Congress suspends light bulb ban funding

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.

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

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.

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

“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.

Great news if true……..

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.

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.

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!!!!!

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?

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.

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.

….Enter your comment here

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

> 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.

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

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

It looks like the ban was NOT repealed after all:
http://junkscience.com/2011/12/16/light-bulb-ban-not-repealed/

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.

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?

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

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!

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.

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.