Government pays $10 million for $50 light bulb

[edthecynic]

The government held a contest to build an affordable green light bulb. I know some people who make pretty good money, but I don't know anyone who thinks $50 for a light bulb is affordable.

Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag - The Washington Post

Mass production will bring the cost down like it has for everything else. When VCR's first came out they cost thousands of dollars, eventually the price came down to where everyone could afford them. The same for DVD players, LCD TVs, etc.

You can get similar 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs for under $30 today and India has announced that their bulb will be available worldwide later this year at $15.

From your link:

For example, at Home Depot, one can find LED bulbs to replace the 60-watt incandescent for much less than $50. Lighting Science Group, under the EcoSmart label, offers another for $23.97. It is assembled in Mexico. And another Philips LED bulb on sale costs $24.97. It was made in China.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20098666-54/60-watt-led-bulb-to-break-$15-mark-lighting-science-says/

This is the omnidirectional LED bulb that Lighting Science says will be priced below $15.
(Credit: PRNewsFoto/Lighting Science Group)
Lighting Science Group and Dixon Technologies India today touted an LED light bulb equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent that they say will hit store shelves with a price below $15.
The omnidirectional LED bulb, in the traditional A19 shape of household incandescent light bulbs, will become available in India by the end of the year and worldwide, including in the U.S., early in 2012, the companies said. It's the first in an expected series of products, including streetlights and industrial fixtures, that Lighting Science and Dixon plan to jointly manufacture and distribute.

And that will just look so special in my chandeliers.

There are other choices that look much closer to standard light bulbs.

 

[daveman]

Typical Daveman hack job assigning a position to a poster that they never took.

He's rolling his eyes at the concept of people making their own choices.

There's nothing in that eyeroll that says she should have her right to chose taken away. That's you making shit up. But it's what you do best.

No, what I do best is not believing leftist horseshit.

 

[Syphon]

the reason the government is willing to subsidize is to lower energy demand. LED bulbs use between 1/3rd and 1/30th the amount of power of a CFL and an incandescent. there was a thread on here complaining about rising utility prices (for the water utilities). if this lowers your utility prices and the government is helping subsidize the cost how is this a losing situation? your not being forced to do anything and you still get to choose what you want.

 

[daveman]

the reason the government is willing to subsidize is to lower energy demand. LED bulbs use between 1/3rd and 1/30th the amount of power of a CFL and an incandescent. there was a thread on here complaining about rising utility prices (for the water utilities). if this lowers your utility prices and the government is helping subsidize the cost how is this a losing situation? your not being forced to do anything and you still get to choose what you want.

You're being forced to subsidize something you may not want for yourself.

Also, utility rates are rising due to the actions of that same government.

 

[Syphon]

the reason the government is willing to subsidize is to lower energy demand. LED bulbs use between 1/3rd and 1/30th the amount of power of a CFL and an incandescent. there was a thread on here complaining about rising utility prices (for the water utilities). if this lowers your utility prices and the government is helping subsidize the cost how is this a losing situation? your not being forced to do anything and you still get to choose what you want.

You're being forced to subsidize something you may not want for yourself.

Also, utility rates are rising due to the actions of that same government.

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

 

[Article 15]

He's rolling his eyes at the concept of people making their own choices.

There's nothing in that eyeroll that says she should have her right to chose taken away. That's you making shit up. But it's what you do best.

No, what I do best is not believing leftist horseshit.

I'm glad that you agree that he didn't say she should have her right to chose taken away.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why would anyone pay $50 when they could buy a GE General Purpose/ceiling Fan White 2.5-watt LED bulb for $9. Why did the government waste $10 million to make an affordable bulb that would cost consumers 5.5 times more.

It's the government, why wouldn't they waste money?

Like the waste in Iraq under Bush, Jr.?
There's a lot of information on Custer Battles.
Billions Wasted In Iraq? - CBS News
This story originally aired on Feb. 12, 2006.

The United States has spent more than a quarter of a trillion dollars during its three years in Iraq, and more than $50 billion of it has gone to private contractors hired to guard bases, drive trucks, feed and shelter the troops and rebuild the country.

