Incandescent light bulbs

[armedandsafe]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA628.html
Five Myths About the Federal Incandescent Light Bulb Ban

by Amy Ridenour

When General Electric blamed "a variety of energy regulations that establish lighting efficiency standards" for the closing of incandescent light bulb factories in Virginia, Ohio and Kentucky, its PR team left out a critical detail: General Electric and fellow light bulb manufacturers Phillips and Osram Sylvania had lobbied for those regulations.

Ignore claims that the incandescent light bulb ban was imposed to fight global warming. The motive behind the bulb ban is money: Incandescents have a low profit margin.

Let's shatter a few other myths.

Myth 1: "There is no light bulb ban."

The most effective lie is one with a kernel of truth, and this example of that maxim is based on the fact that not all incandescent light bulbs are banned. Just the ones Americans buy most.

January 1, 2012: Goodbye to standard 100-watt incandescents.1

January 1, 2013: Goodbye to standard 75-watt incandescents.

January 1, 2014: Goodbye to standard 60- and 40-watt incandescents.

By 2020: Say goodbye to, among others, Halogen incandescents, such as Phillips' EcoVantage. These bulbs often are cited as "proof" there is no light bulb ban because they are incandescents and public will be able to buy them after January 1, 2012. Bulb ban backers rarely volunteer that these bulbs are banned also – just a bit later.

Myth 2: "Alternative bulbs are better."

Alternative bulbs are different. Whether they are better depends on the individual consumer's needs.

Most alternatives to incandescents use less energy. Some, a lot less. But energy use is not the only concern a typical consumer has. Here are some others:

• People prone to seizures should avoid CFLs, as their flickering can cause seizures.

• Seniors often find it difficult to read under fluorescents.

• People with Lupus and other auto-immune disorders can get a severe rash from fluorescents.

• LED lighting tends to have a narrow beam, requiring more lamps to light a room.

• LED and CFL lighting is cooler than incandescent and renders colors differently. When Europe banned incandescents, art galleries and restaurants complained. The art didn't look right, and CFL and LED lighting isn't romantic.

Myth 3: "Alternatives to incandescents are just as safe."

No. CFLs contain sufficient mercury for the Environmental Protection Agency to recommend a tedious 10-to-11-step process for cleanup of broken CFLs. Consumers also are supposed to take discarded bulbs to a special disposal center, but it is unlikely that most people are bothering. This places dangerous mercury in the air when the bulbs inevitably break in trash cans or garbage trucks.

LED bulbs contain lead and nickel, exposure to which can be a health risk – although the danger is more long-term than immediate and one broken bulb shouldn't harm you.

Myth 4: "You'll save money."

Most alternatives use less energy, some substantially less, although the bulbs cost more up front and don't last as long as consumers may expect. A CFL, for example, wears out sooner if it is turned on frequently, is used in freezing weather or is used with a dimmer.

LEDs have particularly expensive up front costs now, although manufacturers say the price will come down after their main rivals have been banned for a while. They say that's because more will be sold; others say that's not how supply-and-demand works.

Myth 5: "The bulb ban creates jobs."

In China, sure. 75% of CFLs are made in China. No major CFL brand is made in America. When the last remaining U.S. plant making ordinary incandescents closed in 2010, the Washington Post blamed the bulb ban.

Ban-backers say research into LED lighting made possible by the ban creates jobs, but many of these jobs came from tens of millions in research grants paid for by taxpayers, not the ban.

Defenders of the light bulb ban claim people are better off with alternatives to incandescents, but if the public agreed, Congress wouldn't need a ban to get the public to switch.

Who knows the needs of your household better: You, or Congress?

Amy Ridenour is the Chairman of the National Center for Public Policy Research. A version of this paper has appeared as an op-ed in the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Sacramento Bee, Duluth News-Tribune, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Portland Oregonian, Kansas City Star and nearly 30 other newspapers.

