Congress suspends light bulb ban funding

UPDATE 2: 12/16/11 9AMPST It appears early reports were wrong, junkscience.com now reports that

The deal agreed to in Congress merely deprives the Department oF Energy the funds to enforce the ban for 2012. The ban is still on the books — so the DOE may very well get the money next year or the year after or who knows when.

 

Original post follows:

Blogging this from my cellphone.

Reports coming in from my sources say it was suspended tonight, more later.

UPDATE: from Politico -

The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs.

GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department’s standards for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient.

From The Hill -

Omnibus spending legislation greenlighted by House and Senate negotiators Thursday night blocks Energy Department light bulb efficiency standards that have come under fire from conservatives in recent months.

The legislation, which would avert a government shutdown, prevents funding from being used for the implementation of certain Energy Department light bulb standards. The standards would begin phasing in next year.

h/t to Steve Milloy at junkscience.com

About these ads
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

108 Responses to Congress suspends light bulb ban funding

  1. B-737 says:

    I hope this report is correct. It would help to renew my faith in the rationality of the U.S. government if true.

  2. rwct says:

    You mean an[incadescent] light went on in Cogress?

  3. individual11 says:

    That’s great. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences holds true. They might repeal it but only after they caused the destruction of the U.S. lightbulb industry.

  4. Manny says:

    Neither chamber is in session tonight?

  5. Derek says:

    Thomas Edison thanks the few remaining sane members of Congress for realizing how stupid this ban would be.

    I thank members of congress because the fluorescent bulbs are toxic, cold and depressing. Incandescent lightbulbs are warm, beautiful very bright!

  6. Chris Nelli says:

    US government slowly pointing the gun away from its head. As others have pointed out, the scam is coming apart at just the right speed to allow politicians to get out of a burning building while it is safe to do so.

  7. TheGoodLocust says:

    This would not surprise me, but the Senate ratifying it and Obama signing it will be progressively harder obstacles.

  8. Jenn Oates says:

    Does this mean all my hoarding was for nothing?!

    Nah, I live in CA…they’ll figure out a way to deprive me of my incandescents one way or another.

  9. papiertigre says:

    Can the Congress of the United States do that? The way I understand it, once a bill is signed by the President it would take an act by the Judicial branch, or a superseding bill, also needing the President’s signature, to overturn it.

  10. Interstellar Bill says:

    Obama’s corporate pal GE has already closed its last light-bulb factory in the US.

  11. TomT says:

    Boy I hope so and I hope fool in White House doesn’t veto it.

  12. patvann says:

    My government claims that by law (backed by force) that we can chose to join the Marines during wartime, but we aren’t “smart” enough to chose a lightbulb or a toilet.
    We can even choose (again backed bt law and force) to end the lives of our progeny.

    I have seen and heard enough in my short 50 years, that it’s hard to celebrate this “return” to what I see as a 92% insanity-level, down from short stint at 98%.

    I have become jaded to the point of curmudgeon, and I still want them all to be sent to the South Pole for 10 years.

  13. TomT says:

    Papiertige. Congress can repeal any law it wants, and if the President signs it the appeal is law just like any other law. Often congress add these thing to laws that the President would be nuts to veto.

  14. TomT says:

    I meant if the President signs the repeal not appeal.

  15. danj says:

    Figures. I bought forty 100 W light bulbs today…

  16. Leon Brozyna says:

    If true, then we’ll be able to import ‘em from … China.

  17. dp says:

    The House voted this afternoon to overturn the ban on incandescent light bulbs which goes into effect next year. The vote was 233 aye, 193 nay, and 4 Democrats abstaining. The reason the bill didn’t pass is because it was brought up under “suspension of the rules” which is a process that requires a 2/3 majority for a bill to pass. This process is usually reserved for non contentious bills like naming post offices.

    The votes were there but there was a procedural problem preventing the passing.

    http://poorrichardsnews.com/post/7558082923/house-vote-to-overturn-incandescent-light-bulb-ban

  18. rk says:

    Omnibus spending legislation greenlighted by House and Senate negotiators Thursday night blocks Energy Department light bulb efficiency standards that have come under fire from conservatives in recent months.

    from
    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/199851-spending-deal-blocks-light-bulb-efficiency-standards

    watch heads explode in 5….4….3…

  19. john West says:

    It was a stupid idea and it’s unenforceable. Everyone I know has loaded up on incandescent bulbs to last the rest of their lives. They are cheap and are still available and plentiful.

    Why import the mercury laden horrid twisty bulbs from China when we can make out own lovely warm little bulbs right here in North America.

    Now if only I could get toilet that I don’t have to flush two or three times to get a fresh bowl of water. That was a stupid idea too.

  20. jorgekafkazar says:

    individual11 says: “That’s great. Unfortunately, the law of unintended consequences holds true. They might repeal it but only after they caused the destruction of the U.S. lightbulb industry.:”

    Who says that was unintended?

  21. Kevin Hearle says:

    Well well well what a great way to stimulate the economy. Let the green dragon close all your light bulb plants and fire all the employees and then reverse the decision and have to buy all your incandescent and neon bulbs from China. Gosh you Americans are smart. From the comments you obviously didn’t get to the stage with neon of warm dimable lights which cost 20 times an incandescaent bulb like we have. God preserve us from the green revolution before we are all living like the third world.

  22. Amy Ridenour says:

    Assuming the Politico and The Hill reports are correct (most likely), the tenative agreement for funding the federal government in 2012 bans spending money for enforcement of the ban in 2012. The ban is still law, however. Ban opponents either have to get a full repeal or a ban on spanding enforcement money enacted every single year. So — assuming supplies are available — anyone who likes these bulbs would do well to stockpile if he has not done so already. Failing additional Congressional action, the law will be enforced 1/1/13, and at that point, both the 100 and 75 watt standard incandescents will be banned.

    I blogged about this a bit at http://tiny.cc/4cbrt

  23. Don Penim says:

    Here is a link to an article about this from The Hill:

    Omnibus spending deal blocks funding for light bulb efficiency standards.

    Omnibus spending legislation greenlighted by House and Senate negotiators Thursday night blocks Energy Department light bulb efficiency standards that have come under fire from conservatives in recent months.

    The legislation, which would avert a government shutdown, prevents funding from being used for the implementation of certain Energy Department light bulb standards. The standards would begin phasing in next year.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/199851-spending-deal-blocks-light-bulb-efficiency-standards

  24. Bob Koss says:

    Politico headline.
    Spending bill blocks light bulb standards
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70534.html

  25. davidmhoffer says:

    patvann;
    I have become jaded to the point of curmudgeon, and I still want them all to be sent to the South Pole for 10 years.>>>

    Well you and I are of about the same vintage, so I can understand your perspective. But the South Pole? 10 years with the penguins? Seems a bit nasty to me. What did the penguins do to deserve that?

    I was thinking more like the north pole. Ten years is probably way more than enough though. One year ought to do it. Black uniforms though. Wouldn’t want to lose them amidst all those white ice flows, white snow, white polar bears….

  26. crosspatch says:

    They haven’t repealed the ban, they have blocked any enforcement of the ban, but it is still against the law.

    http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2011/12/16/opponents-of-light-bulb-ban-win-a-big-round-but-battle-far-f.html

  27. tokyoboy says:

    When were the incandescent lamps actually banned in the US?
    Anyone teach me please.

  28. Amy Ridenour says:

    Toykoboy, The legislation banning sale of the most common incandescents in the US was adopted in 2007 as part of a massive bi-partisan energy bill that was signed into law by President Bush. The legislation received a lot of attention at that time, but almost none of it was on the part about banning common incandescent bulbs. The ban was to start going into effect on 1/1/12 with standards continuing to tighten until 2020. At this point the ban still exists but enforcement is delayed until 1/1/13 unless further legislative action is taken.

