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?
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.
I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them. Considering that my house is entirely lit by canned lighting on dimmer switches, an incandescent ban means I basically have to rewire my house - fluorescent dimmables just don't work. If they were heavily taxed - to the point of being slightly more expensive that the fluorescents - then I would have an alternative, while the majority of the market will still make the choice you want them to. Everybody wins.
Funnily enough, setting efficiency standards for lightbulbs (which most incandescents made at the time the law was passed did not meet) is exactly what the law did. Calling it a ban on incandescents is propagandizing. (Most incandescent manufacturers now have bulbs that meet the efficiency standards.)
this message brought to you by the Acme Kerosene lantern company.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
why not simply ban inefficient bulbs?
That is exactly what the law does.
If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
Some companies have in fact done just that, and they are now upset at the prospect of having the law revoked after having spent all that money to comply with it.
And thats exactly what the "ban" does. It provides efficiency targets so efficient incandescent bulbs should they exist would be allowed
Starting in 2012, standars would slowly keep increasing until reaching the peak in 2020. So, that means that none should have yet disappeared, and depending on their caracteristics some of them could still be sold for a while. Anyway, that was all in TFA, but this is slashdot, so, that was expected :)
Several months ago, a CFL broke right next to my 2-year old son. I had the sense to get him out of the room, but not for about 10 seconds.
After much research, I discovered that a CFL has about 4 milligrams of Mercury that is released as a vapor (which is readily absorbed by the body unlike the solid form).
The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast. They even recommended that all clothing that came in contact with any of the CFL be destroyed. I assumed this also meant the wall-to-wall carpeting in my son's bedroom where he plays.
Do I think the EPA is probably being a bit paranoid? Sure. But this is my son we are talking about during his key mental development years. A little paranoia is in order. Who knows how much mercury vapor he inhaled. Yes, I got rid of the carpet.
I'm personally stocking up on incadescents until LED or Halogon alternatives become viable. BTW-- I vote Democratic ticket and am otherwise pretty liberal.
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.
How about not passing more laws and enforcing those that have passed.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Instead of banning incandescent bulbs because they are inefficient, why not simply ban inefficient bulbs? If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.
That's exactly what they did. Guess who's lying to you...
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
I thought similar until I saw the numbers. Electric heat is one of the least efficient forms there is. For homes with gas heat, relying on incandescent lamps for their heating is just wasteful. It's much more efficient to minimize electricity use by using CFLs and use more efficient gas for actual heating. When trying to cool your house the savings go way up by not having so much heat load.
Something else is all the people complaining about the cost of CFL bulbs. Even with failures, the electricity savings by using CFLs is huge. I have those light bars in my bathrooms that could either be 360 watts of incandescent lamps or, with CFLs, just 90 watts for more light output. I use CFLs everywhere that I can. The only exceptions are the oven, refrigerator, and the ceiling fans that have candelabra base bulbs and maybe those are available as CFL now.
There was a very easily noticed drop in my electric bill when I switched over - especially in the summer due to the reduced heat load for the air conditioning.
It all adds up, folks. The electric savings due to using CFL lamps is huge. That's a hell of a lot of coal and natural gas that isn't being burned and it cuts the need for nuclear.
There is a bigger picture than just that you had to pay a buck or two for a CFL instead of 50 cents for an incandescent.
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
How about scrapping everything and starting over?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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 :).
No it is just grandstanding by Republicans. What a great way to make some hay while ignoring the real issues.
Time to offend someone
But it is the federal government's job to provide for our defense, which can easily be interpreted to include things like making sure that our individual actions don't add up to war, for, by example, unnecessarily using too much power and needing to import massive amounts of energy from hostile countries.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
Yes, I got rid of the carpet.
i hope you checked all the ingredients in the new carpet against chances of causing developmental problems..
i also hope if you where that paranoid that you properly disposed of this now contaminated carpet - rather than throw it in the trash to go to a land fill to allow it to enter the water table where your son will now drink it from the faucet.
and if you are that worried - you might want to avoid fish all together..
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
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.
No there isn't. The incandescents at the time couldn't reach the standard. There are many out there now that can.
THEY WEREN'T BANNED.
An efficiency standard was set. Any bulb, using any technology, that meets this standard is fine. There are several incandescents that also meet the standard.
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.
Which of the 18 enumerated powers granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution allows for this sort of protection?
The ban is all about taking care of the externalities that the market has failed on.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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).
Funny. 5 years ago I switched my entire house to CFL's. I have had to replace ONE bulb in that time - and that was not a result of burnout, but a result of a lamp that got knocked over.
Meanwhile, it cut my energy bills by about 20%.
The link you provided has a lot of hemming and hawing, but what they fail to mention is that the one US-based plant making the incandescents? Yeah. That's IT. China was making the vast majority of incandescents ever since the early 1980s. When they talk about the bulbs made in the US needing to cost "50% more" on the shelf, what you're failing to realize is that this has been the problem of letting Republicans run things for a long time: they never do anything about the real problem of US manufacturing not being "out-competed", but out-abused by slave labor countries with crapass environmental laws like China and Malaysia.
