Slashdot Mirror
Trump Administration Dims Rule On Energy Efficient Lightbulbs (npr.org)
An anonymous reader shares a report: If it's been a few years since you shopped for a lightbulb, you might find yourself confused. Those controversial curly-cue ones that were cutting edge not that long ago? Gone. (Or harder to find.) Thanks to a 2007 law signed by President George W. Bush, shelves these days are largely stocked with LED bulbs that look more like the traditional pear-shaped incandescent version but use just one-fifth the energy. A second wave of lightbulb changes was set to happen. But now the Trump administration wants to undo an Obama-era regulation designed to make a wide array of specialty lightbulbs more energy efficient.
At issue here are bulbs such as decorative globes used in bathrooms, reflectors in recessed lighting, candle-shaped lights and three-way lightbulbs. The Natural Resources Defense Council says that, collectively, these account for about 2.7 billion light sockets, nearly half the conventional sockets in use in the U.S. At the very end of the Obama administration, the Department of Energy decided these specialty bulbs should also be subject to efficiency requirements under the 2007 law. The lighting industry objected and sued to overturn the decision. [...] NEMA argued that Congress never intended for the law to apply to all these other lightbulbs. After President Trump took office the Energy Department agreed and proposed to reverse the agency's previous decision. Critics say if the reversal is finalized it will mean higher energy bills for consumers and more pollution.
At issue here are bulbs such as decorative globes used in bathrooms, reflectors in recessed lighting, candle-shaped lights and three-way lightbulbs. The Natural Resources Defense Council says that, collectively, these account for about 2.7 billion light sockets, nearly half the conventional sockets in use in the U.S. At the very end of the Obama administration, the Department of Energy decided these specialty bulbs should also be subject to efficiency requirements under the 2007 law. The lighting industry objected and sued to overturn the decision. [...] NEMA argued that Congress never intended for the law to apply to all these other lightbulbs. After President Trump took office the Energy Department agreed and proposed to reverse the agency's previous decision. Critics say if the reversal is finalized it will mean higher energy bills for consumers and more pollution.
...to stop these people?
Am I wrong to consider energy efficiency problem with light bulbs largely solved? LED bulb are affordable and efficient. Is there anything else left to do?
However, modern LED bulbs are not as reliable as an early models. I have very first Phillips LED bulb that was sold, it cost almost 80$ when it was new and it still works. About a year ago I purchased 20$ LED bulb and noticed it already intermittently fails to light. Such lack of reliability is a significant e-waste issue.
I am totally okay with a bulb costing me 30 cents more a year when it costs me $20!less to buy it (and specialty LED bulbs absolutely do not have a longevity benefit to make up for that cost).
I thought we should all be driving electric cars because they where emission free... So how does using more electricity for light bulbs create pollution when charging my car doesn't?
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
...it has nothing to do with the benefit to either the consumer or the industry and is totally about trying to erase anything Obama did as a way of getting his petty revenge.
Now we're going to have to generate about 25 large coal-burning power plants' worth of extra electricity if this rollback goes through
They assume everybody is going to remove the LED lights, and replace them with incandescents ?
I've converted nearly all my house to LED, including most of the decorative lights. They look a bit tacky when they're not turned on, but you can't really tell the difference when they're turned on. I bought a whole boatload of LED lights from Walmart when they were like something like $2 for a 4 pack of 60 watt equivalents, and replaced every normal light in my home. The net result so far is to lower my energy bill from $121 to $104 a month.
CFL light bulbs sucked in every way imaginable. Not only were they bad for outdoor use (slow to light up), I never had one that lived up to its supposed 7 year lifespan. Then you had to package them up and bring them to a store to dispose of them. I wonder how many of those are lying busted in landfills across the country, leaking mercury into the water table?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
And an idiot, just in case you missed it.
Many specialty bulbs are very odd shapes. CFL and LED lights are difficult to fit into these shapes, and end up being highly unreliable. For what the special nature of these bulbs, the conventional style works more reliably.
