Quote :

"A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months. Under the measure, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today's products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient. "

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/environment/2007-12-16-light-bulbs_N.htm



So lame.

12/21/2007 1:54:24 AM

And what exactly is lame about it?

12/21/2007 3:02:27 AM

It's just how they do things.

I've already switched over to these things, I just wish they'd start making them with less/smaller magnetic ballast so you don't have those absolutely massive white chunks of plastic at the bottom of the bulb.

Looks like ass on the torpedo bulb lights.

This would only be lame if they forced people to switch to something ridiculously expensive like LED light bulbs or something.

Also:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/reps/enduse/er01_us.html

Quote :

"Lighting includes both indoor and outdoor lighting and is found in virtually every household in the United States. In 2001, lighting accounted for 101 billion kWh (8.8 percent) of U.S. household electricity use. Incandescent lamps, which are commonly found in households, are highly inefficient sources of light because about 90 percent of the energy used is lost as heat. For that reason, lighting has been one focus of efforts to increase the efficiency of household electricity consumption."

So making people switch from a 60 watt bulb to a 13 watt CFL is a simple, powerful way to cut energy consumption by simply making people use lower-waste, high-efficiency light bulbs and save themselves money. The only bad thing is that the CFL bulbs burn out slowly over time and get dimmer and dimmer, so people are going to be pissed when one day their 60 watt bulb just turns the room a sort of yellow color and needs to be replaced (at about the 2-3 year mark).

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 3:12 AM. Reason : zoop]

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 3:13 AM. Reason : boobs]

12/21/2007 3:08:16 AM

Don't put blatantly misleading information in the thread title. It's not as though feds are going to come around and confiscate people's regular bulbs, or arrest you for having them. It's a regulatory thing more or less in keeping with what the industry was going to do anyway. It's not substantially different from making car manufacturers meet emissions requirements.

12/21/2007 3:09:17 AM

I don't have a big problem with it--as long as they can make the bulbs so they don't put out such shitty-looking light. Apparently, that problem has been solved:

http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_color

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

12/21/2007 3:20:42 AM

Quote :

"a new generation of energy-efficient lights that contain mercury and can't be discarded with regular trash"

hardly anyone ever points that out

not the sellers of the new bulbs

not the media, talking about the new bulbs

I don't even think it says anything on the packaging

but

do not throw these compact fluorescent bulbs in your regular trash!!!!!!!!

and if they break, you need to treat it like a chemical spill!!!!!!!



LED ftw

(the future is solid state lighting)

12/21/2007 5:44:31 AM

Quote :

"So lame"

progress is lame? hmm...i must have things backwards.

12/21/2007 9:55:19 AM

Well, since they require substantially more energy and resources to produce, requiring people to put CFLs in places such as attics, spare rooms, crawl spaces, sheds, and closets where they will rarely and perhaps never be used will make us all poorer while wasting resources.

As such, the optimal solution is for everyone to replace the lights they actually use for more than 200 hours a year with CFLs and put cheaper Incandescent lights in the odd places where they will only be used 5 hours a year.

If a person does not do it this way, such as installing too few CFLs or too many CFLs, then they are primarily hurting their own wallets in either electric bills or shopping bills.

By passing a law, instead of many people misallocating and buying too few CFLs, everyone will be misallocating by buying too many CFLs; just as surely as if they had banned CFLs because they consume far more energy to produce.

12/21/2007 11:31:29 AM

this is fucking retarted. who is the government to tell me what kind of fucking lightbulbs to use.

12/21/2007 12:45:26 PM

fine with me--we already use these anyway. our power bill is fabulous

12/21/2007 3:24:35 PM

maybe i do not want to pay 3x for a lightbulb in a light fixture that i use minimally to which the savings on energy would be negligible.

12/21/2007 3:47:04 PM

cry me a river

OMG I'm going to spend 10 more dollars over the next five years!

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 3:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2007 3:50:56 PM

^^

Quote :

"DEYY TUKKK ERRR McD's n KFC's LIGHTBULBZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

12/21/2007 5:44:56 PM

Erecting a nuissance business is a little different then buying lightbulb

Also, you are forgetting that this is the FEDERAL gov't stepping in; not a city local ordinance.

12/21/2007 5:49:12 PM

Same mentality. "I don't like/don't have a use for/can't use/was conned into buying/can't control myself from using/can't afford/wish other people didn't have something, so it should be illegal.