  29. DR says:

    There are still U.S. light bulb companies. I bought a few at Menards. They are more expensive, but much better than the crap coming from China.

    There were bulbs exempt from the ban (long life etc.), so the last companies standing will likely be able to do very well.

    Personally I absolutely detest CFL’s. I’ve yet to have one last as long as advertised, and they are completely useless for porch lights.

  30. davidmhoffer says:

    The legislation, which would avert a government shutdown, prevents funding from being used for the implementation of certain Energy Department light bulb standards.>>>

    OK, now I really am confused, and I’m not cracking jokes here. They enacted a law, and then they enacted another law that says they can’t spend any money enforcing the first law? But the first law is still the law? So…if you buy incadescent bulbs, you are breaking the law, but if they arrest you for it, THEY are breaking the law. Does this web of ridiculosis allow the person arrested for buying an incadescent bulb make a citizens arrest of the officer arresting them for buying the incadescent bulb?

    Oooh…what about a citizens arrest of someone for buying an incandescent bulb? Would that be counted as no cost enforcement? I can just hear Mann and Hansen et al getting all excited at the prospect. Now here’s the funny part (you knew I couldn’t write a post this long without actually cracking a joke, right?)

    The think is to get Mann and Hansen all wound up making citizen’s arrests of people left right and centre. As soon as they make an arrest during business hours, that’s when we remind them they are public employees and so it is illegal for them to be making arrests while on government salary. Carefull with Mann though. I hear he’s got a wicked curve on his hockey stick and he knows how to use it.

  31. wayne says:

    ROTFL !! I’ll be d.mned. Congress get’s my jokes, and even acts on them, and in 24 hour turn around! That’s got to be a record. There may yet be hope.

    Too bad tallbloke lives in the UK though. They’re returning his computers politely alright but it seems he forgot to replace the incandescents in the bathrooms. Bummer! First offense. The UK Green Police say he’ll get off with a few days of community service… digging through other people’s trash for them. /sarc

  32. Mike says:

    too bad we cant ban the presence of dim bulbs in various branches of government.

  33. tokyoboy says:

    Amy Ridenour says: December 15, 2011 at 9:01 pm
    “Toykoboy, …………. The ban was to start going into effect on 1/1/12 with standards continuing to tighten until 2020. At this point the ban still exists but enforcement is delayed until 1/1/13 unless further legislative action is taken.”

    Thanks Amy. So at present incandescents are not actually banned, and you can buy them on the market?
    And this time, if Senate & Obama give OK to the “suspension”, the actual “ban” is to be delayed until 1/1/13?
    My brain cells are still heavily entangled.

  34. DRE says:

    Good thing I decided not to get involved in tungsten futures!

  35. syncrodox says:

    I hate to ask a stupid question but how many incadescent light bulb manufacturing facilities are there currently in the continental United States?

  36. Amy Ridenour says:

    Toykoboy, correct. However we are talking only about a federal ban here. California passed a state law that adopts each step of the federal ban one year ahead of the feds. So no dubt some Californians are looking at the wording of their law now that the feds have kept the ban but banned enforcement for a year.

    Syncrodox, I have seen mainstream news media reports saying the last standard incandescent bulb factory (the bulbs subject to the ban, not other incandescents) in the US has closed. I have not verified this independently so this is a for-what-its-worth.

  37. tokyoboy says:

    “Amy Ridenour says: December 15, 2011 at 9:37 pm”

    Thanks again Amy. I hope I’ve grasped your situation.
    I’ve never bought LED lamps, which are >10-fold more expensive, and which eco-freaks and lamp industry have loudly recommended here in Japan.

  38. syncrodox says:

    Thanx Amy, I had heard the same and will seek confirmation…

  39. mkurbo says:

    Great news if true……..

  40. Susan P says:

    I feel rather foolish at how excited I am over this little “victory”. But I really hate those CFL bulbs!!!!

  41. Jay says:

    Let people decide what kind of bulbs they want.

    The alleged efficiency is vastly over rated. Most parts of the US, especially where I live, we heat our homes with gas 8 months a year. The “wasted” energy from the bulbs is not wasted, but heats the house, so less gas is burned. For us, most or our power in IL comes from nuclear, so less CO2, how’s that for unintended consequences!

    Combined with the aesthetic deficiencies of the CFL and the mercury hazards, it just does not make sense to restrict incandescent bulbs. For those in the hot parts of the country, where the bulb heat must be removed at the cost of more electrical power for air conditioning, it may make sense, but in a free country, people can make their own decisions.

  42. David Davidovics says:

    One right of choice – is restored……(still a long way to go)

  43. squareheaded says:

    California passed a state law that adopts each step of the federal ban one year ahead of the feds.

    californian (n.) criminally insane; the state of mind that makes legal the sellers of marijuana, but makes criminal the sellers of light bulbs.
    Usage:He shot that woman Tate down in cold blood in her own house, but he is going to plead innocent due to californian insanity.

  44. squareheaded says:

    How many Californians does it take to screw the light bulb?

  45. I’ve got a shelf full of 100W bulbs – but I aint gonna get rid of them cus the loonies may make a comeback.

    If they do, I hope they don’t seize WUWT computers and track me down. They can have my bulbs when they pry them from my cold, dead lamps.

  46. squareheaded says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    OK, now I really am confused, and I’m not cracking jokes here. They enacted a law, and then they enacted another law that says they can’t spend any money enforcing the first law? But the first law is still the law? So…if you buy incadescent bulbs, you are breaking the law, but if they arrest you for it, THEY are breaking the law. Does this web of ridiculosis allow the person arrested for buying an incadescent bulb make a citizens arrest of the officer arresting them for buying the incadescent bulb?

    This conversation will clear it up for you:

    `How do you know I’m mad?’ said Alice.
    `You must be,’ said the Cat, `or you wouldn’t have come here.’
    Alice didn’t think that proved it at all; however, she went on `And how do you know that you’re mad?’
    `To begin with,’ said the Cat, `a dog’s not mad. You grant that?’
    `I suppose so,’ said Alice.
    `Well, then,’ the Cat went on, `you see, a dog growls when it’s angry, and wags its tail when it’s pleased. Now I growl when I’m pleased, and wag my tail when I’m angry. Therefore I’m mad.’”

  47. Good… But the fact that it was there in the first place illuminates the fact that most of those in Congress are dimmer than the bulbs they tried to ban… I guess they simply didn’t like the competition!!!!!

  48. squareheaded says:

    Congress suspends light bulb ban…
    The legislation, which would avert a government shutdown

    How do we get them to suspend averting the government shutdown? That would be a much more meaningful and profitable action.

  49. squareheaded says:

    federal light bulb efficiency standards…

    Is there anyone in the world who actually believes the United States federal government could set the standard for efficiency in anything other than oppression?

    Why are not the federales in Congress laughed to scorn? Are we humans dwelling within these borders actually so afraid of these heavily armed nincompoops?

  50. Anna Lemma says:

    syncrodox says:
    December 15, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    I hate to ask a stupid question but how many incandescent light bulb manufacturing facilities are there currently in the continental United States?
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I believe the answer is ZERO. GE, a major lobbyist for the CFL legislation, moved its bulb mfg operations to China, while the last major incandescent factory in upstate NY shut down.

    The lesson here: crony capitalism works! Going forward, GE generates huge profits from overseas operations, while home-grown business shuts its doors and lays off a slew of American workers.

    (Free clue: GE will make more profit selling CFLs than they did with “old” technology incandescents)

  51. squareheaded says:

    What will they do to 10 year old Suzie who sets up a corner light bulb and lemonade stand?