Why is legislation defined as automatically meaning higher energy bills and more pollution? Aren't people free to buy the bulbs they want to buy? I have a whole bunch of candle-type LED bulbs; they're already on the market. I chose to buy them because of the energy savings of using them. Presumably, many more people will do the same. Regulation had nothing to do with my purchasing them.
Why should anybody care about what the government says about this when you can already make the choice yourself? Regulations don't "make a wide array of specialty light bulbs more efficient," the people who invented the specialty light bulbs do. Regulations just force people to do stuff (or not to do stuff).
I prefer it when people actually post what's happening in the headline instead of trying to use stupid puns.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
What a shithole country!
Looks like the Trump admin is doing a lot of that. I guess it looks good to his base....
Hate him if you must, but Trump has been mostly consistent about undoing things that Obama did by fiat.
If the law was written only for normal, everyday use A19-base residential light bulbs, then CONGRESS
needs to write a new law to cover the rest.
And while Congress is at it, they should hold LED manufacturers accountable for their lies regarding
MTBF. Like a poster above, I have an early LED bulb that is still going strong, but I've seen newer
ones die an early death.
My whole house has been LED for years. I've had zero issues and only had to replace 1 bulb. That issue wasn't that the LED failed, but the smart components failed and I coudn't use the app to control it. My house is fairly large for this area and the power company sends us averages every month. I'm always well under the power usage of houses in my area. I don't see any issues with quality of light as they now sell LED bulbs in different spectrums or even with adjustable spectrum. The cost is nominal you can get 24 60W equivalent bulbs now for $22.
This legislation was a good thing. It pushed manufactures to find a way to lower costs on LED bulbs and brought lower consumption of electrical use. Why change it?
The legislative branch is the only one that can write and implement laws. If an Agency is empowered with the responsibility to enforce that law, then that same agency can operate differently under different administrations. Basically, a given Agency can't announce a regulation that binds that same Agency in the future. The same holds true with Executive actions: One President can't sign an executive action that forces future Presidents to follow it.
If there is debate over whether a given regulation by an agency falls within the scope of legislation, then the correct way to solve it is via further (and clearer) legislation.
This isn't a question over whether changes to light bulb policy is good or bad: It's about the split of powers between Congress the Executive branch.
I'm fine with that.
Remember, under Obama we had
- A rigged DNC primary and no consequences for it.
- Known Russian interference beforehand and Obama gave a speech saying it was nothing
- Using intelligence agencies to spy on Trumps campaign to help Clinton
- IRS targeting individual citizens because of political views
- Shipping guns in mass to criminals in Mexico causing deaths of hundreds (thousands?) of Mexicans from it
- Telling Ukraine to bugger off when Russia attacked them, Ukraine only giving up nukes after US said they would protect them. Never going to see another country giving up nukes again now
And so on
So I'm ok with undoing things just because Obama did them. Obama was probably the most corrupt/worst president in US history.
Is "curly-cue" [sic] the American way of saying compact fluorescent or CFL?
"If it's been a few years since you shopped for a lightbulb..."
NO, in fact I shop for light bulbs at least 3 times a year, because these "new and improved and way more costly" bulbs can't WAIT to die.
It's not worth making intelligent remarks on ./ you're wasting your time.
so natural selection is coming to you this way, Anonymous
Resistive heating in the ceiling is about the least efficient way to heat a room.
Look, give your money to the power company if you want, but you have to be crazy to be spending 4-5 times as much for electricity using old bulbs.
My electric bills are a shadow of their former self since replacing all my bulbs with modern LEDs, including dimmable ones.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They pushed CFLs just in time for mass production of the mercury-containing, dangerous voltage-using disasters to get into everyone's homes and now we have around twice as efficient of safe LEDs. Great job, guys. I don't think we need a law to accelerate demand since 80W incandescent vs like 12W LED for the same light in a three bulb kitchen fixture for example saves noticeable money. Plus, the wavelength looks more modern and makes your house look decades less old.
Suffer the children, for these shall become tomorrow's consumers of news for nerds. (Oh, really?)
