Posted on 07/12/2011 11:54:11 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Republicans have introduced a repeal of federal lightbulb standards in the House, which effectively ban older-style incandescent bulbs, but Democrats in the chamber have begun uniting to defeat it. Thanks to the way the bill made it to the floor, it needs a 2/3rds majority to pass — and that looks doubtful at best:
House Democrats on Monday indicated strong opposition to a controversial bill to repeal federal lightbulb standards, which could lead to the defeat of the measure in an expected Tuesday vote.
The Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, H.R. 2417 would end federal bulb standards passed in 2007 that Republicans have since held up as a prime example of federal overreach. House Republicans brought up the bill under a suspension of the rules, which requires two-thirds of voting members to support it.
That means even though a majority might support it, it is unlikely to be approved Tuesday in light of Democratic opposition.
Suspension votes are generally reserved for non-controversial bills, although this is not the first time Republicans have risked failure by putting a bill on the suspension calendar. In February, for example, the House rejected two bills in this manner — one instructing the Obama administration to seek repayment from the United Nations, and other to extend Patriot Act surveillance authorities.
I’m not sure why the bill was introduced under a suspension of the rules. The GOP may have wanted to rush it to the floor, as they have been attracting some heat (pun intended) over their lack of energy (yes, I’m having fun) about overturning the 2007 law. The Hill doesn’t explain the strategy behind that decision, but the Christian Science Monitor reports that it could be added later as a rider to another bill. The Monitor also explains the mechanics of the so-called “ban”:
Even if it does succeed, it would need to pass the Senate and be signed by the president – a very dubious prospect. It is possible, however, that the issue could reemerge as a rider to a budget bill or a bargaining chip in debt negotiations, analysts say. …
Contrary to claims frequently made by conservative talk radio, bloggers, and some news media outlets, incandescent light bulbs are not actually being “banned.” Incandescent bulbs with newer, more efficient technology will still be for sale, because the 2007 law does not single out any particular lighting technology. It only requires light bulbs to meet higher levels of efficiency if they are to be sold.
Under that law, general-purpose light bulbs must become about 30 percent more energy efficient. Different bulb classes face different deadlines, all between 2012 and 2014. The old Edison bulb gets killed on January 1, 2012. But more-efficient incandescent bulbs, which use only 72 watts to give the same output as an old 100-watt Edison bulb, will still be sold.
While Edison bulbs today are about 30-50 cents apiece, updated versions cost $1.50. But the latter pay for themselves in energy savings in about six months.
The old incandescent bulb is clearly an energy hog. Just 5 percent of the electricity it uses lights the bulb – the rest ends up as heat.
Well, this is a nitpicking fact-check from the Monitor, which normally does better work. The standards make production and sale of cheap incandescents illegal, which is effectively a ban no matter how one gets to that position. More efficient incandescents can still be purchased, but the lifespan of those may not be much greater than the cheaper alternatives, which means that it gets expensive to replace them. That may save energy, but the increased costs hit those with lower incomes hardest, who may not be able to wait six months for break-even points on spending. At least that’s better than what happens with the CFLs that green advocates have pushed as the alternative, which require hazmat abatement for disposal, thanks to the mercury used in their manufacture.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu defended the government action to remove the choice for Americans on light-bulb efficiency, saying “We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money.” I wasn’t aware that government’s role was to exercise veto power on my personal spending choices, at least not when the product itself isn’t illegal for reasons of public safety. Neither was Mark Steyn:
I wonder if Secretary Chu has any idea how stupid this argument sounds from an administration that has wasted more of other people’s money than anybody else on the planet. Secretary Chu and his colleagues took a trillion dollars of “stimulus” and, for all the stimulating it did, might as well have given it in large bills to Charlie Sheen to snort coke off his hookers’ bellies with. (In my weekend column, I touch on only the most lurid and outrageous of the government’s many smart investment decisions: its use of stimulus dollars to stimulate the Mexican coffin industry.) …
There’s a limit to the amount of damage I can do wasting my own money. There are no limits to the damage Chu & Co can do wasting my money.
John Hinderaker notes a few of his wastes of money over the years to make a point:
I’ve wasted my money from time to time. I once bought a pair of bell-bottom jeans. I took Susie W. on a date. I bought a Cuban cigar when I was in the Caribbean. I contributed to Jimmy Carter’s presidential campaign. But I always figured that was my business–it was, after all, my money.
Bell-bottom jeans? This man needs a government intervention! (By the way, don’t miss out on your chance to enter the Power Line $100,000 Prize — this might make a good topic.)
Are more efficient light bulbs a wiser consumer choice? Certainly, if one can afford to make that choice. Lean chicken is a wiser choice than ground hamburger, too, and Honda CRVs better than most GM choices in similar classes. That doesn’t mean that we need government standards that impose those choices on free citizens.
That is, the heat benefits of the bulbs. Figure that, for the most part, the lights will be be turned on when it's dark (piercing observation, I know). That'll be more during the colder, winter months and less during the warmer, summer months.