    What country do you say I live in? The land of the free and home of the brave? I hope they ban the selling of light bulbs, just so I can become a light bulb salesman.

    I will place one light bulb in the center bottom of each one of their congressional chairs just so they have a proper place to sit.

  52. MikeN says:

    So no repeal of the light bulb ban, they are just saying don’t enforce it.

  53. Blade says:

    Amy Ridenour [December 15, 2011 at 9:01 pm] says:

    “The legislation banning sale of the most common incandescents in the US was adopted in 2007 as part of a massive bi-partisan energy bill that was signed into law by President Bush.”

    Bush 43 was certainly a clown in this debacle, but merely the final clown in a long list of clowns in the FedGov Circus. Remember that 2007 was the year that both houses of Congress were retaken by radical Dummycrats. Winter 2007 (Light Bulbs) should be considered a dress rehearsal for Winter 2009 (Socialized Medicine). The common denominator of both debacles are Pelosi and Reid who comprise 2/3 of this Axis of Evil, and they commanded near veto proof majorities. Having said that, Bush 43 should have stood on principle and forced a veto over-ride.

    Winter 2007 :: Pelosi + Reid + Bush 43
    Winter 2009 :: Pelosi + Reid + Obama

    Anatomy of this FedGov attack on America …

    Phase-out of incandescent light bulbs

    “In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[33] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than then-current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

    Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting, and plant lights.

    By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.[34]

    In 2011, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas and 14 other Republicans joined to introduce the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act or BULB Act (H.R. 91), which would have repealed Subtitle B of Title III of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Barton was opposed to regulation, while Rep. Michael Burgess pointed to jobs purportedly lost to China and voiced a fear of mercury problems resulting from CFL use.[35] On July 12, 2011, H.R. 2417 failed to pass by the required two-thirds majority in the U.S. House.[36]“

    Wiki has an entire page detailing this premeditated murder of yet another freedom …

    Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007

    “The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.”.[9] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promoted the Act as a way of lowering energy costs to consumers.[10] The bill followed another major piece of energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

    The bill originally sought to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote petroleum independence and different forms of alternative energy. These tax changes were ultimately dropped after opposition in the Senate, and the final bill focused on automobile fuel economy, development of biofuels, and energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting.”

    Towards the end of that same wiki page we get a glimpse of the actual crime scene …

    Legislative history

    “When this bill was introduced to the Senate, the new provisions became the focus of debate. The White House and Sen. Domenici warned that Bush would veto the bill because of the tax portion. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Democrats had “shown how to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory” by “inserting an enormous tax hike, a tax hike they knew would doom this legislation.” Reid said Congress should not be intimidated by a veto threat, “We are the Congress of the United States. We can write things even though the president may not like them.” Democrats said that the tax measure was modest and only took back tax breaks the oil companies received in 2004 and that they did not need them with oil prices at about $90 a barrel.[37]

    The House version of the bill (with $13 billion raised from the oil industry, a mandate that utilities rely on renewable energy for at least 15 percent of their power generation, and a $21.8 billion 10-year tax package) failed by a one vote margin. A final attempt to end debate and make way for a vote failed by 59 – 40 despite the return of four Democratic presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton (NY), Barack Obama (Ill.), Christopher Dodd (Conn.), and Joseph Biden (Del.). Nine Republicans voted in favor of ending debate while one Democrat, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) voted against it. Sen. John McCain was not present.[37]

    The revised Senate bill passed 86-8 on December 13. The House approved this final version 314-100 on December 18, and President Bush signed it the following day.

    This should serve as a lesson to voters to NEVER ever vote for a progressive socialist even in disguise, regardless of (R) and (D), whether or not they bribe you (with your owwn money) or promise pie-in-the-sky dreams. Just say no to Socialism.

  54. squareheaded says:

    Mark and two Cats says:
    December 15, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Mark, thanks for the heads up on global drifting, but those cats…

  55. squareheaded says:

    ….Enter your comment here

  56. Rik Gheysens says:

    I hope also that this vote in the Congress is the beginning of a reassessment of the incandescent bulb. I am studying the issue of the substitution of incandescent bulbs by mercury containing CFLs and my conclusion is that CFLs have to be banned instead of the incandescent bulbs. The mercury pollution through the whole fabric of CFLs is so blatant that other actions have to be performed. The disposal of mercury from the CFLs in landfills is only intensified after the ban of incandescent bulbs. This is a phenomenon that is happening nowadays in most countries over the world, even in China where a ban on incandescent lamps > or = 100 W has been enforced to begin the first of October 2012.
    I have a bad feeling that more is needed to stop this madness. I wrote a draft of an Open Letter to US EPA where good arguments are given to ban the CFLs and to lift the ban on incandescent bulbs. (http://www.mijnbestand.nl/Bestand-3QNMYTGZKSRE.pdf ) You can adapt it at your wishes and sent it to EPA.
    A new version of my paper “Mercury in Fluoresent Lighting” can be found on http://www.mijnbestand.nl/Bestand-SLW8GTJODEFV.pdf .

  57. Peridot says:

    In the UK you can still get up to 40W bulbs anywhere but some places still have stocks of 60W and 100W bulbs although the EU officially does not allow them to be sold, The one thing I will say for the new bulbs is that they are much cooler and do not ‘bake’ Anglepoise lamps therefore they last longer (the lamps, that is). I live in hope that sense will return and with it our proper lightbulbs!

  58. Mark says:

    It doesn’t matter. I prefer the CFL’s over regular incandescents. And I have really noticed a difference in my electricity bills.

  59. Plain Jane says:

    We have the incandescent light bulb ban in Australia and its worse than we thought. I live in the country at the end of a long electricity line so the voltage fluctuates a lot. I HATE dim lights. The CFLs dont tolerate fluctuating voltage and wont work well, the halogen lights cost $10 a bulb. The new different types of bulbs wont last here like the old cheap incandescents did. Anyway, at 60c a piece for cheap chinese incandescents we didnt care they didnt last long (but often they did). The new bulbs at $10 a piece only last a few months. Now we are spending at least $200 a year on light bulbs instead of less than $50. Our electricity has also gone up. We were spending around $2500 a year and it has gone up to about $4000 a year.

    Hope the bulb ban does not happen for you. Stock up on the old bulbs.

  60. Antonia says:

    I wonder if we Aussies can import them? Our household is running low on the cache we grabbed when our stupid government banned them. We’ve not had to resort to one of those toxic curly dim things yet but alas it’s only a matter of time.

    Why have governments usurped the rights of people to buy their preferred light bulbs? Talk about soft totalitanarism!

    Australia suffers from the scourge of compulsory voting. No doubt a pedant will contradict me and say voting is not compulsory in Australia but turning up to have your name crossed off the electoral roll is.

    Well derr, the result is the same: morons turn up to vote because they’ll get fined if they don’t turn up so they may as well vote while in the polling booth.

    Despite the media’s constant stories about dangerous climate change I still sniff a whiff of victory. Sanity will prevail. The climate science establishment’s story is idiotic and increasingly people are recognizing it: as if CO2 – a beneficial and necessary atmospheric trace gas – could possibly be the main driver of the climate! It’s absurd.

  61. Iggy Slanter says:

    This was the moment when the nuttiness began to recede and the economy began to heal.