And you're right, erecting a business is different from buying a lightbulb. In one instance, you pay more money, in the other, people don't get hired, the public doesn't get what they want and tax money is rejected.

Oh, and the point about it being the federal government. Such bans on light bulbs started as local bans. Like I said, first they came for the smokers...

12/21/2007 6:01:19 PM

Quote :

"this is fucking retarted. who is the government to tell me what kind of fucking lightbulbs to use."

are you serious? its not the lightbulb they care about but how much energy you use per home
if everyone switches, then the country uses dramatically less energy and pollutes less per year
its the smart thing to do

12/21/2007 6:38:10 PM

Wait wait, someone plz explain why this is bad again?

So the federal government is going to mandate retailers sell only energy efficient bulbs by a certain year. This doesn't mean you're going to have to go out January 1, 2012 and replace every single bulb in your house. It just means that if a bulb burns out in your house after said date, when you go to the store to buy a replacement, it is going to be an energy efficient bulb instead of an incandescent bulb.

Ooo... big deal.. /sarcasm

12/21/2007 6:42:49 PM

In communist Russia light bulb screws you.

12/21/2007 7:29:42 PM

Quote :

" DEYY TUKKK ERRR McD's n KFC's LIGHTBULBZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "

LOFL

i dont know who you are, but i love you

12/21/2007 7:45:00 PM

Quote :

"Wait wait, someone plz explain why this is bad again?"

Was there nothing else Congress could have spent time on? Perhaps making the tax code more rational; perhaps repealing a few pointless laws; was there no more urgent business? How many people are going to be killed by America's healthcare system because congress decided to divert resources towards the banishment of one form of technology?

This is going to hurt people that need the old bulbs because of its immunity to temperature extremes. This is going to potentially kill people with acute sensitivity to mercury. And as I said earlier, this is going to make Americans poorer than they otherwise could be if everyone simply chose the right bulb for the right job.

So, yes, this is a bad. But, of course, it is not really that big a deal; which is why Congress felt confident in using it to make a political statement. Those that are harmed by this law will not figure it out until 2012, when they will be the problem of the 112th Congress. But everyone gets to see how enlightened today's 110th Congress is when it comes to the environment; and so close to an election too.

12/21/2007 7:55:51 PM

This will save people many times the cost of the original bulb, it makes perfect economic and regulatory sense. It will also dramatically reduce energy consumption nationwide. Its not as Draconian a measure as say, telling people who they can or can't marry.

12/21/2007 8:01:06 PM

^ Why? Is it your assertion that people are too stupid to use the right bulb for the right job? All the benefits you list will be realized simply from their invention and deployment, not thanks to an act of congress banning alternatives. If I am right and most people will figure it out then this law will increase energy consumption nationwide as millions of CFLs are manufactured that should not have been, increasing the cost people pay for both bulbs and scarce resources that had alternative uses.

"So, yes, this is a bad. But, of course, it is not really that big a deal; which is why Congress felt confident in using it to make a political statement. Those that are harmed by this law will not figure it out until 2012, when they will be the problem of the 112th Congress. But everyone gets to see how enlightened today's 110th Congress is when it comes to the environment; and so close to an election too."

12/21/2007 8:18:31 PM

Quote :

"Was there nothing else Congress could have spent time on?"

There are few things more important than the coming energy crisis. This is a start

12/21/2007 8:54:53 PM

"I don't mind. I love the taste of Mercury!"

12/21/2007 9:15:21 PM

For the same reason the Governor of North Carolina has to come out and impose restrictions on water usage. Because people are either too stupid to realize that they should be doing it, too lazy to do it, or to flippant to care.

12/21/2007 9:22:10 PM

Quote :

"This will save people many times the cost of the original bulb"

No not necessarily. I know in my house alone their is one light i seldom use. All the major lighting applications in my house already have a compact fluorescent b.c of the energy saving uses and longevity of the bulb. On the other hand this one light fixture just needs a bulb for the occasional use which amounts to probably no more then 10 min per week. So instead of paying 70 cents per bulb I know have to take a loss for $2.40. yes the number is small but if you integrate into more large scale resedential environments and across a population this will represent millions of $$$$$.

Al Gore says he approves of this bill. He's Super Serial guys!!!!!!

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 9:41 PM. Reason : l]

12/21/2007 9:40:46 PM

Quote :

"And what exactly is lame about it?"

ANY kind of flourescent lighting gives me a headache after a couple hours.

And hurts my eyes/is really annoying otherwise.

