Filament bulbs to disappear from the UK

[digiconvert]

Oh B*ggar , looks like I'll ned to get a nice dichoric colour enlarger dear

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7016020.stm

 

[Dave Miller]

As one who recently laid in a life times supply of enlarger lamps it's news I can ignore. Now I only have the transformer to worry about.

 

[BarryWilkinson]

Is this just another attempt by the British Government to keep us in the dark!



Barry

 

[digiconvert]

Is this just another attempt by the British Government to keep us in the dark!



Barry

Mushroom jokes are henceforth banned from this thread

 

[pentaxuser]

He's left a loophole which is the 60 watt bulbs. The other loophole is building extra runways at all airports. So does this cover the quartz halogen type that my Durst uses? If so then bye bye most enlargers. I noticed that recently such bulbs have sprung up on supermarket shelves for household use. The 50 watt ones( I've never seen bigger for household use) even look as if they'd fit my enlarger. I have anyway dropped to 75W as my colour exposures were very short with 100W and my B&W is fine with 75W as well. In fact to get up to close on 20 secs exposure which a lot seem to use as standard, a 50W might do, especially for comfortable dodging and burning.

pentaxuser

 

[ben-s]

It's maybe not as black as it appears.
The full DEFRA press relaese is here:
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070927a.htm

At the moment, we expect candles and golfballs, tungsten halogen lamps and lamps supplied with non-lighting electrical appliances to remain on sale, because suitable energy-efficient alternatives do not currently exist.

It would seem likely that enlargers would fall under the category "non-lighting electrical appliances"

 

[copake_ham]

Not again!

Well we must be bored here on APUG that we're starting up another CF v. Incandescent thread!

FWIW, after the UK ban takes full effect - I will be offering incandescents on eBay.

I've sworn off the things myself - but over on this side of The Pond we would never allow a government to decree this. Advance orders are being accepted now! :rolleyes:

 

[ben-s]

FWIW, after the UK ban takes full effect - I will be offering incandescents on eBay.

Tut Tut.... Offering illegal imports.
Naughty George, naughty

I can see the headlines now;
US man extradited to UK, charged with posession and intet to supply...

Lightbulbs

 

[Steve Smith]

There will always be exemptions to these rules, one of which will be bulbs for theatre and concert lighting. Bulbs suitable for enlargers will probably fall under the same exemption.

Anyway, buy half a dozen spares and you are probably covered for the rest of your life. Which reminds me, I have not got any spares!


Steve.

 

[tim_walls]

There will always be exemptions to these rules, one of which will be bulbs for theatre and concert lighting. Bulbs suitable for enlargers will probably fall under the same exemption.

Anyway, buy half a dozen spares and you are probably covered for the rest of your life. Which reminds me, I have not got any spares!

I think my concern is that enlarger bulbs will suffer from 'the Kodak problem.'

Which is to say, it's all very well saying that enlarger bulbs will still be legal, but I doubt it's enlarger bulbs on their own which keep the factories running. Without the mass sales of ordinary bulbs to keep the production lines going, will anyone bother making them for the few remaining niches?

I'm going to stock up...

 

[Steve Smith]

Which is to say, it's all very well saying that enlarger bulbs will still be legal, but I doubt it's enlarger bulbs on their own which keep the factories running. Without the mass sales of ordinary bulbs to keep the production lines going, will anyone bother making them for the few remaining niches?

Possibly... but probably not. I can still buy new audio valves from several sources which theoretically were obsolete by the end of the 1960's.

I think stocking up is probably the best plan as I don't want to try to convert my enlarger to take a 500w theatre lighting bulb..... or do I? Perhaps if I fit it with a shutter for 1/125 second exposures on paper!



Steve.

 

[ben-s]

...convert my enlarger to take a 500w theatre lighting bulb..... or do I? Perhaps if I fit it with a shutter for 1/125 second exposures on paper!

What do you call that - fast access printing?
If you heated the chemistry up and used the heat from the lamp for drying, you could probably make a print in about a minute

 

[Gary Holliday]

Don't forget to stock up on safelight bulbs too!

 

[Fotohuis]

Dead Link Removed

So please do not worry

Classical bulbs will be abandoned by EU law soon (There is already a date set in the Netherlands) and indeed the question is that specials lamps will be pretty expensive then if not discontinued in production.

 

[MikeSeb]

The regulatory imperative of the modern nanny state never ceases to amaze me.

 

[pentaxuser]

but over on this side of The Pond we would never allow a government to decree this.

