Congress Bans Incandescent Light Bulbs

[fossten]

Congress bans incandescent bulbs
Massive energy bill phases out Edison's invention by 2014

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: December 19, 2007
7:18 p.m. Eastern

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

Incandescent light bulb

In addition to raising auto fuel efficiency standards 40 percent, an energy bill passed by Congress yesterday bans the incandescent light bulb by 2014.

President Bush signed the 822-page measure into law today after it was sent up Pennsylvania Avenue in a Toyota Prius hybrid vehicle. The House passed the bill by a 314-100 vote after approval by the Senate last week.

Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said the legislation will boost the energy efficiency of "almost every significant product and tool and appliance that we use, from light bulbs to light trucks."

The phase-out of incandescent light is to begin with the 100-watt bulb in 2012 and end in 2014 with the 40-watt.

All light bulbs must use 25 percent to 30 percent less 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70 percent more efficient than they are today.

Australia was the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010.

Critics of Thomas Edison's invention argue it uses more energy to produce light than the compact fluorescent, or CFL, bulb.

While standard light bulbs cost about 50 cents, the spiral CFL sells for about $3. Advocates argue, however, the CFL lasts five years longer and uses about 75 percent less energy.

But as WND reported, the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in CFLs poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually burn out. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great.

Consumers generally are unaware of the risks of CFLs, and recycling experts say the solutions are at least five years away.

The Department of Energy, nevertheless, is encouraging citizens to take a pledge to replace at least one incandescent bulb with a CFL.

***

Or, you could do like me, and stock up on 100-watt ILBs over the next 6 years.

Who are these people in Washington telling us what we can and cannot purchase for ourselves? The disconnect is complete. The loss of our freedom is underway, it's only a matter of time. Death by a thousand cuts.

 

[Joeychgo]

Who are these people in Washington telling us what we can and cannot purchase for ourselves? The disconnect is complete. The loss of our freedom is underway, it's only a matter of time. Death by a thousand cuts.

The same people who say I cant smoke a cigarette in a bar anymore if Im in Illinois.

That said -- I use the flourescent bulbs and couldnt be happier with them. They dont burn out anywhere near as frequently and use a whole lot less energy. I replaced every bulb in the house some time ago.

 

[Calabrio]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wPv-QPn5uQ

A Nation of Dim Bulbs
The nasty little surprise hidden in the new energy bill.
by Andrew Ferguson
12/31/2007, Volume 013, Issue 16


On December 19, President Bush signed an energy bill that will, among many, many other things, force you to buy a new kind of light bulb. He did this because environmental enthusiasts don't like the light bulbs you're using now. He and they reason, therefore, that you shouldn't be allowed to have them. So now you can't.

Ordinary consumers may be surprised, once they understand what's happened. They probably haven't known that the traditional incandescent light bulb, that happy little globe shining so innocently from the lamp in the corner, has been a scourge of environmentalists for many years. With their stern and unrelenting moralism, the warriors of Greenpeace have even branded lightbulb manufacturers "climate criminals" for making incandescents, which are, they say, a "silent killer." In Europe and in a few individual states in the U.S., professional environmentalists have managed to persuade their colleagues in government to ban the bulbs altogether, on the grounds that incandescents use energy inefficiently.

Ninety percent of the energy a traditional light bulb uses, for example, is thrown off as heat rather than light. This waste contributes to the overproduction of energy from coal-fired power plants, which contributes to the emission of carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. Professional environmentalists prefer a different kind of bulb, the compact fluorescent light (CFL), which is much more expensive to make and to buy but also much more efficient in its use of energy.

American environmental groups have long called for an outright national ban on the old-fashioned bulbs. But then they came to the realization, as a spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council told the New York Times this spring, that such a ban might "anger consumers." "We've given up a sound bite, 'ban the incandescent,'" the spokesman said.

Instead the groups joined with the Bush administration this year in advocating a steady increase in federally mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs. The effect of the tightened standards is to make it illegal to manufacture or sell the inefficient incandescent bulb by 2014. So it's not a ban, see. It's just higher standards. Which have the same effect as a ban--a slow-motion ban that's not really a ban. Not surprisingly, in long, self-congratulatory remarks at the bill signing last week, Bush neglected to mention that he and Congress have just done away with the incandescent light bulb. Maybe most of us won't notice until he's back in Crawford.

