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.

25 of 428 comments (clear)

  1. Solution looking for a problem? by sinij · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Solution looking for a problem? by thereddaikon · · Score: 4, Informative

      They do that by design. If LED lightbulbs don't have an MTBF similar to old incandescent bulbs then the manufacturers stand to lose a lot of money. So they are intentionally made like crap. Everyone thought that with LEDs we wouldn't have to change lightbulbs anymore. That was naive. Incandescent bulbs can last much longer than what we were used to as well. But there is no money in it

    2. Re:Solution looking for a problem? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Informative

      I haven't really had many reliability issues with LEDs. We have many throughout the house and elsewhere. I have had one (1) of them break, a Philips Hue (sadly the most expensive of the lot). I've had a few bad purchases where the bulb would emit a nasty greenish light instead of nice white. Other than that, few issues (and certainly more reliable than incandescent ones)

      Try IKEA bulbs. They sell them really cheaply and they've been reliable so far, with good quality light as well. We use them in our rental properties where they are used hard in the common areas.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Solution looking for a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Don't trust everything you read on Twitter?

    4. Re:Solution looking for a problem? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just looking at a standard 60 watt replacement soft white Cree led light bulb, they have a 10 year 100% satisfaction guaranteed warranty https://creebulb.com/warranty/

      They require a receipt to actually make a claim. How many people are going to bother to keep paperwork on every light bulb in their house for ten years?

      Companies can offer extraordinarily long warranties when they can be reasonably confident that only a small proportion of customers will go to the trouble of making a claim.

      The OP is wrong in that they don't need the MTBF to be as low as for incandescents (since LED bulbs still cost quite a bit more than incandescents), but anyone who believes that it's going to be ten years is living in a fantasy world.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    5. Re:Solution looking for a problem? by Shaitan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "The burden of proof of safety are on those introducing the novelty."

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

      The burden of proof is is on Jack Kruse who is making these claims. If he'd proven his claim then there would be a burden on the manufacturer to prove their product is safe.

      "When unsure, defaulting to Nature may be the safer bet."

      https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

      Nature is a set of random outcomes. Being natural confers no tendency to be better, safer, or to have better outcomes. Also, humans are natural and the electrical properties exploited to produce LED lighting is also natural. The most natural light would be sunlight, which burns you and damages your DNA, causing aging and cancer.

    6. Re:Solution looking for a problem? by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'd like to know when your numbers came from. Because the age of those numbers is quite important.

      However, it can help to force new standards. Even by your numbers (which again, need more detail as to when they are referring to) it lowers the total electricity usage in the US by 5%. That doesn't linearly mean that we produce 5% less pollution. It means that some coal burning plants might get shut down. And that makes a difference. Because, ultimately, plants don't tend to be turned off and on willy-nilly, because turning them on is hugely expensive. So saving energy can have outsized effects.

      Also, making LED bulbs required was the only way to get them bought at scale, which was the only way to get them made at scale, which was the best way to make them cheap, which means I bought them, which has saved me money over time.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. Of COURSE Trump wants to overturn it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...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.

    1. Re:Of COURSE Trump wants to overturn it... by Ksevio · · Score: 5, Informative

      I guess if he was elected to be a bad president, we deserve a bad president.

      Let's not forget when Obama tried to work out compromises with Republicans on health care by picking a Republican plan, taking months to vote on Republican amendments, and then they still all voted against it. When the GOP leader said their #1 priority was to make Obama a one term president, they weren't really looking to compromise.

    2. Re:Of COURSE Trump wants to overturn it... by Mystiq · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As others have said, I'm going to point out that most of what you said is outright garbage.

      I'm also going to point out that due to the way the Senate in the US is laid out, the members in the Senate likely do not represent the will of the populace as accurately as they should. Your final paragraph -- especially, "they are even more the voice of the people" is a bunch of bullshit.

      California and New York are large. Between them they get four senators. Combined, they are 8 times the size of Kentucky and Kansas, who also get 4 senators between them. And let's remember the House, which has been gerrymandered to fuck and back in certain states, like North Carolina, where despite losing with a vote of something like 41% to 59%, Republicans still got over half the representatives. How fucked up is that?

      No, I'd argue both houses of Congress do not represent the will of the people. My last piece of evidence? Several polls have stated over 80% of the US population wants the Mueller report released. One senator from Kentucky denied it. And 50 other senators, who could kick that asshole out, remain silent. I believe it requires less than 30 of them to replace him as Senate Majority Leader.

      Half of the Senate, which clearly does not represent half of the US population, is holding the majority of the US population hostage by refusing to do anything. Blame rests on Mitch McConnell for being a complicit twat, but more blame rests on those silent Republican senators for letting him get away with it.