It is dangerous work, but much of the $50 billion, which is more than the annual budget of the Department of Homeland Security, has been handed out to companies in Iraq with little or no oversight.

Billions of dollars are unaccounted for, and there are widespread allegations of waste, fraud and war profiteering. As 60 Minutes correspondent Steve Kroft first reported in February, only one case, the subject of a civil lawsuit, has been unsealed. It involves a company called Custer Battles, and provides a window into the chaos of those early days in Iraq.

War Profiteers? - 60 Minutes - CBS News

What part of it's the government, they waste money, are you having a problem with?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government held a contest to build an affordable green light bulb. I know some people who make pretty good money, but I don't know anyone who thinks $50 for a light bulb is affordable.

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.
The price is $50.
Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag - The Washington Post

I would buy a few if the color is good and they really last for years. If it lasts for 5 years even, it would be worth it not to have to change bulbs. You change bulbs every couple of months anyway. A $5 light bulb lasts about 100 hrs. That's $150 over 5 yrs.

It's a good deal because these leds last a lot longer than 5 yrs.

$50 bucks would buy you enough incandescent lights to last about 10 years.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The government held a contest to build an affordable green light bulb. I know some people who make pretty good money, but I don't know anyone who thinks $50 for a light bulb is affordable.

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.
The price is $50.
Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag - The Washington Post

Mass production will bring the cost down like it has for everything else. When VCR's first came out they cost thousands of dollars, eventually the price came down to where everyone could afford them. The same for DVD players, LCD TVs, etc.

You can get similar 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs for under $30 today and India has announced that their bulb will be available worldwide later this year at $15.

From your link:

For example, at Home Depot, one can find LED bulbs to replace the 60-watt incandescent for much less than $50. Lighting Science Group, under the EcoSmart label, offers another for $23.97. It is assembled in Mexico. And another Philips LED bulb on sale costs $24.97. It was made in China.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20098666-54/60-watt-led-bulb-to-break-$15-mark-lighting-science-says/

This is the omnidirectional LED bulb that Lighting Science says will be priced below $15.
(Credit: PRNewsFoto/Lighting Science Group)
Lighting Science Group and Dixon Technologies India today touted an LED light bulb equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent that they say will hit store shelves with a price below $15.
The omnidirectional LED bulb, in the traditional A19 shape of household incandescent light bulbs, will become available in India by the end of the year and worldwide, including in the U.S., early in 2012, the companies said. It's the first in an expected series of products, including streetlights and industrial fixtures, that Lighting Science and Dixon plan to jointly manufacture and distribute.

They already make almost the same bulb in China for about $20.

 

[theHawk]

The government held a contest to build an affordable green light bulb. I know some people who make pretty good money, but I don't know anyone who thinks $50 for a light bulb is affordable.

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.
The price is $50.
Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag - The Washington Post

If it made economic sense for buyers and manufacturers alike, then they would make them without government subsidy.

$50 light bulbs.....and libs claim the Hussein isn't out of touch with the American people...

 

[theHawk]

the reason the government is willing to subsidize is to lower energy demand. LED bulbs use between 1/3rd and 1/30th the amount of power of a CFL and an incandescent. there was a thread on here complaining about rising utility prices (for the water utilities). if this lowers your utility prices and the government is helping subsidize the cost how is this a losing situation? your not being forced to do anything and you still get to choose what you want.

You're being forced to subsidize something you may not want for yourself.

Also, utility rates are rising due to the actions of that same government.

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

 

[Syphon]

You're being forced to subsidize something you may not want for yourself.

Also, utility rates are rising due to the actions of that same government.

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

what proof is there that lowering energy consumption leads to the utility companies to raising rates?

 

[Charles_Main]

so we are down to subsidizing light bulbs now?

The theoretical $22 price of the bulb that was supposed to win the contest included a $10 rebate from utilities.

What's the purpose of the device if it cannot hold it's own without subsidies?

Once the Government Bans normal Bulbs and Puts the Normal Bulb Companies out of Business, then it will be able to hold it's own with out subsidies. Isn't that cute.

 

[Charles_Main]

You're being forced to subsidize something you may not want for yourself.

Also, utility rates are rising due to the actions of that same government.

