100 Watt Light Bulbs Reminder
Dec 31st is deadline for 100 watt bulbs. There will be no more. Incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, starting with the 100 watt ones as of 1/1/12. Comments?
Ashby The cost of CFL's has gotten so low that there is no reason for not using them. I really can't believe NJ hasn't outlawed the sale of incandescent bulbs already.
emaxxman I'm generally fairly supportive of environmental initiatives BUT the projected cost of the new energy efficient bulb is outrageous. Time to stock up!
ERM I think it's a ripoff. Now we have to be concerned with mercury. And GE has them made in China. Another government intrusion.
Copygirl "Incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, starting with the 100 watt ones as of 1/1/12."
The New York Times had a lengthy article in the Home & Garden section back on May 15 that attempted to clear up some of the misunderstanding about what is happening. Here is a short quote from the article - note that the law does not ban the manufacture of all incandescent bulbs:
"Late in his second term, George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires light bulb makers to improve the efficiency of incandescent bulbs by 25 percent. The details of the law dictated a phase-out of the manufacture of certain bulbs in their current incarnation, starting with 100-watt bulbs next January."
"The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014."
Richard You don't have to be concerned with mercury if you recycle them properly. Lowes and HD both take old batteries and CFL's for free. It's not that hard to be environmentally safe with them. Also, many manufacturers are working on mercury-free CFL's. I think the environmental "savings" by everyone converting to CFL's would be far greater than the mercury that is leaked into our land (if everyone recycles appropriately.)
I've had nothing but CFL's in all but 8 fixtures in my house for 10 years. No issues whatsoever.
I don't mind the CFLs, but I notice that they grossly exaggerate their incandescent equivalence. Amything less than the 100w equivalent is completely worthless, but it's still only 26w, so I can live with it...
iPhone-imal ian - I always go by the lumens rating. In any type of bulb, the lumens ratings can vary.
Steve-0 Steve - I can't really say. We put the CFL's in as soon as we moved into the house. Unfortunately, we also bought a second fridge for the garage so any savings were consumed by the fridge.
SueR Has anyone else ever read the government's guidelines on what you should do if you break just one compact fluorescent? I quote below:
"How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?
Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:
Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:
If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage."
Read the rest here - http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf
Rich 
icicle Those are interesting guidelines, Rich. Personally, I use the mercury dust as artificial sweetener for my mother-in-law's coffee (-;
the law is stuipd and it is overeaching by an out of control government.
why do they get to legislate this? this is wrong.
i will buy and use (and pay for) any light blubs i want to use.
the cfc's are overpriced and are harmfull to the environment
mercury is one of the most toxic substances known to mankind. that's why we are not supposed to eat too much tuna fish because of the mercury contamination.
this is bad policy, the blubs do not last the 5 years they calim, and as Ian has pointed out they are very dim.
BrotherDog Not only are CFL harmful to the environment, they are harmful to human health. They give off "dirty" electric. There is a reason that there isn't one manufacturer of these crappy light bulbs in the US. They are toxic to use and toxic to make. Hence, they can't be made here because the same "good for the environment" people don't want the toxicity in this country from making the toxic CFL's!
I'm with you Brother Dog! I have enough stock piled incandescents, that my home will never use another CFL.
JustDucky BD - I have bulbs in my house that are 10 years old. The only ones that occasionally stop working are the ones in an old ceiling fan (that shakes.) The cheap CFL's I have aren't meant to be used in fans.
Caged Animal If I break a light bulb I'd like to sweep it up, and throw it in the garbage, not call in a Hazmat team. I never found one yet that gives off a soft diffused light like a soft white incandescent bulb. Government out of control, go after the big corporate polluters, and let people decide what kind of light bulbs they want to use.
Denis Yet another example of our freedoms being eroded. Absolutely ridiculous. I don't need some bureaucrat telling me what kind of lightbulb to use.
bgs bgs yes you do that bureaucrat is there to protect us from harm full light bulbs . a i cant wait till a study comes out telling us that we are at risk from EMFs produced by all the CFL
LOL
And a reminder to all only buy CFLs made in the usa
CFLs, lumens, brightness, instant-on ---- we have done this to death in other threads.
Basically the guidelines are --- go slow, try it, and if you like it get more.... Lumens tells you how bright it is, not whether it is "soft-white," "incandescent white" or "full spectrum flourescent white." And even when the label specifies the type of white, who cares --- there are no regulations here, they can say whatever.
Same with instant on. Some are instant on, some are 50% instant on, and some are just slow.
And forget the other features, For what you pay for a CFL, do you really want to risk whether they can do "dust to dawn" right? Might as well wait for the next generation to get it right.
So, for 40-60W soft, I like, believe it or not, Shoprite. They hit 50% on instantly, and have a very soft white light. In other areas, I have wafflled between the flourescent and soft white. I was using flourescent in my great room and really liked it until I saw the effect from outside. Looked like I was a department store with bright whites streaming though the blinds and out the sky lights beaming all the way to the stars... Went back to soft white.
Use -- like I said, trial and error. Start with the bulbs that you leave on the longest since that's where you will feel the least effect if the bulb is not instant on. Like it? Keep it. Don't like it, migrate to another room. I put some "instant on" in my windowless powderoom; they were very nice in that they looked like bulbs, not like pigtails. Very quickly I got tired of the light coming on just in time so I could see what I missed......:>) So, migrated them to other lights that could benefit from the "bulb-look" and put better, faster, quicker cfls in the powderroom.
Keep the incandescents you have left for low usage places like closets, etc. and you will never throw any out.
EMFs --- emfs are a function of distance. A foot away can reduce the harm by a huge multiple. That's why an electric razor is much worse than a hair dryer --- distance from your head. Unless you are holding the light next to your face, you are probably OK no matter what EMFs they are giving off. I would be more concerned about the TV, not the front (3-feet like Mom always said) but the back (over 6 feet here).
