•

Why the 1000-hour light bulb Phoebus Cartel story IS NOT an example of planned obsolescence.

Longer-lasting light bulbs: it was complicated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zb7Bs98KmnY

It's a hot topic.Oh, wanna learn about high pressure sodium lamps? Have I got a video for you.https://youtu.be/U1dMlVwUsrAWhat about that weird fluorescent a...

TLDW: The Phoebus Cartel established 1000 hours as a baseline to get maximum efficiency. longer lasting bulbs would require WAY more power per hour to operate while producing less light.

Planned obsolescence is indeed a thing, but using this as an example of it is incorrect and discredits the overall argument. It's better to focus your attention on right-to-repair laws for your $2000 laptops and $40,000 tractors than on your $2 light bulbs.

7 comments

buffalobuffalo

•

#NUANCE NEEDED.

Alec is making a point specifically about the 1000 hour maximum which was for INCANDESCENT lightbulbs. You know, the ones that aren't used anymore.

However, modern LED lightbulbs are typically over-driven and under-cooled. This drastically shortens their lifespan and worsens efficiency. But this might just be because it's harder to sell a $20 light that lasts for 20 years than it is to sell a $5 light that lasts for 5-10.

TestZero

•

TBF, I don't think anyone expects a TLDR to contain the same nuance or detail as a 30 minute video.

SirShanova

•

Know of any A19 LED bulbs that last for an obscene amount of time?

AA5B

•

Or maybe it’s because they both claim to last 20 years and we have no way to compare

astropenguin5

•

I literally just watched this! Very good video, as is the rest of his content

Th4tGuyII

•

I'd absolutely recommend watching Alec's video, but that's not a half-bad summary of the main point.

Think about it hard enough and it does make sense that for something as cheap and easy to produce as a light bulb, it stands that the consumer and manufacturers alike stand to benefit from a shorter, but more energy/cost efficient implementation, than a longer-lived, but significantly less efficient/more costly version in general use.

Edit - Though it should be pointed out that this is a rare instance of corporate interests lining up with the best interests of the majority of consumers, not something that happens very often, so you could see why people (even myself) would be drawn to believing a more nefarious reason for the 1000 hour lifespan if you didn't know the technical details.