———
I have one beef with energy-efficient lighting. The recessed sockets for the central lighting in my kitchen do a great job of preventing the glare of the bulb from meeting me at eye level.
But only the old-fashioned incandescent floods.
All the replacement LED floods I've examined place the bright, light-emitting substrate further up (down) the neck of the bulb, so I actually do catch the dazzle-inducing "filament" in my peripheral vision during normal kitchen activities.
Brightness is not the sole figure of merit. Contrast is also a figure of merit. Brightness is maximized when you look straight into the bulb. Contrast ratio, however, tends to suffer when the bulb is (mostly) in between you and subject matter of interest.
I've never seen specialty bulb packaging in my life that gives the viewing angle to the dazzle-point ever in my life. There's no way to find out without buying one, screwing it a socket, and turning it on. I did this quite a bit back when I had many other sockets to fill, so all my failures had somewhere good to go after the experiment failed. But now my entire house is LED, except for the recessed bulbs in the kitchen (three times 60 watts) which now contain the very last of my old-fashioned incandescents.
[*] Actually, I lied: we still have a halogen pea-bulb circuit under the kitchen cabinets along two walls which produce an excellent light for actual cooking (it's the last circuit we turn on when just passing through).
For many people, these LED floods are "the same" as the old incandescents, minus the heat, the expense, and prehistoric "warm" colouration. For these to be "the same" in my kitchen, I'd have to sink three pots at least another inch deeper (while perhaps raising the floor in the room above by a compensatory distance).
Hmm. It might be more environmentally sound for me to simply continue using incandescent floods on this one kitchen circuit for the time being.
(We're on electric heating, in a marine climate, where we manage to keep the kitchen around 63 degrees F for most of the winter without ever turning up the kitchen thermostat. On especially cold days I bake bread or reduce onions. A little bit of incandescent heat in the kitchen is no skin off my energy-budget nose for at least half the year.)
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
But for those who really wonder about this:
I thought we should all be driving electric cars because they where emission free... So how does using more electricity for light bulbs create pollution when charging my car doesn't?
Electric cars are emission free where they operate, but fuel-driven power plants that make the electricity to charge them, of course, are not.
However: Fuel-driven power plants can run hotter and scavenge better, resulting in a lot less pollution than the engine that must be carried by an internal-combustion car. (Also, you have to burn more fuel to carry it around. It, with its powertrain, is a lot heavier than the batteries and electric motors of an electric vehicle.)
For those concerned about carbon output, stationary power plants CAN also use less polluting fuels (such as natural gas) than the liquids suitable for mobile use (without a heavy pressure tank). Modern fast-charge battery packs have little charge/discharge loss (or they'd melt, so they wouldn't be fast-charge B-) ). Even with the grid losses you end up with less total pollution from operation with electric cars.
Another factor is that the pollution is emitted at the power plant, rather than in crowded traffic. (This is yet another source of enmity between the urban and rural populations, as the latter may view the city people as exporting their pollution to the country people's back yards.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
and you wonder why Europeans think Americans are... stupid! ;-)
I use LED bulbs wherever possible. They're great for whenever a bulb needs to stay on for a long period of time. But they aren't perfect in every situation. For instance, lightbulbs in closets rarely stay on more than a few minutes.
However, switching to LED bulbs won't necessarily save people money. Power companies will just raise rates to compensate (there is a minimum amount of revenue required to run them, after all).
(And just in case you miss it, I'm being sarcastic.. )
And an idiot, just in case you missed it.
That's it? A personal insult is all you got to argue with here?
There is one thing that being an electrical engineer has helped me with is seeing the absolute hogwash that gets said about electricity production in terms of "green" energy or "zero emissions" for your electric cars. The truth of industrial scale electrical energy production is that it's a dirty business no matter how you do it. If you think you are saving the planet by driving one, you are at best misinformed or at worst actively lying about how things really work.