  62. Robert of Ottawa says:

    In the future well have flexible OLED panels that we stick on the ceiling

  63. E.M.Smith says:

    You can make incandescent bulbs last a whole lot longer on a dimmer. How long? At half power, about a decade. Since high power bulbs are (temporarily?) exempt, you can get 200 W bulbs and run them at 100W and they last a decade (if less efficient and a bit yellower…)

    3 – way bulbs also get a pass for a while, and a 3 way where the ‘low’ setting has burned out can be used in a regular socket for the ‘medium’ power (high is both together). So buy 50-200-250 bulbs and run that on low in your 3-way lamps. When the 50 W filament burns out, you now have a ‘regular’ 200W bulb that will last a decade on a dimmer as a 100 W bulb… (clearly a 50-100-150 bulb gives you a ‘regular 100W’ when the low filament burns out…)

    There’s more at these two links (though the first one used to have a neat graph that Wikimedia has now deleted… that basically showed how bulb life was something like inverse to the 12th power of voltage… but now you get to imagine two lines making a steep X, one volts, the other life…)

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/12/30/happy-bulbs-to-you/

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/a-good-bulb/

    Folks in California get to ‘go there’ before everyone else… due to that I now have a closet full of bulbs… and the manufacturers all came out with ‘odd sizes’ to just sneak under the cut offs… so 100W bulbs disappeared a couple of years ago, but 95 W showed up ;-)

  64. Ole of Denmark says:

    Come on! Get used to it.

    I know most, if not all, on this thread are going to disagree with me on this, but to me it makes perfect sense to reduce your electricity bills by replacing obsolete light bulbs with modern, alternative light sources.

    In Denmark, where I live, we also have a ban on the traditional bulbs. And in the beginning we also had the same objections to the alternatives: The cold light, the price, the toxic content. But these objections seem to have vanished by now, mostly because they had nothing to do with reality.
    You can buy the new ones with Warm White colors around 3000 Kelvin – just have a look at the specifications before you buy. They are no longer as expensive as just a few years ago. Today they are at about the double price as the incandescent bulbs – and in my experience they last longer. Some of them are still toxic (mercury), however.

    An example: I just exchanged two 50 Watts bulbs with two 1.1 (one point one!) Watts multi-LED lights. A 97.8 % reduction in energy consumption. The color temperature is the exact same, if not warmer than the old ones. They were the exact same size and same fittings as the old ones. The apparent lumen is a little less than the old ones – equivalent to a 40 Watts bulb – but still quite sufficient for reading lights in our bed room. As an extra bonus we are no longer getting burn marks when switching off these lamps, as the new LED lights produce pure light instead of heat.

  65. Frank K. says:

    Ole of Denmark says:
    December 16, 2011 at 5:10 am

    Come on! Get used to it.

    I know most, if not all, on this thread are going to disagree with me on this, but to me it makes perfect sense to reduce your electricity bills by replacing obsolete light bulbs with modern, alternative light sources.

    That’s great – for you. But please let others make this choice for themselves. In my opinion, the current crop of CFL and LED bulbs do NOT give the same quality of light as incandescents. BUT…there are places where CFLs are fine (I’ve been using fluorescent lamps in my workshop for years) – I have that choice.

    By the way, the best way to reduce your home lighting bill is to use the off switch – try it sometime.

  66. treegyn1 says:

    I’ve been stocking up on incandescents for more than a year now, usually buying “contractor” packs (24 bulbs) at Lowes. This is the only retailer I’ve found that still stocks a brand made in North America – Sylvania. According to the package, they have plants remaining in Ohio, Ontario (Canada), and Mexico. More recently, the contractor pack has disappeared, so I bought packs of 8, 100 w bulbs for less than $5 each.

    Don’t bother with Home Depot or Walmart – all they carry are GE (NEVER) and crap from China.

    Finally, this stupid ban in the US will only go away after we have a change in government in about 10 1/2 months, and we finish the job started in 2010 and sweep the rest of the radical green left from Washington, DC.

  67. John Marincic says:

    Ole,

    I too have bought LED lights, dimmable bars for under counter in my new kitchen. But they were waaaay more expensive although the total wattage for 13 light bars is about 45 Watts. I bought them because of the no heat factor. I installed a GU10 ceiling light bar as well but used halogens for that. Six lights cost 15 bucks. I looked at dimmable GU10 LED lights and one light here in Ontario, Canada is $40. When the LED bulbs get cheaper I’ll replace the halogens. So yes there are good alternatives but the economics still doesn’t make sense.

  68. Bruce Cobb says:

    Ole of Denmark says:
    December 16, 2011 at 5:10 am

    Come on! Get used to it.

    I know most, if not all, on this thread are going to disagree with me on this, but to me it makes perfect sense to reduce your electricity bills by replacing obsolete light bulbs with modern, alternative light sources.
    You are completely missing the point. Governments have no business mandating a particular type of lightbulb, or more generally, forcing people to “save energy”, which is tantamount to eco-fascism. If the newer light bulbs truly are an improvement, then people will buy them of their own accord, and without Big Brother telling them to.

  69. Mardler says:

    Madness at the heart of the legislature. One can only hope that some bright spark (sorry) starts up a new U.S. incandescent lamp factory soon.

    That said, we use a mix of lamps here in Blighty: if to be left on a long time (e.g. desk lamp) we use CFL daylight temp, if not it’s halogen incandescents which are 30% more efficient than tungsten, have a slightly less yellow light than tungsten, have not been banned in the UK and are readily available everywhere.

  70. Mike M says:

    Let’s call it what it really is – FASCISM. Is it only a coincidence that Jeffrey Immelt is ‘jobs czar’?

  71. Steve Keohane says:

    E.M.Smith says: December 16, 2011 at 4:57 am

    Another way to get long life from your incandescent bulbs is to buy 130V bulbs to run on 110V. They can last for 10-15 years in my experience.

  72. John Ulmer says:

    Good to hear Gov’t making an ever-so-small step backwards out of micro-managing our lives. While we all agree with being more efficient, compact florescents, like low flow toilets, don’t end up saving anything when it is all said and done. When they are new, they come on quickly and bright. But, after a few weeks, they are much slower to warm up. The more efficient CF looses its efficiency when I have to turn on a ceiling fixture to augment my desk lamp. Three bulbs then struggle to do what incandescent would have: light the top of my desk.

    Further, in my garage, I have CFs in most fixtures. Since it takes a minute or so for a CF to warm up and provide good light (dangerous, in my garage), I now just leave the CF ceiling fixture on all the time. Again, measures taken to deal with the CFs short-coming completely erode whatever efficiency was allegedly available.

    Low flow toilets are another pet peeve. But, I won’t go there.

  73. Pamela Gray says:

    Hate hate hate twisty bulbs!!!! Bought a bank for my bathroom light bar and lo and behold, discovered that I had gray hair in my long locks of red! Lots of it! I could not get those bulbs out fast enough. Raced down to BiMart and payed for “cut crystal”, bright, sun-light warm, old fashioned incandescent bulbs. Poof! Gray gone!

    So to those dems who are still voting the green ticket…shove it!

    (damn…this has got me Irish temper up and feathers ruffled)

  74. Blade says:

    Ole of Denmark [December 16, 2011 at 5:10 am] says:

    “Come on! Get used to it.”

    Come on! [self-snip] me.

    ” … in the beginning we also had the same objections to the alternatives … But these objections seem to have vanished by now, mostly because they had nothing to do with reality”

    Objections do not vanish, they are just ignored. You know what I am talking about because you are doing exactly that right now, ignoring them. As far as reality, you are clearly not acquainted with it. The ban is effectively lifted pending further action, so we will happily get used to that. Anyway, reality is not legislated, it is experienced. Were the socialists in our Congress to legislate Electric cars over Fossil Fuel, or simply legislating the banning of free speech, reality would still not be changed. The objections to this bulb banning are quite real in reality, and they are threefold …

    (1) We object to nanny state government holding our hands picking what is best for us. This is because we are naturally born free people, not serfs or slaves. Don’t try to tell us what to think or do. You can love your particular government as your surrogate parents all you want. Don’t even suggest we also do so.