Some people really like the new bulbs, of course. Not all of them are professional environmentalists, though all of them are cheapskates. CFLs produce the same amount of light (lumens) as an incandescent bulb while using only about a quarter of the watts. With proper care and moderate use, they can last as much as six times longer than a typical incandescent. Even if you consider their higher purchase price--six or seven times the price of a traditional bulb--CFLs can lower your monthly lighting bill by as much as 20 percent. And because they're deemed environmentally sensitive, switching them on can give you the same hard-to-define feeling of exaltation you get shopping for organic vegetables at Whole Foods. Then you can donate the money you've saved on your electric bill to the Natural Resources Defense Council or the George W. Bush Presidential Library.

Other people, however, perhaps a very large number, will prefer the old, pre-Bush bulbs. Their reasons have less to do with the wonderfulness of the incandescent and their disdain for environmentalists than with the inconveniences of the CFL. The new bulbs are particularly vulnerable to extremes of temperature, for example; you won't want to use them in your garage in winter. CFLs are also 25 percent longer in size than the average incandescent. This makes them unsuitable for all kinds of lighting fixtures--particularly chandeliers and other ceiling lights--which will have to be either discarded or reconfigured, at considerable expense, after the Bush ban goes into effect. You can't use most CFLs with dimmer switches, either; ditto timers. Newer models that can be dimmed and are adaptable to timers will require you to buy new CFL-compatible dimmers and timers.

The quality of the light given off by CFLs is quite different from what we're used to from incandescents. The old bulb concentrates its light through a small surface area. CFLs don't shine in beams; they glow all the way around, diffusing their illumination. They're terrible reading lights. Many people find fluorescent light itself to be harsh and unpleasant. Moreover--in a variation of the old joke about the restaurant that serves awful food and, even worse, serves it in such small portions--a CFL bulb can take two to three minutes to reach its full illumination after being turned on. And once it's fully aglow, according to Department of Energy guidelines, you need to leave it on for at least 15 minutes. In a typically chipper, pro-ban article last week, U.S. News and World Report explained why: "Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life."

Odd, isn't it--an energy-saving device that you're not supposed to turn off? Such complications undermine the extravagant claims made for the CFLs' energy savings. Let's say you're a CFL aficionado and you want to fetch your car keys from your darkened bedroom: You switch on the light, wait a couple minutes, finally find the wallet as the room slowly brightens, and then leave the light on, because you don't want to shorten the life of your expensive CFL. Will you remember to go back and turn it off 15 minutes later? Or will you get in your Prius, drive to Whole Foods, and leave the light burning for several more hours while you absent-mindedly fondle the organics? If you're not a CFL aficionado, by contrast, you turn on the incandescent light, get your car keys, and then switch it off. Who's wasting more energy? I'm sure some green-eye-shade in the depths of the Department of Energy could calculate an answer, and maybe already has. But we're unlikely to hear about it.

Sam Kazman, of the antiregulation Competitive Enterprise Institute, likes to cite the now legendary Great Light Bulb Exchange sponsored by a local power company in the tiny town of Traer, Iowa. Half the town's residents turned in their incandescents for free CFLs--and electricity consumption rose by 8 percent. The cost of burning electricity went down, and demand increased. Funny how that happens.

There are other complications that might give environmentalists pause, if they were the kind of people who paused. When a CFL bulb finally dies--after years and years and years!--it cannot be dropped in the trash like an incandescent; it must be recycled by specially equipped recycling facilities. CFLs contain mercury. If one breaks in your home, Kazman says, EPA guidelines suggest you open windows and leave the room for at least a quarter of an hour before trying to clean up the mess. And for God's sakes don't use a vacuum, which could disperse the poison into the air. Even when they're intact, U.S. News happily tells us, "the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb."

The mind reels at the joke-like possibilities: How many Bush administration officials does it take to screw in a CFL? As many as it takes to screw American consumers! But the Bushies aren't the half of it. In creating the ban, Bush and his environmentalist allies were joined by Philips Lighting, which is--you should probably sit down--the world's foremost manufacturer of CFLs. The phased-in ban will position Philips to crowd from the market any troublesome competitors. It's a perfect confluence of interests: the Big Environmental Lobby, Big Business, and Big Government Conservatives.

But back to the screwees--those American consumers, also known, not so long ago, as the citizens of the United States, a free people, rulers of the world's proudest self-governing nation. Will there be protests of some kind, expressions of disgust at least? And what if there aren't? What if, as the ban slowly tightens, we hear nothing, not a howl, not a peep, just a long mellow moo? Then maybe it really will be time to turn out the lights.

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

 

[shagdrum]

Thank you Mr. Bush!

