Repeal of law that will soon ban regular light bulbs fails

Wow! Tropical storms and hot weather in the summer! Stop the presses!

 

Record Tropical storms and record hot weather in the summer! Stop the presses!
You are welcome!

 

I have a closet full of incandescent bulbs because they're getting harder to find. Since I'm not in the U.S. I doubt the lightbulb police will knock on my door.

I bought some CFL to test. First, that didn't last very long. I learned that if your electrical current is not very, very consistent the life span of the CFL is reduced. They also didn't put out enough light for me to read. My sister said if I waited a few minutes they'd get brighter. Oh, r8ight. I want to read the directions on a box of noodles so I'll stand there waiting for the lightbulbs.

The bulbs in the hallway of my apartment building are horrible. I push the switch. For a moment, nothing. The the light starts blinking. The blinking light as I go down the steps is very disorienting for me. I am about halfway down the stairs with the bulb stays on. Then, I turn it off. For the bulb directly in front of my apartment, for which I pay the electricty, got changed to a decent incandescent. That was eight years ago and it's still working.

I thught it was an amazing coincidence that the federal regulations requiring a hazmat clean-up for any spilled mercury disappear when the CFL arrived. Serendipity in the extreme.

Lately I've been wondering how many of our politicians have been benefiting from their legal insider trading on lightbulbs.

 

Why not stay with "real reliability" and use these if your electricity is so unreliable

 

I realise that many people want to help the environment, but this law, which effectively bans incandescent bulbs, is not the way to do it.
Compact fluorescent bulbs are NOT good for the environment, and save much less energy than is claimed. The proponents of energy-efficient lighting should really do the research into the actual environmental impact of producing these new CFL bulbs in China, and what the realistic lifespans and comparative light outputs actually are.

And then there is the fact that many people do not like the CFL bulbs, or have sensitivity to them. Helen Irlen, the world expert in scotopic sensitivity syndrome and Executive Director of the Irlen Institute International Headquarters made the following statement:
"Nearly one-quarter of the world's population will suffer negative physical effects if this legislation [which phases out incandescent lighting] is allowed to pass. For this portion of the population, fluorescent light triggers headaches, migraines, stomachaches, fatigue, eye strain, anxiety, and irritability. Fluorescent lights can also negatively impact the immune system, literally making people sick. Energy conservation is an important goal that we should strive to achieve, but there are ways to conserve energy that do not hurt 25% of the population. Please don't let your government hurt the people you love. Please sign the petition and send this information to others asking them to sign the petition."

 

Then I'm sure you can inform us, referencing facts instead of anecdotes. I bring this up because anecdotes is all we've seen so far.

Now, me, if a bulb isn't bright enough to read by, I realize I should have bought a brighter bulb, so then I do that. It's more productive than cursing the dark.

And halogens _are_ incandescent bulbs. They make light by heating a filament until it glows, which is what defines "incandescent". They meet the standards, thus it's absurd to claim incandescents are banned.

A "syndrome" that most researchers say doesn't exist, but Irlen's organization will gladly sell you a cure for it. Not precisely an unbiased source.

 

No, they do NOT meet the standards. The law has the effect of banning halogen bulbs also, since no halogen bulbs are capable of meeting the 45 Lumens per Watt mandate. (currently only very low wattage dim halogens are available, but this will eventually also be banned under the current law)

I have provided plenty of details in this post. In fact, the burden of proving CFL's save energy and reduce pollution should fall on those supporting continuation of this invasive law. Just look at the big mistake environmentalists made in promoting biodiesel palm oil, without looking at the source of this production. CFL's might "save" electricity in the USA, but how much energy do they consume and what are the environmental consequences of producing them in China? My guess is even more mercury is going to be dumped into Chinese rivers.
http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...ricans-outsourcing-their-pollution-china.html

 

You yourself quoted that as the 2020 standard, so you can't claim ignorance of that fact. It's not 2020. Halogen incandescent bulbs meet the 2012 standards, therefore it's incorrect to say incandescents are banned.

By details, you mean anecdotes, an opinion piece from right-wing think tank, a conspiracy theory website, and your feelings on the matter.

Okay. 1.8 kwH to make a 100w equivalent CFL, 0.1 kwH to make a standard bulb. That makes the break even point about 23 hours [1700/(100-25)]. They last thousands of hours, hence they obviously save a lot of energy.

That was easy. Mercury calcs are a little more complicated. You want them, first demonstrate you're here in good faith, by stating my calculations on energy usage are correct. I won't waste further time teaching unless you demonstrate a willingness to learn.

Red herring, hence not worth addressing.

Your "guess". Kind of sums up the thread.

