Repeal of law that will soon ban regular light bulbs fails

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/light-bulb-repeal-republicans-congress_n_895133.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/12/nation/la-na-light-bulbs-20110713

The USA has already passed legislation that is already in the process of making the sale or manufacture of normal incandescent lightbulbs illegal. Several congressmen attempted to overturn the ban, but failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority.


Good incandescent lightbulbs that have a long history of success

This is completely ridiculous, the government telling people what products they are not allowed to use. There is nothing wrong with incandescent bulbs. The government should not have any right to force people to use a different product just because they want to force people to use less energy! Someone who is careful to turn off their incandescent lights when they are not in the room is still using less energy than someone with "energy-saving" lights who leaves all the lights in their house on. What is next, is the government going to force Americans to install motion detectors to automatically turn off lights when no one is in the room?

I absolutely HATE fluorescent lights that the government is trying to push on everyone. The light has an eery tint, and it is more difficult for me to concentrate because there is actually high frequency flickering, although most people are unable to consciously discern this. And of course, some people with pets or small children are concerned about the mercury vapor that could be released if the lightbulb breaks (and it typically does break when put in the trash, realistically not many people are going to properly dispose of these new bulbs).

The only alternative, LED lighting, is even more efficient than fluorescent, but is unfortunately ridiculously expensive (60 dollars for a bulb that would match the light output of a 75 Watt incandescent bulb).

I imagine this lightbulb ban could spawn a thriving black market in the USA. Perhaps we will even see violence associated with organised light bulb crime!

The argument about saving energy is not a particularly good one. Household lighting only composes a very small fraction of the total energy consumed. In a typical household, normal incandescent lighting consumes only 15% of the home's electric power use. In fact, home heating consumes around HALF of a typical household's electricity use. Most of the American population lives in in the north half of the country, where the climate tends to be cooler. For a house with its heater on, "energy saving" CF bulbs will NOT actually save any energy. All types of lighting are actually 100% "efficient", it is just a matter of how much energy is converted into light and how much into heat. Forcing households in Minnessota or New York to convert to fluorescent bulbs is completely senseless.

I think the liberal environmental mantra says it all: "Live more simply so that all may live". If the impact of my using incandescent bulbs is too intolerable on the environment, I say perhaps there are just TOO MANY PEOPLE on the earth. These environmentalists should start focusing on population control instead of the regulation invassion on my home.

http://www.politicalforum.com/envir...ompact-fluorescent-bulbs-not-bright-idea.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...but-fight-for-lightbulb-freedom-lives/241886/

 

We need to compile a list of Congresscritters that did not vote to overturn this legislation so they can be held accountable at the polls.

 

Anders you are more right than you might know!

All light bulbs have advantages – none should be banned
There are many reasons the supposed savings aren't there, referenced Dept of Energy stats US, EU/UK data etc
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html

Even if light bulbs – or cars, buildings, washing machines etc – had to be targeted, market competition or taxation policies are more relevant
(the latter can pay for price lowering subsidies on alternatives as well as giving Govmt income – hello California)

Both policies don’t just keep choice, but are also better at
promoting innovation and saving more energy overall.

 

added note
a particular rundown of why the society energy savings are not there
http://ceolas.net/#li171x

 

replied with some links supporting your argument against the ban
but is in moderation

 

As of this time, both 100 Watt and 70 Watt incandescent bulbs have dissappeared from the shelves in American stores. The 45 Watt bulb will also be banned in a few years.


[video=youtube;HCZ9LpSHLgo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCZ9LpSHLgo[/video]

Here are the relevent excerpts from the abominable law:

(ii) INTERMEDIATE BASE INCANDESCENT LAMPS.—
An intermediate base incandescent lamp shall not
exceed 40 rated watts.

(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT.—
[. . . ]
if the final rule does not
produce savings that are greater than or equal to the
savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45
lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020,
the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general
service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy
standard of 45 lumens per watt.

Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Title III: Energy Savings Though Improved Standards for Appliance and Lighting,
B. Lighting Energy Efficiency

I have tried to read the whole Act, but the wording is so obtuse, and the law ridiculously complex. I believe these two excerpts are the primary references affecting normal incandescent light bulbs.

 

I agree with the OP. Those 'new' bulbs just don;t give out as much light. I preferred the old ones, never had a problem with them, and now you can't buy them! Its pathetic. People should be given a choice as to what bulbs they use - after all, they are the ones paying the power bill, aren't they?