      Realize this -- I assume you already do and are just a troll -- and you will realize that no matter what Obama did, the Republican senators would simply do the opposite because their goal is not to legislate. Their goal is to give their donors money. Opposing the rule of the party, who still to some degree still rules in good faith, and convincing people to abandon them through fear and hate is one of their ways to stay in power so they can keep swimming in your money. Keep giving it to them. It's not yours, anyway, according to some of them.

    3. Re:Of COURSE Trump wants to overturn it... by Mystiq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's also bullshit. Hear me out.

      With the current setup, low-population states have more control over the Senate. This usually means more rural states. So, rural states have more power over urban states in one of the houses of congress. So, a minority of the US has control over the majority.

      If we were to make the Senate work like the House, high-population states would have more control. Guess what? This flips, obviously. A majority of the US has control over the rest.

      And guess what? In the past couple of elections, Republicans should have taken neither the presidency nor control of the House. You know why? That's exactly how the votes went. The US as a whole didn't want want the Republican party to take anything. Why should low-population states have control over the larger ones? If you make senators regional across state lines, there will be more senators for higher-population areas.

      Should this really change? I refuse to answer that at this time. The problem isn't so much the setup of the senate. One party has been actively attacking the system for a long time and no one has noticed until the fat orange fuck in the White House.

      And I ask: why does a minority of the US have control over a majority? This boils down to two problems: gerrymandering and a party corrupt enough to not give a fuck about the people who voted for them, that also seems to have a problem with allowing people to vote freely. As for gerrymandering, yep, both parties do it. Unfortunately, there's ample evidence pointing to Republicans going to all-out war with the concept. REDMAP is a thing. Google that. I mentioned 41-59. Or something. In North Carolina. A federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. Voter ID laws also fall under this same bullshit. A federal judge ruled that some of those "targeted African Americans with surgical precision" in I forget which state. Why does one party seem to want to prevent people from voting?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

      Why the fuck does this video exist? He's admitting that the less people vote, the more Republicans win. This is because the people least likely to vote are minorities. Because they become impoverished. Because they get sent to jail. Because voter ID laws target them. Because less polling places exist. Because wait times go up. Because they can't take off work to go vote. Because they can't afford to take a day off. Because they can't drive there themselves. Because the bus or other transportation costs too much. Quite simply, the Republican party doesn't want them to vote. I walked my ass into a polling place in November 2016 and didn't wait at all. I live in a good neighborhood. There were videos of lines down a fucking block. Eight hour waits. They shut down polling places for no good reason. The 2016 election set a participation record. It would have been even more astounding if Republicans weren't attacking voting rights.

      If we solve the voting problems, one party will lose control for a long time. And it should, because it stopped representing the people a long fucking time ago.

      "If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy." This is EXACTLY what is happening. The party is becoming irrelevant in the face of people recognizing the party is corrupt as fuck, is ignoring them, and the party at large is has abandoned the democratic process.

      Do I sound pissed? You're damn right. Why the fuck is one party holding the country hostage when the people have clearly voted against it?

    4. Re:Of COURSE Trump wants to overturn it... by steveha · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...Obama tried to work out compromises with Republicans on health care by picking a Republican plan, taking months to vote on Republican amendments...

      The Republican amendments were not in the final bill. The final bill was made by rewriting a totally unrelated bill, and less than a week elapsed between the introduction of this final bill and its being voted into law in the Senate (on a 60-39 straight party lines vote). Please read this history by the Washington Post's fact checker guy Glenn Kessler.

      The key work on creating the Senate version of the ACA was done in secret. Let's take a trip down memory lane.

      [...] ...consideration of the bill "proceeded on two parallel tracks," starting when the Senate returned to work on Nov. 30. The first track was public, with the illusion of debate and votes on amendments. The official record shows 506 amendments were offered.

      [...]

      [John Cannan:] "In actuality, only a tiny fraction of these amendments has any significance" to the bill's legislative history. Only a handful of amendments covered by a unanimous consent agreement (UCA) reached between the two sides had any relevance, he concluded. Meanwhile, "all of those amendments not covered by UCAs were ordered to lie on the table as soon as they were introduced and had no parliamentary standing at all."

      That's because the real work was going on behind closed doors, back in Reid's office...

      [...]

      Once the deals were in hand, Reid on Dec. 19 revealed a manager's amendment revising the proposed bill, which was also scored by the CBO. He filed three successive cloture motions to end debate on the revised manager's amendment, on his original amendment and on the original House bill. He also filed three other amendments that had the effect of "filling the amendment tree" — cutting off opportunities for the Republicans to alter the text.

      [...]

