Do you REALLY think your average American will stop to think… hey I need to call my local CFL pickup agent since this light burned out.

My bet goes into the “tossed in the bin” choice.

I find it equally ironic that activist groups out there protesting mercury thermometer factories, are pushing for the bans on regular bulbs for the mercury laden CFL’s.

Given that fact that my power bill dropped by 10% when I converted the whole house to CFLs I have no complaints. I’d rather spend less on necessities (ie insurance, gas, and utility bills) so that I can either bank more or spend more on luxuries. Helping air quality is just icing on a fiscal cake.

Photographing under flourescents is not a problem because the flourescing material in the tube has a “fade time” that is longer than 1/60 sec, plus the fact that most cameras use 1/60 or 1/30 to ensure timing of the flash with shutter. So a camera with standard “electronic” flash will have a 1/60 exposure but the actual flash (and picture) takes only 1/2000.

Where white light is required, the best sources come from neon/argon or more recently quartz/iodide tubes.

I can’t wait until they finally make LED bulbs a reality…they last even longer than fluorescents, and use even less energy. Unfortunately, that may make them unattractive to manufacturers, since replacements would be few and infrequent.

Much like electric cars, which were phased out because the manufacturers couldn’t figure out how to make a profit from them (most of their profit comes from selling spare parts and electric cars just don’t break down much). We seriously must soon move our society past the planned obsolescence forced consumerism model we’re stuck with today into a more sustainable long-term paradigm.

From an economic perspective, it would be much better for the government to just ban or limit the production of “regular” lightbulbs, rather than trying to incentivize certain technology. The idea is to maximize the markets freedom to adjust. The government trying to direct science and technology through incentives is a incredibly inefficient deal.

Also, there are legitimate areas where incandescent light is absolutely needed – I certainly support governmental incentives to encourage widespread adoption, but a blanket ban would go to far.

First step was a promotion through the power retailers from the government giving every consumer a 10% discount voucher for flourescent bulbs (the new ones) up to ten bulbs, which finished October last year. Cost was about $50 per consumer that took up the offer.

Second step is to phase out the sale of incandescent (old) bulbs by 2010.

FWIW…

I see ideas like this parallelled alongside moronic ideas like forcing car companies to buy back all their SUV’s and exchange them with Hybrids… it’s just NOT how the system works.

Come on, they’re not even close to being the same things.

Direct governmental force on free markets does work. Because (newsflash!) if you think free markets are really free you’re kidding yourself. We put limits on goods and services ALL the time, and the market still works in a fairly efficient and orderly manner. When things go completely regulated or unregulated, that’s when problems arise.

However, I agree that in the US the market must demand this for a change to happen. But in some cases, that can be a pity.

Of course the Democrats would even *think* of pricing electricity higher — they would get their butts booted out so fast by their own “working class” constitutients. Of course the limo liberals that run the party wouldn’t even bat an eye.

Honestly, if I want to light my house with 60 watt “oldschool” bulbs and someone continues to manufacture them, then so long as the free market allows, I should be allowed to do so.

I see ideas like this parallelled alongside moronic ideas like forcing car companies to buy back all their SUV’s and exchange them with Hybrids… it’s just NOT how the system works.

If the country as a majority push market pressure in the direction of the newer, more efficient bulbs, then so be it… but direct governmental force on a free market doesn’t work.

I hardly get the chance to applaud Canada, but this is a great idea. You save citizens money, and help out the environment. Unfortunatly if this were to be brought up here in the states I think the timeline would be somewhere around 2020. The legal battles that would be fought, the time wasted on the debates in legislative houses, and the cut-throat CEO’s of the companies that want to make more money.