    (2) We object to corrupt state-sponsored cronyism which in this case has enormous firms donating to the politicians backing the lightbulb transition who planned to reap fortunes on the new mandated product. How very convenient.

    (3) We object to the scientific fraud at the root of this, including replacing a harmless product with one that is not harmless. If you disagree I suggest you buy a crate of CFL’s and throw handfuls of them onto the floor of the US Congress or a supermarket or a school. After the crime scene tape is removed and the hazmat team has left, the FBI will likely arrest you for terrorism of some kind. NB: that was not sarcasm.

    “I just exchanged two 50 Watts bulbs with two 1.1 (one point one!) Watts multi-LED lights. A 97.8 % reduction in energy consumption.”

    Pardon me if I don’t trust your math. In my experience it takes around 40 watts LED to actually replace 100 incandescent. But this is highly subjective because of perception and the directionality of LED over the spreading of incandescent. For example, this chart states it is more like 20 watts. But the entire premise here is based on when all other things are equal, WHICH THEY ARE NOT. Incandescent, LED and CFL are three different beasts, and all have their place when people are left to freely choose.

    “The color temperature is the exact same, if not warmer than the old ones.”

    Those two statements (in the same sentence LOL) are mutually exclusive. That means impossible. Regardless, because once again this is highly subjective. Unlike communist or socialist thinking, all people are not the same. What does nanny state-ism plan to do with people who get sick under fluorescent lighting or those that can see the AC flicker on LED’s? Screw them of course.

    “The apparent lumen is a little less than the old ones – equivalent to a 40 Watts bulb – but still quite sufficient for reading lights in our bed room.”

    Subjectivity again, and that apparently is all that is required to seal the deal for you. However, do you see us trying to tell you not to use LED or CFL? Of course not.

    Anyway, here is something you have not stated because it is a very inconvenient truth: In many circumstances an incandescent bulb can be 100% efficient, which is even more than CFL or LED. What’s that, you say?

    Right now it is cold. Using an incandescent in the lamp in a room results in 100% of the light being used and 100% of the heat being used to warm the surrounding air, where the people physically reside.

    Place an LED in there instead and 100% of the light is being used, but *no* heat is warming the surrounding air (waste heat is sinked away by design so that the component does not fail). To warm this room, the people near this light must head over to the thermostat to compensate. And this often means oil burning, or gas in the furnace and ducted warm air from the basement up to the room where the people are, or via a radiator, or even a worse case with electric heat where the same fossil fuels are consumed miles away to push the electricity to that room where the people are.

    You see, placing the energy saving bulb in that room in this situation simply moved the energy use elsewhere, and quite possibly increase it in net. There is waste in all these operations at many locations, so pick your poison. But do not ignore the concept of a ‘space heater’ which is in this case a warm incandescent light-bulb right at the spot of human occupation. Bumping up the thermostat to replace the heat NOT given off by an LED in a room setting in most case results in heat being added to multiple rooms or even all rooms, not just the occupied space. Adjusting the thermostat almost never ‘just’ raises the heat where you need it. Consequently, because of the cold LED bulb, we waste heat elsewhere in the house, and even down at the power plant.

    This is a fine example of a blind spot existing in the thought process of many eco-warriors: unintended consequences.

  75. Greg Holmes says:

    I bet you have to get them from China now, so more energy used in shipping , great win for Congress.

  76. PaulH says:

    Are the (mercury-free) incandescent bulbs still being manufactured?

  77. Rik Gheysens says:

    Mark says:
    December 16, 2011 at 1:33 am
    It doesn’t matter. I prefer the CFL’s over regular incandescents. And I have really noticed a difference in my electricity bills.

    I did the contrary. I replaced all my CFLs with incandescents and halogens and brought my CFLs to a collection point, even if they were not end-of-life. Now I can say, “my house is CFL free” and I love it! I enjoy of the warm spectrum in every place in my home. I asked myself how I could so stupid to believe the propaganda of the politicians. Earlier, I was a supporter of CFLs. Now, I am a strong proponent of a mercury free lighting. Now, I have the feeling that my home is again my private residence and not the territory of strange thinking politicians.

    So, I have made rid of the CFLs and its disadvantages:
    - The processing of cinnabar is associated with elevated atmospheric Hg emissions. Some reopened mercury mines in China have ruined the environment and the inhabitants: dead rivers, poisoned fields and ailing inhabitants.
    - Any manufacturing process that employs Hg will produce Hg vapor that potentially exposes the workers. In a CFL factory in China, 121 out of 123 employees had excessive mercury levels. One man’s level was 150 times the accepted standard. (Extracts of the article of The Times on line, dated May 3, 2009: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece )
    - The quality of light of CFLs is very poor.
    - Broken CFLs emit noxious gasses and particles, especially dangerous to children.
    - Once in landfill, mercury in broken lamps gets digested by microbes and emitted as methyl mercury which will then be washed out through run off water and thence into the ecosystem.
    - During the recycling process, the distillation requires a substantial amount of energy. If the electricity is supplied by coal fired sources, a new emission of mercury will take place.

    It is a shame that governments only emphasize the profit but hide the noxious consequences to the environment and the health of the people during the manufacturing, use and end-of-life of the CFLs. For CFLs, better substitutes (regarding the environmental impacts, not regarding the individual profit) exist, what means that these lamps are obsolete.
    It is ironical that the last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States has closed in September 2010 (Washington Post) while new factories were opened in China leading to an increase in the construction of coal-fired power plants. A clean production of lamps in the US has been replaced by a new pollution wave in this already pollution-stricken country. One knows that about 75 percent of China’s city dwellers live below the country’s acceptable air-quality standard. (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=6000)
    Our profit at what cost???

  78. Burch says:

    > Personally I absolutely detest CFL’s. I’ve yet to have one last as long as advertised, and they are completely useless for porch lights.

    Like anything, they have their uses, but outside is not one of them. I bought a bunch of CFLs at Costco, with an instant rebate from ComEd – my tax $$’s no doubt – that made them dirt cheap. There are places in my house where the CFLs work well, and they do suck less from the socket, so it’s a win for me.

    That said, I still want the option of incandescent lights for the places where CFLs are not a good choice.

    And what’s with the funky pin-based bulbs? I think we have California to thank for those. I got a three-CFL, domed fixture, from Costco for about $10, including bulbs. I had it installed before I noticed the bulbs weren’t the standard screw-in, but a two-pin thing. I priced the bulbs at Home Depot – Costco doesn’t carry the bulbs in their stores – it would cost about $25 to replace the three bulbs. When they crap out, the whole fixture gets trashed. I suppose I could have just bought a few more of the $10 fixture + bulbs sets for the spares, but that seems ridiculous.

  79. beng says:

    One way to extend the life of I-bulbs is to use the little rectifier-discs (which I still have several but not sure if they’re still available — I got them long ago from a science-surplus website) placed on the end of the bulb. The rectifier cuts the power to the bulb by one-half, so you need a larger-wattage bulb than usual.

    One 60W standard I-bulb that was “on” non-stop over my stove w/a rectifier lasted 4 yrs. Another w/a rectifier in my bathroom (on/off constantly) lasted 3 yrs.

  80. GeoLurking says:

    Adding to Anna Lemma’s response to syncrodox

    Wednesday, September 8, 2010; 9:48 PM

    WINCHESTER, VA. – The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month, marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison’s innovations in the 1870s.

    The remaining 200 workers at the plant here will lose their jobs.

