Gallery of Lights
Lamps => News about Lamps => Topic started by: rjluna2 on August 14, 2011, 05:59:00 PM
-
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Wednesday, July 13, 2011, page A2.
Standards for light bulbs will stay on
House GOP bill to stop enactment falls short by 233-193 vote.
By Jim Abrams
Associated Press
Washington – House Republicans on Tuesday, failed to stop the enactment of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs they portrayed as yet another example of big government interfering in people’s lives.
The GOP bill to overturn the standards set to go into effect next year fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for passage. The vote was 233-193, with Georgia’s eight Republicans voting for the bill and four of the state’s five Democrats voting against it. Rep. Sanford Bishop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanford_Bishop) did not vote.
For many Republicans, those newfangled curly fluorescent light bulbs were the last straw, pushed by an overreaching government that’s forcing people to buy health insurance, prodding them to get more fuel-efficient cars and sticking its nose into too many places.
Their legislation would have kept the marketplace clear for cheaper bulbs that have changed little since Thomas Edison (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_edison) invented them in 1879.
For most Democrats, it’s an exasperating debate that, just like the old incandescent bulbs being crowded out of the market, produces more heat than light.
Four of Edison’s descendents said the great inventor would be mortified to see politicians trying to get the nation to hang on an outdated technology when better bulbs are available.
The standards have not been particularly contentious before now. They were crafted in 2007 with Republican participation and signed into law by President George W. Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_w._bush).
But now they have become a symbol of a much larger divide in Washington over the size and reach of government itself. The new bulbs suggest to some conservatives that big government is running amok.
“I’m not opposed to the squiggly tailed CFLs,” said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_barton), a driving force behind the effort to save the old incandescents and the sponsor of the bill to overturn the standards. But making the old bulbs go away “seems to me to be overkill by the federal government.”
Republicans said people who now buy a bulb for 30 to 40 cents shouldn’t be forced to pay $6 for a fluorescent bulb or more for LED (light-emitting diode) lighting.
Republican presidential contender Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michele_Bachmann) complained earlier this year that, under President Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), “we brought a bureaucracy that now tells us which light bulbs to buy.”
The Obama administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_administration), which opposes Barton’s bill, says the lighting standards that are being phased in will save nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone. The Energy Department (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Energy) says upgrading 15 inefficient incandescent bulbs in a home could save a homeowner $50 a year. Lighting accounts for about 10 percent of home electricity use.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Markey), held up a new Sylvania incandescent that meets the efficiency standards and costs $1.69. “You don’t have to buy one of those funny-looking new light bulbs,” he said.
The National Resources Defense Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Resources_Defense_Council) said that when the law is fully implemented in 2020, energy cost will be reduced by 7 percent or about $85 a household every year.
The advocacy group presented statements from Edison’s kin in support of the new standards. “Edison would certainly have recognized that the wave of the future – profits – is to make it better, cheaper and , yes cleaner and more efficient,” said Barry Edison Sloane, a great-grandson.
What it means for consumers
- The new standards for light bulbs do not specifically ban the old incandescent bulbs but require a higher level of efficiency than the classics can produce, essentially nudging them off store shelves in the next few years.
- Under existing rules, new bulbs will have to be 25 percent to 30 percent more efficient than traditional incandescent models.
- As of Jan. 1, 2012, inefficient 100-watt bulbs will no longer be available in most stores. Also on the way out are traditional 75-watt bulbs in 2013, and 40-watt and 60-watt versions in 2014.
- Incandescent-type bulbs are not disappearing. Today’s energy-saving choices includes incandescent lighting that is more efficient, and more expensive to purchase, than the old standbys.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_barton), called the new rule government overkill.
Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Markey), said new incandescent bulbs meets the standards.
Associated Press
-
I knew that was coming unfortunately. :(
-
I heard that the incandescent 100 W ban was pushed back until September 2012. Does anyone know more about that or can confirm that?
-
I am fine with it as long a type of incandecent continues (like the halogens) but I expect halogens prices to go down, and not use CFL.....
Its like pushing away carbons going Tungsten...if this way is same way...I'm fine with it.....but if they totally stop the "filament glowing wire type" then I am not OK with it...
-
I believe even halogens would be banned in a later phase of EPACT07. If EPACT07 is not modified or repealed before then, I think the standards become even more strict in 2020(?), eliminating everything except CFL.
-
No not from what I know.....if the Halogens meets the standards which they already are making them 50% as efficient as the standard ones!
Nobody is really that crazy to force ALL CFL! CFL won't work in all applications..you would have to be BANANAS to do that....
the EPACT07 is only banning specifically the inefficient lamps not the type of lamps...
-
Jace, here is the scary part of EPACT07: From section 321, I found:
"(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT- If the Secretary fails to complete a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i) through (iv) or if the final rule does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt."
So, after 2020, I don't see us using halogens for general service lighting anymore.
-
Some think we will go to LEDs by 2020.
-
I would choose LEDs over CFL....that's for sure! I am currently in a room lit with 3 LEDs and they look good and have kinda frosted look....
-
I like LEDs too....just not line powered ones as I can see the flickering and it gives me headaches easy!
-
Ick! I don't like CFLs. >:( I agree with Jace on LEDs. The price for the good ones are a bit out of my reach thoguh. :-\
-
I personally like to use linear fluorescent if I wanted to save energy instead of CFL. I haven't really tries LED yet since they're 30 a pop so I can't comment on them though.
-
I like linier fluorescents too. They last longer than their mini plastic descendants. THey look better too IMO.
-
Yeah some places like garages and basements are a good application for linear instead of the commonly seen CFL.
-
Nothing will beat incandescent when it comes to the cold temperatures found up north. ( I'm depressed. It's not even Halloween yet and we have an inch of snow! >:( :()
-
Yep, it gets cold enough that CFLs will never warm up here. Only incandescent or HID will work.
-
We have a heated and finished basement, but we don't ahve any CFLs down there. A regualar CFL won't even fit in the dome lights we have in the basement!!! >:( Maybe I can do a circline conversion lol. :D
-
My basement is fully finished and heated too, we use CFLs down there except the storage and utility rooms which use cool white T8s.