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.
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'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.
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.
Of course they do. And they ignore the cost of manufacturing the LED bulbs. Incandescents are ultra low impact. A bit of glass, a bit of tungsten, basic bitch metal to fit the socket, and a dab of solder. LEDs require PWM controllers, often other microprocessors, expensive metals, and hell, often a fucking fan. All wrapped in plastic. (Even the fucking Hue bulbs switched from glass for the bulb to plastic!)
It isn't clear Trump is left unscathed by Mueller. We don't see the full report.
Put yourself in Mueller's shoes. If he issued an indictment of Trump, the right-wing nuts would froth at the mouth...well, more so than they already do. And his boss has already declared Presidents are above the law. So by failing to issue an indictment in the way he did, i.e., evidence on both sides, he makes Barr decide not to indict and now Barr has to defend being a toadie...my apologies to toads.
And Mueller seemed to do a fair job of spawning off other investigations that were not in his direct purview. So now Barr has to contend with the rank and file knowing what a sleeze Trump is and attempt to bottle up those investigations.
In my opinion, Barr got the job because the Republicans needed a patsy and he was pleasured to oblige.
if you cover 'pre existing conditions'.
it is no longer "insurance". it no longer covers "what if".
they KNOW it will cost them. it's no longer a gamble. they WILL lose money.
why would any company want to do that?
If you force them to do that. Someone will get fucked and it won't be the company.
It will be all the other consumers without pre existing conditions where they still are paying for actual what if insurance...
Or in other words. me.
You want to fuck me to cover known losses?
Ya fuck you buddy.