying some of the earliest ones available and paying much too much for them. But if I want to continue to buy incandescent bulbs for certain locations that get turned on-and-off a lot - like halls, garages, and bathrooms - how is the latest legislation not a question of personal liberty?
No one preventing you.
You just need to pay the going price for them...or their replacement.
Comments
I don't see 40 year life cycle as a norm either.
The houses in my neighborhood, (approximately 250), were all built in 1952-1953. Only 5 were demolished because they wanted to expand to a lager square footage, and the new flood plane laws made them fill in the basements. It was easier to start over for them, but only because of zoning, not old structural issues. .
Meanwhile, like Phil points out, where is all the demolition? Completely non-existent.
Based on his history, if Edison was alive today he would be out in front leading the charge to replace the incandescent bulb with newer technology.
Forcing the replacement of energy wasting devices with better technology is a good thing.
I totally agree.
It's just that looking at the size, mass, and complexity of the replacements I'm still not convinced the energy savings and environment impact of a CFL or LED lamp over a tiny little filament are real. Taking into account the entire life time from digging up and processing the raw materials to disposal.
My suspicion might be unjustified but it's still there.
You should check you history more closely. Based on history, if Edison was still alive he would be electrocuting elephants or something equally gross to prove that his filament lamps are better than the new technology that threatens his monopoly.
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/01/dayintech_0104
Edison was a dangerous lunatic. 66000 volts to kill an elephant to prove that AC was more dangerous than his stupid DC system. And they say Tesla was nuts!
Here's a document that summarizes the history of our efficiency mandates:
-Phil
-Phil
Well said.
With the longevity of LEDs, I would expect manufacturers to eliminate the socket..saving a fraction of a cent to increase profits..and thereby making fixtures a permanment thing.
With customers moving an average of 7 years, any owner will not see the need or incur the cost of installing fixtures that have sockets.
The constant current driving portion could easily be in a intermediate part that the LED screws into...that is if the industry had the smarts to set standards. LOL..fat chance that will happen.
The adoption of a new technology highlights those who adopt and those who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the future.
Take some time and review old newspapers discussing the adoption of then new incandescent bulbs when candles, lamps and gas lights were in place..same discussions...just the names and dates are different.
You can filter for UV light..and in an environment that you are discussing should be.
FWIW...any light degrades pigments..the shorter the wavelength like UV, the faster it happens.
The incondescent bulb emits 95% of its radiation in the form of IR...heat...and that IR radiation does degrade materials..that is why they tell you to store items in COOL, dry environments...heat (IR radiation) degrades items in many ways...in respect to trains pigments, lubricants and materials like plastic would take a hit.
I agree...the right tools for the right jobs.
In the "cough" past ;<) they used to use light bulbs in livestock heaters to prevent the waters from freezing...since the bulb put out the vast majority of its illumination as heat. Those folks still doing this have to come up with a different heater element.
How right you are. If us oldies had our way you would still be using green screen text terminals and saving your files on paper tape:)
However that observation says nothing about whether switching away from filament lamps is actually beneficial in the long run.
This oldie, being a LED fanatic since the 1970's, hopes everything is what it seems.
However there is still that nagging doubt that there are not unforeseen consequences to all this. Not all "progress" is good. Remember when asbestos was a great new idea or DDT or Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) ?
I have not yet run into LED lights switching at 50/60Hz. Using one of those for illumination would be harmful! It's bad enough to see way too many car rear lights doing the same thing. At night, it's a real and growing problem. Seems we can easily sort out high frequency or constant illumination sources at night easily. Our brains handle that reasonably as a standard feature. However, a flickering image seems to just replicate all over our vision until it fades. Annoying.
I think you touched on the PROBLEM...manufacturers are trying to product a product for VERY PRICE SENSITIVE market..and after a point quality suffers greatly with further production cuts.
I often wonder if we would be seeing all the whining about the adoption of new bulbs if the new products were cheaper than incandescent..a portion of the public is extremely adverse to spending more than they ever have to.
Well said.
Speciality bulbs will be produced "forever"..the investment is in place.
Not that retailers like Radio Shack won't charge an arm and a leg for them. ;<)
Speciality bubs represent a tiny portion of the market..and that is why they are excempt...their share of the energy misspent is tiny in respect to what the common household lighting wastes.
That is what capitalism is all about. It's not just the public it's every business as well. You know, the guys who do whatever they do to turn a profit.
Now you raise an interesting point: If LEDs and CFLs and such were such a good deal businesses, who don't care about the aesthetics of colour temperature in their worker droids offices and shops, would have switched to them voluntarily if the economics made sense.
Aside: Traffic lights switched over to LEDs around here a long time ago. The power saving is not the point. Rather, it's kind of expensive to send a man out to change a lamp in a traffic light pole. Better to minimize the number of times you have to do that.
To a certain degree.
Many pigments (mostly the inorganic ones) are relatively unaffected by light. These are your basic titanium dioxide (white), iron oxide reds (primer red) and yellows, and carbon blacks. Carbon black is actually an excellent UV absorber/blocker, as is TiO2. The organics (bright blue/red/yellow) will pretty quickly change color due to both UV and visible light. The dyes used in cloth and carpeting, etc. are a whole different story.
I think I might disagree.
I have been a part of many programs where if the Government had not encouraged R&D, it would have never happened.
And the world we live in would be very different.
It is ironic that I cannot think of even one technology that we use today that did not have government assistance.
I have owned a few red cars in my time. They all faded to muddy pink after a few years. Even in England we get enough UV from the sun to do that:)
Pretty much any plastic will degrade under UV pretty quickly.
LOL..good one.
FWIW...if the true cost of electricity was paid by the customer, trashing incandescent bulbs would be the first cost reduction measure they would take.
LOl..there is no conspiracy...only conspiracists.
The oil companies love energy waste...so the Country is still not energy dependent.
Those advocating for incandescent bulbs are supporting Chinese industry..but never note that irony.
As you pointed out, if a person is willing to pay the price for running Chinese infrared generators that happen to emit 10% visible light they can.
Yeah, that would fall into "bright organics" category, those will shift color if you look at them cross-eyed. GM had a serious problem in the early 70s when the bright blue (phthalo blue pigmented) paint they used on some cars was actually very transparent to UV and the primer underneath was epoxy based and easily degraded by UV light. Apparently the paint quickly fell off in sheets shortly after the customers took possession.
No one preventing you.
You just need to pay the going price for them...or their replacement.