House GOP Set To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban...

[Flopper]

They have a long way to go and what they do have available is exorbitantly expensive. **** if I'm going to pay freakin $5 or even $3 for a God damn light bulb.

I posted the large bolded above in an earlier post . . . in a few years the cheap incandescents will be gone from store shelves and the 'cheap' option will be the $1+ per bulb cfls. Are haz mat instructions included in the packaging?

The companies were developing all of these more efficient light bulbs but the government didn't feel they were moving fast enough so they forced the issue. By doing so they eliminated choice --- the choice to buy a cheap bulb -- and are forcing folks to either a) buy the cfls because they will be the cheapest thing around or b) pay through the nose for the more expensive bulbs. There won't be any other option available.

And who is this going to hit most? Hmmm, hmmmm .. . . . .

I wonder . . . can you buy cfl's with food stamps?

3 years ago I purchased 30 CFLs, (13watt bulbs that are equivalent to 60 watt incandescent) for $45. Today, you can buy them at Lowe’s at $24.98 for 18 bulbs. That’s $1.38/bulb not $5.

Shop Lighting & Fans : Light Bulbs : Fluorescent Light Bulbs : Multipurpose Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs at Lowes.com
So far after 3 years I have not replaced a single bulb.

You don’t need anybody to tell you how much these bulbs save you. Just multiply the total wattage you use times the hours you use them times the rate for your electricity. In my case:

We pay 11.1 cents/kwh.
I estimate we run an average of 5 60watt bulbs (13watt for CFLs) 10 hours a day

To determine to the cost multiply bulb wattage (13w) x avg. hours used/day x number of bulbs. Then divide by a thousand and multiply by the rate. That gives you the cost/day. Multiple by 365 for cost per year.

In my case the cost is (13w x 10 hrs. x 5 bulbs)/1000 *.11 *365 = $26.09/yr for CFL’s
The cost of using incandescent bulbs is 4.6 times the cost of using CFLs (60w/13w) or 4.6 x $26.09 = $120.01

Summary:
Cost of the bulbs = $45
Cost of using incandescent = $120.14/yr
Cost of using CFL’s =$26.09.
Cost savings/yr = $75.14. After 3 years I have replace no bulbs. Not a bad investment.

Isn't it nice that you got to choose to use the cfls? I don't like cfls and wouldn't use them no matter how much they saved me. It should be my choice if I want to pay $26/yr or $120/yr. for my bulb usage.

I picked up a pack of 4 75W incandescents for a buck (.25 per bulb). But now I get to pay $1.38 per bulb? That's over a 400% increase!! No thanks. Oh, I forgot. I got my bulbs on a bogo sale so they only cost me .125 per bulb. So the increase is . . . omg. SRSLY??

You paid $45 for 30 cfl's. I paid $3.75 for 30 regular incandescents. I paid about $40 less than you did so deduct that from your $75/yr savings. For $35/yr savings for shitty cfls light bulbs that require special clean-up when they burn out or break and need to be separately disposed of??

Again, from the article: But the cheapest such bulbs are likely to disappear from store shelves between 2012 and 2014, driven off the market by the government’s new standard. Compact fluorescents, which can cost as little as $1 apiece, may become the bargain option, with consumers having to spend two or three times as much to get the latest energy-efficient incandescents.

Most inexpensive 60 watt bulbs carry a live of 500hrs, occasionally 750. CFLs typically have lives of 6,000 to 13,000 hours. Crank that into your calculations.

 

[Flopper]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

what about how much Mercury will go into the land fills?.....and even a little bit of that is too much....

Under a worst case conditions, if the bulbs are not recycled, and they are broken at landfills, 11% of 1.6mg would be released into the atmosphere. That is .0003% of the mercury released by single mercury thermometer. Energy savings from high efficiency bulbs will allow us to forego construction of a number of power plants which are responsible for most of the mercury in the atmosphere. The net result will be significant reductions in mercury as well as other pollutants in the air.

Using energy efficient bulbs in our homes will result in less pollutants in the air, a reduction in the nation' need for energy, and reduction in our electric bills.

 

[ShackledNation]

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

what about how much Mercury will go into the land fills?.....and even a little bit of that is too much....

Under a worst case conditions, if the bulbs are not recycled, and they are broken at landfills, 11% of 1.6mg would be released into the atmosphere. That is .0003% of the mercury released by single mercury thermometer. Energy savings from high efficiency bulbs will allow us to forego construction of a number of power plants which are responsible for most of the mercury in the atmosphere. The net result will be significant reductions in mercury as well as other pollutants in the air.

Using energy efficient bulbs in our homes will result in less pollutants in the air, a reduction in the nation' need for energy, and reduction in our electric bills.