Cost --- Think I am getting about 5%, if that. Not great, but then again, I have more light now too since I reduced the wattage but upped the lumens.
Looking forward to the 300W version about the size of a basketball for my work area. ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh....... Can use to sear my steaks since I don't have a Weber....:>)
mistergoogle In my opinion, CFL's suck for any light that isn't on all day. Even then, the "affordable" bulbs generate crappy light quality.
When I turn on a light, I want it to be on instantly, and I don't want to have to spend $10 or more per bulb to get that when a 50 cent bulb does the job and looks better. It shouldn't have to be a complete Design of Experiments to figure out what bulbs to use at various locations in my house.
Looks like I'll continue purchasing enough incandescent bulbs to last the rest of my life before they aren't available anymore. Heck, even buying that many I'd still probably have to spend less than it would cost to just put one set of CFL's in every light I currently own.
Mark Mc. And yet Mark you are willing to pay $1,000 (with maintenance) or $500 w/o for a pc that would be lucky to last 5-years and is worth pennies as soon as you open the box.....:>) And since they change models every few months, you probably take the advice of some pimply kid who spends 23-hours a day watching Star Wars....
Or you pay 3 times as much for the Apple piece of mind.
It's all about value; you value instant on. And to do so, you convince yourself its $10 a bulb when 8-pcks 60W are $7 and 6pk of 100's are $14 and are unwilling to try it to see if you can:
- use 5% less power and conserve energy for getting the same or more lumens
- create less heat btus since incandescent blow off about 80% waste in extra thermals.
I used to be similar to you in rationalizing my use of incandescents, even convinced myself that incandescents in the winter are nice to reduce your oil bill (still do love the Lava Lamp for creating heat in a cold draft zone) given the incredible waste of energy which manifests itself as heat (thus the EZ bake). But I was wrong, it is less efficient all around. And a small price to pay for not being instand on --- and lumens is lumens. The quality of light (soft, bright, etc.) issue is unfortunate that the industry has not created standard definitions for type of lumen and quality of light, but a small price to pay to reduce my power bill.
Instant gratification is indeed a wonderful thing but I choose to wait a bit, mellow out, have more light overall, and help conserve resources.
Waste on McDuff. Enjoy the milliseconds. I choose to wait and enjoy the cash.
I don't like the quality of light flourescents give. Period. I shouldn't be forced to buy them. Period. This is yet another "feel good" law that in fact does nothing, and creates a new problem with the mercury. Hopefully the next administration can put a halt to this. I know all of GE's (in bed with the govt) incandescent plants are either already shut down or are scheduled to. But CHINA will be making incandescents for years to come. I'm not a big fan of buying from China, but if my own government forces me to, so be it.
Time to go to Depot & Lowes and clean them out of 100W incandescents... I'll stockpile them in the attic. F the govt with a capital F.
JeffRep mercury is bad for the health of humans and the planet
these CFL's should be outlawed , not the incandescents.
the federal government has gone too far with this regulation of light bulbs
we need to turn out their lights for a while, see how they like it.
Gee Dog, they are probably lieing, it is undoubtably a conspiracy from a govt heck bent on turning you into a tuna but gosh ---- looks like you are spreading much more mercury with your incandescents that I with my CFLs (of which I have broken nor thrown away --- any.
http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf
Way to go Mercury Boy, just keep on polluting and wasting energy.
Mercury is a natural component of the earth, with an average abundance of approximately 0.05 mg/kg in the earth’s crust, with significant local variations. Mercury ores that are mined generally contain about one percent mercury, although the strata mined in Spain typically contain up to 12-14 percent mercury. While about 25 principal mercury minerals are known, virtually the only deposits that have been harvested for the extraction of mercury are cinnabar. Mercury is also present at very low levels throughout the biosphere. Its absorption by plants may account for the presence of mercury within fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas, since these fuels are conventionally thought to be formed from geologic transformation of organic residues
Mr. Google...
I'm not really "arguing" with you because generally I think you have well thought out posts and an interesting viewpoint (well, all except for your last sentence...). But just to touch on the issues you raised:
My computers are all at least 5+ years old and they run just fine for what I need them to do. Not that I don't have a lot of electronic toys... but when I do get one it is purchased because they meet or exceed my needs, not because it's the "Big Brother Approved" model.
5% power savings don't tilt the scales in favor of CFL's for me when:
A) The bulb costs at least 100% more to begin with, and
B) For a measly few bucks a month I have light that is pleasant to look at and actually turns on when I ask it to. (Note, I do have fluorescent bulbs in the house... my kitchen fixture is one of those D-shaped bulbs and although it turned on quickly when new, after a few weeks it was back to the same old "is this thing even on?" game.
It's a bit presumptuous to say that I'm wasteful with my light bulb choices. I live by myself, and generally I put the minimum wattage bulbs necessary in the lights that I do use. Typically at night when I'm bumming on the couch I have a 25-40W single bulb on in the living room and the rest of the lights in the house are off.
For comparison, if you decide to get up and cook an extra hot pocket in your 1000+ watt microwave while you're looking down your nose at the rest of us, that pretty much negates the savings that I would see per month if I switched to CFL's. Just don't bump your knee on the coffee table while you're waiting for your lights to heat up.
What's a hot pocket? Won't the microwaves kill me like the mercury from cfls....
OK -- using your math. You can get a 100-w equivalent cfl for $2.33; you said 100% more than an incandescent, so $1.15, so psst, wanna buy a bulb for $.74....--- never mind, a 100-watt bulb at lowes is actually about .31.
