Repeal of law that will soon ban regular light bulbs fails

Methinks you may have hit the nail on the head here buddy.

Just about everyone wants to live in a clean, if not pristine world. But a lot of environmentalists just freaking go overboard.

A lack of common sense does not help the environment and usually does more harm than good.

Not so much the light bulbs...but other things...like the snail darter.


The problem I have with the light bulbs is the fact that they will all be made in China. GE closes American incandecent light bulb production in the U.S. and puts more people out of work....Does anyone think they did this to protect the environment?

 

Are you trying to tell me that offices in the USA have not HAD Fluorescent strip lighting?? Most public buildings and offices here run on conventional "fluoro's" and have done for years.

 

Offices putting in fluorescent lights was a voluntary measure - - not something jammed down their throats by government meatheads.

 

But it is the SAME coloured light as a CFL

But it does not worry me - with the new LED (25,0000 hours life) the newer Halogen, the very new ESL bulbs the rest of the world is set to leave America ehind as it clings to it's outdated, outmoded and above all expensive to run conventional bulbs

 

BTW - looks like the "ban" is a myth

http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678387/kill-the-myth-incandescent-bulbs-are-not-banned

 

Apparently some states are taking matters into their own hands. South Carolina and Texas are in the process of passing laws to specifically allow normal incandescent bulbs, and bypass the federal "efficiency" (=ban on all incandescents) mandate.
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/09/south-carolina-taking-light-bulb-ban-into-its-own-hands/
http://phys.org/news/2011-06-texas-bulb-bill-skirt-federal.html

So long as the bulbs are made in and sold only within the state, the federal only has jurisdiction on regulating interstate commerce (at least theoretically).
California, unfortunately had previously passed its own state laws nearly identical to the federal ban. So even if incandescent light bulbs become legal again in the USA, they will still not be available in California (at this time only 45 Watt bulbs are available in the state, but soon they too will be "phased out" (=banned).

All this makes me wonder if the federal government will ever cleverly attempt to ban guns by mandating "efficiency standards" on firearms— efficiency standards that no gun could realistically meet. "Oh, but it's not a ban", liberals will say, "you can still buy airsoft guns."

 

Way to go - why not just declare everyone should have the right to buy gas lighting and kerosene lamps??

With the new LED lights which have a life of around 25 - 50 years Texas can luxuriate in the fact that they will still be changing light bulbs and paying more for electricity long after the rest of us have stopped laughing our bums off

 

Do you want to become independent of foregin energy sources????? The light bulb issue is a step in the right direction........just because it is happening under a Dems watch does not automaticly make it wrong or bad............stupid

 

If those retarded tools in the south want to pay for in the electric bill then go ahead....the rest of us don't care

 

I personally do not have a problem with the light from LED bulbs, although some people still prefer incandescent light.
The only problem is that LED bulbs are so expensive. A 100-Watt equivalent LED costs between 50 to 90 dollars.
http://www.sears.com/shc/s/p_10153_...1x00003a&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=SPM6698920202

Sure, there are 10 dollar LED bulbs being sold, but they are very dim, hardly useful except as a night light. With the LED technology, you are paying in direct proportion to the light output.

Now it is claimed that LED bulbs can "last up to 25,000 hours", the "life span" of an LED bulb has a different meaning than for normal light bulbs. Normal incandescent light bulbs suddenly fail, whereas LED bulbs slowly lose light output, becoming dimmer over time. The rated lifespan of an LED bulb is typically the point at which the bulb puts out 70 percent of the light output it put out when it was new. And these lifespans are for the higher quality, more expensive LED bulbs. The 50 dollar bulbs are unlikely to last quite as long. We have already seen this with CFL bulbs, the manufacturer's life span claims are often very inaccurate, or misleading. Most people are not likely to keep track of how long the bulb actually lasts.

But with the high cost of LED lights (even if their longer lifetimes compensate for this) it will become likely that LED bulbs will become a target of theft. Burglaries may begin to target houses to steal their light bulbs. Many public places will essentially not be able to use LED bulbs because of the high risk that they will be stolen, much as we are already seeing with theifs breaking into street lights to steal copper wire.