    “Now what’re we going to do?” said Toby Savolainen, 49, who like many others worked for decades at the factory, making bulbs now deemed wasteful.

    http://americaneconomicalert.org/news_item.asp?NID=4328760

    Reporting of:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933_2.html?sid=ST2010090707038

  81. henrychance says:

    J Napolitano what dun it. She was behind this. Had the ban gone into effect, they would have had to close the border to Mexico to prevent bulb trafficking.

  82. Gail Combs says:

    john West says:
    December 15, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    It was a stupid idea and it’s unenforceable. Everyone I know has loaded up on incandescent bulbs to last the rest of their lives. They are cheap and are still available and plentiful….
    ______________________
    My hubby was commenting that the price of LEDs should come down enough in 4 years to make them competitive.

    The guys with the twisty bulbs wanted to make sure they got their return on investment first before the competition wipes them off the face of the earth. Sylvania and General Electric both sell the twisty bulbs.

    Looks like the usual product looking for a customer and when there were not enough customers the corporations got the government to legislate the customers into existence.

    So much for our freedom of “Choice” and if you have any doubt the FDA has made it very plain in a court of law:

    …The legal brief by the FDA actually has the audacity to proclaim in the table of contents such things as:

    + There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food (pg25)

    + There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health. (pg26)

    + There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract (pg 27)
    http://www.newswithviews.com/Hannes/doreen103.htm

    If you have any doubts as to which side the US government is on, Joe Q. Public or their corporate campaign funders look no further than the US courts ruling that Creekstone was BARRED FROM TESTING OF MAD COW DISEASE! (BSE)

    This commenter does a decent job of providing links to the rot within the USDA: http://www.ranchers.net/forum/about29636.html

    Other stories I read stated the USDA was worried about “Consumer Confidence” in beef products and that was the reason they wanted NO Testing. BFD, require Creekstone to freeze samples and if there is a case of positive results notify the USDA to come and preform a second test. It is done in drug testing all the time and the procedure is codified in DOT regs.

    Again the history of the consistent behavior of the US Congress is what is note worthy. Requiring low flow toilets or twisty bulbs is an annoyance but when our food system becomes fair game and the number of food borne illnesses (CDC stats) skyrocket as a result then it passes in from fraud to murder IMHO. (Yes people have died -horribly and the USDA/FDA did nothing http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf )

    (These are notes from 2008 and the links maybe dead. I provide the info as ammunition to use against those who see MORE government as the solution. Prior to 1995 our food safety system worked just fine then the government mucked it up so it now favors the multinationals and not the consumer.)

    A Food and Drug Administration plan to close seven of 13 field laboratories has angered some lawmakers, government workers and safety advocates… http://business.highbeam.com/435343/article-1G1-163010471/closing-fda-food-drug-testing-labs-worry-advocates

    Tuberculosis Surveillance in California Cattle dropped from 10,576 in 1995 to a low of 1,425 in 1999. http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/vetext/INF-BE_cca/INF-BE_cca02/INF-BE_cca0207-08.html

    USDA Raises Import Standards
    For Mexican Cattle
    April 2001, the USDA’s Veterinary Services published an interim rule requiring Mexican feeder steers to originate from herds that had recently been tested for TB. The USDA then agreed to grant waivers to the whole-herd testing…. http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/02/03/14/whltahctb.asp

    Cattle crossing facilities on the U.S. side of the border are operated primarily by private firms… at Santa Teresa, NM, Chihuahuan cattle producers [Mexican] operate both sides of the cattle port-of-entry http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/Agoutlook/june2001/AO282d.pdf

    RESULTS

    For Mexican Feeder Cattle in Effect April 1, 2002… Dr. Logan… said, the disease is extremely rare in U.S. herds. How ever, more TB-lesioned cattle are being detected at slaughter, and ear tags indicate that many of these animals are of Mexican origin. http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/news/pr/2002/302TBMx.pdf

    “The high prevalence of bovine tuberculosis in Mexican cattle was discussed. A multiagency investigation in New York city identified 35 cases of human M. bovis infection. Fresh cheese from Mexico was identified as the likely source of infection” (Winters et al., 2005). http://www.nzfsa.govt.nz/science/riskprofiles/FW0320_Mbovis_in_meat_final_May_2006.pdf

    It is anticipated that both New Mexico and California will lose their TB “free” status in 2008 ~ AGENCY STRATEGIC PLAN: FOR THE FISCAL YEARS 2009-2013 PERIOD by TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION

    The USDA now reports “The number of carcasses found infected with TB is 15 times higher than in 1986.” http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/16/us/free-trade-accord-ranchers-increased-trade-mexican-cattle-brings-rise-disease-us.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

  83. I bought 2 cases of Sylvania 100 watters at Lowe’s last weekend. Oh well. At least they pulled their ads from that Moslem “reality” show.

  84. PaulH says:

    It looks like the ban was NOT repealed after all:

    http://junkscience.com/2011/12/16/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/

  85. beng says:

    ****
    Blade says:
    December 16, 2011 at 6:43 am

    ****

    Another clever, funny & thru-the-heart smackdown delivered. Thanks.

  86. John Cooper says:

    Since the 2007 law hasn’t been repealed, it seems to me that any retailer selling 100W incandescent will still breaking the law, even if the feds “promise” not to enforce it.

  87. RobW says:

    I don’t know what others have found but my experience is the “new improved non-incandescent” bulbs last only as long as incandescent bulbs and NO LONGER. But hey I get to produce more toxic waste so that is “green”, right?

  88. Plain Jane says:

    To Ole of Denmark.

    I’ve been forced to use the new bulbs for 4 years now. I am not getting used to them. I am getting more angry. I am also getting more broke. They do not save any money. They cost a lot of money to buy. They do not last long at all. They break easily. Most of the alternative lights mean replacing fittings. If you turn them on and off a lot they don’t use less power I am told, perhaps more knowledgable people here know if that is correct or not.

    You assume that the power supply is constant. When it is not they don’t work correctly. Those stupid CFL bulbs are dim and dark, they take 10 minutes to warm up. If you want to just walk across a room and then turn them off they are less efficient than the old ones and they won’t light up much anyway, at least the ones they sell to us don’t.

    I have crushed one over my head by accident as I put it in, not realising how delicate they are at first. They don’t work well in sideways vs vertical situations. Leds require me to change all my light fittings. I live an hour out of the nearest small town. It would probably cost me $2000 – $3000 to change light fittings as the call out fee from the only electrician in town is enormous. Many of the fittings in the house are for 60 Watt so I can’t use the 200 watt with a dimmer alternatives some people mention.

    Ole I don’t know how old you are, I guess you are probably younger than me. I sure as anything can’t read in a room lit by a CFL from the ceiling.

    The toxicity you mention yourself. To read with a CFL bulb I have to be very close to it. I have heard that it is not good to be close. Does anyone know if this is true?

  89. squareheaded said:
    December 15, 2011 at 11:57 pm

    Mark and two Cats says:
    December 15, 2011 at 10:36 pm

    Mark, thanks for the heads up on global drifting, but those cats…
    ———————————————————————————-
    Y’all better smile when you say that, pilgrim…

  90. astonerii says:

    Does defunding them actually stop them from becoming active? Can Obama not just turn the responsibility for enforcing it over to another department?

  91. Amy Ridenour says:

    Astonerii, the original 2007 law empowered/instructed the Energy Department to write and issue regulations to impose the light bulb standards (de facto ban on standard incandescents), beginning 1/1/12. The omnibus spending agreement of Thursday night bans the Energy Department from spending money in FY 2012 to do so, effectively freezing the situation. Because other government departments, unlike Energy, were not empowered to create the regulations, they can’t do it in Energy’s stead.

    If the original bill had empowered the President to slect a department to issue the regulations or empowered multiple departments, then the government could legally do as you suggest under the new agreement, as long as the Energy Department stayed out if it. But it didn’t.

