US lifts ban on old-style light bulbs

BBC News ^

[ameribbean expat]

The US is scrapping a ban on energy-inefficient light bulbs which was due to come in at the beginning of 2020. The rule would have prohibited the sale of bulbs that do not reach a standard of efficiency, and could have seen an end to incandescent bulbs. Many countries have phased out older bulbs because they waste energy. But the US energy department said banning incandescent bulbs would be bad for consumers because of the higher cost of more efficient bulbs. The Department of Energy said it had withdrawn the ban because it was a misinterpretation of the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Specifically, the law stipulated that restrictions on bulbs could only be implemented when it was economically justified , Shaylyn Hynes, a spokeswoman for the Department of Energy, told the New York Times. Activists say the government has come under pressure from manufacturers. " It makes zero sense to eliminate energy-saving light bulb standards that will save households money on electricity bills and cut climate change emissions," Appliance Standards Awareness Project executive director Andrew deLaski told the Washington Post. "Instead, the Trump administration is siding with manufacturers that want to keep selling outdated, energy-wasting light bulbs."

[Ronniesque]

It’s those specialty bulbs that I still have around that I will not have to change over now...not really that much difference in energy use because they get little use. The main bulbs around the house I did change over. One thing that helped on table lamps is to have shades that did not have that lining that turns yellow over time.

[Hot Tabasco]

who the heck keeps receipts for light bulbs?

I vaguely remember when the electric company used to give them out for free. You just took in your burned out bulbs and they would give you new ones......

[GingisK]

I would imagine that the tooling has been destroyed.

[GingisK]

Because they are made in China.

[rlmorel]

"...whoever had worked on it last dropped the distributor in backwards, and the timing was 180 degrees off..."

ROTFLMAO!!!!! Now THAT is a testament indeed!

[DoodleDawg]

Does anyone still manufacture the old style bulbs anymore? Other than China?

[Roccus]

Pretty much every incandescent light bulb you find at a retailer will say "Made in China".

That's because the last major US manufacturer of incandescent bulbs, GE, closed its plant in Sept. 2010 thanks to the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

[rlmorel]

I thought Steve_Seattle was talking about CFLs, not LED. In my experience, everything bad said about CFL bulbs was right on, particularly the bulb life. I never had a CFL go anywhere near the life they advertised, and often, they didn’t last much longer than regular incandescent bulbs, which really infuriated me.

LED lights, however, are a completely different ball of wax. They actually are tuned (wavelength wise) to something pleasing to the eye!

[Roccus]

I am too lazy to check it out, but I believe it was George W. Bush who signed the bill into law.

YUP!...2007 Energy Independence and Security Act.

[rlmorel]

I love it.

Like many here (like YOU Cobra64) I have moved on, and I DO like LED lights because that energy saving technology works and they have tweaked them so they don't look too bad. But we all know: CFL lighting was complete crap. But I do believe LED lights would have made it to the market without the CFL abomination first.

I read my old analysis, and I have to laugh at "a lost battle not worth fighting" and then...along comes Trump!!! All that is old and lost becomes new and found!

There are some here who might still enjoy the analysis because it demonstrates the Leftist mindset where virtue signaling is far more significant than fact, and the underlying notions are the same ones driving global warming virtue signaling we see today:

---

---

---

I did this analysis a couple of years back, but I'm not sure anyone even cares about this anymore. A lost battle not worth fighting. And liberals of all stripes (including many non-democrats who wanted an environmental feather to put in their "I'm Green too" hat, emboldened by that victory, turn the screws tighter.

I don't have an issue with the lights themselves. If people want to use them, that is their business if they want to pay the money and a manufacturer thinks they can make money by producing them. What I take issue with is government bureaucrats taking my money via confiscatory taxes, TELLING me how to spend the money they leave me, then passing legislation to DRIVE up the cost of energy so we are FORCED to spend more money to drive our cars, heat our homes and turn on our lights, whether they be incandescent or CFL. These bastards think they are doing us a big favor because they think they know best, and are trying to twist our arms to accept their utopian crap. They think if energy costs go up high enough, their plans to harness unicorn flatulence or whatever will become economically viable.

Well I don't care to take part in their damned experiments. If my town wants to purchase LED based traffic and street lights because it saves the town money and is a guaranteed return on investment, then power to them.

If people want these CFL lights in the marketplace as an alternative to make their homes more energy efficient, then I think is is fine and would never say boo to anyone so inclined.

Actually, my issue is not even residential lighting. Making citizens purchase stuff we don't want and don't need is NOT going to solve any kind of energy shortage. It is the equivalent of selling carbon credits or putting a magnetic sticker on the back of a car. It is Jimmy Carter wearing sweaters and telling us to turn our thermostats down.

