House GOP Set To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban...

[Skull Pilot]

Energy efficient lightbulbs use less energy, hence cutting down on pollution caused by inefficient electrical generators.

And you think they will save you money?

Here's what will happen. Everyone will switch to these god awful bulbs and yes individually they will pay a few cents less for electricity. Cumulatively power companies will see a drop in revenue and they will raise prices in order to cover the loss. The government will allow rate hikes because they will also be losing tax revenues.

It's like everything else the government does and will not save us a dime.

Power company's rates are usually controlled by state public utility commissions. They have to have a damned good reason for raising them.

public utility commission aka government

and revenue generation is always a good enough reason for government to raise prices.

It's just like the stupid cigarette tax. They tax tobacco for revenue. Tobacco use diminishes. Revenue diminishes. Tax is raised.

 

[Brian175]

I actually had to write a paper about this act when it was in bill phase. The act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, it bans low-efficiency bulbs. The old Thomas Edison bulbs just happen to be among them because the technology is over a hundred years old. Little do you know, many bulb manufacturers are in the works making high-efficiency incandescent bulbs, a result of this bill. The bill increases standards for energy, repealing it would be stupid.

As for government regulations on products, if there were none, cars would no have catalytic converters or would not be required to have mufflers on them. That would get annoying real quick. While I love libertarianism, in pure form it's often something that's idealistic, not practical. Much like socialism.

 

[St.Blues]

Well this was a fun thread but all things come to an end.

Washington • House Republicans on Tuesday failed to stop the enactment of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs they portrayed as yet another example of big government interfering in people’s lives.

The GOP bill to overturn the standards set to go into effect next year fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage. The vote was 233-193.

House GOP fails to turn off light-bulb standards | The Salt Lake Tribune

Poor Republicans. Maybe they can now concentrate on putting lead back into gasoline.

Ravi, You can be quite stupid sometimes. This is one of those times.

 

[Flopper]

There are so many people today that believe any government program or regulation on industry is a step in wrong direction, a waste of tax payer money, infringes on our personal freedom, a move toward socialism, etc, etc.

The safety devices we have in our cars are the result of a 20-year battle between the government and the auto industry requiring seat belts, air bags, collapsible mirrors, and dashboards and interiors designed for safety. The industry and other opponents claimed these unconstitutional regulations would have little effect on auto safety, and make cars unaffordable. However, the results of these regulations speak for themselves. Over 100,000 lives saved by wearing seat belts, over ten thousand lives saved by air bags, and insurance premiums cut due to lower highway fatalities. Safety devices that were once only installed in cars to meet government requirements are now selling features in all vehicles. Manufactures are now developing safety devices and features that go beyond government requirements in order to be competitive.

New government requirements for light bulbs will save billions of kw of electricity and will allow us to forego the construction of a number of power generating plants. In addition ever homeowner will save money on the cost of lighting their home, and the nation will reduce its need for energy while cutting air pollution. Like regulations that required safer cars, cleaner air and water, these regulation will make America a better place to live.

 

[Oddball]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You tell me. What problems were we having in 2007 when the original regulations went into effect that the Senate or the House weren't working on?

this whole light bulb thing is Moot Wytch......in a few years the Curly Q will be a footnote in history as well as the Incandescent.....

Like everything else, in a few years, the spirals will be better designed, even more efficient, and cheaper. It's inconceivable that we can build better, more efficient, more compact with more memory, and cheaper computers but we can't build a better lightbulb.

Give it a rest, people. This is really a non-issue.

in a few years the Spiral will be history.....

 

[ShackledNation]

Banning low efficient bulbs is stupid, because now higher efficiency bulb producers have less motivation to innovate and lower prices because everyone will be forced to buy from them.

Rather than increase the efficiency of power plants, power companies can just keep their older technology. It is a myth that decreasing the amount of products in a market will somehow make us better off.

Furthermore, the poor who are more likely to buy lower efficiency bulbs will be dispraportionately affected by this law. I thought Obama wanted to help the poor? Guess not.

This is the same logic that allows government to ban marijuana and meddle with what we do in our personal lives. And it is bad logic.

 

[Flopper]

Banning low efficient bulbs is stupid, because now higher efficiency bulb producers have less motivation to innovate and lower prices because everyone will be forced to buy from them.

Rather than increase the efficiency of power plants, power companies can just keep their older technology. It is a myth that decreasing the amount of products in a market will somehow make us better off.

Furthermore, the poor who are more likely to buy lower efficiency bulbs will be dispraportionately affected by this law. I thought Obama wanted to help the poor? Guess not.

This is the same logic that allows government to ban marijuana and meddle with what we do in our personal lives. And it is bad logic.

