Welcome to your new federal lighting tax. Starring GE as the Taxman.
Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
View past Libertarian pings here
Posted on 05/16/2011 5:49:24 PM PDT by verum ago
NEW YORK – Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs. The technology in traditional "incandescent" bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it's used in Hasbro's Easy-Bake Oven.
To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Gore brings back $640 toilet seat.. http://bit.ly/j8OPxm
And, that will happen.. They go after the Amish in that manner for selling wholesome, safe milk just because it’s unpasteurized. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/28/feds-sting-amish-farmer-selling-raw-milk-locally/ Who gave them this much power?
I’m only concerned with inexpensive bulbs that last MY lifetime. What’s wrong with that?
The reason that AC power is used to supply homes power instead of DC the issue of transmission. The I2R loss is huge with the low voltage, by using AC (which is easily stepped up in voltage by a transformer) they overcome that obstacle. The problem with locally generated DC power is how to get enough "alternate source" power to run Air Conditioning and appliance. I am simple enough in lifestyle to be able to adapt to that, but my wife is not. It would be a bit spartan.
Most devices (PCs, TVs, etc.) convert AC to DC and use DC for power... except for appliances that have AC motors like Air Conditioners and Fridges. Darn. So anything that uses converted DC could be given a secondary DC power port in addition to the AC line cord.
Also, there is the voltage advantage for AC. Max DC voltage, without extra protection, is 60VDC. AC is around 120VAC in the US. You can probably run higher than 60VDC throughout the house, but it may have to be managed.
The general rule of thumb (subject to your electric utility rates) is that it costs about $100 to power a 100 watt incandescent light bulb continuously for a whole year.
I doubt you will keep a light bulb burning continuously, more likely only 8 hours a day, so it'd cost you $33 to power that 100 watt incandescent light bulb during a year's time.
The article doesn't really specify the efficiency of the new 100-watt-equivalent led light bulbs, except for this: "However, 60-watt bulbs are the big prize, since they're the most common. [snip] The energy savings that could be realized by replacing them with 10-watt LED bulbs is staggering." From this, it's suggested that they'll use 1/6 the energy for the same amount of light.
If that's true, then replacing your 100 watt incandescent light bulb ($0.32/bulb, $33/year @ 8hrs/day) with a 100-watt-equivalent led bulb ($50/bulb, $5.50/year @ 8hrs/day) works out like this: Assuming you have to replace the incandescent bulb once per year (mine don't seem to last very long), but that the LED bulb will last at least three years, this is the break down:
Year one running total:
Incandescent: $0.32 + $33 = $33.32
LED: $50 + $5.50 = $55.50
Year two running total:
Incandescent total: $33.32 + $0.32 + $33 = $66.64
LED total: $55.50 + $5.50 = $61.00
Year three running total:
Incandescent total: $66.64 + $0.32 + $33 = $133.28
LED total: $61.00 + $5.50 = $66.50
You can see you reach break-even in year two, and start to realize substantial savings in year three. That's a pretty good ROI, assuming the LED bulbs don't need to be replaced often.
I had a number of bulbs burn out a year ago. My son had a device that measured the current coming into the house and it was way high (170 volts). I called the electric company and even though the person on the phone sounded skeptical, they sent someone out within the hour. The guy measured the same 170 volts. He then went out and measured every house on the street. They all had the same voltage but I was the only one who noticed. This was a dangerous situation but fortunately easy to fix. One hour and one new transformer later the electricity was back to 120v and the bulbs quit burning out.
I didn’t read all the responses on this thread to see if this was already mentioned, but I have to say that the title of the article is just plain stupid.
What uses more energy? A 100w incandescent bulb or a 100w LED?
I did note a "latency period" as well as shortened distance when I tried one in my garage door opener. Also read about the fire hazards they can sometimes cause.
Your calculations need adjusting, if you ever have cause to heat your house.
Flipside is in the South, those CFLs are gold, precisely because they don’t put out that heat. I love mine and likely when LEDs become more affordable I’ll give that a go too.
Same bulb for several years, and not requiring more ac and putting more strain on computer parts from high ambient temperatures...well worth the difference to me.
That said...anyone should be able to buy the bulb that fits their needs. Keep the law out of it!
I don’t know if yours is the same story, but here on Long Island, they did indeed have to waste taxpayer money and manpower to clear away the snow and ice from the traffic signals outfitted with those STUPID government bulbs.
Regards,
The LEDs may be brighter, but who in the hell wants to have his dining room lit up like a surgical theater? I sure don’t.
Bottom line, the government has NO DAMNED BUSINESS telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use.
I’m sorry I shouted at you, Old Forester...I’m just ticked off at what’s happened to my country.
Regards,
Why couldn't you have a DC power pack exclusively for LED lighting in each room (or pair of rooms)and have it constantly charged from the AC wall outlet?
I have at least 100 of the soon to be outlawed bulbs.
I just pick em up here and there and toss em in storage.
I don’t think I will go through them in my lifetime.
I have lamps that have the original bulbs from 20 years ago.
I've been noticing for a while that the regular bulbs (40, 60 and 100 watts) from Wally World and Lowe's aren't lasting as long as usual.
Don't think it's my imagination.
Been picking up 95 watters at the dollar store as well.
Have no idea if they last long but what the heck, I got 4 for one dollar.
I think there are 48 to a case and I have one case.
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.