Yours burns 100-watts
The cfl is 23-watts
elec is about .12 a KWh
so let's do the math....
at 10-hours a day, on day one --- you win -- you saved $1.93 but you are losing about a dime a day so on day 22 you have spent the same amount as having a cfl and at the end of the year, you have spent $31.70 extra to have instant gratfication and better, supposedly, light. And remember, it's not just the money, it's the coal and pollution it took to get those lumens to you.
I portend that for $31, that you take a $15 risk and see if you can find a cfl that gives you better light (suggest upping the lumens beyond what you have today for example) and gets yoiu close to instant-on. Like I said, I have some that are 50% lumens instantly and 100% a minute later. Ask for Mark at Home Depot electric for help.
Hey, sorry about the Mercury line but just frosts my cupcake when folks accept this .....stuff and can't even google the facts.
So when I posted my google above, read the words: Switching from traditional light bulbs (called incandescent) to CFLs is an effective, simple change everyone in America can make right now. Making this change will help to use less electricity at home and prevent greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global climate change. Lighting accounts for close to 20 percent of the average home’s electric bill. ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs use up to 75 percent less energy (electricity) than incandescent light bulbs, last up to 10 times longer, cost little up front, and provide a quick return on investment. If every home in America replaced just one incandescent light bulb with an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL, in one
year it would save enough energy to light more than 3 million homes. That would prevent the release of greenhouse gas emissions equal to that of about 800,000 cars.
So a year ago I was like you. But the facts are fracking compelling, the price is right, the dangers low, and the downside is manageable. You can get speed of light, it's out there. You can get your "quality of light," it's out there. I was just saying go slow because there are no STANDARD DEFINITIONS and therefore you have to try it to like it. Think of it like fruit, it's good, but you really can't tell how good until you taste it.
And sure it's only $10 - $20 bucks a month. But I would wager that's better than what you are getting in interest on your savings account!!!!
Mr G, it would help your case if the "facts" you posted weren't copy/pasted from a .gov website. Of course the government propagandists will be presenting CFLs in a positive "light". Just saying...
Your math seems sound (I didn't check all the numbers, but I trust that you've run through these calculations a few times for your own situation).
Yes, if I was running a factory with thousands of lights, the savings can be dramatic by going with fluorescent bulbs. Many situations (and yours seems to be one of them) may lie on that side of the mathematical equation. However, not everything always has to boil down to math (and I'm an engineer, so I evaluate a lot of things using raw numbers).
I stand by my opinion that for literally $0.12 - $0.17 per day, per bulb (assuming 40-60W, and on all 24 hours) I can be provided with the type of light I prefer. Will CFL's eventually even the gap? Perhaps. They have improved, just not to the point that I'd be swayed to use them. Maybe LED's will be a better solution when some of their bugs get ironed out as well...
And there's the root of my whole point of view. There are various options, and that's what they should always be. You've made your choice based on criteria that were important to you, not because something was mandated by the government. I'd like to continue having the same opportunity, even though my decision would be different than yours.
LEDs would be a MUCH better solution than CFLs. MUCH. But the govt will never get behinf LEDs.... because the big corps won't want them to...because you can't make any money with LEDs... because they LAST FOREVER. Almost literally. You could buy all new LED light bulbs for your house, and not have to replace any of them until you reach retirement age. GE can't make no money that way.
Less power consumed, less waste (throw-away), less recycling required, no harmful chemicals, but since it's not profitable, it'll never happen. FOLLOW THE MONEY.
Ianimal and JeffRepub --- You got to be kidding right? A CFL conspiracy started by the anti-LED coalition, Did the incandescent mafia show weakness, did they take their eyes off the bulb? Is the FED involved somehow? Where are the Russians. Where's Bohner, you know he needs a really bright light to keep that tan going, he must be in on this somehow.
I heard that they come in and rob you while the clfs are warming up; that's why they don't have instant on. And the pigtail.......its an antenna. Don't stare at them either, if you do, you will vote for Obama in 2012.
Man, you are right --- prepare the minutemen, fire up those incandescents, let the light of true freedom shine..... Stamp out those commie-rat-basturd cfls (stands for commie flourescent lights) Spend extra money, waste energy, but shine freedom shine. Oh my.
And Mark, if you are an engineer you realize the the cost-savings curve ultimately catches up to you and cfls are cheaper no matter the run time, wattage, etc. My example took far less than a year, at 10 hours per day. As to the rest, you like what you like --- but what you like does cost more --- both in money and energy resources --- for the same return sans the features (light quality and instant on).
And when I get and fire up my 300W equivalent pig tail, you will be able to see the glow comng over Buck's Hill all for the price of 100W bulb. (of course, you will need to wait a minute after I turn it on.....) :>)
Yes I realize that the cost-savings will eventually catch up, but that's just one item on my list of priorities. If I lived my life doing everything that was the "cheapest" option I'd never have any fun.
Sometimes the things you like cost money, although I don't try to be blatantly wasteful...
Enjoy it while you can, the government will eventually outlaw anything above a certain wattage, below a certain MPG, or that has too many calories. It's not a conspiracy, just an example of out of control, power hungry politicians with a personal agenda to push.
Mark,
See the light: the costs have caught up; and I agree with your reasons and choices --- it is your choice. And if the govt cracks down (although they have not outlawed 100W bulbs, they just mandated greater efficiency requirements), then feel free to stockpile. And if the govt out n out outlaws use, then it is still your choice to take the risks as you see fit. Just don't do the crime, if you can't do .....
Unfortunately, I also agree that the govt should be able to step in when it is SO obviously in the public's interest and so blatantly clear the advantage like CFLs (or anthing else equal or better than). If our actions blatantly hurt the environment or others, and their are viable safe alternatives, why not legislate them.
Unfortunately, I aslo agree that the govt should not tell you what to do EXCEPT with it is SO obviously hurting the public if you do not and such laws should be the exception not the rule.