The real answer is to get rid of our fucked-up "no tariff" situation with GATT/WTO, and stop giving corrupt shithole nations like China "Most Favored Nation" trading status. But that'll never happen as long as the Chinese are happy to buy up the Republican Party.
Of couse that's not the purpose or original intent of the commerce clause. It's simply one of the many ways the Constitution has been abused and disregarded. Read the writings of the founding fathers....try the Federalist papers. Try Federalist 56. Here's one possible article about this topic specifically: http://federalistblog.us/2011/06/no_power_over_interstate_commerce.html
The current government and its traitorous Supreme Court judges have simply told you that it gives them the power to regulate interstate commerce because the want to usurp that power.
Did you know that the word "regulate" as used in the Constitution didn't mean what it means today? Back then it meant "to make regular" or "to treat evenly"; i.e. the job of the federal government was simply to make sure all states are treated evenly with regards to interstate commerce. Today, the definition has been warped to mean "to control". Naturally, that's what government is all about: power and control.
But the writings of those who wrote the Constitution make it clear what the original intent was.
It really doesn't matter, though. If there were value in being more efficient, bulbs would be more efficient. For commercial lighting, they use enough power to make it worth going fluorescent, and most of them went that way twenty years ago or more. For household lighting, they use such a small amount of power that the market doesn't demand more efficient lighting, and most consumers haven't really shown much interest in completely replacing their incandescent bulbs with CFLs in spite of the energy savings. In fact, they have shown a willingness to hoard large quantities of incandescent bulbs to delay the transition. This is a very definite sign of a hopelessly failed energy policy.
So the government steps in and stipulates that bulbs should be more efficient solely for efficiency's sake. Here's what Congress thought would happen:
Here's what actually happened:
Although there have been a few in-lab improvements in incandescent technology, none of those are likely to see the light of day in the next few years because of the cost involved. Thus, the net effect is that not only is the government forcing CFLs down everyone's throat, but they are also exporting a lot of bulb manufacturing jobs to China. And no, things like "Halogena" bulbs don't count as significant improvements. They're just halogen bulbs. It's largely old-school tech. They've made some minor improvements, but for the most part, the only reason they're still allowed is that the law specified an energy improvement over incandescent bulbs rather than an energy improvement over comparable bulb technology. Sure, when you compare halogen to straight incandescent, you get an energy improvement.
BTW, there's a reason we don't use halogen bulbs everywhere. They're too hot. They represent a significant increase in fire risk over standard incandescent bulbs, and thus are unsuitable for many light fixtures. Arguing that halogens are a globally suitable replacement for incandescent bulbs is a bit like arguing that a box of hand grenades is a suitable replacement for a box of firecrackers on July 4th.
Bottom line: if you want to reduce energy consumption, you should go after things that can easily be made more efficient without direct impact to customers, e.g. power supplies in electronics. Or better yet, move us the **** off of coal and fossil fuels and towards cleaner, more renewable sources of power so that none of the energy conservation matters anymore.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Taxing electricity is unlikely to have resulted in more efficient incandescent bulbs, this did. There isn't really a fixation on light bulbs, but they were ripe for an overhaul at the given time.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
That's the obvious solution to some, but it's not a terribly good one. If people were perfectly rational and had infinite thinking and observational capacity, your solution would work fine. But for the half-evolved monkeys that we are, it's much more efficient to solve some of the problems via non-market means. E.g., banning manufacture of pointlessly wasteful bulbs, or having government-run home retrofit programs.
A standard deliberately designed to exclude incandescent bulbs. The weak and expensive high-efficiency incandescents are not a sufficient replacement.
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.
The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast.
Cleaning Up a Broken CFL
When a fluorescent bulb breaks in your home, some of this mercury is released as mercury vapor.
These steps are precautions and reflect best practices for cleaning up a broken CFL. If you are unable to follow them fully, don't be alarmed. CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury -- less than 1/100th of the amount in a mercury thermometer. However, if you are concerned about the risk to your health from a potential exposure to mercury, consult your physician.
Before cleanup
Have people and pets leave the room.
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
stiff paper or cardboard;
sticky tape;
damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.
During cleanup
Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.
After cleanup
Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly.
Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
Cleaning Up a Broken CFL
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rugs: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
1.The next several times you vacuum the rug or carpet, shut off the H&AC system if you have one, close the doors to other rooms, and open a window or door to the outside before vacuuming. Change the vacuum bag after each use in this area.
2.After vacuuming is completed, keep the H&AC system shut off and the window or door to the outside open, as practical, for several hours.
Detailed Recommendations
These clean-up recommendations are more or less what you expect for any accidental toxic spill in the home.
Actions You Can Take to Prevent Broken Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs
Always switch off and allow a working CFL bulb to cool before handling.
Always handle CFL bulbs carefully to avoid breakage.
If possible, screw/unscrew the CFL by holding the plastic or ceramic base, not the glass tubing.
Gently screw in the CFL until snug. Do not over-tighten.
Never forcefully twist the glass tubing.
Do not install CFLs in table lamps and floor lamps that can be easily knocked over, in unprotected light fixtures, or in lamps that are incompatible with the spiral or folded shape of many CFLs.