IMHO, if you want to do the least amount of emitting when you drive, you need to remember that nearly 70% of domestic electrical energy production in the USA comes from fossil fuels, including the energy you used to charge that battery. Somehow I wonder if we'd be better off burning Natural Gas in internal combustion engines over burning it to charge my EV's battery given transmission losses, conversion losses and charge/discharge efficiency and losses you have to over come... But hey, your mileage may vary (literally) but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "zero" emission vehicle especially if you look at the whole life cycle of the car... Those are the facts I'm armed with, and why I'm being sarcastic...
But all you are armed with is personal insults.. I guess you don't have anything else then...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
IMHO, you use LED bulbs where they make sense, let the market drive this.
I actually have been slowly moving my whole house over to LED bulbs *because* they generate less heat. My primary consumer of electrical power is the Air Conditioning, so I benefit from the lower heat dissipation two ways. If one lives in a colder climate, the older light bulbs might be a good option.
So as LED's come down in price (and they have recently) more of them will be used, limiting electrical power consumption growth, making my wallet a bit fatter and decreasing emissions caused by my house.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
You are technically correct, the best kind of correct. Ban all personal transportation!
BTW. I have an old 75W glow bulb in my kitchen and it still running strong after 30+ years. My LED's need replacing after about 18months on average. I replaced most of the glows because I get more umpfh out of the modern LED's and the shorter lifespan is worth the higher output. I live in Sweden so 70% of my 1100SEK (about $130USD i guess) monthly power bill is the fixed costs anyway so trying to save on power is futile.
I converted my house to LED last year. And that included a three-way for the living room, dimmables for the bathrooms and specialty ones for my daughter's ceiling fan fixture.
Sounds like you're trying to hard to pwn the libs that you're fucking yourself.
I'm sure all those crypto-miners have something to say about that!
People can hold the beliefs that Trump has the authority to reverse this rule AND that he should not.
These are orthogonal issues.
I got rid of nearly every incandescent in my house almost 10 years ago. I finally replaced the remaining decorative candelabra bulb about a year ago with an LED (they finally started to not suck). I'm well on my way to replacing a lot of the old curly-cue bulbs from 10 years ago with LEDs. I finally got rid of my final long tube florescent in the basement about a year ago. I even replaced the old portable "rough service" light I use in the garage for cars with an LED almost a year ago.
Who still uses those inefficient bulbs anymore? I think I have one 150 watt halogen work light I only keep around for special purposes. I still have an old box of incandescent lying around, but I haven't used one for years.
As a compromise, tax the "bad" bulbs rather than outright ban them. Outright bans tick me off, unless the product is proven to directly kill puppies or something. We have "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco, etc. Extrapolate that concept to bulbs. It still leaves choice in place, and helps fill the gov't coffers.
Table-ized A.I.
Call your congress critters, write the letters & email too. Let's drive this to the illogical extreme! Every illumination device can be registered and annually inspected for compliance per efficiency regulations. Just think of all the hidden bulbs in old cars, radios, motorcycles, bicycles, self propelled mowers. We can have a new national federal police to catch people that still have unregistered tungsten bulbs in great grand paw's radios in the barn, attic or cellar. We can have at least 500K new federal police and a new classification of federal felons. Think of all the milliwatts saved!
Yes but not everyone just puts lights in the ceiling you know. Some of us - me for example - live in 150 year old farm houses which were not originally electrified. We don't have wiring or light fixtures in ceilings or walls for that matter because they are in many cased not stud walls like in a modern home. So we have outlets usually located in floors; and use lamps.
Guess what resistance heat at waist level isn't as bad a away to heat a room. When its your reading lamp near your face its actually a pretty damn good way because it means YOU feel warm without heating the entire room. I actually have halogens, florescent, traditional incandescent and some led bulbs in various places around here. I uses each where it makes the most sense. LEDs are used in rough operation locations (door opener) and in places like the kitchen where lights are on for long hours for electrical efficiency. florescent are used where I need a lot of lumens cheap - shop lights. Incandescent are used for comforts lights - reading lamps, bedside tables, etc. The halogens (which I realize are also a type of incandescent) are legacy fixtures in the bathroom that I just haven't scrapped yet. I have a stock of bulbs I'll probably replace them once I use them up.