However....sometimes it takes a law. Think about smoking. OMG --- how stupid we were and haw taken in were we by the purveryors of death? And how long did it take to wise up and how long would it take if anti-smoking laws did not "help" us make the right decision? And are we really worse off or less free because of them? I don't think so and it, in hindsight, seems nice that we enacted the laws even if I did spend many a cold moment enjoying a puff outside.
Then again, I do not wear seat belts because I know that as soon as I strap one on I will die. It is stupid, but there it is, and I am willing to take the risk and have you take my risk aslo, to follow my belief. Sorry, but I can't change and I don't want to die so I am not strapping myself in until I am physically forced to.
It's a complex world full of contradictions. So enjoy your incandescents, especially during the hot weather, with the AC on, so you can truly be illuminsted at cross purposes. It is your right.
"It's a complex world full of contradictions."
No it's not Mr G. ;-) It's just like George Carlin going down the highway. If someone is in front of you and you go to pass - "look at how slow that moron is going". But if you get passed "whoa, look at that @sshole!!" Anything you don't want is the "overbearing government interfering in our lives", and anything you do want is "what are they stupid, they aren't doing enough and there should be a law against that"....
GC Or perhaps, GC, one or both of those drivers see something the other doesn't. The "slow" driver might know what's up around the next curve and understand that the excessive speed will likely cause a crash. The "fast" driver might be looking in his rearview mirror and sees a police car bearing down and wishes to hurry up and get out of the way. And then it's possible (very likely in today's society) that both drivers are just being simple minded and basing their views entirely on their emotional desires, using nothing but their raw human nature as a guide.
It *is* a complex world GC. The best we can do is try to have MORE educated citizens to overcome the silliness, but given the entertainment driven nature of the world today the trend will be more of what you describe - views based entirely on "what I want" rather than based on reality.
justintime The land of the free (exept for choosing your light bulbs). Ridiculous.
Our flag can be burned in public in dissent legally, but we can't legally buy an incandescent light bulb. At least the government is focused on the real issues. CFL's and giving money away freely to the single largest U.S. Debt holder in the world as a gift. Keep up the great work guys and gals.
Ryan(ligitty) Mr G.. what is the cost savings per year by switching to eating dry dog food instead of fresh meat and vegetables? I'll bet the savings would be significant; however, most people are perfectly willing to pay a premium for the increased quality that they perceive. Do you think that people are misguided for not wanting to eat dog food more cheaply, as long as it provides the nutritional values that one needs to survive?
And as far as your tirade on conspiracy theories goes, typical Harold debate technique. I never said anything about a conspiracy; I used the word propaganda... which implies the use of misleading or incomplete evidence to get people to act the way you want them to. Take for instance the "facts" about mercury... the government assumes that 11% of the mercury in a CFL will eventually make it into the air or water when broken, because 89% of it is fused to the glass. I'll bet that is a gross underestimation. Also, they use the mercury emitted from burning coal over the life of the bulb in the calculations. What if a person has solar panels that offset his lighting power usage? Zero mercury emissions. Besides, aren't we eventually going to live in a world with clean energy? Why then will we want to be saddled with mercury bombs in our house instead of incandescents? They also didn't calculate the amount of energy it takes to manufacture the different bulbs in the mercury calculations; CDLs are far more expensive and energy dependent to manufacture than regular incandescents, which accounts for at least part of the huge disparity in product cost. So, twisting facts and statistics to suit your goals and attempt to influence behavior = propaganda, not conspiracy, mmmkay?
Personally, I use the CFLs because I don't mind the light quality that much and don't mind saving a few bucks on my electric bill. However, I don't begrudge anyone who feels differently who wants to use incandescents; it's a matter of personal choice and a choice that people should continue to be allowed to make for themselves.
Ianimus -- if this is a debate, once again I defer to your incredible debating skills. I think everyone would agree, between the two of us, you are the master debater.
Not that I was being that serious but apparenlty tred once again on your sensitive side, however, you did use the term government propagandists indicating a group initiative which, by defintion, could be considered a conspiracy --- at least on Law and Order.
As far as the dog food analogy -- non sequitur -- but I will keep it in mind.
As far as your Mercury -- interesting thoughts and innuendo, but in the end though (like the complex aliteration?) --- your summary does not seem as compelling for proof of harm as is the proprogandists for proof of safety.
So, a swing, a strike and a foul -- not bad.
And the funny thing is we agree. CFLs have a place for us, others might see a different quality so let them have at it. The only difference is that I also believe that CFLs have reached a point where the quality differences should be manageable by most, if not all, and that folks should give them another try. I think we both agree that has to occur sometime --- for me that time is now.
Sorry to tweak your backbone but to believe there is some CFL agenda is ludicrous. To quote the memorable words of a drunken John Riggins to Sandra Day O'Connor: "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're too tight," and then he took a 45-minute nap on the floor during a speech by Vice-President George Bush.
This thread reminded me of an exchange in Congress that I thought humorous: (it included complaints of mandated toilet requirements not being effective)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELDHaeEsNF0
Pro choice on light bulbs, like I am with guns, if you want health insurance, partaking in soc security, abortion, gay marriage....
Break the mercury filled bulbs in your child's room and follow the governments clean up protocol and then tell me no worries about them. I am stocking up as I have the right to do.
I prefer the made in Cleveland Bulbs we used to get, now they are Made in China and will cost 3 times the amount. I changed all my light bulbs to the mercury ones, no change in electric bill whatsoever and then I broke one and after I cleaned with my bare hands and vacuum, I read I did everything wrong.
Now I am back to my old lightbulbs and have 3 cases of 100 watts in my closet.