      The late David Broder, the fair-minded Washington Post columnist, was scathing in his criticism of the spectacle in a column headlined "Health Reform's Stench of Victory." Reid, he wrote, "reduced the negotiations to his own level of transactional morality. Incapable of summoning his colleagues to statesmanship, he made the deals look as crass and parochial as many of them were — encasing a historic achievement in a wrapping of payoff and patronage."

      History Lesson: How the Democrats pushed Obamacare through the Senate

      But you said that President Obama, specifically, "tried to work out compromises" with the Republicans. Could you please show me some kind of news story or something where he told Harry Reid not to do what Harry Reid did? I don't remember anything like that.

      --
      lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
  3. Exaggeration by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ?

  4. LED All the Way by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:LED All the Way by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Your HVAC is the big energy consumer in your house.

      And a lot of that power is spent pumping out the heat from the lights. So if the lights result in less heat, the HVAC runs less and also uses less power. Win-win.

      Standard incandescents run about 2.2% efficiency. So for one unit of light energy they burn over 45 units of power. It all ends up as heat for the HVAC to pump out on cooling days.

      Modern LEDs run about 1/10th the power for a given amount of light. (The 1/5th of TFA is a couple years out of date.) Cutting your lighting power by a factor of 10 is a lot. (LEDs are now only a couple more doublings from emitting nothing but the light, with no waste.)

      While cooling your lights is only part of an HVAC's work, it's a BIG part. (A resting person, for instance, only emits about 75 watts of heat, so even a single table lamp may be loading the HVAC more than a person.) That part is reduced proportion to the reduction in the heat from the lighting . HVACs in cooling mode have an Energy Efficiency Ratio in the ballpark of 3.3. So for every three watts of power you save on your lights, you save about another watt on HVAC power on cooling days.

      S

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  5. Re:Problem with energy efficent specialty lights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    Very odd? Most of them are round, round is not an odd shape. If they could fit a filament into it, with their space requirements etc., there should be no problem fitting an LED into one. I have LED candelabra bulbs which work quite well, is there a shape more awkward to fit into than those?

  6. Why do people hate LED lights by FictionPimp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  7. Re:What will it take.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to stop these people?

    I honestly have no idea who you mean by "these people".

    Do you mean:

    1. Obamatards who imposed silly rules?
    2. Trumptards who don't care about pollution?
    3. Stupid consumers incapable of understand long vs short term costs?
    4. Greedy light bulb companies wanting short-lifetime bulbs?
    5. Slashdot editors who post silly articles?
    6. Frist-posters?

    Please clarify.

  8. Re:This story is ridiculous. by Ichijo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is not case of "externalized costs" either. The consumer pays for the electricity if he chooses a less efficient bulb.

    Where do you live where all of the external costs of electricity are reflected by its price?

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  9. Re:This story is ridiculous. by unimacs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Because given the choice a lot of people will still choose the cheaper incandescent bulb, - even if it costs them roughly the same or even less in the long run.

    The point of the legislation is to save energy and reduce CO2 emissions by getting rid of incandescent bulbs, - which the original legislation did very effectively for standard sized bulbs. If that legislation hadn't passed, you'd still shelves full of incandescent bulbs and people would still be buying them.

  10. Re: What will it take.. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Voting

    Which after this week and the fall out of the Mueller report and the spectacular flameout of AOC's "Green" new deal in the Senate soon to come is looking to be a pretty tall hill to climb.

    Don't be too sure. Trump just put health care in play. I doubt he'll get votes by withdrawing protection for pre-existing conditions.

    And although Trump may have been left unscathed by Mueller's probe, he is still facing lots of other legal issues.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  11. Re: What will it take.. by gtall · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. Harsh LED bulbs? by steveha · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  13. Re: What will it take.. by jeff4747 · · Score: 3, Informative

    And although Trump may have been left unscathed by Mueller's probe

    All we've seen so far is a summary written by the guy who literally covered up Iran-Contra. And even that summary explicitly states the report did not exonerate Trump:

    While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him

    Btw, one of Barr's "interesting" legal positions is that you can not be charged with obstructing justice unless you can be charged with the crime you obstructed justice to hide. Which would seem to fit extremely well with that quote. It's also an insane opinion that isn't backed by anything other than convenience to the powerful.

  14. Re: What will it take.. by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, I agree with all of that, and have made similar points in other stories. Please see my reply to gtall above.

    Barr's claim that there was no obstruction because there was no crime of conspiracy is ridiculous. Tell that to Martha Stewart, who was not convicted for insider trading, but was convicted for obstructing the investigation of her alleged insider trading.

    And it gets better with Barr. He maintains that the President cannot obstruct justice. Not hard to see how he got the nod from the WH to be the new AG.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.