I wonder what percentage of household heating the bulbs contribute during the cooler months? Do CFLs (or LEDs) merely shift energy consumption from "Electric Lighting" to "Heating"?
Doesn't really matter to me, I use incandescents, and have no desire to switch. It's just one of those unintended consequences that my engineering mind ponders.
First they came for our light bulbs
But I wasn’t a light bulb so I did not stand to object...
Or the benefits of heat (aka “Warming”) in general. Funny thing, but if the mythical “Global Warming” is so bad, why is the ecosystem in tropical regions so much richer than in the Arctic and why do people (in our hemisphere) generally vacation and retire in a southerly direction?
RE: First they came for our light bulbs
Well, don’t stop now, I’m waiting for the final punch line...
RE: Doesn’t really matter to me, I use incandescents, and have no desire to switch
Well, the question is, what are you going to do come January 2012 when even selling them is outlawed?
The underlying point is that no one on our side is making this an "either/or" issue. If you like fluorescents, knock yourself out. What is reprehensible is the prohibition on a product that has served us well for decades, and which is objectively safer for personal use than its alternative.
This is preposterous, nanny-state governance writ large (or small, depending on your point of view). The fundamental question: if they can ban incandescents, what would keep them from banning anything they choose?
WRONG!!! FALSE!!! INCORRECT!!! ERRONEOUS!!!
I'll grant that they may not "last for crap" in your house. Some of my friends have had similar poor experiences with them. I, and many other of my friends, have found them to last for an undetermined time. That is, the "curly bulbs" we installed 5 years ago are still working just fine. I have several rooms (garage and basement) with a mix of Edison lights and compact fluorescent lights on the same circuit. Edison lights have been replaced several times, CFL have not.
AND they don’t work in the COLD FREEZING WEATHER, like my shed!....................
I don’t mind the light CFLs give off but, they don’t last near as long as touted. And the warmup time is annoying.
I’ve been told by someone w/ the power Co. that they have to run 15 min. before you start getting any savings.
So I’ve started going back to incandescents in some fixtures.
LEDs are way too expensive and I question the longevity.
While the actual LED may last, what about the other electronics in the light?
In my kitchen I went through 3 sets of (5) mercury bulbs while the incandescents kept chugging along. Outdoor lights on the other hand have been around over 4 years.
I hate liberal busybodies.
I also hate bull$#!++ers. I especially hate "conservative" bull$#!++ers ... they make honest conservatives look bad.
Your generalized comment that compact flourescent lights "don't last for crap" is simply false. It's wrong. It's incorrect. It makes the rest of us look bad by association. You're in a hole. Stop digging.
That’s what I find puzzling about the CFL vs EL situation. The CFL work very well in some places, and spectacularly poorly in some places. I haven’t seen any kind of pattern.
I have bought these crappy bulbs fro several sources, Sam’s, Wal-Mart, Big Lots, et al. They are all crap!
My ceiling fans eat those things! I have six in the house and each has 3 -4 of those bulbs. They die in less than a year. When it gets cold, the porch light and the shed light comes on dim and stays dim until it warms up in about 5 minutes or they don’t come on at all.
And another thing I have noticed, when a circuit that has several of them on it is turned on, the motion detector lights outside the house will suddenly come on! Must be some kind of electromagnetic spike on the line that triggers them!................
I figure that I'll eventually switch to LED's. The fact that they'll never need to be replaced, coupled with the lower power consumption, will make them cost effective. But not yet, not at current prices.
I do have one LED in place now, it's at my Dad's house, in a fixture that's @#$#@@$ near impossible to get to. It's been going for a good while now - couple of years or so - so I'd call it a "success".
Add NE winters also.
Fred Upton brought the bill up this way to be sure it failed. He was one of the people who sponsored the original bill this bill would amend. He knew this bill couldn’t get a super majority.
2) I see a need to place proper emphasis on your statements, so that you understand where you're going wrong.
"My ceiling fans eat those things!"
"I have six in the house and each has 3 -4 of those bulbs."
I don't doubt the truth of either of those statements.
However, to to assert that your experience, in your house is in any way predictive of what everyone else will experience is ridiculous.
My experience with them is entirely positive. None have burned out. All provide equivalent light to similarly rated Edison bulbs in the same room on the same circuit. All provide full light within about 10 seconds.
I would be wrong (as you are wrong) to generalize my experience.
If I were still teaching high school physics, I would use this conversation to illustrate the utter fatuity of extrapolation from a single data point.
Solution: in the short run, don't fight it, just stop using CFL’s in the ceiling fans. When you are looking to replace the ceiling fans talk to the salesman about this issue, see if they've redesigned the fans so the motor and the lights aren't on the same circuit. In fact there's no reason you can't just drop by this weekend and talk to someone at the store nearby that sells ceiling fans and see what they have to say. They might have a better idea than I do.
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.