So to make my point that forcing all of us to use these things, have to pay MORE money to buy them (even though most of us have found they don't last nearly as long as the government says they do)

Here an the original unaltered graph from Livermore Labs/DOE which I think is a very, very good graphical representation (reflecting the situation in 2009):

As shown below, I cut out a part of that graph and marked it up. Of the four major sectors, residential is the second smallest using just 4.65% of generated electrical power as shown by the graph. Government statistics say lighting consumes 12% of 4.65% of electricity flowing into a house. In the inset (enlarged) part shows the 4.65% pipeline with the red stripe on it showing the lighting share, and the green stripe showing what it would be if we assume 10% efficiency compared to CFL for incandescent bulbs, the assumptions I make are summarized in the yellow inset box in the graphic below, all from accepted industry sources. (The orange pipe leading into the box signifies the RESIDENTAL SECTOR of the energy grid and is representative of energy generated from all sources)

In particular, pay attention to the enlarged pop-out section that has the thick red line and the thin green line which illustrates the significance of the "energy savings". It is so risibly minuscule that it is absurd.

This shows the projected "Savings" by foisting this CFL abortion on individual citizens:

I didn't get this image from some conservative anti-government website. I made it myself after analyzing the data on the graph and government data such as estimates of how much lighting uses. And it illustrates the point I make, backed up with the government's own data, that forcing us to do this via statist legislation is basically ANOTHER camel nose in the figurative tent...BECAUSE THEY CAN.

Don't get me wrong. I believe that a lot of small things can add up to a big thing (Many Mickles make a Muckle) but this approach is absolute stupidity. It punishes both the consumer AND the environment, forcing people to accept these CFL bulbs at a hugely increased cost that have to be treated as toxic waste.

If the market really wanted these lightbulbs, they would have made it on their own without government legislation. But, in my opinion, buying into this without a fight just exacerbates this statist mess we are in covering everything from legislation against transfats and salt in the diet to the amount of water we can flush down our toilet. Liberals think this is great because it is their pet thing that they have bought hook, line and sinker, running around screaming that we are running out of energy. Surrendering to this just invites the government to intrude into EVERY facet of our life.

I don't disparage people for choosing CFL's as a stand to take. I believe I have the data (shown graphically here) to indicate that using CFL's in houses isn't going to save us from anything. It is just a piece of do-gooder legislation that only does just that...makes guilty people feel good. I readily admit that one can make an argument for commercial/industrial building codes and so on, and I might buy into it and agree, the same as I agree with towns purchasing led-based traffic lights. However, building codes are so top heavy with bureaucracy now that I would fight against mandating these in commercial use on those grounds alone.

My home is my home (or at least, SHOULD be "my home"). And we have gone far too long allowing the government to dictate what we can and cannot do on our own quarter acre of land, small as it is. I am sick to death of it.

[Roccus]

Yeah, the ol’ Mopar 225 Slant Six. I had one of those in my ‘70 Plymouth Duster. What a dog. LOL

Those engines were bulletproof.

[Roccus]

Have you tried 1000 bulbs?

https://www.1000bulbs.com/category/tube-lights/

[lgjhn23]

“...Had an old Dodge Dart. Slant 6. Best engine ever!...”
Yep. Had a ‘65 Valiant with the 225 slant six. Car rusted out but the engine was indestructible. Changed to 4:10 gears in the back, a slightly warmer cam and a small 450 cfm 4bbl Holley for a carb...you’d be surprised what that engine would do.

[centurion316]

I did not intend to infer that you are a Nazi, but I did, and for that I apologize. Unfortunately, your comment cannot be distinguished from the demands of the zealots who led the government to ban incandescent light bulbs.

The market will sort it out. For myself, I will continue to use cheap lights on the back porch, in the garage and the shed, and in closets to keep the humidity down.

[grania]

Thank you for that analysis. I’m saving it for a careful reading tonight. It’s not just about light bulbs....solar, wind, antibacterial ingredients in soap, funding sports stadiums, the list is endless. These are all things where the market should decide. There will be more efficient results if government money isn’t used.

[be-baw]

LED lights are great for task lighting. I have a desk lamp and a floor standing lamp that I love.

Last I knew and my own experience shows that the ones that screw into lamps and fixtures that were designed for incandescent bulbs are not all that great, especially the 100 W equivalents.

The screw in LEDs have a heat sink on them and will fail prematurely in a fixture (like a ceiling fixture) that has a lens enclosure. At least that’s true of 100 W equivalents.

[TexasGator]

LOL!

1. Commercial and Industry dont use lighting.

2. Who uses CFLs.

[TexasGator]

LOL!

1. Commercial and Industry dont use lighting.

2. Who uses CFLs.

[TexasGator]

“Last I knew and my own experience shows that the ones that screw into lamps and fixtures that were designed for incandescent bulbs are not all that great, especially the 100 W equivalents.
The screw in LEDs have a heat sink on them and will fail prematurely in a fixture (like a ceiling fixture) that has a lens enclosure. At least that’s true of 100 W equivalents.”

My whole house is LED and we couldn’t be happier!

Bulbs are from 9 months ton 3 years old and NO failure.

[be-baw]

That’s good to know. I’ll likely give them another try. Maybe they’ve gotten better in the last year or two, or maybe I shouldn’t have skimped on the cheap store brand.