Posted on 06/02/2011 4:41:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
WASHINGTON--America doesn't usually have shortages. Consumers as a rule can find what they want to buy at stores or online. But in 212, days, on January 1, 2012, Americans won't be able to buy 100-watt incandescent light bulbs, the kind Thomas Edison invented and the only kind many of us know-and prefer.
That's because incandescent light bulbs are being phased out by wattage over a two-year period, starting January 2012. The 100-watt bulb will be the first to be outlawed, by act of Congress, followed by 75-watt bulbs in January 2013, and 60- and 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
So consumers who want to stock up have seven months to buy 100-watt bulbs, 19 months to buy 75-watt bulbs, and 31 months to buy 60- and 40-watt bulbs.
The legislation outlawing the 130-year old light bulb was introduced in 2007 by then-Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat who resigned in February, and Representative Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican. The bill was rolled into the Energy Independence and Security Act, signed by President George W. Bush in December 2007.
The reason for ending the use of incandescent bulbs is to save energy. They burn more electricity than do several newer types of bulbs.
Mr. Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While lobbying among Republicans for the position, he promised to try to repeal the section of the 2007 energy bill that prohibits incandescent bulbs.
"We have heard the grass roots loud and clear, and will have a hearing early next Congress," he said last December. "The last thing we wanted to do was infringe upon personal liberties - and this has been a good lesson that Congress does not always know best."
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearmarkets.com ...
Mr. Upton is now chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. While lobbying among Republicans for the position, he promised to try to repeal the section of the 2007 energy bill that prohibits incandescent bulbs.
Didn’t President Bush sign this garbage?
Thank you! That seems easy enough.........
This one below is my favorite graph of all time, because it shows up to five different data points in a brilliant design that intuitively lets you see all of them at a easily and can be understood at a glance!
It describes Napoleon's advance on and retreat from Moscow...I am amazed every time I look at it. His army was destroyed. Amazing.
He left France and advanced on Moscow with 422,000 men and came back with 10,000. Good God.
Yep. I view Woodrow Wilson as the real start of it. That despicable statist do-gooder was a pox on our country, and the pustules are bursting now.
I hate having to look at his damned face every time I pull a dime out of my pocket.
Our total rejected energy is more than our total energy use.
In electricity generation, we lose 2/3 of our energy to waste.
In transportation, 3/4 of our energy is wasted (hence looking at MPG isn't a terrible idea... I just wonder why it is the primary focus of Congress. Actually, I don't. It's about control.)
Lobbyists. One thing the anti-capitalist anti-corporate "green" dew-eyed Left doesn't get is that their adamant insistence on forcing their ways & views in fact creates opportunities for well-connected capitalist environment-agnostic cold-hearted corporations to cozy up to legislators and enforce laws that make them gobs of money. The light-bulb industry must be pretty stable and entrenched in incandescents; what better for CFL makers than to encourage passage of a law which bans the competition and forces the wholesale replacement of billions of units at steep profits? The best thing the anti-corporate Left could do for their cause is stop creating high barriers which only deep-pocket companies can cross, and who like the idea of stopping smaller companies cold, with a mere few million in campaign contributions.
Like mercury bulbs it's about control, not results.
Buy you dishwasher detergent from a restaurant supply company or get it online. And start stocking up.
Ping to Post #43. I remember you mentioning this a while back; never had the pleasure of seeing it myself ‘til now. As usual, you were right.
Exactly right you are!
It is a SPIT in the bucket to make people THINK the statists are trying to do something to reduce energy usage or use it more efficiently.
The powerlines is something I have thought about for a long time. I always thought that if we could ever produce cheap, room temperature superconductive material that could be drawn into wire, our energy issues would be solved.
Just think about how having room temperature superconducting wires would completely revolutionize the energy grid. All that loss...
The other thing that is interesting about that graph (the unaltered one) is the teeny, tiny 0.12% net energy imports (the nearly invisible line the juts out of the top of the mustard colored line like a stray hair from a cowlick...what the heck is THAT? Electricity imported from Mexico or Canada?