See I am not stupid and I understand how things work; how much power they draw and what service conditions they are suited for. I can choose a type of bulb that is both econ-concious and is fit for purpose without the help of the federal government!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Those controversial curly-cue ones that were cutting edge not that long ago? Gone. (Or harder to find.)
Hard to find where? There is more shelf-space dedicated to LEDs now but CFLs are still plentiful in the home improvement stores around here. Incandescent bulbs are greatly reduced but you can still get the smaller specialty bulbs as well as those for inside ovens and also many of the halogen replacements are still for sale as well.
the light from LED bulbs seems more harsh
I personally find "daylight" bulbs very harsh, and I'm wondering if you got one of those. They are slightly brighter than "warm" bulbs but I don't like the color.
Ironically we say "warm" bulbs for bulbs with a lower color temperature. Color temperature is measured using the number of degrees that an ideal black-body radiator would be to glow at that color. "warm" bulbs are 2700K, and "daylight" bulbs are 5000K. The hotter color temperature means the light is shifted toward blue, so it's brighter. The "warm" temperature is less bluish. (We are used to fire being considered warm, and it's only red-hot; blue-hot is hotter. But ice looks bluish so I guess we think bluish colors are cooler.)
I have Cree brand tube bulbs that replace fluorescent tubes and they are 3000K color temperature. I like 3000K; the "warm" temperature of 2700K seems kind of yellowish to me. I found that Cree has some 3000K bulbs on the Home Depot web site (I've never seen them in a store) and I plan to try buying some.
Also, bulbs have a metric called "CRI", which I believe is "Color Rendering Index". A CRI rating of 100 is theoretically exactly as nice as sunlight. Higher is better. The most expensive Cree bulbs have CRI of over 90. Your "harsh" bulb may have a low CRI.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
They don't exist. It's just too hot. An incandescent works fine there.
I'm sure that there are a few other edge use cases like the oven light. Another issue is old lights and fixtures. Sometimes they don't play well with LED or even CFL bulbs. I have one in a fixture above my formal dining table. It just will not take anything but the candelabra incandescent bulbs. I've tried several times.
For pretty much everything else there are good alternatives to the old school bulbs.
We have a lot of recessed overhead lighting in our house, that uses rose larger flood bulbs.
I have switched to LED bulbs for other purposes, but for the overhead fill lighting I've never been able to find a good LED replacement. The main problem is that they are pretty much all way, way too directional - they shine very brightly down instead of filling an area.
Eventually they may get there with good fill lighting but until then they need to keep the standard bulbs, it's not like the go out rapidly.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I just wanna be able to buy light bulbs that don't make my house feel like a doctor's office. Cool white with a slight blue/violet tinge is fine for work, but not for home.
Could this benefit Trump via his ownership of a collection of energy-wasting shitbox buildings? Perhaps through reduced retrofit costs, or simply greater aesthetic flexibility (energy efficiency be damned?)
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
IMHO, if you want to do the least amount of emitting when you drive, you need to remember that nearly 70% of domestic electrical energy production in the USA comes from fossil fuels, including the energy you used to charge that battery.
Actually it's 63.5% (for 2018.) Natural gas provided 35.1% and coal provided 27.4%. Coal has been trending downward since 2008 -- largely due to market forces, not regulations. Nuclear has stayed pretty constant, but renewables have been trending upward.
Somehow I wonder if we'd be better off burning Natural Gas in internal combustion engines over burning it to charge my EV's battery given transmission losses, conversion losses and charge/discharge efficiency and losses you have to over come...
You may have a point, but let's review. Natural gas is relatively cheap and abundant, and while hardly carbon-neutral, it is better on the environment than coal or oil. It will be hard to talk people out of using it, and it may make more sense to burn it in the car rather than in an electrical plan that charges an electric car. However, unburnt natural gas is a far worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Leakage during transport is inevitable. (On the flip side, it does break down in the atmosphere more quickly than CO2.)
TL/DR: it's not just about the tailpipe.
But hey, your mileage may vary (literally) but I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "zero" emission vehicle especially if you look at the whole life cycle of the car...
