Lighting-Gallery.net
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lumex120 on November 06, 2020, 01:17:36 PM
-
So, needless to say the results of the election aren't going the way I hoped they would, and among my concerns one of the big ones is that, with whoever ends up actually becoming president, there might be even more lighting regulations hidden in this Green New Deal thing. Has anyone really looked into this? I have bigger problems with it than lighting regulations, but I wouldn't put it past them to try things like banning sales of non-LED fixtures and lamps.
Anyways, I tried to not get too political with this thread so it's probably best if we keep it that way. I know there's generally a "no politics" rule but the way I see it this could be related to lighting, so I'd like to know what everyone else thinks.
-
As long as we don't get carried away; wait until we hear something definite, let's not speculate or get involved with arguing our own or others' political leanings.
-
Who would decide to ban all Non-led fixtures and lamps even though some HID lamps are more energy efficient?
-
Who would decide to ban all Non-led fixtures and lamps even though some HID lamps are more energy efficient?
Some can’t simply realize that. It seems the focus is fossil fuels.
-
Who would decide to ban all Non-led fixtures and lamps even though some HID lamps are more energy efficient?
Well, one thing I do know is that some T-12 lamps with certain kinds of phosphors were banned despite being more efficient. I don't know much about this, maybe someone else can fill in. But my point is, it's not about how effective a light source is or how good it is for an application. It's about restricting it's use because it's deemed "inefficient" or an "environmental problem".
-
I've noticed that since modern HID and fluorescent (HPS/CMH T8/T5) is already more efficient than older light sources that got banned on a efficiency basis (Incand/MV T12) they seem to be pushing the mercury content in past years as a reason to switch the LED and probably to ban them after.
Well, one thing I do know is that some T-12 lamps with certain kinds of phosphors were banned despite being more efficient. I don't know much about this, maybe someone else can fill in. But my point is, it's not about how effective a light source is or how good it is for an application. It's about restricting it's use because it's deemed "inefficient" or an "environmental problem".
Yeah I've noticed that the higher lumen low CRI T12 lamps are no longer allowed and instead you have to get high CRI T12 lamps which are both more expensive to buy and have less light output. I never got the reasoning behind that TBH, seems kinda backwards to me.
-
The intentions behind lamp bans have little to do with environment protection. They are there to direct the market to the wanted product (This is not a secret, all the official documents of the bans say this). The environment is a cover story for other reasons why would anyone want this driving, some of which are political too. Here are a few :
Drive the market to a product which is far more profitable to make : LEDs are manufactured by the wafer, which makes them extremely cheap to manufacture. Yet they can be sold at a premium just for being LED
Drive the market to a technology which is out of reach of small manufacturers. (Making Incandescent and even discharge lamps is not out of reach for small manufacturers, but making semiconductor devices is), to push out existing competition and raise the barrier for any new players. (I am talking about the light source itself, not just assembling anything with LEDs sourced from one of the big manufacturers)
Drive the market to follow a scheme in which arbitrary new requirements can be added at any point in the future. For example, ever rising efficiency requirements to exactly follow the specs of new products from the "big companies", so never letting any competition to catch up
Drive the market to a product which is virtually only made in China, some recent technologies and patents (so, still active ones) for which are held by China, supporting Chinese and "globalist" economy. At the same time punish local manufacturing, which represent the opposite political agenda
Make precedents for more extensive bans outside of the lighting business. As example, remember the California attempts to ban Lead containing ammunition because of lead. (It is clear that the intention of that ban is by far not environmental related)
Cater to certain lobbying organizations (like Clasp in Europe and many others), that might have non obvious involvement with the political groups promoting the bans - Again, often extending to other areas, not necessarily lighting related
Specifically for T12, the point i see is this : Most users notice extreme differences in brightness more than difference in CRI (as long as the spectrum of the lamp is not completely screwed up). The driving of the market to inefficient versions of T12, allows a few years later to provide "real" data that shows how T12 is inefficient and should be banned altogether
-
Any new lighting companies who want to manufacture banned lamp technologies would be forced by governments to discontinue production or go out of business altogether. I feel that governments want to destroy lighting companies who will not manufacture LED lighting.
-
I feel that governments even want to make neon discharge tubes illegal to manufacture and import as well as induction lamps in order to make LED lighting a monopoly. I feel that governments will write laws that outright require that ALL GENERAL LIGHTING MUST USE solid state technology. I feel that any private manufacturer who wants to make a light source that is NOT LED will be imprisoned by law.
-
I seem to find that the Minamata convention on mercury is a real threat to ALL NON-LED lighting.
-
I fear that countries around the world will have lighting police that will ask you to throw away all of your non-LED lamps that you have in your collections just to force us to use LED lamps only.
-
The lighting itself is not of interest to anyone (governmenets or companies). It's the market for lighting where all the interest is. There is an underlying assumption that any lamp you use is going to EOL someday, and then the interest is to sell you LED as your next lamp
In contrast, in cases where there is interest (or, in politically correct words, "concern") about the item itself, then there might be attempts to retrieve it from your posession fast. How much effort would be put into such attempts depends on how much "concern" there is around your item. Examples include anything from Cannabis to Software
-
What make me mad that Texas should of fight back and
And not ban any thing. Firstly Texas power grid 90 psrcent
Isolated from the rest of USA. There are days in texas
That state ran 66 percent of electricity from wind power
Esp in the fall or in the spring months where demand for cooling or heating is very low and a good west texas wind
Now there are lamp that make people go crazy esp in Caifornia MR16 12 volt reflector well lot off gridder that live
In remote places use these lamps. It the stupid lamp manufacture put these lamp and transformer what cause
California to ban them.
Also I have T12 lighting that runs on DC
This what lamp bans does. It leave negative
Impact for some one having a choice power
The lamp. It my choice and it my god given
Right to light my home with 100 watt light bulbs
T12 fluorescent and they cant say a word cause
When some one say my lamp is a energy hog.
First I sleep with a light on second LED prodce that
Blue peak. I get mad at my step dad for turning my
Light off at night. I will end up sleeping in and be late for
Things. As I dont need a alarm clock to wake up either
So when some one turns my lights off i ended up being
Late for things.
-
I personally don't really see any more bans happening.
But instead various types of lighting being discontinued due to them not selling well any longer...because LED is marketed/manipulated to be "better" (whether it actually is or not), and maybe subsidized to give people an incentive to 'upgrade' - basically a continuation of what's happening now.
I don't think the "average person" gives any thought to the lights they buy, other than "I like the way this one looks" and/or "I heard on TV(the paper/radio/internet/etc) that these are better than the old type".
I really doubt the government will care about the collectors who are few & far between when compared to the general population.
-
There are 4 states with state level out right T12 bans
Vermont of this year, 2021 Colorado and Hawaii
2023 is Washington having T12 bans comming up.
-
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