Incandescent Bulbs Get a Reprieve

An anonymous reader writes "A new budget deal reached today by the U.S. Congress walks back the energy efficiency standards that would have forced the phase out of incandescent bulbs. 'These ideas were first enacted during the Bush administration, via the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Incandescent bulbs were unable to meet the standards, so they would eventually be forced off the market in favor of LEDs and compact fluorescent bulbs. But Republicans have since soured on the bill, viewing it as an intrusion on the market and attempting to identify it with President Obama. Recent Congresses have tried many times to repeal the standards, but these have all been blocked. However, U.S. budgets are often used as a vehicle to get policies enacted that couldn't pass otherwise, since having an actual budget is considered too valuable to hold up over relatively minor disputes. The repeal of these standards got attached to the budget and will be passed into law with it.'"

Comments

Bad Summary

[wolfinator]

This legislation does not repeal the new light bulb efficiency standards. It just de-funds them.

AFAIK, this means the law stands, but will not be enforced. Not the same as repeal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/14/heres-a-breakdown-of-whats-in-congress-1-012-trillion-spending-bill/

Re:Freakin' Riders.

[Sponge Bath]

Well, Bush signed it into law and now Obama is repealing it. Does that affect your opinion?

Probably not. Obamaphone is the moniker applied to the assistance program started by Reagan and expanded by Bush. The origin of a program does not seem to matter.

Re:Freakin' Riders.

[jandrese]

Eliminating incandescent bulbs is nobody's priority anymore, because CFCs are getting cheap enough that that they sell themselves, even to poor people who don't have a lot of money to spend on expensive bulbs, and the market penetration is almost universal, except for those situations where CFCs still don't work well.

I think you mean CFLs.

Poor people still won't buy them, because the incandescent ones will still be cheaper. It's one example of why it's so expensive to be poor.

Re:Freakin' Riders.

[icebike]

Yeah, CFLs.

But At prices like these (4 pack for $3.54) even people without a lot of money can afford them.

Re:Freakin' Riders.

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

They make no sense and CFL's make a ton of sense.

CFL's take about 30 seconds to come to full brightness. At full brightness, they are still dimmer than incandesants. These are in fact, actual issues with the tecnology.