No. Just let consumers choose. If I could have super-efficient incandescent bulbs, I would prefer them precisely because of the better colors and instant-on startup. (This assumes production ramp-up has kept these new incandescent prices well below that of LEDs)
That wasn't the previous solution and I'm wondering if people who were fine with the demise of incandescent bulbs would be fine with a ban on LEDs because of the same efficiency concerns? I get the feeling the answer is no which makes me wonder about the original reason.
> That wasn't the previous solution and I'm wondering if people who were fine with the demise of incandescent bulbs would be fine with a ban on LEDs because of the same efficiency concerns?
Yes, it was: the so-called "ban on incandescent bulbs" was actually an efficiency requirement which no existing incandescent bulbs met. Much of the research into high-efficiency incandescent bulbs (which IIRC actually had produced some bulbs that met it prior to the requirement going into effect, but which were not cost competitive with CFL or even LED bulbs) was directly spurred by the requirement.
> I'm wondering if people who were fine with the demise of incandescent bulbs would be fine with a ban on LEDs because of the same efficiency concerns?
I'm pretty sure that most the people in the public that were fine with the government setting efficiency targets that could be met by a variety of technologies on the market (but not, at the time, cost effectively by incandescent bulbs) would be just fine with moving the efficiency requirements up as new technologies become available.
At any given time, which particular industry players would support and oppose such a move would, of course, vary based on the relative efficiency of what each particular industry player was invested in.
Traditional incandescent lights have terrible efficiency 2.5% or so. The benefit from Old Incandescent vs LED's is huge (5x to 10+x), but there is just not much room from the best LED's to 100% efficiency making the remaining gains less important. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy
PS: Power is kind of an odd thing. Direct costs are so cheap most people ignore it, but the external costs are high enough to push efficiency gains. Taxes would be the best solution, but politics is odd.
There you go. Set the "sales" tax rate on a luminous efficacy sliding scale. The lower the efficacy, the higher the tax %. It'd have to be some kind of wholesale/manufacturer tax, at least in the U.S., so that it's reflected in the sticker price before checkout.
It would not surprise me one bit if it were discovered the lobbying effort for such laws were pushed by the very lighting industry that needed a way to compel people to buy much more expensive light bulbs with a higher profit margin.
It reeks to me of the same reasons why we have ethanol mandated fuel in some cities.
I was and am perfectly fine with the old incandescents going away, and I'll be perfectly happy when LEDs are legally phased out in favor of something better.