  92. Black Flag says:

    So once again, the Republicans, having been elected to fix the stupidity of the Democrats, have done… nothing.

  93. Robert Hanson says:

    Ole of Denmark says:
    Get used to it…..
    At first I too fumed about the government taking away my personal liberty, and dictating every minute matter of my life. Not to mention the order to go to my local Community Health Clinic for castration. Particularly since they had prohibited the use of any anesthetic during the procedure. But I’ve gotten used to it. I’ve actually learned to love the visits from my Community Minder, who comes by weekly to inform me of the latest decisions of the Central Committee about what I am to eat, wear, read, and think. The portrait of The Obama, painted on velvet, is just so beautiful on my living room wall. And no longer having to waste my time and energy making any personal decisions has given me many more hours a day to watch American Idle, and Dancing with the Czars….

  94. Amy Ridenour says:

    Black Flag, at the risk of defending Republicans, I think that’s a little harsh. Better (in my view) to blame those Republicans who went along with the original de facto ban in 2007 than those who did their best (not that all of them did) to repeal it or block enforcement of it in 2012. In ban itself was buried in a huge energy bill, and quite a few members voted on it without even knowing about the light bulb provision (I freely grant that is no excuse, but it is a result of the fact that govt has grown so large that bills are thousands of pages long and written in a manner that is nearly incomprehensible — and yes, some of the same members who voted for it share meaningful culpability for that, too). SOme who did know now see the error of their ways. One of the strongest backers of repeal was one of the strongest propoents back in 2007. Back to 2011: more than a majority of the members of the House did vote for a full repeal in 2011. Although that bill did not pass the House for technical reasons, had there been hope in hades of it getting through the Senate the House would have voted again and passed the repeal. Since the Senate wasn’t going to even vote on it, let alone for it, the House opted to do the one thing it knew the Senate would find harder to resist — attaching it an appropriations bill. This was done successfully, by which route it ended up in the omnibus, and the Senate/Democrats tried to get it out, and Republicans stuck to their guns, and the Senate/Democrats decided it wasn’t worth fighting for — for now. So Republicans doing “nothing.” IMO, no. They did something bad and then they did something good — though the good has yet to be enough to fully erase the bad. Just my opinion.

  95. John Cooper says:
    December 16, 2011 at 9:24 am
    Since the 2007 law hasn’t been repealed, it seems to me that any retailer selling 100W incandescent will still breaking the law, even if the feds “promise” not to enforce it.

    The ban is not on selling non-exempt incandescents, but on manufacturing and importing them.

    Meanwhile, there are many exceptions: http://donklipstein.com/incban.html – with links to
    the actual legislation.

  96. Arizona CJ says:

    I’m personally very fond of CFL’s, and use a lot of them, BUT, I am very thankful that this reprieve occurred! It’s about freedom of choice. It’s my choice to use CFL’s, and the choice of others to use incandescents. If I value the ability to make my own choice, I must therefor support the right of others to make their own, free from the meddling of nanny state bureaucrats.

  97. Steve Keohane says:

    Since it hasn’t been mentioned above, supposedly CFLs release phenols, naphthalene and styrene. It is recommended that: “They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.”
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8462626/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-contain-cancer-causing-chemicals.html

  98. JPeden says:

    From Wikipedia re: fluorescents: UV light ["small" amounts from fluorescent light!] can affect sensitive paintings, especially watercolors and many textiles. Valuable art work must be protected from light by additional glass or transparent acrylic sheets put between the lamp(s) and the painting.

    I’d been wondering what the hell was causing the green color to fade in some interior light exposed roman shades I’ve got, especially the still exposed to interior light, folded up sections and edges as compared to the covered up sections, since the shades are mostly folded up. I went almost totally fluorescent about 30 years ago – the shades are 20 years old. Maybe it’s the fluorescents?

    I’d also read from a professional photographer that they can fade photographs if not protected.

  99. Rik Gheysens says:

    Statement of ACEEE Executive Director Steven Nadel on the “Light Bulb Provision” in the Omnibus Federal Appropriations Bill (12/16/2011)
    It is unfortunate that some members of Congress have inserted a provision in the federal appropriations bill seeking to derail implementation of lighting efficiency standards enacted in 2007 and signed by then-President Bush. Contrary to misinformation being spread by some lamp standard opponents, the standards do not ban incandescent lamps, but merely require incandescent lamps to be more efficient. Five manufacturers are now producing and selling efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the standards. With the new budget provision, the law is still in effect, but the Department of Energy cannot spend money to enforce it. Law-abiding companies will follow the law. (http://www.aceee.org/blog/2011/12/statement-aceee-executive-director-st ) (Sentence is emphasized by me.)

    What are the names of these five manufacturers and how have they succeeded to meet the imposed lighting effeciency standard for incandescent bulbs?

  100. Amy Ridenour says:

    Rick, the incandescents that meet the standards in their early years are halogen incandescents such as Phillips’ EcoVantage. The pro-banners have consistently pretended nothing will change much because halogens remain legal in the early years. Wait for them to explain to confused consumers that halogens aren’t the same as the common incandescent the public is used to, or that these halogens themselves ultimately get run afoul of the standards (which continue to tighten until 2020) and you will have a long wait.

  101. INCANDESCENTS FOREVER says:

    CHANT IT FROM THE ROOFTOPS!

    SPREAD IT EVERYWHERE!

    HELL NO, WE WON’T CHANGE!
    WE DON’T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!

    HELL NO, WE WON’T CHANGE!
    WE DON’T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!

    HELL NO, WE WON’T CHANGE!
    WE DON’T WANT YOUR COMMIE BULBS!

  102. Rik Gheysens says:

    Amy, I thank you for your reply.
    I have just taken a look in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007.
    1. Halogen bulbs are indeed considered to belong to the GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS. I thought that halogen en incandescent bulbs were two different categories.
    2. RULEMAKING BEFORE JANUARY 1, 2014: The rulemaking (I) shall not be limited to incandescent lamp technologies; and (II) shall include consideration of a minimum standard of 45 lumens per watt for general service lamps.
    This means that, as you predict, halogen lamps will ultimately be excluded from the distribution in commerce. The required 45 lumens per watt can only be reached by the mercury containing CFLs and LEDs.
    How did the authors of this Act evaluate the consequences of the distribution of mercury? Only on two places in section 321 (EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS), I found an answer, but not much encouraging.
    - “Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary, in cooperation with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall submit to Congress a report describing recommendations relating to the means by which the Federal Government may reduce or prevent the release of mercury during the manufacture, transportation, storage, or disposal
    of light bulbs.”
    - “The Administrator shall develop guidelines for the use of energy efficient lighting technologies that contain mercury in child care centers in public building.”

    So we have to prepare us to the worst case scenario if the Act will not be adapted in the near future!

  103. Tamera Ennis says:

    It’s not going to matter whether or not we have stocked the preferred “Edisons.” Big govt. will find a way to prevent us using them- such as by controllable “Smart” Meters. The control freak commies aren’t forcing those unwanted meters down our collective throats for NOTHING! Soon those meters will have the ability to control every watt of energy we use, down to rationing power & mandating a certain “allotment” of usage. So why wouldn’t there be a design in the making for the commie meters to work only with the kind of bulbs the green nazis want, the CFL’s?

    This isn’t “land of the free” anymore! We’ve entered fascism & totalitarianism. This is why the elite hate our Constitution… they must destroy our rights so they can control every aspect of our LIVES!