12/21/2007 10:08:21 PM

Quote :

"For the same reason the Governor of North Carolina has to come out and impose restrictions on water usage. Because people are either too stupid to realize that they should be doing it, too lazy to do it, or to flippant to care."

Or, you know, we could instead raise the price of water until the demand matches the supply. Do you believe that electricity is currently being similarly subsidized? If not, then the costs of its use is being suffered by those using it.

Either way, if we are right then this law will make the electricity (water) situation worse.

12/21/2007 10:08:44 PM

Quote :

"It just means that if a bulb burns out in your house after said date, when you go to the store to buy a replacement, it is going to be an energy efficient bulb instead of an incandescent bulb. "

I am buying crazy amounts of incandescent bulbs before this happens. Enough to fill up a small storage unit at least.

12/21/2007 10:11:34 PM

Home Depot has 4 packs of 60W equivalent CFLs for $2.97. I doubt incandescents are much cheaper.

12/21/2007 11:20:15 PM

Quote :

"Or, you know, we could instead raise the price of water until the demand matches the supply."

except for the rich people watering their saud lawns the price of water is probably inelastic in mid august with an ongoing 50 days without rain. or making sure their BMW 740i is washed every other day. or even a corporation using excessive water for whatever damn reason.

Therefore using modern economics you will have commoners paying greater $$$ to use water for basic needs while some rich yuppie sprays out half of lake Raleigh to take care of his 40K yard. This is basically a tragedy of the commons. I like the free market approach but when it comes to a basic necessity like water; utilitarian concerns must take priority. I am not trying to bitch about rich people I hope i'm there as my career progresses. however, a little common sense will create realization that simply jacking water prices isn't as simple as one expects.

Some people in here or so insulated to how the world works it fucking makes me want to .

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 11:29 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on December 21, 2007 at 11:32 PM. Reason : l]

12/21/2007 11:28:13 PM

^ the problem is some kids go take EC 201/202/205 and come out thinking they're economic experts with a few simple supply-and-demand graphs and think those can explain and/or fix everything

12/22/2007 12:55:46 AM

Quote :

"Well, since they require substantially more energy and resources to produce, requiring people to put CFLs in places such as attics, spare rooms, crawl spaces, sheds, and closets where they will rarely and perhaps never be used will make us all poorer while wasting resources. As such, the optimal solution is for everyone to replace the lights they actually use for more than 200 hours a year with CFLs and put cheaper Incandescent lights in the odd places where they will only be used 5 hours a year. If a person does not do it this way, such as installing too few CFLs or too many CFLs, then they are primarily hurting their own wallets in either electric bills or shopping bills. By passing a law, instead of many people misallocating and buying too few CFLs, everyone will be misallocating by buying too many CFLs; just as surely as if they had banned CFLs because they consume far more energy to produce."

bingo.

Remember folks, government solves all our problems. Oh wait... it doesn't.

12/22/2007 1:15:52 AM

HUR, even if we accept that you are 100% correct that creating a market to set prices will gauge the poor without curtailing consumption by the rich (all evidence to the contrary), let us look at what reality has done instead.

Instead of a market of everyone paying a going rate for water, we have water being allocated by government set prices which differ not by how much it costs to supply, but by government price fixing. Farmers often pay 1/100th as much for water as their city counterparts. Since farmers owning thousands of acres are far more wealthy than your average renter in the city, what we are in effect doing is charging the rich far less than the poor for water (this is a bigger deal out west where water is regionally shared than it is in North Carolina where supplies are predominantly local).

As such, since your rich yuppie with the 40k yard has probably been clever enough to link himself with either a local farm or get himself metered as a farm, then merely raising his bill to match the rest of us would be a great start.

Why in the world would someone allocate water this way? Simple: once you decide to allocate a resource using the political system, just ask who has more influence over the political system? The rich represented by a motivated and well funded special interest group, or the poor which cannot be bothered to vote? Now, not only do the poor have less money, but they are also forced to pay higher prices for the same water! And you have the nerve to imply it is I that is insulated from how the world works?

12/22/2007 9:21:52 AM

yep. joe moneybags is north raleigh is rated as a farm. just keep thinking that.

12/22/2007 10:21:58 AM

^he was making a national argument you simpleton.

^^exactamundo.

12/22/2007 11:08:03 AM

This is just like the ethanol debacle.

This isn't happening because the government wants us to become green.