Also, most stores do not yet carry LED bulbs, or only carry the very low wattage versions. At least for the time being, most consumers will would have to order LED bulbs through the mail, and the shipping costs will no doubt add expense. (and just what is the environmental impact of all the fuel it is going to take to mail all these LED bulbs?)

 

you will still be able to buy incandescent lightbulbs, just have to buy the more energy efficient ones

http://www.amazon.com/Philips-72-Watt-EcoVantage-Light-Natural/dp/B001FA07UC/ref=pd_bxgy_hi_text_b



Technical Details

Compliant with EISA 2012 incandescent general service restrictions
Energy saving (100 Watt Incandescent Equivalent)
Fully dimmable
72 Watt (1490 Lumens)
Soft White

 

The "energy efficient ones", at least incandescent bulbs that would be efficient enough to meet the mandate, DO NOT EXIST !

That translates to an efficiency of 20.69 Lumens per Watt, not enough to meet the efficiency mandate.

Even if there was, hypothetically, some experimental prototype incandescent light that could meet 45 Lumens per Watt (which I am NOT aware of), how much exactly would this bulb actually cost?

 

it is "Compliant with EISA 2012 incandescent general service restrictions"

 

They will not always stay at that price - but you can still buy halogen, ESL and even more efficient conventional bulbs

So what if LED's do not last 25 years and only last 10 - at that length of time the cost savings in electricity, light bulbs, trips to buy light bulbs, storage space for the !@#@#@ different light bulbs around the house, the cost of the broken leg you got falling off the ladder LAST time you tried to change the bulb yourself.....the sutures from where you landed arse first on the bulb you dropped before you fell off the ladder.........................

Isn't $50 worth it??

 

I think you are mistaken. Do you live in the USA? Go to a store and tell us if you can find bright halogen bulbs. How many lumens does the packaging indicate? My guess is whatever halogen bulbs are left are the lower wattage, and these are set to be "phased out" in a few years, because of the law. (not all of the law has taken effect yet, it is being implemented in progressive phases. I think the "3-way" bulbs are still available at this time, but they too will be phased out under the law)

A normal 100 Watt incandescent bulb puts out 1750 lumens of light (in 120 volt regions), or 1380 lumens (in 220 volt regions).
I highly doubt there are any incandescent bulbs with a light output above 900 lumens that are available in stores now.

In most stores, the only choice will be CFL's, unless you want to put several lamps in the same room with the lower wattage incandescents.

It depends how long the LED bulb's life span actually is. I do not think it is far-fetched to expect that the life spans claimed by the manufacturer of these "cheaper" 50 dollar lights (as compared to the 80 dollar ones) will be exaggerated. If we assume a typical lifespan of 10,000 hours, this can be seen as the equivalent of only 8,500 hours of incandescent light, when we remember that the brightness of the LED "fades" over time. A typical incandescent light bulb, in comparison, will last 1,000 to 2,000 hours. For several reasons, it is problematic to make a direct comparison, but basically it seems that a single LED bulb's lifetime is the equivalent of 8 incandescent bulbs. That is still 6 to 10 times more expensive than using incandescent bulbs. And this is not factoring in shipping costs, since LED bulbs are generally not available in stores. And this is assuming that no one steals your LED bulb out of your lamp.

 

But an LED bulb will save 150 dollars over its useful life span in reduced energy consumption compared to incandescent bulbs. So to answer your question, it is theoretically "worth it" to buy LED bulbs, but only by a small margin. With incandescent bulbs, most of the cost is the electricity, not the bulb itself. With an LED light, the bulb itself costs more than the electricity over its lifetime. Remember also that a products cost itself often gives a fairly good indication of the ammount of energy it took to make it, even though an LED bulb is more energy efficient during its operation, LED bulbs may still not save as much energy as it seems. This is much like the production of corn ethanol for fuel, when it was realised that in many instances it takes almost as much conventional fossil fuels to grow and process the corn as the ammount of ethanol produced.