Alice if cfl's are so good and so cost effective then they do not to be helped by the government outlawing 100 watt incandescents.
if they save so much money then people will buy them as most want to reduce their monthly bills
so why the need and the rush to outlaw the regular bulbs.
this is just another case of the federal government run amok, and I make a prediction that this will be either delayed and/or repealed.
i got the same compliant about ethanol requirements, but that discussion will be for another thread.
i certainly put very little stock in a government produced position paper that tries to convince me that the mercury in my house isn't all that bad.
yes it is. period. what stupidity this is.
alice ;
i like your post, and you are spot on - this does have to do with individual rights , (like the right to carry a gun, not just own one that is locked in a box) the right to determine for oneself what to do and how to do it.
the government telling us we can't use one of best inventions of all mankind, the simple light bulb? are they nuts? what are they smoking down there in Washington.
it is time to cut them off, stop funding the beast that is Washington DC.
I cant wait I will make Millions selling black market 100 watt incadesant bulbs made in the usa
What bothers most people about this law is the fact that the light bulb was dependable. You put it in and it worked. It was cheap to buy, easy to use, safe in the home, few,if any,. recalls, no complaints. Remember the 100 watt bulb is the first to go, the lower wattages will be banned later on. If the industry came forth with a decent improvement, there would be no need for a law banning the sale of incandescent bulbs. What many citizens would like to know is WHY?
THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO STAY ON OF MY BUSINESS!!! I have 12 flood lights on the exterior of my home, many times I flip them on in the middle of the night to check of a noise or disturbance. For some stupid reason I put these CFL's bulbs in the back of the house, and as long as the outside temperature is not below freezing, they work pretty well, except for a few differences. Try them when it's 10 degrees outside and they come on 10-15 minutes later once they warm up. They do not give near the light as an good old incandescent bulb. not to mention the cost difference. REAL HELPFUL!!! Another really bad idea by our government, just can't wait for the government to take over health care! They suck and are completely worthless! (politicians & the bulbs) What good is a security light if it does not come on right away? Give my incandescent bulbs any day, I have stocked up on these and have 72 in stock in the garage!
Tony Tony -- You should call the mfg; the bulbs should be rated (and designated) to work to 0 degrees.
Again (and again) the government is not outlawing 100W bulbs. THE GOVT IS NOT OUTLAWING LIGHTBULBs.
"The law does not ban the use or manufacture of all incandescent bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of compact fluorescent ones. It simply requires that companies make some of their incandescent bulbs work a bit better, meeting a series of rolling deadlines between 2012 and 2014."
Twas a law passed during the Bush regime to REGULATE the efficiency of bulbs just like they regulate efficiencies in cars. Incadescents call still be mfg and sold, they just need to me certain efficiency standards and given the incredible about of waste in current designs, should be a do-able thing.
Approximately 90% of the power consumed by an incandescent light bulb is emitted as heat, rather than as visible light. That's 90% of the power you use, the pollution you cause, the money that you spend that goes up, literally in smoke.... And where does it go --- for the most part it is turned into heat which is why incandescent bulbs and air conditioning are such a beautiful pair. So asking incandescent mfg's to do better than 10% is not really a stretch.
And for the folks like me that thought we depended on incandescent lights for alternative heat in the winter --- well, that's true --- they do heat well. Light poorly (10%) but heat (90%) well by way of design but have a quality that we have all know and love. I will always keep my 40W-ers in the lava lamps in my cold zone to keep it cheery and warm in the winter months and yes, I will stockpile them for this reason too.
non sequitur -
smoking is still legal in all 50 states, folks can go and smoke when they want to. so this analogy is a total strike out. bad try at bat, sit down, inning is over, sit in the back of the bus on the long ride home.
when the government comes and puts auto-timers on the hot water for shower heads, (you do know that hot water wastes energy don't you?) maybe then you will see the light.
btw, you happen to be the biggest cyber bully on HL. how does that 'frost' your cupcake?
you don't have be such a jerk to people all the time. (although it is a hallmark of liberalism)
"Way to go Mercury Boy, just keep on polluting and wasting energy."
"Ianimus -- if this is a debate, once again I defer to your incredible debating skills. I think everyone would agree, between the two of us, you are the master debater. "
if you want to meet for coffee sometime, let me know and I will buy. (be fully prepared for a robust conversation)
And I'll bet Thomas Alva Edison is Turning over in his Grave..... LOL..
1 (one) incondecsent LB = $1.00 = burns 2 to 7 years..= area is lighted so you can effectively see = consumes 27.00 in energy (+) (-) = burned out = unscrew and throw safetly in the trash...= Made at Phillips plant in USA = American Jobs = Beaurocrat Polititions = want them discontinued = have ownership or stock in overseas plants = more money for them and their freinds and family = To Heck with the American People = we don't want them on the cruise ship with us, and or on the many islands that we vacation on = thanks to the money that the Americans spent on OUR cf Light Bulbs = Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ...
1 (one). cf bulb = Light the Federal office buildings with them = start saving by forcing the cronies that blew the cf bulb law notes from their broken horns, by changing all the light bulbs in their home where they live. ...= Let them eat what they cook.
= cost = 7.99 to 12.99 + ......= wasted energy to manufacture; but who cares, they are made in other countries anyway; so it is not our problem. = one bulb breakage = one child ingests the mercury = child gets extremely ill = who cares...one kid is not a statistic as far as the beaurocrat polititian is concerned = point the finger at someone else = you read the warning on the box, so it is what it is. Deal with it you gullable American People..
You Know What...Government So Called Leaders = Do Your Own Thing, And Leave Everyone Else The Heck Alone. Period.
embryodad I like that, you call me a jerk and a cyberbully and then say let's do coffee? Don't date much heh hombre?
Again, and again and again --- the LAW is to regulate efficiency and not to outlaw incandescent bulbs of any wattage. Just like we mandate fuel efficiency in cars.