This is happening because the light bulb manufacturers are ponying up shit tons of lobbying cash to get their products mandated.

Why wouldnt you want legislation to FORCE your consumers to buy bulbs that:

-Cost three times as much or more
-Have relatively low differential of energy savings
-Have toxic chemicals (mercury as has been pointed out)
-Have terrible light gamma
-Consumers generally aren't buying because its a mediocre product


If they REALLY wanted to go green, they should be MANDATING LED lights. At least then it would drive the cost of production down and make LED lights lower to entry. The one good thing about them is, even at 40-50 bucks per light, they actually PAY OFF over the course of 4-5 years and they have clean light, virtually never go bad, and aren't toxic to dispose of.

12/22/2007 12:59:41 PM

^ We have a winner folks.

12/22/2007 7:05:13 PM

^^ bingo. I wonder how much the CFL companies paid Congress to get this thing passed. Kinda reminds me of DuPont creating the CFC scare so they could sell more chemicals

12/22/2007 9:35:42 PM

Quote :

"DEYY TUKKK ERRR McD's n KFC's LIGHTBULBZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!""

Damn Right!

12/23/2007 12:11:12 AM

Wait ... so how can the Federal government outlaw regular bulbs exactly? Congress regulates interstate commerce. So if I run a company locally that produces conventional light bulbs and only sell them in-state, would this ban apply? I totally want to start a "local organic compassionately-raised light bulbs" company.

Having asked that ... I hate fluorescent light of all forms. Just as a matter of aesthetics and taste. This legislation is the functional equivalent of the federal government mandating that pants manufacturers only produce bell bottoms.

[Edited on December 24, 2007 at 2:08 PM. Reason : foo]

12/24/2007 2:04:19 PM

What century are you living in? As of the Gonzales v. Raich (2005) decision the Interstate Commerce Clause has no teeth left. Congress can regulate any activity, even non-economic activities taking place entirely within a single state.

12/24/2007 2:12:51 PM

^

Hmmm. I understood the rationale behind banning medical marijuana; otherwise the government would need a "border patrol" at every state border to keep the drug from being trafficked. I'm not so sure the government could make an argument they have a compelling interest in stopping "light bulb trafficking" (although I'd love to see that one hit the Supreme Court).

12/24/2007 2:24:58 PM

drugs are bad ummm k

12/24/2007 2:52:58 PM

Quote :

"I'm not so sure the government could make an argument they have a compelling interest in stopping "light bulb trafficking" (although I'd love to see that one hit the Supreme Court)."

Again, as LoneSnark said, almost any economic activity is considered "commerce." Including activities that don't involve an economic exchange across state borders. This has been the case since the New Deal-era case Wickard v. Filburn, which dealt with a similar case, only involving grain rather than marijuana.

Even absent a colorable pretext for Congress to act, the Supreme Court has been granting them a green light since the 30's - the ICC is in effect a dead letter.

12/24/2007 3:23:20 PM

Quote :

"Smoker4 This legislation is the functional equivalent of the federal government mandating that pants manufacturers only produce bell bottoms."

nice. and bravo for actually thinking to apply the constitution as it was intended as opposed automatically ceding the point to the established tradition of the oligarchy which we call the supreme court. I mean we have replaced the rule of law with the opinions of 9 folks that we have little hope of correcting or disciplining when they misbehave.

12/25/2007 2:45:26 PM

Quote :

"I mean we have replaced the rule of law with the opinions of 9 folks that we have little hope of correcting or disciplining when they misbehave."

In fairness, the fault still lies squarely with Congress. The Supreme Court has been asleep at the switch since the 30's, yes - but it's Congress which has been overstepping its bounds in the first place.

12/25/2007 3:55:20 PM

Too true. The supreme court was just one check against government power. That it is no longer functioning is no excuse for politicians running amuck.

12/25/2007 10:49:29 PM

I don't understand why all y'all dislike fluorescent light so much. Perhaps I'm just used to it.

I do love LEDs, though.

12/25/2007 11:49:51 PM

Quote :

"and if they break, you need to treat it like a chemical spill!!!!!!!"

And if you do and call the EPA or someone to do a cleanup then expect a massive bill.


There's not enough Mercury in one to cause health concerns (only about 4 mg at most, some references say 6 mg but they're typically older, ~2001-2002 era bulbs), though to prevent longterm mercury build up in landfills, one should treat them like any other household hazardous waste and take them to a site that handles that.

12/25/2007 11:55:41 PM