If environmentalists really want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, perhaps the best thing they could do is lobby for tariffs so the light bulbs will be produced in their own country, rather than China. It takes more fuel to transport all these light bulbs from China. And it also takes electrical energy to make a light bulbs, especially the "high efficiency" types. The production of electrical energy in China is much more "dirty" and less efficiently generated than in America or Europe. Environmentalists should really do an analysis of the impact of international trade on carbon dioxide emissions. It may be that locally produced normal light bulbs could be less polluting, when all factors are considered, than the "high efficiency" light bulbs that are all coming from China.

Just as locally grown produce has been advocated as a way to help the environment, so too there may be a parallel with the production of light bulbs (not to mention all those Chinese-made wind turbines that are generating all our "green energy".

The irony is that by forcing "efficient" lighting on everyone with an ill-thought plan, in many ways environmentalists are actually causing even more pollution and CO2. (just one example, ignorant consumers are putting in normal CFL bulbs into motion detector outside lighting, closet lights, or dimming fixtures, but this is an inappropriate use for these bulbs, and it actually causes the CFL to burn out faster than a normal incandescent bulb, wasting resources)

 

Bull!!

For a start that $50 was YOUR price not mine - I can source them a LOT cheaper than that!

Second - prove one iota of that crap - prove that LED compared to conventional light bulbs - actually cause MORE CO2 emission

You cannot because it is not so. The whole light bulb panic is a furphy (lie/rumour) from the start where there IS no "ban" through to the "more mercury" myth to the "not as good lighting" rubbish through to the "doesn't last as long as it says" nonsense ending with the unvalidated and untrue "causes more CO2 emissions
http://www.elements-of-green.com/LED-Light-bulbs.html
Fail

and an EPIC one at that

 

Re some comments in this thread....

Incandescent technology for ordinary bulbs - including touted Halogen type 72W replacements - will be banned too in the USA on the EISA 45 lumen per watt end regulation, in phase 2 starting after 2014 and ending (at latest) 2020.
Replacement incandescent bulbs of course have differences anyway, apart from costing much more for marginal savings, which is why they are unpopular with both consumers and politician (no "Halogen replacement programs" as with CFLs)

Similarly in the EU the Halogen replacements for ordinary bulbs are banned by 2016
Regulations USA EU Canada Australia
http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
including amendment updates and state bills USA (legalized Texas June 2011)
Canada has delayed ban by at least 2 years, as also referenced.

 

Again, regarding some comments here,
the overall Energy or Emission savings are not there.

Presumably light bulb bans should be done for Society savings
- rather than worrying about what Light Bulb Johnny wants to use in his Bedroom:

Individuals might save some with expensive bulbs in common locations,
but Society savings are a fraction of 1% of overall energy use or 1% of grid usage,
referenced Dept of Energy etc data
- and that is still not counting the also referenced manufacture, transport and recycling energy use of the more complex replacements:
Energy of manufacture is much greater than 5x incandescent mentioned by Anders here in comments.
That is because Osram etc use the assembly energy of pre-made parts in their documentation =
you have to include the energy of making the multitude of CFL and LED components.
As Dr Stanjek - Greenpeace appointed so not research biased - put several years ago in his study, as referenced.

Also: Coal plants and CO2 emissions:
Coal power plants are the main emission culprit.
But effectively the same coal is burned at night regardless
of what light bulb you use: Coal plants are slow loading steady
electricity deliverers, calibrated for higher day use, again referenced.

That is not all:
As referenced, (http://ceolas.net/#li11x) In some Canadian provinces, US states, and some European countries, research, especially by Canadian and Finnish institutions, shows CO2 emissions rising from a ban,
from replacing the "clean" (hydro, nuclear) energy behind the heat of incandescents with CO2 emitting heat source fuels.