 

[bufordtpisser]

Here is a link to a list of products that contain or can contain Mercury. CFL's are definitely no more dangerous than many of these items. I don't want safety legislated, but we are definitely not reducing our dependence in foreign by ourselves.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/mercury/con-prod.htm

I use CFL lights because they produce better light in my opinion. The fact that they save energy is a bonus. I honestly don't mind paying more upfront for a product if it will save me in the long run. I understand your point, and agree with it, but where can we help on our own so that the government does not shove it down out throats.

 

[TheDude]

Congress bans incandescent bulbs

Or, you could do like me, and stock up on 100-watt ILBs over the next 6 years.

Who are these people in Washington telling us what we can and cannot purchase for ourselves? The disconnect is complete. The loss of our freedom is underway, it's only a matter of time. Death by a thousand cuts.

Did you also stock up on leaded fuel, DDT, R12 and other CFC's when those were being phased out?

Edit: I just remembered, by 2010 all diesel fuel will have to be Ultra Low Sulfur... better stock up on the old stuff!

90% of the bulbs in my house aren't incandescents; I turn them on/off each time I enter/leave the room, yet they still last years beyond the Edison types. That more than makes up for the somewhat higher cost, never mind the energy saving due to it's higher efficiency.

 

[fossten]

90% of the bulbs in my house aren't incandescents; I turn them on/off each time I enter/leave the room, yet they still last years beyond the Edison types. That more than makes up for the somewhat higher cost, never mind the energy saving due to it's higher efficiency.

And your point is...? I don't give a rat's a$$ how more efficient they are, their light SUCKS. And they present a health hazard. And it's not the government's right to ban them.

 

[TheDude]

And your point is...? I don't give a rat's a$$ how more efficient they are, their light SUCKS. And they present a health hazard. And it's not the government's right to ban them.

The light "sucking" is subjective, some like them, some dont.

The health hazard is highly debatable, as Buford's post table illustrates.

What's your beef with conserving energy? Which is the issue at hand.

 

[shagdrum]

The light "sucking" is subjective, some like them, some dont.

The health hazard is highly debatable, as Buford's post table illustrates.

What's your beef with conserving energy? Which is the issue at hand.

Fosten's point is a good one. The government has no business or right to do what they are doing.

 

[hrmwrm]

sure they do shag. what else would push people into a less wasteful technology. you think car manufacturers would create less wasteful and polluting cars if they weren't pushed into it? this also will push newer/better lighting technologies to be developed. as for the statement of them being too large, while shopping at christmas i saw smaller designs of the same wattage now out. i don't think on a national scale it's realized by some what the energy savings are. fossten must have stock in an electric company.

 

[shagdrum]

Sure they do because, hey who else is gonna do it? That is an extremely weak argument. This country is founded on a constitution. Show me where they have the power to do what they did in that.

 

[fossten]

sure they do shag. what else would push people into a less wasteful technology.

Uh, it's called the free market. You sound like a good communist: Let the government tell everybody what to do. And please show me how introducing the health hazard of mercury spills in private homes, necessitating decon crews having to come out, and people going to the hospital, is a technological improvement.

you think car manufacturers would create less wasteful and polluting cars if they weren't pushed into it?

Look at your words. PUSHED INTO IT. The government has no right to PUSH industrialists to do anything.

How long do you think they will continue producing hybrid cars that nobody (generally) wants to buy?

this also will push newer/better lighting technologies to be developed. as for the statement of them being too large, while shopping at christmas i saw smaller designs of the same wattage now out. i don't think on a national scale it's realized by some what the energy savings are.

This isn't about energy savings as much as it's about politicizing global warming and telling people what they can or cannot buy. Pushing new technologies by way of offering tax incentives to businesses is one thing, but completely banning probably the greatest invention since the wheel is stupid and unnecessary.

fossten must have stock in an electric company.

Really? And here all I really wanted was to be able to buy the product I prefer, instead of the government PUSHING me to buy something else.

Well, your lame personal attack notwithstanding, you know NOTHING about free markets and how they are destroyed by government intervention. If these lightbulbs are supposed to be so good, then the people should be falling all over themselves with eagerness to buy them, and it shouldn't be NECESSARY for the government to ban Edison's invention.

Oh, please show me any and all evidence that Thomas Edison's invention has been harmful to the United States, considering he invented the incandescent light bulb in 1879. According to envirowackos logic, global warming should have happened in the late 1800s.

 

[Marcus]

Just passing by and saw this.

You guys really need to check things out before you go off the deep end.

Go here and type "H.R.6.ENR" in the search box. This is a law as passed. In the list of headings, click the one that says "Subtitle B--Lighting Energy Efficiency".

You can find the original law it modifies here.