If a ban is justified because a higher efficiency product is on the market, and the banned product is less efficient, answer me this question: Do you support banning the diesel engine? Cars should not be allowed to use gasoline. It is less efficient, and adds more harmful gases into the atmosphere than any bulb. Electric cars are more environmentally friendly.

 

[Harry Dresden]

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

what about how much Mercury will go into the land fills?.....and even a little bit of that is too much....

Under a worst case conditions, if the bulbs are not recycled, and they are broken at landfills, 11% of 1.6mg would be released into the atmosphere. That is .0003% of the mercury released by single mercury thermometer. Energy savings from high efficiency bulbs will allow us to forego construction of a number of power plants which are responsible for most of the mercury in the atmosphere. The net result will be significant reductions in mercury as well as other pollutants in the air.

Using energy efficient bulbs in our homes will result in less pollutants in the air, a reduction in the nation' need for energy, and reduction in our electric bills.

im talking Mercury in the ground......many people will just toss these things.....

 

[traveler52]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

Are all of these brain dead Repugs saying georgie porgie was wrong in the signing the bill?

 

[Care4all]

what about how much Mercury will go into the land fills?.....and even a little bit of that is too much....

Under a worst case conditions, if the bulbs are not recycled, and they are broken at landfills, 11% of 1.6mg would be released into the atmosphere. That is .0003% of the mercury released by single mercury thermometer. Energy savings from high efficiency bulbs will allow us to forego construction of a number of power plants which are responsible for most of the mercury in the atmosphere. The net result will be significant reductions in mercury as well as other pollutants in the air.

Using energy efficient bulbs in our homes will result in less pollutants in the air, a reduction in the nation' need for energy, and reduction in our electric bills.

If a ban is justified because a higher efficiency product is on the market, and the banned product is less efficient, answer me this question: Do you support banning the diesel engine? Cars should not be allowed to use gasoline. It is less efficient, and adds more harmful gases into the atmosphere than any bulb. Electric cars are more environmentally friendly.

many steps have been taken via laws and regulation in the auto industry to make cars more fuel efficient....i suppose you think those CAFE standards hurt us as a nation instead of helping us?

 

[ShackledNation]

Under a worst case conditions, if the bulbs are not recycled, and they are broken at landfills, 11% of 1.6mg would be released into the atmosphere. That is .0003% of the mercury released by single mercury thermometer. Energy savings from high efficiency bulbs will allow us to forego construction of a number of power plants which are responsible for most of the mercury in the atmosphere. The net result will be significant reductions in mercury as well as other pollutants in the air.

Using energy efficient bulbs in our homes will result in less pollutants in the air, a reduction in the nation' need for energy, and reduction in our electric bills.

If a ban is justified because a higher efficiency product is on the market, and the banned product is less efficient, answer me this question: Do you support banning the diesel engine? Cars should not be allowed to use gasoline. It is less efficient, and adds more harmful gases into the atmosphere than any bulb. Electric cars are more environmentally friendly.

many steps have been taken via laws and regulation in the auto industry to make cars more fuel efficient....i suppose you think those CAFE standards hurt us as a nation instead of helping us?

Yes, I do actually, and they should be completely abolished.

But that doesn't really answer the question. Why not extent the standards so standard gasoline powered cars are pushed out of the market, just as standard incandescent light bulbs will be? Another question: Do you support legalizing marijuana?

 

[Meister]

A warning on the base of my CFL light bulb:

Contains Mercury-
Dispose according to Local,
state, or federal laws.

Doesn't this raise any eyebrows from the greenies?

 

[Polk]

A warning on the base of my CFL light bulb:

Contains Mercury-
Dispose according to Local,
state, or federal laws.

Doesn't this raise any eyebrows from the greenies?

Why should it? The mercury in a CFL is less than the amount of mercury pumped in to the air by the increased power generation needed to fuel older bulbs.

 

[Polk]

Equating incandescent light bulbs with clean water and air regs is completely asinine.

How much I spend on lighting my home is still none of your or Big Daddy Big Gubmint's goddamn business.

No, but how much pollution you spew into the air that I breathe is....

what about how much Mercury will go into the land fills?.....and even a little bit of that is too much....

Then you should support this regulation, as the extra energy needed to power a traditional incandescent produces more mercury than a CFL contains.

 

[Polk]

me too, i bought a gazillion of them.....but me thinks we wont become millionaires selling them, cuz everyone else that hates the CFL light have bought up stock as well....the supply will be too great, to make a mint off of them on the black market, so to say....imo!