Yes but if you had Gordon( Uncle Joe) Brown as PM then you will do as you are told. The alternative is a spell in the infamous Scottish Porridge mines. Healthier than the salt mines of course which will all be closed down under the govt's healthy eating 5 year plan.

pentaxuser

 

[Dave Wooten]

Oh boy,

The Brits have got a "Hilary"

 

[dslater]

Not again!

Well we must be bored here on APUG that we're starting up another CF v. Incandescent thread!

FWIW, after the UK ban takes full effect - I will be offering incandescents on eBay.

I've sworn off the things myself - but over on this side of The Pond we would never allow a government to decree this. Advance orders are being accepted now! :rolleyes:

George,
I couldn't agree with you more. If the CF bulbs really save consumers money, then the government should let market forces drive adoption. If they're not, but there is a good environmental reason for them, then taxes or subsidies should be imposed to make the market drive adoption.
Also, I question the level of energy savings these bulbs will really lead to. AFIK, light bulbs are responsible for only a small amount of electricity use. Appliances, computers, televisions, etc. draw the bulk of your electricity. It would be much better for the government to provide incentives for people to replace old inefficient appliances with new efficient models.
Dan

 

[MikeSeb]

The single most effective and perhaps simplest measure to encourage energy conservation would be to let prices for electricity vary according to demand. Electricity used during peak hours would cost more than that used off-peak. If consumers want to use more-expensive peak-hours current they'll be encouraged over time to replace less-efficient with more-efficient appliances and to change usage practices accordingly. 3 am may become the new clothes-drying hour!

The market will determine resource usage with far greater efficiency than any government bureaucrat ever could. One wonders why this historical truth must continually be relearned. I suppose it is much easier for those who believe they know best about all things simply to write a government decree demanding the use of CF bulbs, rather than making one's most persuasive case that they are somehow "better", and letting consumers decide whether to adopt them.

As for taxation as a means to realign incentives--more of the same, with the dead hand of government wielding the club to mandate someone's idea of what is best. If the mass of consumers believed that CF bulbs were cost-effective at doing what they purport to do, no incentives would be needed to force their adoption.

God save us from those who are always telling us what's good for us. The impulse to control and regulate others must be deeply embedded within human DNA.

 

[Tom Kershaw]

The single most effective and perhaps simplest measure to encourage energy conservation would be to let prices for electricity vary according to demand. Electricity used during peak hours would cost more than that used off-peak. If consumers want to use more-expensive peak-hours current they'll be encouraged over time to replace less-efficient with more-efficient appliances and to change usage practices accordingly. 3 am may become the new clothes-drying hour!

The market will determine resource usage with far greater efficiency than any government bureaucrat ever could. One wonders why this historical truth must continually be relearned. I suppose it is much easier for those who believe they know best about all things simply to write a government decree demanding the use of CF bulbs, rather than making one's most persuasive case that they are somehow "better", and letting consumers decide whether to adopt them.

As for taxation as a means to realign incentives--more of the same, with the dead hand of government wielding the club to mandate someone's idea of what is best. If the mass of consumers believed that CF bulbs were cost-effective at doing what they purport to do, no incentives would be needed to force their adoption.

God save us from those who are always telling us what's good for us. The impulse to control and regulate others must be deeply embedded within human DNA.

Agree..., and I use CFs.

Tom.

 

[Andy K]

CFL bulbs are more damaging to the environment than incandescent bulbs.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

Dead Link Removed

More Eco-Taliban short sightedness.

 

[dslater]

CFL bulbs are more damaging to the environment than incandescent bulbs.

http://www.reuk.co.uk/Toxic-Mercury-in-CFL-Bulbs.htm

Dead Link Removed

More Eco-Taliban short sightedness.

Andy,
you have brought this up in other threads. What you still fail to mention is that the coal fired plant that generates the electricity to power all those incandescent lights creates far more pollution and toxic waste than CFL bulbs ever do. As for the article where the woman paid $2000 to have the broken buld cleaned up frankly was hustled. After all, for years people had mercury filled thermometers - do you think they called in a hazmat team every time a thermometer was dropped and broken?

 

[copake_ham]

Oh boy,

The Brits have got a "Hilary"

I like Hillary - and will likely vote for her in our NYS primary and, if she gets the nomination, in the general election in November 2008.