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

You fail to understand how Electric Companies operate. See they can't store power, so much of what the Produce ultimately is wasted going into the ground at the end of the line because it wasn't used. So a Huge Drop in Demand will not make them Charge more, Hell no, they will lower rates to encourage more Use. The Last thing they want is a huge % of the Energy they Produce going unused and ultimately being wasted.

The day someone invents a good way to store Electricity and then reapply it to the Grid when needed, is the Day someone because very rich indeed.

Only Liberal Idiots who fail to understand the Basic Principles of Supply and Demand could possibly Believe a Drop in Demand would cause the Power Companies to Raise Rates. They only way that would happen is if Obama Takes over the Power Companies and puts a ******* Idiot Liberal Environmentalists in Charge of them, Which is not entirely out of the Realm of Possibility with this Power Hungry President who thinks he is Above the Constitution. Barring that though, the Only Possible outcome to a Huge Drop in Demand is a Reduction in Rates, as the Profit Driven Power Companies would have no Choice but to lower Rates to Encourage more use to Increase Profit.

 

[Syphon]

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

You fail to understand how Electric Companies operate. See they can't store power, so much of what the Produce ultimately is wasted going into the ground at the end of the line because it wasn't used. So a Huge Drop in Demand will not make them Charge more, Hell no, they will lower rates to encourage more Use. The Last thing they want is a huge % of the Energy they Produce going unused and ultimately being wasted.

The day someone invents a good way to store Electricity and then reapply it to the Grid when needed, is the Day someone because very rich indeed.

Only Liberal Idiots who fail to understand the Basic Principles of Supply and Demand could possibly Believe a Drop in Demand would cause the Power Companies to Raise Rates. They only way that would happen is if Obama Takes over the Power Companies and puts a ******* Idiot Liberal Environmentalists in Charge of them, Which is not entirely out of the Realm of Possibility with this Power Hungry President who thinks he is Above the Constitution. Barring that though, the Only Possible outcome to a Huge Drop in Demand is a Reduction in Rates, as the Profit Driven Power Companies would have no Choice but to lower Rates to Encourage more use to Increase Profit.

neither daveman nor the hawk are liberals.... apparently conservatives dont get it either...

 

[theHawk]

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

what proof is there that lowering energy consumption leads to the utility companies to raising rates?

Because energy companies need to make a profit? You think they are just going to allow their income level to drop?

 

[theHawk]

the government provides tax subsidies to the oil industry that i disagree with. at least this lowers energy demand which in effect lowers energy consumption, which in effect lowers utility bills, which in effect lowers pollution.

what exactly are those oil subsidies doing for us?

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

You fail to understand how Electric Companies operate. See they can't store power, so much of what the Produce ultimately is wasted going into the ground at the end of the line because it wasn't used. So a Huge Drop in Demand will not make them Charge more, Hell no, they will lower rates to encourage more Use. The Last thing they want is a huge % of the Energy they Produce going unused and ultimately being wasted.

The day someone invents a good way to store Electricity and then reapply it to the Grid when needed, is the Day someone because very rich indeed.

Only Liberal Idiots who fail to understand the Basic Principles of Supply and Demand could possibly Believe a Drop in Demand would cause the Power Companies to Raise Rates. They only way that would happen is if Obama Takes over the Power Companies and puts a ******* Idiot Liberal Environmentalists in Charge of them, Which is not entirely out of the Realm of Possibility with this Power Hungry President who thinks he is Above the Constitution. Barring that though, the Only Possible outcome to a Huge Drop in Demand is a Reduction in Rates, as the Profit Driven Power Companies would have no Choice but to lower Rates to Encourage more use to Increase Profit.

I never said electric energy could be stored. But if an energy company is going to reduce its output, that means it either has to raise the price to meet its budget or its going to cut people.
Its a moot point though, light bulbs are not going to reduce energy consumption anyway.

Only a liberal idiot would believe a stupid light bulb is going to greatly reduce overall electric energy consumption in this country. All the lights in the average home consume a very small percantage of the main appliances being used. Namely heat/AC, but also water heaters and refridgerators use far more than a light bulb.

TLC Home "Why are my power bills so high? Which appliances use the most power?"