Pops

[jack404]

when they banned ( yes banned, but this is OZ with a socialist government , we also have a carbon tax here now as well ) regular bulbs, i stocked up.. ( 144 in a big box)

seen enough of mercury to stay well away from it and the main light i use of a night time is a 60 watt and a 9 bulb LED USB powered light for over the keyboard and to read by

screw the greens

[Albtraum]

Hmm... 60 watt incandescent or a 13 watt compact flourescent? Hour by hour, day by day, month by month, flourescent lights save a tremendous amount of kilowatts that would otherwise be wasted energy. 13 watt CFLs also produce more lumens than a 60 watt incandescent and come in a variety of wavelengths, from the mucky "yellow" incandescent color everyone is used to, to pure white and ultra white which looks blue at first. It is a great idea to upgrade from incandescents.

Now, time for a rant. Light pollution is a problem in America, not a big one but could easily be fixed by the flip of some switches. Think of all the unnecessary outdoor lamps that are always on... Parking lots and car dealerships brightly lit up at 3am. What for? Street lights along roads are lit up already by car headlights. When in a city or suburb, you look up at the night sky and see a pinkish or brownish hue from all the electricty going to waste. You might be able to make out a dozen of the brightest stars... Whereas when you guys were younger, you could see hundreds if not thousands of stars and the band of a spiral arm in the Milky Way. Nowadays you have to be 50-100 miles from a city to see that. It sucks for future generations who only see sights like that in a textbook. Now, you may not care about stars or any of this, but know that most outdoor lights are completely unnecessary. Those lights burn up countless kilowatts year and year and in return, attribute to pollution.

[RunningOnMT]

Awhile back I caved in and bought two of these new light bulbs to try them out. I wanted "full spectrum' lights and this was all I could find. Promising myself to be extra careful not to break one, a thought occurred to me, "what do I do with them when they burn out?" I mean after all, if one has to go to extremes to clean up a broken bulb, you wouldn't want to simply throw them in the trash. So I called my local health department and asked about disposal. I was told to first place the bulb inside a paper bag and then into a regular plastic trash bag then out for the weekly trash collection. "Are you kidding me", I said. "Tell me how that will keep the environment protected from mercury contamination?" All they could say is they had no special plans for disposal, even though congress has determined that we must start using them.

Apparently their rationale is that energy savings will be significant when these bulbs are in universal use, and that will mean burning less coal which will mean fewer contaminants, including mercury, emitted into the environment. But think of the millions of discarded mercury containing bulbs, which will inevitably lie broken in some landfill. So in typical congressional fashion, they "solve" a problem by creating a bigger one.

Our environment is already contaminated by mercury to the point where the FDA advises not to eat tuna more than once or twice a month and pregnant women not at all. So no thanks, I'm stocking up on incandescents while I still can.

[ampaterry]

We switched the church to 100% CFL lighting several years ago. With 29 bulbs needed, the cost was a consideration, to be sure. BUT we replaced all those 60 watt incandescents with 27 watt CFL's that give MUCH more light (100 watt equivelant) while using less than half the KW. We absolutely saw a reduction in the monthly electric bill, true, but the MAJOR difference we have seen is the reduced requirement for bulb replacement. I just replaced one that had burned out last Sunday, and it was the first one in many months that has burned out. With incandescents, I was replacing at LEAST one every other week or so -

We were so happy with them, in fact, that we switched the home to 100% CFL as well.
We are very pleased to have the same results here; more light, less money.
BUT there were two major problems with them:
1. The bulb shape is such that some fixtures had to be modified or replaced to allow the use of the CFL bulbs.
2. Three way CFL bulbs are EXTREMELY expensive - AND they do NOT LAST! We burned one out in just a couple weeks, and replaced it under warrantee. It burned out in another couple weeks, and we just gave up on it for about a year. I figured they probably had the bugs out of them by then, and bought another one - which again burned out in just a couple weeks.

Other than those two problems, we are very pleased with the CFL's.

As to the government ban on incandescents - I am opposed to it. Everyone should be free to make their OWN decisions on this.

I hate all forums of forescent lights that give me headaches. The flickering bothers my eyes. Plus as a tech guy I spend 12 hours a day staring at a computer screen between that and Flo lights it really hurts somedays.

[Nighthawk]

I'm thinking of farmers who use light bulbs for heat source. Are they going to
have to buy 600 watt electric heaters were they used to use 100 to 200
heats lamps. Chicks need constant heat source.

