Are there any US states with any HID bans?

Who would decide to ban all Non-led fixtures and lamps even though some HID lamps are more energy efficient?

AOC!

Even without any bans, the market itself will push the nonled sources out of a general lighting pool.
It starts as efficiency thing, but it is becoming a cost thing. The LEDs are getting cheaper and cheaper, are way easier and simpler to drive (no HV needed, no negative resistance effects causing oscillations), industry is learning how to design fixtures with them properly. These properties become impossible to compete with. It is clear many of these advancements came from some form of government subsidy money, so it went faster than it would with "natural" evolution, but the results are already here.
The LEDs are still a hype, so there are huge margins in the industry, the tradditional light sources are not able to reach that by far, with expectation to get worse, so makers really have no motivation to stay there, with many technologies just generating net losses alone, maintained just to "have complete portfolio".

Of course, many morons not knowing any optical or tgermal design basics are bringing their own creations (often with nonsense claims), which then obviously never perform well and fail very soon, giving LEDs bad reputation.
Actually that is in fact the result of LEDs being inherently very rugged and easy to design with - if such morons were using any other technology with the same level of understanding as they are using LEDs, it would blow into their faces immediately.

It took massive marketing and fraud on many levels to convince the user base that the LEDs, with their worse light quality, poor optics (in case of complete luminaires), efficacy not higher than other light sources for the time (T5HE, SON, CMH) are somehow "better". (But at the same time, we know that the average user does not need much marketing effort in order to shove products at)

It also took government involvement (so even more fraud, using taxpayer money) to make LED retrofits cost effective for councils to use on public lighting, since the proposed energy savings alone don't actually meet the point where they pay back for the cost of the luminaires and labor. (And that is before admitting that the new luminaires aren't really "equivalent" in provided light levels, and before installing even more LED luminaires to bring back up the light levels in numerous dark spots, after areas become too dark). The EU simply paid councils money (taken from EU taxpayer's money) for the fact itself of changing lighting to LED

Without all this, LED would become "just another light source" adding to the available technologies and nothing more. The existing technologies had been already highly optimized to cost efficiency in production, and could be sustainable even with some market share going to LED

With this we can conclude 2 things :

1. The current "only LED" direction we are going to is result of fraud and government involvement, but not of the development of LED technology. (The development of LED technology only made LED exist, it haven't made it wipe out anything else, like any of the lighting technologies we had for the last 130 years). Taking steps against this trend equals restoring the lighting market to what is should be. It might or might not be too late to do this

2. Governments, and even more specifically, governments of specific political wings, do use the method of 1. use fraud to achieve a situation, 2. it's now too late to correct this situation and nothing can be done about it, to achieve their political goals in a wide range of areas outside of the field of lighting. For example, maintaining helplessness of groups of population in order to keep their electorate. This behavior is threat to healthy & free society in every single case in which it is applied. The lighting market had only been one case out of many and counting

I'm pretty sure that Joe Biden (which he stole the election over Trump) would probably do that because the left wants more green energy, thus banning non-LED sources. If the Biden Admin does ban non-LED sources, the only option will be LED, and lighting enthusiasts (like me) will be angry.

Sorry for the political talk because I'm still pissed off of what happened on election night.

Enough. This site is not a place to complain about the election results or any other political talk. Any more and this thread gets locked. You have been warned.

Keeping off of talking about things, is what lets them keep happening. The entire concept of enforcing political correctness and political neutrality, and the instilling it into code of conduct of communities (not only online forums, it is a fairly wide phenomena in general), is anything but neutral - It is tracable to specific places in the political spectrum, which do not want things being talked about. The "things" do include, among other stuff, potential lamp bans

I think it is important to keep subjects open to discussion and not police it to PC/PN guidelines. The guideline that's gotta rule is respecting each other within the Lighting Gallery community. Writing anything one may not agree with does not, by default, equal disrespectful

I'll remind everyone of the site rule concerning political discussion; if it pertains directly to lighting and possible bans etc. then fine, but talk of elections and the results thereof, or one's like or dislike of a particular candidate is not on.

Thread Locked.

https://www.lighting-gallery.net/index.php?topic=4938.0