Slashdot Mirror
Congress Voting To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban
Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN Money is running as story about a bill Congress is going to vote on today to repeal the 'incandescent light bulb ban' that was put into place during the Bush administration. The bill is supported by Republicans in Congress who are claiming this places unnecessary restrictions on the market. For those of you wondering, it does bring up the standard issues of energy efficiency, mercury (in both the bulbs and that emitted by coal power), and cost of the bulbs. The bill was introduced by Texas Congressman Joe Barton."
This is as close to a modern version of "fiddling while Rome burns."
Glad to see they're not wasting their time on silly things like the budget.
Who did what now?
I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings. And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Then the right way to go about this is to use taxes and fees so the externalities are included in the power bill. I don't understand the fixation on light bulbs - there are lots of ways to conserve power. Let's let people decide for themselves how they want to do it.
They aren't telling you what kind of bulbs to f*****g bulbs to buy. The energy efficiency standards set to take effect do not specify the specific technology that must replace them. It just says that common application bulbs need to be more efficient. CFLs happen to fit that standard but there are actually alternatives including other incandescent bulbs .
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
The ones in my house are all around 4 years old, still going strong. That is half the reason I buy them. Replacing bulbs is a pain, I like not having to do it very often.
Libertarianism works great until you run into the tragedy of the commons. Your use of a $0.50 bulb over the course of your lifetime affects others, both in increased energy demand (and thus higher energy prices), and higher pollution rates. It does not matter if the price increase is $0.0001 per bulb, or if the pollution increase is equivalent to one lit match per bulb. These are increases that add up to important figures when others do the same as you.
So, yes, if you want to get flame-y, it IS the government's job to mold your behavior if the behavior negatively affects civilization.
It's always confirmation bias!
Just so we are clear - there never was an incandescent light bulb ban; this was/is spin.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Not CFLs, you are right those dim for shit, but Philips has new LED lights that are actually worth getting. What you are after is the Philips AmbientLED Dimmable A19. As far as I know, it is exclusive to Home Depot currently, but they all have them. It is a real, no shit, replacement for an A19 bulb. Its luminous efficacy is equal to or above CFLs (which isn't true for many LEDs), it dims properly using a normal dimmer, and it fits in normal sockets. Funny looking bulb, but it does the job and it is white when it lights up.
The downside is, of course, upfront cost. They are expensive little things. However being LEDs they ought to last a decade or two which combined with low energy usage means they are likely to be a net win.
I got them for my living room because I was really tired of having to get out the ladder to change bulbs, and because dimmable CFLs are crap. I'd been stuck on incandescents but tried these. They work great. I just have a standard Lutron dimmer and all I had to do was put the bulbs in the sockets and it works right.
Now I'm not advocating an incandescent ban or anything, I am making you aware of a new, high tech, option you've got. I love the things, despite the cost, because they work well and I don't have to replace them all the time. Plus they look neat :).
There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.
It may not be a ban de jure but it is a ban de facto.
Playing with semantics is what politicians do to fool the ignorant into being ruled. See The Prince, 1984, etc.
Exactly. The argument for this is the same as the argument for getting rid of Leaded gasoline. Knowing what we know now, and given the available technology, it really is a crime against humanity to put lead in gasoline.
Dear Republicans:
There is no incandescent light bulb ban.
Really? I wasn't aware they had speed limits (as a trivial example) when common law was written. When the common law has nothing to base it's precedent on then new laws need to be created so that new precedents can be moulded by common law.
On could argue, if one was feeling particularly contrary, that speeding is not the problem. It's the injuries/deaths and property damage that may result from speeding that is the problem, and those are pretty well covered like GP said.
Speed limits aren't about protecting anyone, they're about revenue generation (people still speed, after all).
You know what I'll do, I'll buy me some of them fancy new "heat balls" to, you know, "heat" my living room. They are cheap and fit nicely into my existing lamp holders.
Seriously though the ban has enough loop holes to drive a truck through. The ban does not affect special purpose lamps. A rough service bulb does not have to meet the efficiency standards, neither do appliance (cold and hot environment) lamps. I believe decorative lamps are also excepted, such as those globe lamps used on bathroom mirrors and the candle looking lamps used on chandeliers.
It will raise the price of these lamps but the incandescent lamps will still be available. What does bother me about all of these regulations on efficiency and pollution is that, first, this is driving much of the manufacturing out of the USA. This country can no longer manufacture things like light bulbs and solar panels because the environmental requirements are so strict. Second, much of these regulations on pollution is based on a still disputed claim over "climate change" caused by human activity.
It has become obvious to me that much of the regulations on "climate change" is nothing more than a wealth redistribution scheme. The USA is held to a different carbon output standard than China. There should be no surprise to anyone that doing so drives manufacturing from the USA to China. That is not only unsurprising but a desired outcome, because if these people were really concerned about pollution then all nations would be held to the same standard.
If the government wants to have this country reduce its carbon output the solution is simple, stop with this bureaucratic nonsense and let people build nuclear power plants. If we had a large portion of our power from nuclear power then it would not matter what kind of lighting we buy. It is quite possible that coal power would have been obsoleted by now if the government had not held up new construction of nuclear power for three decades. Add nuclear power along with hydro, wind, and maybe even solar* and we would not need coal. We'd probably still need to burn some natural gas and diesel for peak loads and emergency power but we should have had the dirty coal plants priced out of the market by now.
* Solar power is still, even after many decades of research, very expensive. It will likely remain as a special purpose power source for all time. Combine the expense with the inherent unreliability of solar power and it just does not make much sense for grid power.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
If there were value in being more efficient, bulbs would be more efficient.
Explain, then, junk food. Or those crappy off-brand cigarette lighters that break before they use all their fuel.
Of all your things to put your faith in, the prescience of the American consumer seems to me to a poor choice.
Someone had to do it.
CFLs use less energy to produce light than incandescents do - but their lifespan, in my experience, is not nearly as long as promised. Over the whole life cycle, the energy difference may be less than you think.
Incidentally, incandescent bulbs often are used as small heaters because it's very easy to run the infrastructure to one of them. Before I found a small heater that has a thermostat setting for 40 F, I used one to keep my tropical plants (stored in a small shed in the back yard) from freezing in the winter.