And yes, Mercury Boy was a tad over the name calling line, I stand apologetic for that one.
mistergoogle - "Again (and again) the government is not outlawing 100W bulbs. THE GOVT IS NOT OUTLAWING LIGHTBULBs."
In WSJ -
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704662604576202770757822548.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
"On January 1, 2012, seven months from this week, Washington will effectively ban the sale of conventional 100 watt incandescent light bulbs that Americans have used nearly since the days of Thomas Edison. Instead we will all be required to buy compact fluorescent lights, or CFLs."
Ban to me sounds like outlawing. No?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=100+watt+light+bulb+ban
and again and again and again mr. cyberbully -
you can breathe in all the mercury fumes you desire. i will choose another path. and the government forcing us into this unhealthy lighting scheme is wrong and needs to be redressed.
(your coffee is getting cold, where are you? a no show?)
and you are a jerk to those who disagree with you, (and that fits the uniform of the elitist.)that's why you are a cyberbully, man up and be honest with yourself for once.
Not for anything, but a person calling another a jerk is himself a jerk. Not taking sides, just my opinion.
cbel So is this George Bush's fault or Obama's fault? After reading Richard's post, it was enacted by George Bush in 2007 to be carried out by 2012-2014. Does the current president get to say No Way or does it have to be done? Just curious how this works...
Bessie cbel -
have you seen the way he treats those who feel differently than he does? what term would you use then?
he is viciously cruel and abusive to anyone who does not agree with him, it is really sad, have you not been reading mr cyberbully's sneering , flaming, posts that personally attack those who dare to think something that he does not subscribe to? it is a hallmark of the eastern tax and spend elitist liberal to do just that to win arguments.
i thought you were reading these threads, did you miss those? what have you to say about that?
Chicken Little here....Just how much mercury is involved? Are firefighters at risk? What about a tornado? Is Joplin a wasteland? Solid information for the public is a must! There have been far too many recalls after the fact in the past, i.e., fly ash used for landfill, vermiculite for insulation, arsenic treated lumber, asbestos tiles, and on and on. It is no wonder that people are concerned.
Ryan,
From your google (and that was both cool and spooky how you did that) "Although the United States is not phasing out incandescent light bulbs, it has set minimum efficiency standards for lighting which preclude most legacy incandescent designs; these minimum standards phase in between 2012 and 2014."
Now perhaps those minimums force cfls but since it was a bush-era law, I doubt it. The govt is pushing for a 30% improvement in a technology that is 90% inefficient. Incandescents are not being banned, just having efficiency regulated JUST like your car does.....
Your article or, more acurately, OPINION article says "conventional bulbs outlawed" which is a very clever way to incite folks against the evils of big government which sheilding the true facts which would be: incandescent efficiency ratings now regulated for specific values to improve energy efficiency, decrease pollution, without banning, stipulating, or lowering quality.
Now ---- we can talk about the price of what that entails which might be zero, might be huge, might be neglible, but those flameing the federal fires don't need to delve into facts when they can incite the public without them.
Certain states, CA, have bans on the law books but they should not stand up in court given the Federal Law.
Bessie --- it's up to Congress to make/change laws; Obama might lobby for it with the power of the Presidency, but probably not on this one. And yes, this was a Bush era law but without the price tag for the "new improved" incandescents we really don't know the effect. One would think if mfgs. could improve efficiency by 30% and make a decent profit, that there seems to be enough people, in Hackettstown alone, to make a market.
As to the amount of mercury, it is noted above somewhere in the urls although it is a govt posting. Mercury is also in all of our flourescents so it has been used in lighting for years. You probably get more from eating the tuna that the risk you have from the lights breaking.
Fireman --- that's an interesting point yet one that they certainly must encounter in any urban situation give flourescents.
BD --- pot calling the kettle black, enough already.
"The govt is pushing for a 30% improvement in a technology that is 90% inefficient. Incandescents are not being banned, just having efficiency regulated JUST like your car does....."
What would happen if the govt decided that glass is not efficient enough of an insulator and mandated a minimum of R20 insulation rating for windows? Might it be possible that the "efficiency" requirement would prevent, or effectively outlaw, the sale of glass windows? Likewise, if any existing product configuration does not meet efficiency standards dictated by the govt wouldn't said configuration becomes illegal to produce? The government is most assuredly banning incandescent bulbs. Surely you're not saying you don't understand the argument mrg? BTW, do you recall our past discussions about causality? Now might be a good time to refresh your memory on the subject...
The real discussion here isn't about CFL's or incandescent bulbs, it's about a government that believes it has not only the authority but also the "moral" basis to impose these insane laws on it's citizens. Sadly, it has neither.
Someone out there right now is probably writing a book called "The Light Bulb Caper". It will tell all. Remember,
over a billion light bulbs are sold each year in the U.S. Use your imagination! Fascinating!
From a practical standpoint, achieving a 30% efficiency gain in incandescent bulbs is an unattainable goal. The nature of the metallic filament is such that it will always give off relatively large amounts of heat in proportion to light intensity. I'm sure metallurgists for the manufacturers have been doing R&D on more efficient alloys for decades. If one could patent a light bulb that produced the same light intensity in the same natural spectrum that most people prefer, that company would have stood to make a fortune. Chances are that the incandescent bulb is as efficient as it will ever get. The government's 30% efficiency improvement standard is kind of like them saying that they will approve of gay marriage when gay people have the ability to procreate. Sure it's not an outright ban, but not one that will ever be able to be met, either.
Brother Dog: Yes, I did read his posts, skimmed over this whole thread, because to me it's just another ego parade on HL. Then I read his posts again. So my word for him is sarcastic, to be sure (and not the only one on HL, I might add).