Do not use CFL bulbs in locations where they can easily be broken, such as play spaces.
Use CFL bulbs that have a glass or plastic cover over the spiral or folded glass tube, if available. These types of bulbs look more like incandescent bulbs and may be more durable if dropped.
Consider using a drop cloth (e.g., plastic sheet or beach towel) when changing a fluorescent light bulb in case a breakage should occur. The drop cloth will help prevent mercury contamination of nearby surfaces and can be bundled with the bulb debris for disposal.
The proper way to use tax code to influence behavior is to tax electricity, and let the consumers and markets decide where to save and spend electricity according to their means, needs, and values. Those that want to burn electricity with incandescent bulbs would be allowed to. Or is the bulb ban not really about reducing energy usage, and really is about control and moral imposition?
they've never talked about banning tin foil.
and sense of entitlement is of no concern to anyone else.
And uses more energy. If you're problem is insulation, i.e. retaining heat, fix the insulation problem, not just sweep it under the rug by fixing the symptom.
CFLs *may* not be the greatest thing in the world but they are significantly more efficient than incandescent bulbs are.
I'd respect Rep Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton a bit more (ok at all...) if he actually included things that required increased efficiency without saying what you should buy, but tax the energy hogs of incandescent bulbs...literally they want to stay in the 'stone age' and just use the older style without looking to the future.
I do like that the article states that the mercury issue is largely moot. More mercury is emitted by the coal plants burning fuel for the extra incandescent power usage than is in the CFL bulbs.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
CFLs are also toxic: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198
Furthermore, when the ban was enacted, in order to produce CFLs at a price people wanted them at, light bulb companies simply moved their factories to China.
Thank God we have the government telling us what to do!
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.
You're confusing instantaneous efficiency with lifetime efficiency, and confusing infrared emissions with envelope temperature. Not all infrared emissions from an incandescent bulb are turned into surface heat on the bulb's envelope.
First, it's important to understand that a halogen bulb is more efficient over its life because filament redeposition ensures that the filament does not get thinner (and thus less effective at producing light) and that the inside of the bulb remains clear of deposits from the filament (which reduces light output). So although a brand new halogen bulb is more efficient than a brand new standard incandescent bulb, the difference for new bulbs isn't nearly as high as the difference over the lifetime of the bulb.
Second, in order for that redeposition to occur, the envelope must remain extremely hot (250 C/482 deg. F), regardless of the wattage of the bulb. (Source: The Great Internet Light Bulb Book, Part I) If a bulb is running cooler than that, it isn't getting any real gain from being a halogen bulb. To put that in perspective, a 100 watt incandescent bulb, according to safety standards, is not allowed to get over 247C/477 deg. F. (Source: allexperts) So the absolute minimum effective envelope temperature for a halogen bulb is roughly the same as the absolute maximum allowed for a 100 watt bulb.
Therefore, fixtures that are only rated for 40 watt incandescent bulbs cannot safely support a halogen bulb. This effectively rules out the safe use of halogen bulbs in the majority of table lamps and many floor lamps.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
And uses more energy. If you're problem is insulation, i.e. retaining heat, fix the insulation problem, not just sweep it under the rug by fixing the symptom.
A washbucket with a scrubbing board takes less energy than a washing machine, so why don't we ban washing machines too? I'm sure that China will happily build all the replacements we need.
Just because something is more efficient, doesn't mean that it will work as a good replacement. In fact, regular light bulbs are frequently used as a load for a lot of electrical testing. A fluorescent would not work in this operation at all. But, we are not allowed even these exceptions. We are obviously too stupid to decide on these things on our own.
Anyway, it's too late already. All the American light bulb plants have been forcibly shut down, so if you want incandescent bulbs, you'll need to buy them from China.
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
A washbucket with a scrubbing board takes less energy than a washing machine
And it also uses quite a bit more water...just like washing dishes by hand uses more water than a dishwasher. Of course both of those examples are time duration activities...providing light is not. Nice try though :)
Just because something is more efficient, doesn't mean that it will work as a good replacement.
Yep, we should just go back to horse n buggy, because those things used less energy and produced net zero emissions.
The 'most efficient' at the task at hand is what is important, rather than the energy used. The time saved by driving versus horseback, by not washing dishes or clothes by hand also factor into that 'efficiency' since i can do multiple things at once that you can't doing them by hand.
Providing light is the job in this case and using less energy to do the job *is* a worthy goal.
Anyway, it's too late already. All the American light bulb plants have been forcibly shut down, so if you want incandescent bulbs, you'll need to buy them from China.
This is a valid point. I would have preferred to simply tax incandescent bulbs to price the CFL's competitively. I wonder who opposed such types of taxes hmm? Oh yes, Mr. Joe "I'm sorry BP" Barton and his GOP brethren. They've made this bed with their 'no tax is a good tax' orthodoxy and they get the blame for such things.
It's also amazing how *saving* consumers BILLIONS per year is somehow bad according to you and the GOP. Party of fiscal responsibility be damned! The 'tax and spend' Dems are far more fiscally responsible.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people