 

And what about the fact that all the new "energy saving" bulbs are made in China? Because the compact fluorescent lights contain mercury, and the EPA has so many expensive regulations on toxic substances in the workplace, American companies are just unable to compete with China. I bet all those poor Chinese workers making our compact fluorescent lightbulbs are breathing in mercury vapor.

[video=youtube;Pa5f7opBePo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa5f7opBePo[/video]


Just to clarify, I am not against CFL's because of the cost. And the mercury within the bulb does not pose an imediate danger if broken, although all that mercury that is inevitably going to be released from these bulbs accidentally breaking everywhere cannot be a good thing. It is just that I really hate the quality of light from CFL's. I do not want to spend the rest of my life indoors under fluorescent light, and I am sure there are plenty of other people that share my sentiments.

Admittingly, there is plenty of very misleading information being thrown out by both sides. Unfortunately that Energy Independence and Security Act actually allocated funding for public educating about "energy saving". Essentially the taxpayer is subsidizing millions of dollars in propaganda in favor of CFL's. Even on the official government website there were several blatent lies about CFL's.

 

Manufacturers usually claim that their CFL's have a lifetime of 5000 hours, but this is often a lie. Many of the cheaper CFL's have a lifetimes as low has 2500 hours. I am surprised there has not been any class action lawsuits against these companies yet. Many of these companies are using inferior electronic parts that cause the bulb to fail early, not just because it is cheaper, but also because they can sell more bulbs that way. Remember, all these bulbs are made in Chinese factories, and we all know Chinese companies have much lower ethical standards.

One source I found stated that producing a compact fluorescent bulb consumes about five times as much energy as it takes to make an incandescent bulb.

Here is one comment made by James Rhyner at St. Cloud University:
"I have been trying CFL's for several years and have yet to have one that lasts longer than an incandescent bulb. Again the politicians are trying to run our lives. As another writer mentions, the costs of producing and disposing of the CFL's are probably much greater than the operating and disposal costs of incandescents. Of course no one wants to analyze that as the politicians will lose their kick backs from the Chinese manufacturers (I despise congress and don't trust them)"
(December 15, 2011)

"I have a combination of incandescent and CFL bulbs. ... My home was built in 1999, and all the bulbs in it are 60-watt bulbs. Just in the last year they started to burn out. 11 years for an incandescent bult is pretty darn good. I have replaced some of these with CFL's and NONE of them have lasted more than 3 years."
(Darryl Buss, comment left on Popular Mechanics website)


Exaggerated lifespan
Real-world reports from the home front show that the claimed extended lifespan of CFLs is often greatly exaggerated. There is ample data indicating that the frequent switching on and off of CFLs greatly shortens their life. A study by H. Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and co-author Amanda Berg concludes:
“Unfortunately, except under a fairly narrow range of circumstances, CFLs are less efficient than advertised. Manufacturers claim the average life span of a CFL bulb is 10,000 hours. However, in many applications the life and energy savings of a CFL are significantly lower. Applications in which lighting is used only briefly (such as closets, bathrooms, motion detectors and so forth) will cause CFL bulbs to burn out as quickly as regular incandescent bulbs . . . When initially switched on, CFLs may provide as little as 50 percent to 80 percent of their rated light output and can take up to three minutes to reach full brightness.”
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba637/

 

My experience with CFL's is pretty much the same. The cheap ones hardly last any longer than the old bulbs and give off a lot of heat anyway.

This sort of thing is going to happen over and over until people quit wanting quick fixes. The Hybrid and electric car was going to be the answer to the PERCEIVED problem of AGW. Now that people have had experience and researchers have published the truth, the pollution made over the entire life cycle of the vehicle meets or exceeds a comparable gasoline powered car. But people want to "believe".....hell the EPA stickers on electric cars even say ZERO GHG emissions !! (If you have a magnifying glass you can see the tiny print saying "tailpipe emissions only".) No one wants to know they are buying a car powered 50% by COAL.

 

Try Googling LED light bulb and be blown away!!