...er...that is 0.12% net ELECTRICITY imports, not energy imports...
And while you’re at it, Freddie, how’s about repealing that moronic toilet regulation that forces the rest of us to either deal with toilets that do not flush right, or to shell out megabucks for a throne that actually works?
Republicans keep talking and talking and talking about this...but the never seem to actually DO anything about it...does not give me a lot of warm fuzzies.
Thanks for the graph.
Actually, the energy savings from abandoning incandescents is even less than that illustrated in the graph.
As I always point out when this topic is raised, it’s automatically assumed that the 90 - 95% of energy not given off as light in an incandenscent is wasted. That is sometimes true, but usually not.
That remaining energy is lost as heat. Anytime you’re heating your home, that heat is not wasted - it simply adds to the net warmth, and hence decreases the amount of energy you have to use to run your furnace.
When your home heating is off, heat from the bulbs is wasted; when your AC is on, it’s doubly wasted, since you have to “fight” the waste heat by using more AC. But the latter situations occur in late spring/summer/early fall, when days are long and lights are used less.
I expect the manufacure of LCD’s and LED’s are more energy-intensive than incandescents as well.
Bottom line - the whole farce makes almost no difference in practical terms, it just makes enviro-weenies feel good about their self-righteousness.
Thanks for the ping - I always enjoy lightbulb threads, even when Napolean isn’t leading the march.
And a year ago you probably would not have seen an LED flood light at any price. Like lots of semiconductor-based items, the price has been going down for years. The brightness has been going up, too. A few years back, LED flashlights were mostly novelty and could not compete with Maglite-type flashlights. Now they are very bright and dominate the flashlight area.
Amazon has a 630 Lumen (50 watt equivalent) floodlight bulb for $22.50
Within a year, that LED floodlight will be more like $12, and within three years it will be $4. Even at the current price, it starts being attractive for locations where old-farts like me have to get up on tall ladders to get to.
Typical for product life cycle.
“that moronic toilet regulation”
Just go to the hardware store and buy a taller fill tube. You can add another gallon and a half of water to the tank with the taller tube, and by adjusting the float valve. You need the fill tube from a cr@pper that has a taller, thinner tank. Think “French Country style.”
>>The list of government CRAP is almost endless.<<
Do you realize that the United Nations NGO’s prompted all of this nonsense?
...continue to support the UN if you like where we are headed.
Everyone in my neck of the woods use 100 watt bulbs to keep their well pumps from freezing in winter. LED? Yea right.
You are probably right...I assume that the gray lines to the right of wasted energy incorporate that, but now that I think of it, they might not.
Yeah. Enviroweenies have this amazing capacity for self-righteousness and smugness. I had kind of a funny experience last week, my wife and I went to New Mexico on vacation, and ended up renting a Chevy Malibu (which I completely thought was a piece of crap to drive, but...my wife didn’t want to splurge. I thought a Dodge Charger or Mustang would have been fun on vacation to drive around New Mexico, but...she planned it, so she got to choose...:)
Anyway, I have never driven one of the new Mustangs, and when we were returning the car, I saw an older couple returning a Mustang. As we got on the shuttle to the airport, I thought the couple (a couple of early sixty hippie looking types, but one can never tell) was sitting across from me.
I asked “Excuse me, I was just curious...did you folks rent a Mustang...I was just wondering how it was to rent one?”
The guy and his wife looked at me incredulously, and said smugly with a tone of superiority “Oh, no. We would never rent a car like that. We rented a Prius.”
Obviously, I had mis-recognized them, and clearly, some people would rent a car like only because it would use less gas driving and would save some money, but the tone of voice and look on the face said it all...what their voices and faces said was:
“Oh, no. We would never drive a bourgeois and wasteful car like that which guzzles gas needlessly and destroys the environment the way most Americans are indifferent to. We care, and want to protect Gaia.”
It was everything I could do to keep from bursting out laughing...
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.