U.S. Ban On Incandescent Light Bulbs Starts Next Week: Here’s What To Know (TOMORROW)

forbes ^

[algore]

The Biden Administration will implement a ban on incandescent light bulbs starting next week in favor of energy-efficient bulbs, following a yearslong bipartisan effort to phase out the bulbs after earlier regulations and standards were blocked by former President Donald Trump.

The Department of Energy approved new rules for light bulbs last year that will take effect on August 1, including a new minimum standard for light bulbs at 45 lumens—or brightness—per watt, an increase over the average 12 to 18 lumens per watt for incandescent bulbs.

Retailers will be prohibited from selling any bulbs—including incandescent bulbs—that don’t match the new standard, though households using any existing bulb that does not meet the standard will not be required to stop using them.

The decision was meant to conserve energy and “help consumers save on their energy bills,” as more energy-efficient bulbs—like LEDs—use at least 75% less energy and last up to 25 times longer than incandescent bulbs, according to the department.

An effort to phase out less efficient bulbs was initiated by former President George W. Bush, whose Energy Independence and Security Act in 2007 called for household light bulbs to have “about 25% greater efficiency,” though it did not outright ban incandescent bulbs, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

Former President Barack Obama added two new regulations to the act in 2017, which would have effectively phased out incandescent bulbs and other specialty bulbs, like candle-shaped bulbs used in chandeliers, by January 2020, according to the EPA.

The Department of Energy later blocked the regulations during Trump’s presidency in 2019, after Trump—who said energy-efficient bulbs Americans were “being forced to use” made him “look orange”

[itsahoot]

I don’t like the cold light ..:

They have bulbs that produce the warmer light, many new light fixture have selectable temperature settings. If you want bright light like an office get the 5000k bulb, warmer get 4000 or 3000k bulbs. Really just go somewhere that has a large selection of lights and fixtures and you will see that you can have it about anyway you like, and use less electric in the process.

Look at all those pot lamps that were the rage and learn that they can be installed today without a pot just surface mount them, they are super thin.

[itsahoot]

Electric hot water heaters also eat energy.

Don't worry they are going after those as well with heat pump type water heaters. Not sure how hot they will get but what the heck they will only cost three or four thousand, plus a few grand to install.

I love LED bulbs and new toilets but free market would have gotten there without the heavy hand of government but Al Gerbil said they couldn’t wait on us to figure it out. Besides they have figured out they just need to change demand by eliminating the user to save the planet for the elite. That is what should concern us not a light bulb that is actually better anyway.

[gitmo]

The Federal Government has no authority to do this.

[TexasGator]

“You are lucky then. Mine last maybe 6 to 9 months, start flickering and then fail. I have a few that have lasted a long tine, but most of the LED’s that I have gotten follow what I call the “Green Rule” - They cost twice as much and work half as well.”

My whole house is LED. It is not luck that none have gone out.

[traderrob6]

Judgmental little know it all smart az aren't you. I've tried plenty of LED's and find then all to emit cold, bluish tinted light that's more irritating then fluorescent let alone incandescent. You want to use them, knock yourself out but take your patronizing smug attitude and go pound salt.

What the f&^k do TV sets have to do with home lighting. Like to present straw man arguments do you?

[itsahoot]

However, the real issue is whether gov't should be able to ban incandescents and effectively force people to use LEDs. Do you agree with that? I do not.

Bingo!

[itsahoot]

THAT would be a total non-sequitur. Automotive bulbs don’t run off the f’n grid!

In EV's they do. {:~)

[itsahoot]

The Federal Government has no authority to do this.

Of course not but they have the power. Do you have the power to stop them?

[itsahoot]

I've tried plenty of LED's and find then all to emit cold, bluish tinted light that's more irritating then fluorescent let alone incandescent.

B$

Judgmental little know it all smart az aren't you.

I am 85 years old and still able to learn, maybe you aren't.

[rlmorel]

This is the epitome of stupidity.

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 LED (or CFL) 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, LED, 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 LED or 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 LED and CFL bulbs at a hugely increased cost (Keeping in mind that the CFL bulbs 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 or LED 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.

[traderrob6]

I’m old enough to know when to take Mark Twain’s advice concerning “arguing with a fool”.

Have a pleasant evening.

[ansel12]

There is a range of bulbs, some are daylight, some are warm light, different types are best for different rooms

[rlmorel]

For what is it worth, I like the LED lights (not the idiotic CFL bulbs)

They have done a fine job with orchestrating and mixing the output of the LED bulbs so they look more natural.

The problem I have is the government forcing this down our throats for stupidly little gain. I believe LED will eventually displace incandescent bulbs of their own accord. I believe the market would make it work on its own.

I can’t believe people are being apologists for government tyranny for this move, because that is what it is.

[ansel12]

Aren’t CFLs banned?

Does anyone still buy them or want them?

[HamiltonJay]

Actually it was made to made the bulb manufacturers more money. They pushed and bought this legislation

[rlmorel]

They should be banned, but I don’t think they are yet. I could be wrong on this.

They are hazardous waste. But it was the stupidity of unilateral, tyrannical government that forced them on us.

[Auntie Dem]

The one brand I’ve had the best luck with is Cree. They seem to last longer and appear to be better made.

[TexasGator]

“The one brand I’ve had the best luck with is Cree.”

Leader in their field but expensive. I can get a 6-pack of FEIT at Costco for the price of one Cree!

[traderrob6]

I have yet to find one to my liking, regardless, I am a believer in letting people make there own choices as opposed to being dictated to by those who maintain they know better.

[NetAddicted]

I like the new bulbs, because they last so long. I have no idea about new bulbs for car lights. Personally, I think Biden should keep the F out of people’s personal decisions about what they buy, but Dementia Joe doesn’t have enough brain power to make any decisions.