Bulb makers don't need to be motivated. They already are. High efficiency incandescent bulbs have been test market and should be available within a year. LED bulbs are now available that produce the light output of 75 watt incandescents. Both of these meet the requirements of the new regulations and contain no mercury. GE has announced a new CFL that produces light that is equivalent to their incandescent daylight bulbs. Fixture manufactures will be producing new designs in lamps that take advantage of low heat produced by these new bulbs. There has been more innovations in bulbs in the last 3 years than there has in the last two decades. This is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

The incandescent bulb was a remarkable invention a hundred years ago. Today, it's just not very practically. The incandescent bulb produces a hell of a lot of heat and a small amount of light as a byproduct.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com

 

[Oddball]

Bulb makers don't need to be motivated. They already are. High efficiency incandescent bulbs have been test market and should be available within a year. LED bulbs are now available that produce the light output of 75 watt incandescents. Both of these meet the requirements of the new regulations and contain no mercury. GE has announced a new CFL that produces light that is equivalent to their incandescent daylight bulbs. Fixture manufactures will be producing new designs in lamps that take advantage of low heat produced by these new bulbs. There has been more innovations in bulbs in the last 3 years than there has in the last two decades. This is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

The incandescent bulb was a remarkable invention a hundred years ago. Today, it's just not very practically. The incandescent bulb produces a hell of a lot of heat and a small amount of light as a byproduct.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com

Then sell it to me, rather than shoving it down my throat.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot, nanny statist authoritarianism doesn't sell very well to free people.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The first bulbs to emerge from this push, Philips Lighting’s Halogena Energy Savers, are expensive compared with older incandescents. They sell for $5 apiece and more, compared with as little as 25 cents for standard bulbs.

While the first commercial product achieves only a 30 percent efficiency gain, the company says it has achieved 50 percent in the laboratory. No lighting manufacturer has agreed yet to bring the latest technology to market, but Deposition Sciences hopes to persuade one.

Despite a decade of campaigns by the government and utilities to persuade people to switch to energy-saving compact fluorescents, incandescent bulbs still occupy an estimated 90 percent of household sockets in the United States.Aside from the aesthetic and practical objections to fluorescents, old-style incandescents have the advantage of being remarkably cheap.


But the cheapest such bulbs are likely to disappear from store shelves between 2012 and 2014, driven off the market by the government’s new standard. Compact fluorescents, which can cost as little as $1 apiece, may become the bargain option, with consumers having to spend two or three times as much to get the latest energy-efficient incandescents.

A third technology, bulbs using light-emitting diodes, promises remarkable gains in efficiency but is still expensive. Prices can exceed $100 for a single LED bulb, and results from a government testing program indicate such bulbs still have performance problems.

That suggests that LEDs — though widely used in specialized applications like electronic products and, increasingly, street lights — may not displace incumbent technologies in the home any time soon.

Given how costly the new bulbs are, big lighting companies are moving gradually. Osram will introduce a new line of incandescents in September that are 25 percent more efficient. The bulbs will feature a redesigned capsule with higher-quality gas inside and will sell for a starting price of about $3. That is less than the Philips product already on the market, but they will have shorter life spans. G.E. also plans to introduce a line of household incandescents that will comply with the new standards.

Mr. Calwell predicts “a lot more flavors” of incandescent bulbs coming out in the future. “It’s hard to be an industry leader in the crowded C.F.L field,” he said. “But a company could truly differentiate itself with a better incandescent.”

They have a long way to go and what they do have available is exorbitantly expensive. Fuck if I'm going to pay freakin $5 or even $3 for a God damn light bulb.

I posted the large bolded above in an earlier post . . . in a few years the cheap incandescents will be gone from store shelves and the 'cheap' option will be the $1+ per bulb cfls. Are haz mat instructions included in the packaging?

The companies were developing all of these more efficient light bulbs but the government didn't feel they were moving fast enough so they forced the issue. By doing so they eliminated choice --- the choice to buy a cheap bulb -- and are forcing folks to either a) buy the cfls because they will be the cheapest thing around or b) pay through the nose for the more expensive bulbs. There won't be any other option available.

And who is this going to hit most? Hmmm, hmmmm .. . . . .

I wonder . . . can you buy cfl's with food stamps?

 

[ShackledNation]

Banning low efficient bulbs is stupid, because now higher efficiency bulb producers have less motivation to innovate and lower prices because everyone will be forced to buy from them.

Rather than increase the efficiency of power plants, power companies can just keep their older technology. It is a myth that decreasing the amount of products in a market will somehow make us better off.

Furthermore, the poor who are more likely to buy lower efficiency bulbs will be dispraportionately affected by this law. I thought Obama wanted to help the poor? Guess not.

This is the same logic that allows government to ban marijuana and meddle with what we do in our personal lives. And it is bad logic.