Ianimal:
If you are right, and that's really the point, then it is a ban. But as early as 2007, advancements were being made by GE:
http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/27/ge-develops-high-efficiency-incandescent-bulbs/
Phillips too.
http://www.hybridlightbulb.com/The_death_and_rebirth_of_the_incandescent_bulb.pdf
And a 2009 wrap up but the Times
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/can-incandescent-bulbs-be-made-efficient/
So it can be done, the bulb will be more expensive but will last longer and use less electricity so the jury is out as to the total cost. I could not find info on that, just comments re the price going down as "demand" goes up (yes, demand means ban on current efficiencies). But I agree Ianimal, thet's the discussion --- what does the "new" incandescent look like and what is the total cost (bulb plus energy plus replacement interval).
As to BIG government control, I dunno. Sometimes I like, sometimes I don't. Low flow toilets for example are a really bad idea because they did not work. I was glad NJ turned back the multi-person fast lane because it did not work. I think the mpg requirements for cars are good, pretty sure that without them we would be in worse shape and this regulation does not favor foreign interests. Given where CFLS are now in terms of quality, I think incandescent efficiency requirements (given the pollution they create and energy they consume) are appropriate and there was plenty of time to prepare (either to mfg or for consumers to hoard). Is 30% the right number. I dunno, might be, might not --- don't have all the facts except that they are marketing incandescents today that meet the guidelines at about $5 a bulb. But according to Phillips the new bulbs do pay for themselves with the energy savings not to mention lasting longer.
http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_en/products/halogena_energy_saver/index2.php?main=us_en_consumer_lighting&parent=7593748565&id=us_en_products&lang=en
MRG - justintime said it perfectly. The shielding of the real facts is being done by the government by calling it "Regulation of efficiency standards" when they know full well that they are imposing standards that simply can not be met by a bulb other than a CFL or an LED. It is a convoluted, devious ban while avoiding the use of the word ban as to not incite an uproar against the government's abuse of power.
http://tinyurl.com/68fv34r
Ryan:
I would like to believe but yet the fact that major manufactureres, not one, not two, but three or more, have met the standard with incandescent bulbs would tend to make me think perhaps a little differently. I have listed them above along with the cost savings. More on cost savings below from an INDEPENDENT organization.
Sure there can be over-regulation as I have noted above but so far have not seen it in regards to light bulb efficiency regulations passed during the bush regime ---ahhhhh --- in 2007, 4-years ago. Amazingly, Bush signed the bill which was delivered to him via a Prius...:>)
However, your google on internet regulations, bush's move to control governmental agency regulation (isn't that going the other way???), australia's regulatory environment (hey, they are the only country to BAN incandescents), more internet freedeoms, etc. etc. lead me to wonder if there was anything in that google you wanted us to read or just a convoluted, devious google while avoiding actual research.
Thanks though. Here's mine from the NRDC, an independent group of those nutty, wacky, out-fo-touch enironmentalists heck bent on stopping you from using any naturel resources and undoubtably mere stooges of our facist government even though they provide facts, figures and specific data regarding the issue:
"Several bills have been introduced this Congress that would repeal or undermine the federal energy efficiency standards for light bulbs enacted by Congress in 2007. Such a roll back would increase household energy bills, stifle innovation that is creating U.S. jobs, and increase air pollution that harms human health and the environment. None have passed.
Supporters of the roll back claim that the new standards ban the incandescent light bulb starting in 2012. This is simply not true. Several manufacturers already sell new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the 2012 standards. These new bulbs look and perform just the same as the old incandescent bulbs.The light bulb efficiency standards were enacted as a bipartisan amendment to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012, and 65 percent less energy by 2020.
According to NRDC’s analysis, the standards when fully implemented will:
Save each American household $100 to $200 plus per year on their energy bills.
Reduce U.S. energy bills overall by more than $10 billion per year.
Achieve energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants.
Avoid approximately 100 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution per year, which is equivalent to the emissions of more than 17 million cars.
The most prominent light bulb efficiency standards roll back bill is the BULB Act (S. 395 & H.R. 91). Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a lead cosponsor of the BULB Act, said that the light bulb standards pick winners and losers in the marketplace and also micromanage the purchasing decisions of Americans.
Americans, however, did not have the choice to purchase the new efficient incandescent bulbs until after the 2007 light bulb standards were enacted. The technology for these new bulbs was invented in the 1960s, but the manufacturers did not roll it into the marketplace until the standards created a market for the bulbs.
The light bulb standards are also not some sort of statist central planning policy that picks technology winners and losers. Rather, the standards establish energy efficiency targets that all light bulbs have to meet and let the market decide how to meet them. The standards provide clear market rules that companies know well in advance – there is no federal bureaucracy saying what types of bulbs can and cannot be produced. This is one reason why energy efficiency standards in general have a long history of bipartisan support, beginning with President Reagan who signed the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987.
The new light bulb standards are unanimously supported by industry, and are already jump-starting innovation and investment that is creating U.S. jobs. For example:
Osram Sylvania has retooled its current St. Marys, Pennsylvania incandescent factory to produce new energy saving incandescent bulbs that will meet the standards.
Several thousand U.S. jobs have been created by companies like Cree in North Carolina, Lighting Sciences Group Corp in Florida, and Philips Lighting (the world’s biggest lighting company) to produce the next generation of efficient light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs.
In 2011, TCP—one of the world’s largest makers of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) — is opening a new factory in Ohio to help meet the new demand.
GE recently invested $60 million to create a Global Center of Excellence for linear fluorescent lamp manufacturing in Bucyrus, Ohio—an action that will double the number of jobs at that plant.
Thomas Edison invented his light bulb in 1880 and the technology has changed little since then. Today’s old incandescent bulbs are so inefficient that they lose about 90 percent of the energy they consume as waste heat and it costs around $10 per year to operate just one 100 Watt bulb.