Nowhere does it say that incandescent bulbs are being "banned", only that the efficiency must be much higher than today's bulbs.

Furthermore, the standards ONLY apply to your standard 40 - 100 watt bulbs that are the most widely used. ALL other incandescent bulbs are unaffected. So you don't have worry about replacing your chandelier.

Finally, GE is already working on incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards.

Have a nice day.

 

[Joeychgo]

Fosten's point is a good one. The government has no business or right to do what they are doing.

Like I said - itws the same breed that make it so I can no longer have a smoke in a bar or a restaurant here in Illinois.

As far as the light sucking - Fossten - Might I suggest you go buy one today and try it? THe light they put out is better today then it was in the past. IM quite happy with mine.

 

[shagdrum]

Finally, GE is already working on incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards.

Hopefully they get that working at a decent price

 

[shagdrum]

Like I said - itws the same breed that make it so I can no longer have a smoke in a bar or a restaurant here in Illinois.

Yeah, but they are stepping beyond the limits of their power in enacting this law (not that anyone is gonna challenge it).

 

[hrmwrm]

"This isn't about energy savings as much as it's about politicizing global warming and telling people what they can or cannot buy. "

it has less to do with global warming and more to do with slowing the dependance on foriegn energy. and as already stated, they're not banning it, just forcing higher effeciencies. in 125 years of the incandescent, it has never been tried to push it's effeciency due to lack of practical alternatives. so it's not government saying what to buy, it's industry never gave a choice. the law just makes sure the old wasteful technology isn't left as an alternative.
and fossten, my 11 year old daughter likes calling names too.

 

[shagdrum]

...as already stated, they're not banning it, just forcing higher effeciencies... the law just makes sure the old wasteful technology isn't left as an alternative.

You just contradicted yourself.

Weather you want to admit it or not, this law does effectively ban incandesents, the evidence is in your statement that it is removed as an alternative. Also, the whole "blame the private sector" thing is weak, there isn't an economically viable alternative to incadescents or the free market would have brought it to promenance. When the government tries to force a new technology on America there are always bad consequences.

Look at the forced change from leaded fuel and gas mileage standards and how long it took the auto industry to recover (150 HP V8 engine was consider high power in the 1980's), in addition to the fact that creating lighter cars means less safe cars on the road and unnecessary fatalities, all due to the government overreaction and stupidity in regards to the 1970's gas crisis. More example: EPA regulations that lead to the space shuttle tragedy in 2003; Banning of DDT allowing millions of unnessecary deaths due to malaria.

How do a change in light bulbs result in reducing dependancy on foreign energy? That isn't the goal here, as there are much less intrusive and more effective methods to do that. This bill is just an attempt to cater to the enviro-wacko lobby, nothing more.

Stop trying to find clever ways to ignore thr truth.

 

[fossten]

Like I said - itws the same breed that make it so I can no longer have a smoke in a bar or a restaurant here in Illinois.

As far as the light sucking - Fossten - Might I suggest you go buy one today and try it? THe light they put out is better today then it was in the past. IM quite happy with mine.

That's just wonderfantabulous, Joey! I'm SOOOOOOOOOOO glad for you! But your comment is irrelevant, because if I want to buy incandescent bulbs the government should not be permitted to prevent me.

Anybody care to explain WHY we NEED to have more energy efficient light bulbs?

And by the way, Joey, the light DOES SUCK. Been there, done that. We have one set sitting on a shelf, never to be used again. You try talking my wife into buying another one and I'll give you the shirt off my back.

 

[Calabrio]

Nowhere does it say that incandescent bulbs are being "banned", only that the efficiency must be much higher than today's bulbs.

That's usually an indirect way of banning something. You impose regulation or standards that are impossible to attain, or provide for a reasonable price. Int his case, you don't ban the bulbs, but you apply standards as I just mentioned. This happens frequently with government.

Finally, GE is already working on incandescent bulbs that meet the new standards.

Have a nice day.

They are working on it... now, do you think they'll be able to get the incandescent bulbs to be 70% more efficient within that time frame, or by 2010 as the article states, and for a competitive price?

 

[hrmwrm]

i didn't contradict myself. if they can make a more effecient incandescent bulb, then the question would be why wasn't it done sooner? ge claims they will be able to do it. and what do you mean not economically viable? they cost less in the long run to use. i fail to see an arguement there. and shag, the biggest drop in horsepower came when they changed ratings from gross to net in 1972. it had nothing to do with unleaded fuels. and car manufacturers still wouldn't of had a clean engine to this day if it wasn't for some kind of minimum standards imposed upon them. and catering to wacko-enviros sounds like a conpiracy theory to me. governments have rolled over for buisness always, and i suppose you would like another love canal happen.