  104. jason says:

    Sigh. There is no incandescent bulb ban. None. You can buy incandescents meeting the new standard at the store. They even had hearings where they demonstrated the new bulbs, look exactly like the old ones. These standards were consensus standards that were negotiated with industry, THE LIGHTBULB INDUSTRY SUPPORTS THEM AND OPPOSES THIS BILL! If your preferred news media isn’t relating that fact to you (and I noticed WUWT failed in this regard as well…) the smart thing to do would be to never trust them again.

    More facts: if you power an incandescent with coal, you release more mercury by using incandescents than my using CFLs and then breaking them open. Coal contains mercury. But then, a recent post on WUWT tries to tell you that mercury really doesn’t hurt you that much anyway, so don’t worry.

    Oh, plus you’re spending more money by using the old bulbs. It’s called lifecycle cost. You might do a little research.

  105. I remember a great magazine add. On one side of the page there was a picture of a tub of margarine and the text; (loosely) Take blended vegetable oil, boil a 1000degrees C in the presence of a platinum catalyst cool and filter allow to set. To the result add, colour, flavour, stabilizer, vitamins etc.

    On the other side was a picture of a cube of butter. The text above the butter simply said, take cream, add salt and churn.

    The simple incandescent lightbulb made cheaply from harmless materials, glass silica iron alloys.

    Or the high tech materially wasteful, mercurial, curly, fragile, expensive devices which give off a pale unhealthy looking light.

    One is the pinnacle of manufacturing efficiency, dirt cheap.
    The other is complex, high-tech unreliable, toxic and expensive.

    Without the illusion of global warming and the tosh about carbon footprints these light bulbs would never have got off the ground…in the UK the ‘Government’ gave them away by the million…nice promotional deal for the company that was!

    I watch the extreme Warmists squeal and snarl and reel and ramble in the aftermath of Durban
    cluctching blindly for a new scare that will have the same hit..the same impact as the original Global Warming Scare.

    The Coral Reefs are dying.(See picture of healthy reef with CO2 bubbling through it)
    Great farts of Siberian methane mean imminent doom. Yawn
    Mercury…that’s always a good one…fears of deformity…tie in coal and well, you’ve got the most evil stuff in the world.

    Remember the very effective anti smoking campaign that listed the dangerous substances contained in cigarette smoke?
    Same tactic.
    Doesn’t work.
    But mercury in light bulbs will find its way into the ecosystem…thanks for that Greenies…you’ve traded a harmless gas for universal mercury pollution…clowns.

    Also if these things were meant to last like, for ever. How come there’s not one to be seen from the first crop I bought several years ago. (my natural curiousity often leads to dismal purchasing decisions!)

  106. Blade says:

    jason [December 30, 2011 at 12:06 am] says:

    “Sigh. There is no incandescent bulb ban. None. You can buy incandescents meeting the new standard at the store. They even had hearings where they demonstrated the new bulbs, look exactly like the old ones. These standards were consensus standards that were negotiated with industry, THE LIGHTBULB INDUSTRY SUPPORTS THEM AND OPPOSES THIS BILL! If your preferred news media isn’t relating that fact to you (and I noticed WUWT failed in this regard as well…) the smart thing to do would be to never trust them again.”

    ~Sigh~ But there is, well there was (and will be again in 9 months) an incandescent bulb ban. Perhaps you meant to say that they just didn’t call it an ‘incandescent bulb ban’? But wait a minute, they also didn’t call it an ‘alcoholic beverage ban’ either. By your interesting logic, we had no prohibition. Yes, the snakes that slither around the halls of Congress used their usual obfuscation when drafting this Orwellian nonsense. Somehow they just knew that they would rope in a bunch of volunteer trolls to show up at the bottom of stale blog threads to spread their sycophantic propaganda on the virtues of twisty light bulbs for Oceania.

    “More facts: if you power an incandescent with coal, you release more mercury by using incandescents than my using CFLs and then breaking them open. Coal contains mercury. But then, a recent post on WUWT tries to tell you that mercury really doesn’t hurt you that much anyway, so don’t worry.”

    Since the electrical generation is a constant in both scenarios (coal burning at distant ‘source’ power plants) your thought process must assume that CFLs use less power at the local ‘target’ locations thus causing less coal back at the distant ‘source’. However, as usual with the AGW cult, unintended consequences are ignored. In the first scenario (incandescents used at the local ‘target’) the mercury was confined *only* at the distant ‘source’ location. In your scenario, less coal (and less mercury) is used at the distant ‘source’, but large quantities of mercury are now *moved* to the local ‘target’ locations. Like near baby cribs, food stocked kitchens, kids bedrooms, dining rooms, schools, hospitals, etc. God forbid if CFLs were ever actually used in the same quantities as incandescents, because then these large quantities of mercury would instead become hugely massive quantities moved to the local ‘target’ locations.

    As I mentioned in an earlier post, why don’t you buy a case of CFLs and toss handfuls of them onto the floor of the US Senate or your kids school cafeteria. Care to calculate the extra energy that will be required to power the vehicles used by the increased number of hazmat teams required to respond to every broken bulb (not to mention their union salaries and pensions) throughout the country, and the entire world? Compare how many light bulbs you had break in your lifetime versus how many fires you have had. We’ll need more hazmat teams on call than firemen.

    Of course the ‘CFL is better’ scenario also falls apart for other reasons, among them is the myth that American homes with the handful of light bulbs that they require are somehow the true source of consuming vast amounts of electricity. Far more is used for optional decorative lighting and spotlights, and flood lights on buildings in the cities, street lamps, signs, billboards, sidewalks, sports stadiums, casinos, ad infinitum. Going after the homeowner who might be using a handful of Edison bulbs to read and write is stupid beyond words. But knowing the fascistic tendencies of modern socialists, the urge to reach into the home and issue dictates and ultimatums is irresistible. When the day comes that Paris, Las Vegas and NYC go dark, maybe we’ll consider doing the same.

    “Oh, plus you’re spending more money by using the old bulbs. It’s called lifecycle cost. You might do a little research.”

    The reason Edison bulbs are cheap and simple is because they are – cheap and simple. A pure resistive circuit that runs off installed mains wiring, without any control circuitry or step-up transformer, self-contained in a cheap glass bulb is as simple as it can possibly get. As I described above, the fact that the warm glass heats the surrounding air is not a problem when the heat is useful, resulting in 100% efficiency, which surpasses all other ideas in lighting. The drastic consequences of blindly following the AGW nitwits can be illustrated by answering the following questions. What happens when millions of these glowing space heaters are removed from homes across the planet? Where will the replacement heat come from? You see, the heat that you call ‘wasted’ is already factored into the larger equation that addresses the home energy budget big picture. The answer is that millions of thermostats will get nudged up to compensate, resulting in more oil being burned at the home, and this is inefficient in itself because the home heating forced air ducting doesn’t just warm the spot where that evil Edison bulb used to reside. Unintended consequences again.

    Besides, how can anyone take seriously the ludicrous twisty bulb which by its own idiotic design causes some photons to be lost straight back into the glass itself! Doh! Similarly, with LEDs having almost laser beam directionality, any useful dispersion of its photons requires refractory coatings which also eat up some light. So there is waste in *all* designs, none are perfect! The challenge is to use bulbs where they are best suited. We do not require some government ignoramus to lecture us on where to place what type of light bulbs. Well maybe you do, but leave the rest of us the hell alone, thank you very much.

    Lastly, let us not forget that at the root of this fascistic, state sponsored ‘transition’, is the lobbying of such companies as GE, who stand to make a fortune in conveniently supplying the new mercury hand grenades. That huge sum of money needs to be added to the cost benefit analysis and suddenly the ‘cheaper to use’ CFLs and LEDs aren’t so cheap anymore. But if you have already been snookered by the AGW hoax, I guess these last two details are way too inconvenient to consider.

Comments are closed.