 

Except Chinese power plants are less efficient and much more polluting. And that is only the electrical energy consumption, other forms of energy are consumed to make the materials. And I would doubt even these statistics are accurate. It is very difficult to go down the whole production chain to see how much electrical energy is actually consumed. All the parts and materials that come together to make a CFL need to be made in well over 20 different processes and factories, from the additional glass it takes to make them, to the various electrical components. Like I said before, cost is generally a good indicator of environmental impact. Since the cost of living (and environmental regulation) are so much lower in China, we should compare how much it would cost to produce these bulbs in the USA to get a good idea of how much of a negetive environmental impact they make. In other words, if producing these bulbs in the USA (all of them are made in China now) would not give a cost savings, then likely these bulbs are not good for the environment.

It depends on the particular manufacturer and how the CFL bulbs are actually used. There have been several people online that have observed that there CFL bulbs burned out faster than ordinary incandescent lightbulbs. While this is generally the exception, it shows that the claimed lifespans on many of these CFL's can be very misleading or even deceiving.

Equivalent halogen bulbs to replace normal 70 or 100 watt incandescents are not available in most stores. How much of an environmental impact does it create to ship them through the mail for a special order? When you begin thinking about things, you see that simply switching out lightbulbs barely even begins to address the wastes of energy. Light bulbs in residential spaces only consume about 2-4% of the total energy consumption. Industry uses far more power. We can see how simple-minded many environmentalists are. Good intentions, bad policies.

 

Now you're just tossing everything at the wall in the hopes something sticks. A 25w bulb is simply going to use vastly less power over its life than a 100w bulb. Denying that looks ridiculous.

So I'm just imagining seeing them in the stores?

There is no "special order". You're grasping at straws.

 

Joe Donnelley voted for both the incandescent light bulb ban and ObamaCare.

 

apropos of nothing

 

Mamooth might like to check all the official and institutional links from those references.
Then again, maybe not...
Another one - and yes, note the references before dissing it out of hand (yawn ).
http://greenwashinglamps.wordpress.com/category/incandescent-ban/u-s-ban/

 

I have a supply of incandescent bulbs that will last me to either my death or until a reasonable alternative is available. The $50 affordable 40-watt equivalent bulb that the government awarded a $10,000,000 prize for certainly is not, for me, a reasonable alternative. Neither are the CFL. Unforuntaely, I read and need light. If you don't read or need light, don't mind the wait or the blinking, they're fine.

 

I have a supply of incandescent bulbs that will last me to either my death or until a reasonable alternative is available.

LOL a man after my own heart...I too have a big sackful in the storage room.

Interesting isn't it....the EPA effectively bans half the power in the USA because of mercury fears, yet Obama REQUIRES us to buy little mercury time bombs and put them in our homes.

If the EPA were a football game:

Politics 38
Sound Environmental Science 3

 

Instead of hoarding the bulbs, you could just go to Lowe's and buy the incandescent bulbs.

 

I keep doing a double take on this because over here "Lowes" is a menswear outlet

LOLS!!

 

Ha...a double funny !!

 

To be picky, that link wasn't the right bulb. It was just a lower-wattage standard incandescent, still legal because it's not a 100w incandescent. What you'd need is a halogen 100-watt equivalent, $8 for two-pack. They're not in every store in the world yet, but they are at Lowe's and all of the big hardware stores.

 

Oh, I checked the grocery store today. Halogen 100-watt equivalents, very legal under the law, were there, selling at $3.99 for a 2-pack.

Let's see. 30 watt savings, 13 cents per kilowatt-hr, standard bulb is 50 cents ... so about 400 hours for payback. On a 2000+ hour bulb. The halogens are a no-brainer. It's literally better to toss your working incandescents into the trash and replace them with halogens, from purely a monetary viewpoint. There is, of course, also the convenience factor to consider, which is why I won't be doing that. But I also won't be hoarding inefficient money-eating bulbs that give off sickly yellow trash light just to spite those dirty liberals.

 

CFL's are being shown to damage skin.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/about+the+ncaa

The. LAW. of unintended Consequences.

 

???Con-fused??? Either you have posted the wrong link or you are implying that CFL's cause athleticism.....................

And BTW - find me a link to the ORIGINAL research and it had better also implicate fluorescent lights

 

It's been known ever since flourescents were invented that they emit UV if the phosphor layer is damaged. We've all been working under them our whole lives without getting sunburned. It's not a good idea to work with a big flourescent light inches from your skin, but it's always been that way.

 

House votes, again, to delay enforcement of traditional light bulb ban
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/...ay-enforcement-of-traditional-light-bulb-ban/

Looks like regular light bulbs will still be available, at least until 2014.
But the law itself still needs to be repealed. My guess is that as soon as the Republicans no longer feel they have to try to win public popularity they will stand back and let the wretched law come into effect. There is just too much corrupting lobbying and campaign contributions from the big light bulb manufacturers. If this legislation is allowed to fully come into effect, these big companies will quadruple their profits! If they have their way, everyone will be forced to buy 40 dollar LED bulbs, as ALL of the other options will eventually not be allowed under the current law! (guess what, you have to buy two of those 20 dollar LED bulbs to actually match the brightness of a regular bulb)