 

[bufordtpisser]

Sure they do.................

Fosten's point is a good one. The government has no business or right to do what they are doing.

They have the right to do whatever we allow them to do. I switched to them long before they were mandated. And as far as the light sucks thing, that is just one opinion. I also use LED's and low voltage halogen bulbs to light my house. So my light sources are mixed. I am a cheapskate. If I can save a buck from going to big energy I will. But then on the other hand, I drive a gas guzzling truck. I guess that it is a trade off. I save a couple hundred dollars a year in heating and cooling and lighting costs and then burn it in gas money. Dam I am a hypocrite.

 

[fossten]

They have the right to do whatever we allow them to do. I switched to them long before they were mandated. And as far as the light sucks thing, that is just one opinion. I also use LED's and low voltage halogen bulbs to light my house. So my light sources are mixed. I am a cheapskate. If I can save a buck from going to big energy I will. But then on the other hand, I drive a gas guzzling truck. I guess that it is a trade off. I save a couple hundred dollars a year in heating and cooling and lighting costs and then burn it in gas money. Dam I am a hypocrite.

I respect your opinion, Buford...and I agree with you that the quality of the light is a subjective thing. If you want to buy twisty bulbs, I believe that is your right as an American. But the government has now seen fit to tell me that by 2014 I won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs anymore. That is outrageous.

This is more about the principle and less about the product. What happens when they start banning books? Oh, but the bill won't actually BAN books, it will just regulate them in a way that makes it more difficult for certain books to be published. I predict hate speech will play a part in this.

As for the rest of you socialists...eventually the government will get around to banning something you DO care about. Just wait. By then there will be nobody to speak up on your behalf. Thanks for speaking up on mine. /sarc

 

[shagdrum]

...if they can make a more effecient incandescent bulb, then the question would be why wasn't it done sooner?

Because efficiancy isn't the only consideration to the consumer (though it obviously is to washington). Cost as well as quality and ease of use are concerns being ignored here. It isn't economically viable.

and what do you mean not economically viable? they cost less in the long run to use.

...according to some estimates. Again cost is one of many concerns by consumers. Did you even read Calabrio's post?! Power consumption has gone up when these are used, as well as being limited in their usage (temp issues as well as slow warm up).

Remember, hybrid cars cost less overall according to some estimate, but not in the real world.

the biggest drop in horsepower came when they changed ratings from gross to net in 1972. it had nothing to do with unleaded fuels.

That was merely a drop in advertised power. The engines still made the same power, it was just calculated differently. You saw real drops in power due to the switch in fuels as well as gas mileage standards. This is why my first car (1985 Grand Marquis) had a 5.0 that made an astounding 150 hp.

and car manufacturers still wouldn't of had a clean engine to this day if it wasn't for some kind of minimum standards imposed upon them

.

and did those standards have any positive effect (besides smell)? No. Car emissions are still used as a scare tactic for global warming, so the enviro-wackos tell us.

and catering to wacko-enviros sounds like a conpiracy theory to me

You give the enviro-wackos to much credit; they aren't that smart. Just obsessed with their own concerns and imposing their world view. They also make up a large part of the democratic part base, so they have influence.

governments have rolled over for buisness always, and i suppose you would like another love canal happen.

Can't speak to the "love canal" thing; not very informed on it and it was before my time. However you statement shows a huge bias against the private sector (Big Business in particular). While the private sector is far from perfect, they are no where near as bad as the government. When businesses screw up, you get Enron; when governments screw up, you get Vietnam, Waco (Texas), WW2, Ruby Ridge and many more examples too numerous to name. There is a large difference in ability and scale. There is also a difference in accountability and justice. Look at what happened to the Enron corporation and it's accounting firm as well as the individuals who played the system. Contrast that with no accountability and/or punishment when the government screws up.

 

[fossten]

Can't speak to the "love canal" thing; not very informed on it and it was before my time. However you statement shows a huge bias against the private sector (Big Business in particular). While the private sector is far from perfect, they are no where near as bad as the government. When businesses screw up, you get Enron; when governments screw up, you get Vietnam, Waco (Texas), WW2, Ruby Ridge and many more examples too numerous to name. There is a large difference in ability and scale. There is also a difference in accountability and justice. Look at what happened to the Enron corporation and it's accounting firm as well as the individuals who played the system. Contrast that with no accountability and/or punishment when the government screws up.

Best paragraph I've ever seen you post. Seriously, Shag. MAJOR props. *applauds loudly*