You overlook that electrical energy can be created from many sources, whereas fossil fuels come from only one: fossils, and their availability is far more finite than other sources of energy. No matter how we make it, we're never going to run out of electricity.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
The reason why the "Lighting Industry" wants these rolled back is that the US manufacturers didn't re-tool their factories to produce LED lights, and now Chinese manufacturers have the bulk of the sales. They've had a couple years to know this is coming for this second class of lamps/bulbs, and *still* didn't re-tool.
This does not benefit the consumer in any way, it's strictly a bailout for the dinosaur bulb manufacturers.
Design for Use, not Construction!
Consumers still have the option to upgrade to the more energy efficient ones. Market forces of supply and demand will prevail.
Clever remark. More of the same critical thinking. Incandescents emit light and heat, and many homes are increasingly heated by electricity, emission free. Why ban incadescents, using a fraction of power compared to heating, with the rest heating your home and thus reducing your heating bills? Letâ(TM)s follow the money to understand obamas buying cartels of Philips and Co types. Profit for incandescents few cents per bulb. But scared with global warming guilt, you are happily paying $20 per short-lived LED bulb instead to 50 cents per incandescent bulb, satisfied that the planet Earth would not overheat tomorrow. Meanwhile Philips and Co are going laughing all the way to their bank.
Stick it to the man and get $0.99 led bulbs at ikea https://www.ikea.com/us/en/cat...
What is that assertion based on? These are specialty bulbs. Candelabra base, Christmas lights, decorative, etc. Mostly applications where LED lights pretty much suck. So how is maintaining the availability of tungsten-filament bulbs going to increase anyone's electric bill?
I never ceased to be amazed by Trump's sheer pettiness and immaturity. Doesn't matter what it is, if Obama had his fingers in it, Trump wants it gone.
Apparently even something as ridiculous as lightbulb regulations.
It's a shame Obama didn't set high-tax-bracket taxes to 0%. I'd be interesting to see if Trumps head would physically explode.
Me too. I switched every "built-in" bulb to LED 6 years ago (I was able to find some at 2700K-3000K, so the replacement didn't affect the ambiance in a negative way), and with the exception of one cheap LED bulb, all have continued to work perfectly, whether in ceiling cans or more traditional ceiling fixtures. And these are frequently turned on and off, because my wife still thinks lights should be put out when you leave the room even if it does shorten the bulbs' lifespans, and I'm not willing to have a fight over the issue). The only bulbs I haven't replaced with LEDs are 75/100/150 3-ways in 3 lamps, and I'll probably replace those with 100W 3000 kelvin equivalents when they go because I'm sick of replacing incandescent bulbs.
In fact, the main reason I went LED was because I didn't want to change another light bulb for 20 years (some of those ceiling cans are in awkward places). So far, with the exception of the one crappy bulb in one of the ceiling fixtures, the only bulbs I've had to replace are the crappy incandescent in my lamps, which are far easier to swap out.
LEDs emit light and heat. And a lot of the heat. I own a mess of GE reveal LEDs that on the package say they're not meant for enclosed fixtures because of the heat they generate and it will shorten the life of the bulb. GE does all an LED meant for enclosed fixtures but is much more expensive.
Mines the same. But it's a rental and I can't replace fixtures. And cost effective LEDs can't be put in enclosed fixtures because they generate too much heat and shorten the life of the bulb. I don't know why tits thought they don't generate heat. They make tons
Eh. Haha on the autocorrect making it "tits"
Smollett == Black Negro Privilege
No, it is Trump delusion syndrome privelage. Anything done to attack Trump is permissible.
Yes he did this to attack Trump. The Dem cover story is it was a career move, ignoring the TV interview he did where he states the MAGA people are out for him because he is very very hard against Trump.
The price of "60 watt" LED lights is negligible now, so I batch ordered a pack of 32 LED lights for $60. I look forward to seeing my next energy bill.