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=l....,cf.osb&fp=98ba1d344c411cf0&biw=1280&bih=668

 

Apart from the recent funding amendment stopping oversight of the ban on 100W bulbs,
local state laws may still allow them
Legal in Texas since June 2011, may soon be similar in South Carolina
Also 8 other state bills, with updates

Moreover, Canada has delayed similar ban by (at least) 2 years,
and British Columbia have suspended their ongoing ban, for anyone making shopping trips...
http://ceolas.net/#bills

Mexico have announced ban, but implementation delayed due to grid structure worries
(the fluorescents set up grid harmonic distortion on account of how the phase shift when the bulbs use electricity...or something like that!)

 

Not sure on that one...
LEDs have plenty of issues too http://ceolas.net/#li15ledax

Ironically, their lack of omnidirectional brightness as well as of smooth light spectrum output light
(similar with fluorescent bulbs, the CFLs),
and difficulty and expense even of trying to make such bright bulbs,
is what makes an early ban on 100W easily made bright incandescents so pointless.
- not just on usage choice, but on overall energy saving, as referenced in other comment

 

If Big Government were determined to make millions of people miserable, why not do it by mandating something that would really work?

Here's a horrible but absolutely guaranteed-to-work idea:

Evacuate the Northeast and Midwest entirely. Everything north of the Potomac and Ohio rivers and east of the Mississippi. Probably a good third of the country. The land goes back to agricultural use and the towns would become seasonal ag work camps. New York, Boston, Philly, and Baltimore would be restricted to their ports only.

Draconian? Absolutely! But how does it work?

Heating and cooling are ultimately defined by holding a set temperature. Usually in the US it is between 70 and 72 degrees F. You can insulate all you want, but at the end of the day, heating and cooling loads are proportional to "delta-T" that is the difference between outside air temperature and the set point temperature. If the set point is 70 degrees and it is 50 degrees outside the "delta-T" is 20 degrees. If the set point is 70 degrees and the outside air temperature is 90 degrees, the "delta-T" is likewise 20 degrees.

In most of the Midwest/Northeast the average heating season day is roughly 30 degrees F, so our "delta-T" is 40 degrees.
In the Southeast and Plains states, the average cooling season temperature is 90 degrees so the "delta-T" is 20 degrees.

So the conclusion is inescapable. For the same building, it takes half the energy to air condition a building in Hotlanta than to heat the same building in Chicago. Atlanta never has to spend any money on snow removal and freeze damage (other than to peach crops) is unheard-of.

In the US building heating/cooling is about 15% of the energy usage and since the area involved is a third of the people (and by inference building floor area) and this plan saves half the energy of the sector, we see a sure-fire (15% x 33% x 50% =) 2.5% reduction in national energy usage. doesn't sound like much but it would dwarf any saving made on residential light bulbs that are on maybe four hours a day.

 

Governments do this all the time. You can't buy a car without a seatbelt. You can't buy milk that hasn't been inspected.

Sure it can.Fossil fuel use involves massive external costs, and the government has not only the right, but the moral obligation to recover and/or mitigate those costs.

 

The murky politics of the lightbulb ban, how lobbyists seek to increase corporate profits:
http://www.ceolas.net/

blog on why CFL's are not as good as the claims, and why consumers deserve the freedom to choose:
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/

Even in many offices, we are seeing employees turn off the fluorescent ceiling lights and bring in incandescent lamps. Obviously some people are very unhappy with the quality of fluorescent light.

 

Then the government should tax those external costs appropriately, not ban products that it falsely believes are wasteful.

 

Works for me, but not for those idiot conservative Republicans in Congress. In the meanwhile, regulation mitigates the external costs, so while it's a half-measure, it's still better than nothing.

 

The Tea Party has compiled a list of those who voted to sustain the incandescent ban.

They will be called on it. Maybe not this time but later.

This is a RINO moment for some Republicans.

 

ooooooooooooo. We're scaaaaaared. Those *********s are soooooooo powerful and strong!

 

Ask Richard Lugar about the Tea Party.

 

What you fail to realise is that all this regulation will cause resentment from many consumers, and will hurt the environmental movement. People that would otherwise have supported environmental protections (like me) might become fed up with the environmental movement and become polarized in the opposite direction.

Just consider this: libertarianism was a response to the overregulation coming from progressives. By not being considerate of the opinions of others who do not completely share your same views, you could just be creating more enemies.

 

Oh yeah. That gol-danged gubbmint is FORCING me to save money! I so resent it!

 

Five bucks for a three-hour-per-week bulb. It'll take a long time to recoup that - less after Obama's regs quintuple electric rates.

 

$5!!! You are quibbling over $5!!!