LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms

Associated Press ^ | 16 May 2011 | Peter Svensson

[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.

[UniqueViews]

Why is the government mandating what kind of bulbs I can use and how much water I can use in my bathroom?

We are all frogs in a pot, slowly being cooked.

Pretty soon the government will be the one deciding everything we do and we will have no say in it.

[UniqueViews]

“I never thought I would be hoarding light bulbs like I live in Cuba or North Korea.”

Because you will soon be living in a country that is as much of a dictatorship as Cuba and N. Korea...

[Uncle Ike]

” We are all frogs in a pot, slowly being cooked. “

Might as well go ahead and break out the (government mandated low-sodium) saltines - frog soup’s just about done....

[Pelham]

“I paid 300.00 for my first caculator a desk model, two years later a Texas instrument pocket model cost 35.00. Today about two to five dollars for a pocket model.”

Good point, and that price action is what is going to happen with LEDs as well.

Not that the politicians who took it upon themselves to ban incandescents should be let off without a serious caning.

[Jonty30]

Not that I am wishing anybody here ill-will.

I’m just looking at the humorous side of the issue. :)

[PA Engineer]

Watts..... Lumens......

Caught that. Could not find the actual wattage or lumens anywhere in the article. AP. Not the brightest bulbs in the journalist world.

[tubebender]

Or I can walk out to my storage shed and pick a NOS 100 bulb off the shelf...

[Pelham]

well said.

[Bryan24]

“not the brightest bulbs....”

LOL.... Good one.

[sheana]

I have 30 sockets in my house that take original bulbs. That is not counting outside and the garage.
That is $1500 for lightbulbs. These people are raving idiots.

[mo]

shhh...I’m building 99W incadescents in my basement.....

[The Duke]

I guess the retirees just get to eat that one along with inflation.

It just gives retirees a something to leave to the next generation (or they can go with those mercury-tainted "cancer grow lites" they're selling now).

Or, better yet, we could toss the NWO crowd out of DC.

[ken21]

not to mention you can no longer buy mercury thermometers.

we have the ear and temple new versions and they are inaccurate.

finally, my doc sold me a mexican mercury thermometer.

[Clyde5445]

“I know that some firm was selling incandescents as ‘heating devices’ rather than light bulbs in order to get around the ban.”

That’s what they did in Europe to get around their ban.

[Republican Wildcat]

The color of light these new bulbs gives off is rather depressing...it ruins the color of everything. Sort of like daylight with thick cloud cover vs. sunlight. The quality of light they give off is absolutely inferior to traditional bulbs.

[rlmorel]

I don't have an issue with the lights themselves. If people want to use them, that is their business if they want to pay the money and a manufacturer thinks they can make money by producing them. What I take issue with is government bureaucrats taking my money via confiscatory taxes, TELLING me how to spend the money they leave me, then passing legislation to DRIVE up the cost of energy so we are FORCED to spend more money to drive our cars, heat our homes and turn on our lights, whether they be incandescent or CFL. These bastards think they are doing us a big favor because they think they know best, and are trying to twist our arms to accept their utopian crap. They think if energy costs go up high enough, their plans to harness unicorn flatulence or whatever will become economically viable.

Well I don't care to take part in their damned experiments. If my town wants to purchase LED based traffic and street lights because it saves the town money and is a guaranteed return on investment, then power to them. If people want these CFL lights in the marketplace as an alternative to make their homes more energy efficient, then I think is is fine and would never say boo to anyone so inclined. Actually, my issue is not even residential lighting. Making citizens purchase stuff we don't want and don't need is NOT going to solve any kind of energy shortage. It is the equivalent of selling carbon credits or putting a magnetic sticker on the back of a car. It is Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and telling us to turn our thermostats down.

So to make my point that forcing all of us to use these things, have to pay MORE money to buy them (even though most of us have found they don't last nearly as long as the government says they do) Here an the original unaltered graph from Livermore Labs/DOE which I think is a very, very good graphical representation (reflecting the situation in 2009):

As shown below, I cut out a part of that graph and marked it up. Of the four major sectors, residential is the second smallest using just 4.65% of generated electrical power as shown by the graph. Government statistics say lighting consumes 12% of 4.65% of electricity flowing into a house. In the inset (enlarged) part shows the 4.65% pipeline with the red stripe on it showing the lighting share, and the green stripe showing what it would be if we assume 10% efficiency compared to CFL for incandescent bulbs. (The orange pipe leading into the box signifies the RESIDENTAL SECTOR of the energy grid and is representative of energy generated from all sources)

I didn't get this image from some anti-enviroweenie website. I made it myself after analyzing the data on the graph and government data such as estimates of how much lighting uses. And it illustrates the point I make, backed up with the government's own data, that forcing us to do this via statist legislation is basically ANOTHER camel nose in the figurative tent...BECAUSE THEY CAN.

If the market really wanted these lightbulbs, they would have made it on their own without government legislation. But, in my opinion, buying into this without a fight just exacerbates this statist mess we are in covering everything from legislation against transfats and salt in the diet to the amount of water we can flush down our toilet. Liberals think this is great because it is their pet thing that they have bought hook, line and sinker, running around screaming that we are running out of energy. Surrendering to this just invites the government to intrude into EVERY facet of our life.

I don't disparage people for choosing CFL's as a stand to take. I believe I have the data (shown graphically here) to indicate that using CFL's in houses isn't going to save us from anything. It is just a piece of do-gooder legislation that only does just that...makes guilty people feel good. I readily admit that one can make an argument for commercial/industrial building codes and so on, and I might buy into it and agree, the same as I agree with towns purchasing led-based traffic lights. However, building codes are so top heavy with bureaucracy now that I would fight against mandating these in commercial use on those grounds alone.

By my home is my home. And we have gone far too long allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot do on our own quarter acre of land, small as it is. I am sick to death of it.

[ExTexasRedhead]

Stock up on 100 watt bulbs now.

[razbinn]

I have been picking up 6 four-packs of bulbs each week with the groceries at Walmart.84 cents per pack,21 cents per bulb.been doing this since last June...

[balls]

Don’t buy Sylvania bulbs, they are total crap. I have to replace them constantly and the latest one blew the first time I turned it on. We don’t have much choice, there are only a few incadescent bulb producers left, and I think all are in China.

[BobP]

Libs can buy them with Ben & Jackwagon's Monopoly money.