-Bob-
or the Dollar store effect. It makes economic sense to buy LEDs. They save a large amount of money over a year or two. But if you're poor you can't necessarily afford a $10 or even $5 dollar light bulb when a .99 cent one will do. If you've only got $1 dollar in your pocket it doesn't matter how much the $5 bulb saves you. And for the really poor (especially the elderly) we often subsidize their electricity; and regardless you can make payment arrangements when you come up short.
The solution to this used to be subsidizing CFLs. You'd see them for $1 a piece at Goodwill when they sold for $3-$5 in other stores. We never really did that with LEDs, and we probably should. The savings are worthwhile, since it eases the load on the grid and reduces the number of new plants that need building, but folks don't like subsidies even if they save money.
Hell, we just did a massive number of cuts to WIC and food stamps that will eventually result in kids with brain damage from the malnutrition their mothers experience and, in turn, those kids will clog up the legal system with expensive crimes when they can't make sense of the world.
But hey, socialisms, amiright?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
60-70% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck(depending on what you consider paycheck to paycheck, e.g. $1000 in the bank gets you 60%, $100 gets you 70%). Doesn't matter how much that $20 bulb saves you if you've only got $1 in your pocket. Move into an Apartment and you'll still find incandescent bulbs everywhere, especially if it's a cheap apartment.
Note that we're usually not subsidizing energy efficient bulbs out of the goodness of our hearts. It's usually pushed by power companies to reduce load on their plants so they don't have to spend to build another.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Ironically we say "warm" bulbs for bulbs with a lower color temperature. Color temperature is measured using the number of degrees that an ideal black-body radiator would be to glow at that color. "warm" bulbs are 2700K, and "daylight" bulbs are 5000K. The hotter color temperature means the light is shifted toward blue, so it's brighter. The "warm" temperature is less bluish. (We are used to fire being considered warm, and it's only red-hot; blue-hot is hotter. But ice looks bluish so I guess we think bluish colors are cooler.)
Don't overthink this. You're not likely to find many "white hot" or "blue hot" sources that you're actually able to touch in your daily life, so we're taught from a very young age that red = hot, blue = cold (e.g. thermostats, water faucets, etc).
No one fucking cares but a huge improvement of Electric vehicles is Air quality. Yes the pollution will be somewhere but at least it isn't where the people are.
In Germany at least, high-quality retro-fit LED "bulbs" emitting 806 lumens at a color temperature of 2700K with a CRI of 95 consuming 6.5 Watt are sold for about 3 Euro in single-piece quantities to end users. They are specified for 15,000 hours of operation (before the lumens emitted drop to 70%) and 50,000 switch cycles.
you just end up identifying "need" to almost nothing. It ends up boiling down to a way to pretend you're helping without having to pay for it.
The right wing (including Joe Biden) is trying to do the same with Social Security. They want to means test it so they can avoid paying to maintain it and, long term, shut it down.
If we had a real media (instead of the bought and paid for corporatist crap we get) this crap would be called out. But we don't, so crap like giving folks "what they need" makes it into the public discourse without anyone pointing out that the end game is to eliminate help for low income and disadvantaged folk in order to shift the money up stream. It's a trap, don't fall for it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
6000K or GTFO
But now the Trump administration wants to undo an Obama-era regulation designed to make a wide array of specialty lightbulbs more energy efficient.
No.... 'Regulations' do not 'make' lightbulbs more energy efficient. The only thing regulations can do is to "require that specialty lightbulbs be manufactured to be more energy efficient in order to be legally sold."
Critics say if the reversal is finalized it will mean higher energy bills for consumers and more pollution.
Possibly. But let not ignore the probability that the newer light bulbs will also be considerably more expensive for consumers and, at least in my experience, they do not last nearly as long as advertised. Will the net result be more, less, or equally expensive to the consumer? That would be a question worth answering.
I listen to NPR on a regular basis because I once heard a smart man recommend that people should get news from all across the political spectrum. NPR's reporting has a definite bias to the left which they try to conceal by what they report and they report it.
So there's a switch in my apartment complex that I can't figure out what it does.