The idea that light bulbs are going to help in any way in cutting down electricity or much less help save the environment or stop 'global warming' is a complete myth.

Its all just an excuse to have government step in and meddle with the private sector.

 

[uscitizen]

Support America, buy Chinese light bulbs.

 

[uscitizen]

The only thing that lowers prices ultimately is competition. Lowering energy consumption only lets the energy companies charge you more for using up less, because chances are you don't have a choice of which energy company you can use.

You fail to understand how Electric Companies operate. See they can't store power, so much of what the Produce ultimately is wasted going into the ground at the end of the line because it wasn't used. So a Huge Drop in Demand will not make them Charge more, Hell no, they will lower rates to encourage more Use. The Last thing they want is a huge % of the Energy they Produce going unused and ultimately being wasted.

The day someone invents a good way to store Electricity and then reapply it to the Grid when needed, is the Day someone because very rich indeed.

Only Liberal Idiots who fail to understand the Basic Principles of Supply and Demand could possibly Believe a Drop in Demand would cause the Power Companies to Raise Rates. They only way that would happen is if Obama Takes over the Power Companies and puts a ******* Idiot Liberal Environmentalists in Charge of them, Which is not entirely out of the Realm of Possibility with this Power Hungry President who thinks he is Above the Constitution. Barring that though, the Only Possible outcome to a Huge Drop in Demand is a Reduction in Rates, as the Profit Driven Power Companies would have no Choice but to lower Rates to Encourage more use to Increase Profit.

I never said electric energy could be stored. But if an energy company is going to reduce its output, that means it either has to raise the price to meet its budget or its going to cut people.
Its a moot point though, light bulbs are not going to reduce energy consumption anyway.

Only a liberal idiot would believe a stupid light bulb is going to greatly reduce overall electric energy consumption in this country. All the lights in the average home consume a very small percantage of the main appliances being used. Namely heat/AC, but also water heaters and refridgerators use far more than a light bulb.

TLC Home "Why are my power bills so high? Which appliances use the most power?"

The idea that light bulbs are going to help in any way in cutting down electricity or much less help save the environment or stop 'global warming' is a complete myth.

Its all just an excuse to have government step in and meddle with the private sector.

I guess that is why corporations switched from incandescents to flourescents years ago?

 

[theHawk]

You fail to understand how Electric Companies operate. See they can't store power, so much of what the Produce ultimately is wasted going into the ground at the end of the line because it wasn't used. So a Huge Drop in Demand will not make them Charge more, Hell no, they will lower rates to encourage more Use. The Last thing they want is a huge % of the Energy they Produce going unused and ultimately being wasted.

The day someone invents a good way to store Electricity and then reapply it to the Grid when needed, is the Day someone because very rich indeed.

Only Liberal Idiots who fail to understand the Basic Principles of Supply and Demand could possibly Believe a Drop in Demand would cause the Power Companies to Raise Rates. They only way that would happen is if Obama Takes over the Power Companies and puts a ******* Idiot Liberal Environmentalists in Charge of them, Which is not entirely out of the Realm of Possibility with this Power Hungry President who thinks he is Above the Constitution. Barring that though, the Only Possible outcome to a Huge Drop in Demand is a Reduction in Rates, as the Profit Driven Power Companies would have no Choice but to lower Rates to Encourage more use to Increase Profit.

I never said electric energy could be stored. But if an energy company is going to reduce its output, that means it either has to raise the price to meet its budget or its going to cut people.
Its a moot point though, light bulbs are not going to reduce energy consumption anyway.

Only a liberal idiot would believe a stupid light bulb is going to greatly reduce overall electric energy consumption in this country. All the lights in the average home consume a very small percantage of the main appliances being used. Namely heat/AC, but also water heaters and refridgerators use far more than a light bulb.

TLC Home "Why are my power bills so high? Which appliances use the most power?"

The idea that light bulbs are going to help in any way in cutting down electricity or much less help save the environment or stop 'global warming' is a complete myth.

Its all just an excuse to have government step in and meddle with the private sector.

I guess that is why corporations switched from incandescents to flourescents years ago?

They switched because of pressure from the the EPA and enviro wacko groups.