Bulb makers don't need to be motivated. They already are. High efficiency incandescent bulbs have been test market and should be available within a year. LED bulbs are now available that produce the light output of 75 watt incandescents. Both of these meet the requirements of the new regulations and contain no mercury. GE has announced a new CFL that produces light that is equivalent to their incandescent daylight bulbs. Fixture manufactures will be producing new designs in lamps that take advantage of low heat produced by these new bulbs. There has been more innovations in bulbs in the last 3 years than there has in the last two decades. This is turning into a case study of the way government mandates can spur innovation.

The incandescent bulb was a remarkable invention a hundred years ago. Today, it's just not very practically. The incandescent bulb produces a hell of a lot of heat and a small amount of light as a byproduct.

Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com

Then why do we need a ban? If you want to be more efficient, buy the more efficient bulb. The fact that companies do this with or without a ban proves that such regulation is a complete waste of resources.

If higher efficiency bulbs of the same quality or better as incandescent bulbs are on the market cheaper than lower efficient counterparts, everyone would buy them. You don't need central economic planning to set the standards consumers set themselves.

 

[ShackledNation]

BTW, florescent bulbs suck. They take to long to turn on, the color makes everything look weird, and they are more expensive despite the lower quality. Oh, and they are filled with mercury.

I will start a black market for low efficiency bulbs. Who's with me? Maybe the drug cartels with sell those bulbs too.

 

[Zona]

Obama will veto. Won't get past committee in the Senate.

But well worth the money to fight it though huh.....

Damn, this reminds me of bush. It really does.

 

[ShackledNation]

I think McDonalds is inferior to In N Out, but does that mean I get to ban McDonald's? No. You may have the best arguments for why something people use is a poor choice. But if people use it, for whatever reason they see it as best for their individual circumstances. If you want flourescent bulbs, buy them. If you want cheap but less efficient bulbs, you should have the same right.

In the olden days, cavemen made fires for light. I can assure you, those fires contributed more to global warming than lightbulbs. Yet we still have fireplaces. Want to make fireplaces illegal too? They are an even more inefficient and inferior form of producing light.

 

[Ravi]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

what about how much Mercury will go into the land fills?.....and even a little bit of that is too much....

 

[Oddball]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

Incandescent bulbs are now a source of air pollution?

Not even ol' Stretch Armstrong can make that reach.

 

[Care4all]

China is also using coal fired plants to make the cfl's....polluting in this manner, i just read...let's hope they are not making the LED's as well and the 'market consumer' chooses them or some new USA invented and produced, energy efficient light bulb.....

what's sad is we, in the USA, originally invented the CFL....(i think an engineer at GE?) but we chose to not pursue and perfect the invention, and manufacture it here in the usa....thus china owns the market....

 

[Oddball]

There's no perfecting the curly fry light bulb....You can't polish a turd.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Hey i'm really starting to like this Republican House of Representatives. It feels good to be proud of the Republican Party. It's been awhile...


Republican House members are preparing themselves to take a stand to save the incandescent light bulb.

Monday, the House of Representatives will vote on H.R. 2417, the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act, a bill to repeal the federal ban on the incandescent light bulb, contained in a 2007 energy law.

Sponsored by Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton, the bill would protect Americans’ ability to use the kind of light bulbs they want and not be forced to use mercury containing light sources such as compact fluorescent lights.

“This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom. Voters sent us a message in November that it is time for politicians and activists in Washington to stop interfering in their lives and manipulating the free market,” Barton said. “The light bulb ban is the perfect symbol of that frustration. People don’t want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use.”

Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess and Tennessee Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn joined Barton and 12 other Republicans to reintroduce the bill in early 2011.

“These are the kinds of regulations that make the American people roll their eyes,” said Blackburn. “It is typical of a ‘big Washington’ solution to a non-existent problem. In this case it manifests itself as an overreach into every American home, one that ships good jobs overseas and infuriates the American consumer.” (FEMA faces House heat for taking over flood insurance policies)

Come Monday, Americans may be one step closer to having absolute freedom in their light source choices.

“Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable. Alternatives, including the most common replacement Compact Fluorescent Lights or CFL’s, are more expensive and health hazards – so why force them on the American people?” said Barton. “From the health insurance you’re allowed to have, to the car you can drive, to the light bulbs you can buy, Washington is making too many decisions that are better left to you and your family.”

Incandescent Bulb Ban | Fluorescent Lights | House GOP | The Daily Caller

It should be up to consumers, not the govt, what bulbs are for sale on the market. If the efficient bulbs are better overall people will buy them. If the incandescents are better overall people will buy those.

Me I love my squiggly obamabulbs, they save me 20 bucks a month on electricity but that doesn't mean i should force others who may not be able to live with the akward light they give off to buy them too.

On a side note, I have several cases of the old bulbs so if/when they do come off the shelf i'll be charging 3x what i paid for them on ebay .