[Whiskey]

These lights they want us to use seem to last just as long as the incandescents I have noticed. They want us to use fluorescent lights that take a few minutes to get up to wattage, hurt our eyes and vision, hazardous to our health if broke open, cause headaches, etc etc etc. This all has been proven before but now they are tight lipped about it...funny. Yep makes sense to get rid of the healthy lights to save. The incandescents I buy last a long time so I do not see how people are complaining that they are changing them every week.

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by Nighthawk

I'm thinking of farmers who use light bulbs for heat source. Are they going to
have to buy 600 watt electric heaters were they used to use 100 to 200
heats lamps. Chicks need constant heat source.

Some of us heat up our chicks the old fashioned way. Sorry, couldn't resist.

[jstgsn]

Little surprised to see a post saying we have a "light problem in this country" re albtrum's post. I've looked at pictures of the earth and they show North Korea compared to other countries, it's all dark, cause they live in a communist cess pool. I would rather they light up our country with old style lighting, not that I'm against saving a buck or two, but I'm not all that happy to have a planet full of mercury. Kinda like eating fish more often.
anyway, going to go out and run the air conditioner and heater at full blast for a while. Got every light in the house on too. (and the cars running in the back yard.) Gotta do what I can.

[raven818]

Apparently their rationale is that energy savings will be significant when these bulbs are in universal use, and that will mean burning less coal

Burning less coal won't be possible. When Barry is done, there won't be any coal mines. He and katherine sebeius intend to shut them all down.

[Clipper]

Any time "congrease" gets in your house, watch out! Remember the big toilet threat some years back? Seems we needed Uncle Sam to save our precious water by regulating the toilets. Now, the 1.6 GPF is the law of the land, and in usually only takes three flushes to get the things to carry down, as opposed to the old potties that would flush everything on the first pull.

CFL's may be another millstone around our carbon threatened necks!

[millwright]

I'm a fan of CFL's but still have some incandescents, too ! Mostly my CFLs/flourescents get used for long-term "on". The incandescents get used for the "off/on" aps ! Now ain't that exactly the pogrom - at least until the greenies go involved - envisioned ? >MW

[ampaterry]

Originally Posted by jstgsn

Little surprised to see a post saying we have a "light problem in this country" re albtrum's post. I've looked at pictures of the earth and they show North Korea compared to other countries, it's all dark, cause they live in a communist cess pool. I would rather they light up our country with old style lighting, not that I'm against saving a buck or two, but I'm not all that happy to have a planet full of mercury. Kinda like eating fish more often.
anyway, going to go out and run the air conditioner and heater at full blast for a while. Got every light in the house on too. (and the cars running in the back yard.) Gotta do what I can.

Since I was raised and schooled back in the 50's when we were taught we were going into another Ice Age, I deeply appreciate your efforts to stave that off - -

[ofitg]

Originally Posted by Nighthawk

I'm thinking of farmers who use light bulbs for heat source. Are they going to
have to buy 600 watt electric heaters were they used to use 100 to 200
heats lamps. Chicks need constant heat source.

When I was reading up on this subject last year, I got the impression that the new law will phase out "common" incandescent bulbs, but "specialty" incandescent bulbs (spotlights, for example) will not be affected.
I'm guessing that heat lamps fall into the "specialty" category.

Good luck to anybody who ever tries to use his Chrony indoors - they don't work under fluorescent lights.

[Inthewind1976]

http://shine.yahoo.com/green/truth-l...200200491.html

Of course, like most information these days, it comes from the Net, and from Yahoo, no less, so........................???

[Albtraum]

Thanks inthewind. It's too easy for misconceptions and rumors to spread around. These new and improved incadescents sound pretty appealing. Also, that article states that CFLs contain less mercury than a can of tuna.

[fordtrucksforever]

If you do a paper trail to where the buck finally stops, I doubt it would surprise anyone that Obama is just returning the favor for getting elected. If you havent noticed its become a trend for him. I guess he has a lot of favors that we get to pay for before he is retired from office. As bold he has been on these, it was likely agreed that he would get them reimbursed in his first term, just in case the second time around didnt happen. This would seem to be a conflict of interest running the country into the ground while paying back special interest groups. Of course this could just be speculation on my part.