The new light bulb standards are bringing lighting technology from the days of the horse and buggy to the 21st Century, which will save consumers money, create jobs, and reduce pollution. Congress should reject efforts to repeal these standards."
misterg, I can't see where you posted above about three manufacturers of incandescents who meet the efficiency standards. I'd love to try one to see if it's any better than the CFL's.
Ugh. I use the cfls when I can, like in the garage. But I have purchased all different types and still can't stand the color light they give off. Until they can color the glass to reflect normal light bulb glow they aren't worth it.
Htowngalmrg - "However, your google on internet regulations, bush's move to control governmental agency regulation (isn't that going the other way???), australia's regulatory environment (hey, they are the only country to BAN incandescents), more internet freedeoms, etc. etc. lead me to wonder if there was anything in that google you wanted us to read or just a convoluted, devious google while avoiding actual research"
It was more of a snarky way of having you consider over regulation.
Just think, if this whole global warming thing is a fluke, we could have been getting 60 to 70 miles to the gallon the entire time :-/.
Furthermore you keep saying Bush, Bush, Bush. I could careless WHO did it. Who ever did it, is over regulating. Let the market dictate the products the American public can buy. Not the government. If people want to lower their energy bills, they are entitled. If they don't, they too are entitled.
And one day when they over regulate cars to the point you must buy a hybrid or smart car (or the sporty exhilarating Fiat 500 now out in the American market *sarcasm*), but Mr.G really wants a nice V8 muscle machine, you can follow the breadcrumbs back to where we went wrong having our choices and freedoms sneakily revoked from us to discover why you can't have one.
googs -
bush was wrong to sign this piece of legislation, and is just one more reason why i thought he was a bad president, (he was still better than the guy we got now imo)
so googs - ????? who are the manufacturers? what are the product names?? and how come I don't see them on the store shelves?
Dog et al --- the Phillips are out there for sure, I didn't really look much since I use CFLs.
I keep saying Bush because if it's bad, most people on HL link it to Obama...;>/
Let the maket dictate -- if we did that there would be certainly less of everything since bridges, tunnels, hoover damn, ---- most of the great works would not exist.
On a safety level, we would still have asbestos but not to worry since the second-hand smoke would get you first. But there would be less people anyway since without regulation the car chairs, stollers and cribs would finish off a certain percentage before we reached smoking age
All joking aside, I agree that the market should dictate UNLESS the people decide that by the people and for the people that the government should step in and lend a hand to move things along. And yes, it would be nice if the world was like the microwave market --- safe, cheap and useful ---- but often it's like the oil market --- full of BPs bent on hooking us like herion dealers until we go rigor mortis on them. Or the cigarette market willing to bend and break the rules to lobby their way into our lungs with "delivery package technology" aimed at mainstreaming their addictive drug at the highest level in the fastest interval.
Like I said, use your incandescents, they are not being banned, they are being regulated to a 30% higher efficiency level and you will still be able to get them. Use them especially if you don't lke the features (color, illumination start-up speed, use in less than 0 degrees) but I think it is a good time to regluate efficiency in that the CFLs are technically close enough especially if the regulation is an efficiency evoluton not a ban.
Let the market dictate --- you can still get V-8's although not sure they would out muscle my turbo with its rally set-up.
OK on the phillps but read how long they last and the price and be sure you can return them. Might be a bad deal to sucker incandescent junkies who are green n silly....:>) Good luck.
willing to at least try them and see for myself how they do.
if they save money over time maybe they pay for the difference in price.
i have had real bad luck with the the twisty CFL's burning out in a year or less, some made it to two years. but the quality is god awful!!
I had one cfl go bad but think my kid grabbed it by the tail. It was a dusk to dawn and they have a bigger base. Like I said, avoid the features, the gimmics and just get the straight bulbs. Go Home Despot --- if you don't like it, they take anything back, I just love them.
You should be able to compute the savings, if hard then try the NJcleanenergy site and I bet you can convet the cfl cost day to fit the new incandescents.
Or just wait, they will probably have a push with coupons and advertising before the ban since there is so much bad info, so many cfl haters, and such a great marketing chance for them.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/22283
Next time I shop for bulbs I think I'll try one. Thanks for the pointer.
Hey MR.g. Does your turbo get 62 mpg? 62 mpg cars are sure to be fun and sporty don't ya think?
http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/269683/cost-obamas-green-car-mandate-260000-jobs-henry-payne
http://i.green.autoblog.com/2010/10/01/confirmed-u-s-considering-62-mpg-cafe-target-by-2025/
Texas passes it's own "lightbulb bill", thumbing nose at federal regs:
http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/aseffens/the-light-bulb-resistance-movement?utm_source=co2hog
thanks for the link JIT -
a snippet from the page is quoted - I will try out at least two of these and see how they do.
"While not as efficient as compact fluorescent or LED bulbs, EcoVantage bulbs will likely appeal to people who are unhappy with the quality of light delivered by the more energy efficient technologies.
The new bulbs, which use halogen elements, provide energy savings of about 28% compared to conventional incandescents. That meets or exceeds efficiency standards established in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Wattage options are as follows:
29-watt replaces a 40-watt incandescent
43-watt replaces a 60-watt incandescent
72-watt replaces a 100-watt incandescent
By comparison, Philips also offers the AmbientLED line, which includes a 12.5 watt, ENERGY STAR qualified LED alternative to the 60 watt incandescent bulb. Those bulbs are said to reduce energy use by up to 80%.
According to the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), lighting alone accounts for 22% of electricity use in the US, and there are over 4.4 billion medium screw-based light sockets.
The new EcoVantage bulbs will be available exclusively at Home Depot."
I am welling up and getting teary eyed....
Gotta love a win-win. Hope the lights work out, you might want to google xxxx light reviews and see if anyone likes or poo-poo's them.
Commenting is no longer available.