As previously commented, even if the bulbs (or cars, washing machines, TV sets, computers..)
had to be targeted, they could as said be taxed (tax helping to pay for
price-lowering subsidies on alternatives, or give Govmt other income - hello California)
or better still, be subject to increased - not decreased- market competition to improve products while keeping choice.


GE, Philips and Osram/Sylvania manufacturers sought and welcomed theban on cheap patent expired bulbs, to sell more profitably patented complex expensive alternatives that people would not otherwise buy in sufficient quantities.
The deception behind the arguments used to ban light bulbs and other products freedomlightbulb.org
.

 

Also regarding some comments,
the overall Energy or Emission savings are not there.

Presumably light bulb bans should be done for Society savings
- rather than worrying about what Light Bulb Johnny wants to use in his Bedroom:

Individuals might save some with expensive bulbs in common locations,
but Society savings are a fraction of 1% of overall energy use or 1% of grid usage,
referenced Dept of Energy etc data
- and that is still not counting the also referenced manufacture, transport and recycling energy use of the more complex replacements:
Energy of manufacture is much greater than 5x incandescent mentioned by Anders here in comments.
That is because Osram etc use the assembly energy of pre-made parts in their documentation =
you have to include the energy of making the multitude of CFL and LED components.
As Dr Stanjek - Greenpeace appointed so not research biased - put several years ago in his study, as referenced.

Also: Coal plants and CO2 emissions:
Coal power plants are the main emission culprit.
But effectively the same coal is burned at night regardless
of what light bulb you use: Coal plants are slow loading steady
electricity deliverers, calibrated for higher day use, again referenced.

That is not all:
As referenced, (http://ceolas.net/#li11x) In some Canadian provinces, US states, and some European countries, research, especially by Canadian and Finnish institutions, shows CO2 emissions rising from a ban,
from replacing the "clean" (hydro, nuclear) energy behind the heat of incandescents with CO2 emitting heat source fuels.

As previously commented, even if the bulbs (or cars, washing machines, TV sets, computers..)
had to be targeted, they could as said be taxed (tax helping to pay for
price-lowering subsidies on alternatives, or give Govmt other income - hello California)
or better still, be subject to increased - not decreased- market competition to improve products while keeping choice.

 

The background of the ban should not be forgotten...
It was not just driven by politicians or environmentalists.
As referenced, GE, Philips and Osram/Sylvania manufacturers also sought and welcomed the ban on cheap patent expired bulbs, to sell more profitably patented complex expensive alternatives that people would not otherwise buy in sufficient quantities.
A bit like banning generic cheap patent expired penicillin, in favor of more modern expensive complex patented pharmaceutical alternatives.

The deception behind the arguments used to ban light bulbs and other products freedomlightbulb.org
.

 

Well at least that is a change from the "one link wonder" posts above - but it is still just a blog - in other words someone's unsupported opinion

((((((((((yawn))))))))))))))

 

It seems to me that we are looking at the wrong end of the horse.

We need to generate our electricity in a less polluting manner. It is the electricity and how how is generated...not the light bulbs.

I would support a reduction of coal generated electricity.

And maybe give consumers a break for reducing electric use during peak hours.

 

PC - did you ever buy one of those early versions of the "battery free" torches that had conventional light bulbs? They worked but only if you kept a constant winding up of the handle. Now you can buy little torches for around $2.00 that if you squeeze the handle a couple of times you can keep the thing going because of LED technology

LED will reduce the amount of electricity we need and want (so long as we do not decide to light up our houses like the solar side of Mercury) and thereby reducing the power need. Done right we will run on solar input to a battery and sell the rest to industry when they need it. I can just about do that now with the camper van. I still have to plug into 240 volts to run the air conditioner (summer in the tropics in Australia - enough said) and to run a hot plate but I can live quite happily with alternatives to those (well the alternative to the air con is a long deep swimming pool somewhere)

 

Excuse multiple comments above -something went wrong there!

Re manufacturers seeking and supporting ban for profitability reasons,
referenced with several sources http://ceolas.net/#li12ax onwards
Again, the freedomlightbulb blog leads to multiple references.