I keep on turning it on and off but nothing seems to happen. Then one day I
got a call from a lady in France, and she said:
"Stop playing with my lights already!"
-- my apologies to the source that I don't remember
Don't act like you haven't jacked off while getting a BJ just to help things along. I can fuck myself, enjoy it, and your libtard ass still ends up with cum in your mouth. Fuck off!
No you're an idiot because you assumed, for some unknown reason, that the "more pollution" part came from electrical usage issues. It's not. It's from the trash generated from throwing out perfectly good lamps with the new ones. An argument you guys used to use about why electric cars are bad, btw. It's also a function of how dirty the electric production is and you're trying to make the claim that all generation is equally dirty when it certainly isn't. And finally, you're a fucking idiot for deflecting the conversation away from lamps to electric cars. Talk about not having anything to argue with. You conservatives do corner the market on hypocritical projection.
Also you are NOT an EE. You're whatever profession helps you "win" your arguments. You've claimed to be a dozen or more different professions over the years. We don't forget who you are when we log off at night.
FUCK. OFF.
What the hell is wrong with people that they WANT some clown in government who was never elected to anything, whose name is unknown, who has essentially 100% lifetime job security no matter how nasty and/or incompetent, a bureucrat in DC, writing rules about every damned detail of their lives?
People should be free to buy and own and operate any sort of car, light bulb, shower head, etc they want as long as they can afford it - it's called freedom.
The idea that some little rat in an office a thousand miles away with no accountability whatsoever can write a rule that tells me what sort of light bulb I can use is fundamentally un-American. It's even worse when the snakes tell us it's for our own good because it will save us money now that electricity is so much more expensive as a result of other nameless bureaucrats writin other rules and other bureaucrats pushing Marxist policies so that we now effectively live under a slightly camouflaged regime of rationing.
I want to use as much electricity as I want to use and can afford, and I want a quantity discount - like we used to get in America before the Marxists took over and started their slow-motion transformation of the economy.
EVERYBODY PANIC!
I have a 'Cold Quartz Ultraviolet and Ozone Apparatus.' It's from the 1950s and was a quack medical device. It emits a lot of UV light and reeks of ozone after it's been powered for a little while. Don't use it to read books at night.
Here it is. It has a 117L7GT tube in the base, that runs the oscillator to produce the high voltage needed.
The market should decide what kind of light bulbs people have, not politicians and bureaucrats.
...de Vos just cut 18 million for Special Olympics.
I see people who demand a high aesthetic in their cell phones rather than pure efficiency ugly have come to demand industrial ugly for decorative lighting. It seems odd to me. Besides, the perceived problem is solving itself with only settings really demanding decorative lighting being equipped with tungsten technology. Let them have the option, let the rest of us have the option. Best will win.
{^_^}
Trump can do it all: attack, defend, obfuscate, incriminateâ"-himself.
but you'd think this administration would be more supportive of dim lightbulbs, considering it's run by them and continues to be blindly supported by them...
Reversing or eliminating a regulation has nothing to do with the actual creation of stuff. Therefore, claiming that eliminating a regulation *results* in something (such as higher costs or more pollution) is just pushing an agenda with a lie. The summary suggests this particular regulation was never more widely applied anyway, so how is killing it going to have *any* effect on *anything*? But, if such effects were estimated, did the calculations account for the increased energy independence of the US since Trump took office?
"Critics say"? Are these critics members of "The Natural Resources Defense Council"? The activist organization that profits from exaggerating or otherwise inventing environmental issues to complain about (an organization that nobody ever heard of and is exploiting the "orange man bad" zeitgeist to get their name out there)? *Those* critics?
Making light bulbs 5 times more efficient has just led people to use 5 times as many lights.
It used to be that running a light outside your house all night long was prohibitively expensive, so no one did it. Now every house in the neighborhood is festooned with lights left on all night (and day). Strip malls keep their parking lot lights on all night; towns have put up street lights everywhere. My curtains can't keep the light out at night. No one can see the night sky anymore. Nocturnal animals can't function. What is really needed is anti-light pollution measures. But making lights expensive to operate is better than nothing.