I hate to break it to you Care, but more than likely you have wasted your money. There are already INCANDESCENT bulbs that meet the energy standard:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Philips-75-Watt-EcoVantage-Light-White/dp/B001FA07TI]Amazon.com: Philips 75-Watt A19 EcoVantage Light Bulb, Soft White, 2 Pack: Home Improvement[/ame]

Those bulbs sell for $6.68 for TWO bulbs; 'old' incandescent bulbs sell for $.99 for FOUR and you get them even cheaper if you buy them on a BOGO sale.

You miss the point. What is/will be available will be exorbitantly more expensive than 'old' incandescent bulbs (see your link). The 'cheap' option will be the cfls.

So gov't intervenes, the cheap option disappears and joe schmoe is stuck with less-but-more-expensive choice.

Brilliant.

Define "more expensive". The upfront cost is higher, but they save a ton of money in the long-run.

 

[Polk]

Well, look at that....the prices have already come down and they are cheaper than CFLs.

Energy Efficient Incandescent Light Bulbs | 1000Bulbs.com

How is this an energy efficient bulb? It has 1,000 life hours.

So does a regular incandescent bulb.

Energy efficient refers to the number of watts used by the bulb, not the bulb's lifespan.

 

[Polk]

So far the idea behind this ban boils down to "I think fluorescent bulbs are better and more efficient so I think everyone should have to buy them." That is statism at its worst, when objective mandates by those in power coercively replace subjective choices of individuals.

I agree. While we're at it, let's start back selling lead paint.

 

[Meister]

A warning on the base of my CFL light bulb:

Contains Mercury-
Dispose according to Local,
state, or federal laws.

Doesn't this raise any eyebrows from the greenies?

Why should it? The mercury in a CFL is less than the amount of mercury pumped in to the air by the increased power generation needed to fuel older bulbs.

Did you really think about what you posted, or are you on deflect control.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

A warning on the base of my CFL light bulb:

Contains Mercury-
Dispose according to Local,
state, or federal laws.

Doesn't this raise any eyebrows from the greenies?

so say for the last 10 years or so I've been just throwing them in the trash.....is that bad?

 

[Polk]

A warning on the base of my CFL light bulb:

Contains Mercury-
Dispose according to Local,
state, or federal laws.

Doesn't this raise any eyebrows from the greenies?

Why should it? The mercury in a CFL is less than the amount of mercury pumped in to the air by the increased power generation needed to fuel older bulbs.

Did you really think about what you posted, or are you on deflect control.

It's a pretty simple to understand concept.

 

[ShackledNation]

So far the idea behind this ban boils down to "I think fluorescent bulbs are better and more efficient so I think everyone should have to buy them." That is statism at its worst, when objective mandates by those in power coercively replace subjective choices of individuals.

I agree. While we're at it, let's start back selling lead paint.

Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it. Lightbulbs containing another toxic substance are now being encouraged. A bit inconsistent, no?

 

[Polk]

So far the idea behind this ban boils down to "I think fluorescent bulbs are better and more efficient so I think everyone should have to buy them." That is statism at its worst, when objective mandates by those in power coercively replace subjective choices of individuals.

I agree. While we're at it, let's start back selling lead paint.

Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it. Lightbulbs containing another toxic substance are now being encouraged. A bit inconsistent, no?

Not in the least. Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it to which people were constantly exposed. Unless you break a bulb open and start sucking on the insides, that's not true of CFLs.

 

[ShackledNation]

I agree. While we're at it, let's start back selling lead paint.

Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it. Lightbulbs containing another toxic substance are now being encouraged. A bit inconsistent, no?

Not in the least. Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it to which people were constantly exposed. Unless you break a bulb open and start sucking on the insides, that's not true of CFLs.

And bulbs never break, right? You still seem to be scrambling for exceptions. So answer this question. What is the general quality of an item that justifies a ban? Is it "exposing users to a toxic substance constantly?" Is it "being less efficient than another product?" What is it? What is the belief? Because so far I just see the answer "because I think so" and that wont cut it.

 

[Polk]

Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it. Lightbulbs containing another toxic substance are now being encouraged. A bit inconsistent, no?

Not in the least. Lead paint was banned because it had a toxic substance in it to which people were constantly exposed. Unless you break a bulb open and start sucking on the insides, that's not true of CFLs.

And bulbs never break, right? You still seem to be scrambling for exceptions. So answer this question. What is the general quality of an item that justifies a ban? Is it "exposing users to a toxic substance constantly?" Is it "being less efficient than another product?" What is it? What is the belief? Because so far I just see the answer "because I think so" and that wont cut it.

Bulbs break, but it's not a serious hazard if you dispose of them.

I'd like for you to name a product that's been banned for being less efficient. That's not the case with bulbs, as incandescents exist that meet the requirement.

I would say exposing users to a toxin constantly is a pretty different from having the possibility of a toxin spreading. Drinking bleach would be harmful, but we don't ban bleach.