Posted on 01/23/2011 10:17:15 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
The brightest bulb in most homes for more than a century is fading toward darkness this year as California turns out the light on the century-old incandescent.
Beginning Jan. 1, the state began phasing out certain energy-sucking bulbs, federal standards the rest of the country will enact next year.
Manufacturers will no longer make the traditional 100-watt bulb and stores will eventually sell out of current supplies. Consumers will have to choose from more efficient bulbs that use no more than 72 watts, including halogen incandescents, compact fluorescents and light-emitting diode, or LED, bulbs.
"These standards will help cut our nation's electric bill by over $10 billion a year and will save the equivalent electricity as 30 large power plants," said Noah Horowitz a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "That translates into a whole lot less global warming pollution being emitted."
The change is part of the federal Energy Independence and Security Act that President George Bush signed in 2007, to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. California was allowed to adopt the national standard one year earlier.
The act requires new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy beginning in 2012 nationally — starting with the 100-watt bulb. By 2014, other incandescent bulbs, including the 75-, 60- and 40-watt, will also be phased out across the country.
Some specialty bulbs, however, will continue to be available. Consumers will still be able to get smaller lights such as yellow bug lights and aquarium bulbs.
Light bulb manufacturers said they haven't gotten any reports of customers hoarding 100-watt bulbs yet, though that may change once supplies begin to dry up and word gets out.
Nick Reynoza, manager at Royal Lighting in Los Angeles, said it's a shame the transition comes at a time when alternatives are so much more expensive.
"It's not really an option — you have this or you don't get anything," he said. "The options are more expensive. Four incandescents are $1.00, the halogens are $5.99 and the LED are like $20."
While conservation groups back the change and the lighting industry has invested heavily in new technology, not everyone supports the law. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who could not immediately be reached for comment, reintroduced legislation this year to repeal the law.
"People don't want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use," said Rep. Barton on his website. "Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable."
Adam Gottlieb, spokesman for the California Energy Commission, acknowledged that the change has resulted in a "great deal of hue and cry" on some blogs as well. Recent postings have included the titles "More dim bulbs: California banning 100-watt incandescent light bulbs" and "More evidence that California is nuts."
Gottlieb, however, said it was not a ban and that consumers can still buy whatever bulbs they want as long as they meet the new standards.
"After 130 years Tom Edison's old-fashioned light bulb is getting a 20th century makeover," he said. "The simple truth is consumers will save money."
The newer bulbs are more expensive than incandescents, but supporters of the technology say they last so much longer that there is a financial savings in the end. For example, while incandescents provide as much as 2,000 hours of light, compact fluorescents can provide light for six times longer.
Incandescents, which create light by passing an electric current through a tungsten wire filament, also waste 90 percent of the electricity they use as heat instead of light. Fluorescents, by comparison, apply an electrical current to different types of phosphers to produce light and produce less heat.
But fans of the traditional bulb say they provide a softer, more natural light and turn on more quickly. Michael Petras, president of GE Lighting, said the industry is aware of the shortcomings and is working to refine the technology.
"We've got compact fluorescents that look like incandescents," he said from the company's headquarters in Cleveland. "We have a product coming out this spring that's a hybrid of compact fluorescent and halogen that will provide energy savings and a better start up time."
Australia was the first to begin phasing out incandescents beginning in 2009, followed by the European Union, the Philippines and Argentina, said Petras. Mexico and Brazil are expected to follow the U.S.
“Remember when Jimmy Carter tried to convert the country to the metric system...I predict it will be like that. A flop.”
If Nancy Pelosi heard that, she’d say, “You’re just lucky we don’t legislate candles in all houses!”.
I do not use CFL curly lights in my house and they have all been replaced with incandescent Thomas Edison traditional light bulbs. The color temperature of the CFL was unpleasant and they had short light spans-—yes, I threw them out into the burn pit on my back 40 as farm animals don’t care (this is terribly politically incorrect but I live in Montana and don’t give a sh-t) and no I did not call the haze mat teams for disposal. I did use LED Christmas tree lights and felt comfortable with leaving them on for an extended time. My grandparents used wax candles on their trees. Once LED’s have improved and delivering as much light as an incadescant bulb I will use them.
The GE's have always lasted many years because they burn for a miniscule amount of time per day. They don't get turned on during the day and we have LED nightlights all around the house which allows us to navigate the house at night without turning on a switch.
Smuggling incandescent light bulbs to California is going to be a huge way to make money pretty soon.
Actually it was my parents in their childhood that used wax candles on Christmas trees My grandparents were recovering from the destruction of the Civil War.
Can’t wait until they introduce reusable toliet paper....more sh*t for these libs to think of.
What about the influx of so much mercury?
Only for a year as the rest of the country will have the bulbs banned starting next year (unless sanity returns).
Be aware that those have been on backorder. I ordered some on January 2; they’re supposed ship this week.
The new prohibition!
Got to think up a good name for my crime family.
The Incandescents?
The Lumens?
The things you don’t know eh ~ it’s packed by Heinz!
No. That was my point. There is no “fake beef flavor” in Heinz ketchup. Or any ketchup.
There is a coating on the french fries that has an allergen warning.
Here's the deal ~ McDonalds uses a lot of artificial and "natural" flavor enhancers. Those are listed as Natural Beef Flavor or Artificial Beef Flavor. The "artificial" item has wheat. The "beef" may have wheat.
Their site showing details on micro ingredients is not working this evening ~ but just a couple of weeks ago it was up and showing "stuff", so maybe it's down for adjustment. They warn you about that ~ there are NO guarantees that there are gluten free products at McDonald's ~ and there are NO guarantees that there are beef free products at McDonald's so beware.
I usually know within 1/2 hour if they've changed something previously gluten free into its poisonous counterpart!
Whatever you’re smoking ~ I’d start selling that stuff ~ make a gazillion megabucks Fur Shur.
Hey it is not just me!! However, I think I helped start the theory many years ago in Silicon Valley over a few pitchers of Anchor Steam.
http://wearcam.org/theory_of_darkness.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=5532.0
What that means is wherever you are you get what they want to give you, and you don't know what it is unless you already know.
ALL ketchups I reviewed for ingredients referred to "flavors".
Whether it says "natural" or "fake" a "flavor" can be made from any sort of thing, and it'll say "natural" if its made from a plant or animal. If it's made from "dirt" it won't say that. If it's made at US Flavors it'll say "artificial".
That "coating" isn't always what you imagine it to be. McDonald's has been advertising "grated" hashbrowns for a year or so ~ before that they noted they were just "hashbrowns" . I presume that grating replaces the trick of adding flour to make them fry fuzzy! Or, maybe it cut costs to remove the flour so they could cook them in the french fryer.
Whatever, I can eat their hashbrowns now and haven't been doing that for quite some time because I'd be sick in 1/2 hour.
I suspect McDonalds is not officially interested in keeping up with gluten free currents but they actually are making an effort to pull back from the flour trick so that we can stop there and eat stuff.
And that stuff McDonald’s used to sell that they called “coffee”. What the heck was that stuff?
The new McD’s coffee is pretty good. But that old stuff was worse than day-old campfire coffee.
I think the pots were the problem. Not the water. But I have had McDonald’s coffee where water was the problem.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.