But, as one can see, she is a "lightening rod" for a lot of folk - including Dave. Sadly, over the next fourteen months certain folk will blame Hillary for everything and anything including their pet that gets run over and the rain that spoils their Sunday picnic! :rolleyes:

Andy,
you have brought this up in other threads. What you still fail to mention is that the coal fired plant that generates the electricity to power all those incandescent lights creates far more pollution and toxic waste than CFL bulbs ever do. As for the article where the woman paid $2000 to have the broken buld cleaned up frankly was hustled. After all, for years people had mercury filled thermometers - do you think they called in a hazmat team every time a thermometer was dropped and broken?

Precisely.

Andy keep beating the drum on this - which is why I dread these threads.

He should just buy up enough cases of incandescents to last him his remaining life time and give it a rest!

BTW: We began switching over to CF bulbs about ten years ago (when they cost a fortune) - we've only had to dispose of one (it broke).

My only point in the earlier post is that I dislike the idea that the Brit gov't is mandating a change. I prefer to let social pressure and market forces manage this transformation - it seems to be working here. In fact, some utilities now offer the CF's at a deep discount because the energy savings will eliminate the need to build new generating plants!

 

[dslater]

The single most effective and perhaps simplest measure to encourage energy conservation would be to let prices for electricity vary according to demand. Electricity used during peak hours would cost more than that used off-peak. If consumers want to use more-expensive peak-hours current they'll be encouraged over time to replace less-efficient with more-efficient appliances and to change usage practices accordingly. 3 am may become the new clothes-drying hour!

The market will determine resource usage with far greater efficiency than any government bureaucrat ever could. One wonders why this historical truth must continually be relearned. I suppose it is much easier for those who believe they know best about all things simply to write a government decree demanding the use of CF bulbs, rather than making one's most persuasive case that they are somehow "better", and letting consumers decide whether to adopt them.

As for taxation as a means to realign incentives--more of the same, with the dead hand of government wielding the club to mandate someone's idea of what is best. If the mass of consumers believed that CF bulbs were cost-effective at doing what they purport to do, no incentives would be needed to force their adoption.

God save us from those who are always telling us what's good for us. The impulse to control and regulate others must be deeply embedded within human DNA.

Hmm - well I see a couple of problems with this - varying the price of electricity based on the time of day would be a bit difficult - consider how your electric meter works. Even if you could do that, all you would achieve is evening out demand throughout the day - you wouldn't reduce total consumption.
The reason you need tax incentives is that for the average home user, it isn't necessarily clear that a CF bulb will save enough money to make it worthwhile to change. The goal or reducing energy consumption is a political goal - not an economic goal. Hence the need to use tax or subsidies create an economic incentive. Another argument for taxes is that pollution is a cost of manufacturing that doesn't figure into the price of energy. In economics, such costs are referred to as externalities. Applying a tax to energy consumption and using the resulting revenue for environmental cleanup, then the externality is turned into a genuine cost to the consumer.

Dan

 

[copake_ham]

Hmm - well I see a couple of problems with this - varying the price of electricity based on the time of day would be a bit difficult - consider how your electric meter works. Even if you could do that, all you would achieve is evening out demand throughout the day - you wouldn't reduce total consumption.
The reason you need tax incentives is that for the average home user, it isn't necessarily clear that a CF bulb will save enough money to make it worthwhile to change. The goal or reducing energy consumption is a political goal - not an economic goal. Hence the need to use tax or subsidies create an economic incentive. Another argument for taxes is that pollution is a cost of manufacturing that doesn't figure into the price of energy. In economics, such costs are referred to as externalities. Applying a tax to energy consumption and using the resulting revenue for environmental cleanup, then the externality is turned into a genuine cost to the consumer.

Dan

Dan,

I would have to disagree with part of your argument.

First of all, many utilities already offer variable rate pricing based on time of day usage in order to shift and smooth out demand. This was long offered to industrial consumers and has now been provided to retail customers such as homeowners.

For example, in Tucson, many working people sign up for time of day pricing because they do not use their air conditioners during the day at home. And those with swimming pools set their filtering systems to only come on late at night during the cheapest hours of usage.

You have to keep in mind that utilities are tied-in via huge regional (and in North America - international) grids and "wheel power" based on varying demand across the system. This is both a strength and vulnerability but is generally preferable to a "stand alone" system.

So yes, if demand is low in one particular area during cetain hours of the day - it's utility deliverer can buy power much more cheaply for that time of day rather than generate it's own. Not to mention the fact that we now have Independent Power Producers - that provide additional "flex" to the pricing model.

In fact, electric energy is actively traded on the commodity markets with various financial tools available including forward contracts, hedges etc.