New, federally-mandated light bulbs will cost $50 -- each

[StanScratch]

Firstly, this thread's title is totally disingenuous. The new light bulb in NOT Federally mandated. The obsolescence of the old 100 Watt bulb is what is being mandated ....

Quoted for truth.
The guvmint is not telling you which light bulbs to buy.
The 50 dollar bulbs are NOT the only bulbs which will be available.
The only bulbs the guvmint has outlawed are the worthless old designs which were designed to burn out in a couple of months. I bought a a few 4 packs of the spiral bulbs for 5 bucks and replaced those old design bulbs four years ago, and have yet to change a bulb. And, yes, my electric bill did go down. I keep track and notice things like this, rather than waiting for someone named Rush, Glenn or Sarah to tell me what to think.
So, go ahead and put down your pitchforks, kneejerkers. Thinking that "the guvmint taking over yer lightbulbs is the the first step is" is only the first step towards ignorance.

 

[Member442]

If they did that here and I had to spend 50 bucks a bulb I'd be going back to candle light I have tons of them in the house now I couldn't affort the like 400 -500 at least it would caught to by them for my entire house actually that wouldn't even be the entire house. THat is just not right.

 

[Kingfisher]

I actually bought two small LED bulbs, but I got them at walmart for 6 bucks for a pair. Those New York assholes won't be around long and deserve to be shot in the balls for pulling that kind of shit during difficult economic times.

 

[delta9]

When they start banning gas powered vehicles you can be upset. But lightbulbs?? Cmon man. We talkin bout lightbulbs. Lightbulbs man! Not vehicles. Not weapons. Not the things we love. Lightbulbs! We talkin bout lightbulbs man.

Classic!

But at $50 per bulb, that adds up very fast. Will this effect those 3-way bulbs that also go over 100 watts at the highest level? I look forward to the extra problems that will come from their improper disposal. In my opinion, they should have shelved this until they came up with a non-hazardous bulb.

 

[Will E Worm]

To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012.

The federal government passed the law making this a federally mandated light bulb. The law needs to be overturned.

Except they have mercury in them..

The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each ans have mercury in them that makes them not worth it.

 

[Ike Stain]

Buy these shitty carcinogen causing mercury filled fuckbulbs.

This is the classic "conservative" (read Radical) double standard. No worries about the toxic impact of mountaintop removal, but "those commies are allowing MERCURY in LIGHTBULBS!!!"

 

[lurkingdirk]

I have been replacing all the bulbs in my house with LED bulbs as the old ones burn out. Most of the bulbs in my house (and all those on my vehicles) are now LED. I likely won't have to replace them ever again, and my electricity bill is minuscule. I get the bulbs for around 8$ each.

In addition to my own benefits - no more replacing bulbs, spending less on energy - My house is producing substantially less CO2. It's good for the environment, despite the trace amounts of Mercury that are present in these bulbs. If you take these bulbs to the proper disposal sites when they burn out, there's no issue with the Mercury. It doesn't get released into the landfill, it gets reclaimed and reused.

But, I just love the right-winged double standard. As soon as the government gets involved, they're concerned about the environment. Never mind that the solid facts of the matter clearly show that LED lighting is the way of the future because it is GOOD for the environment. Nice double-standard, you bunch of fucking douche-bags.

 

[jynweythek]

Figures the government would charge 50$ and ban the old ones, Im not so proud of being an american...

 

[Boothbabe]

Traditional lightbulbs are already banned in the EU but a guy in Belgium has found a way around it. Traditional lightbulbs convert only 20% of the energy they consume into light, 80% is converted into heat so he's selling them as heatbulbs. Light is just a byproduct as he puts it. The funny thing is, he's getting away with it :1orglaugh

 

[lurkingdirk]

Traditional lightbulbs are already banned in the EU but a guy in Belgium has found a way around it. Traditional lightbulbs convert only 20% of the energy they consume into light, 80% is converted into heat so he's selling them as heatbulbs. Light is just a byproduct as he puts it. The funny thing is, he's getting away with it :1orglaugh

This sort of thing is already gearing up to happen here. And it will, and people will get away with it.

Traditional incandescent bulbs are heaters, and light is a byproduct. That much is, actually entirely true, even if it sounds ridiculous.

 

[StanScratch]

Figures the government would charge 50$ and ban the old ones, Im not so proud of being an american...

Good fucking grief. Does anyone here actually read?


The guvinmint is not charging for the light bulbs.
The guvinmint is not making you buy a 50 dollar light bulb. Cheaper alternatives can be found at 1/10th the price.

No wonder this fucking country is falling behind in education. When the adults refuse to read and/or process the information independently, how can we expect the same from our children?

 

[lurkingdirk]

Good fucking grief. Does anyone here actually read?

 

[Kingfisher]

I get the bulbs for around 8$ each.

Where? I'm always looking for a good deal on stronger LED bulbs.

 

[lurkingdirk]

Where? I'm always looking for a good deal on stronger LED bulbs.

Never the same place twice - when I need some, I shop around online. I'd love to support local business, but they can't compete. Somewhere online will always be having a sale, so I stock up as needed.

lightbulbdirect.com is one I have used, for example.

 

[rock hard]

To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them.

LEDs have a general life expectancy of 50 000 hrs. If you use your lights for 10 hours a day, this should be 13.7 yrs.
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/led-lights/2009/02/led-life-expectancy.html
$50.00/13.7= $3.65 per year cost :eek:

Fluorescent bulbs contain Mercury...not LED's
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2369481...nt/t/shining-light-hazards-fluorescent-bulbs/
The hazard exists if they are broken...so the lights above your cubicle are not beaming bad stuff down on ya :2 cents:

 

[Ike Stain]

LEDs have a general life expectancy of 50 000 hrs. If you use your lights for 10 hours a day, this should be 13.7 yrs.
http://www.electronicsweekly.com/blogs/led-lights/2009/02/led-life-expectancy.html
$50.00/13.7= $3.65 per year cost :eek:

The thing that gets me is how the business friendly "conservatives" (read Radical Right) never seem to have a grasp on basic economics.

Remember how expensive flat screen TVs were when they came out? Notice how cheap they are now?

The reason the bulbs are $50 is there's very low demand and so the production scale is small. As soon as the new law kicks in, demand will begin to grow leading to a scaling up of the manufacturing, and the price will go down.

These things are going end up being cheap, just like the TVs.

Economics 101.

 

[StanScratch]

The thing that gets me is how the business friendly "conservatives" (read Radical Right) never seem to have a grasp on basic economics.

Remember how expensive flat screen TVs were when they came out? Notice how cheap they are now?

The reason the bulbs are $50 is there's very low demand and so the production scale is small. As soon as the new law kicks in, demand will begin to grow leading to a scaling up of the manufacturing, and the price will go down.

These things are going end up being cheap, just like the TVs.

Economics 101.

It is because of the inability of those radical righties to grasp logic that we continually spend more money on cheap crap.
That business model seems to be:
Step One: Outsource jobs in the states for cheap labor (ie, illegals, the Chinese or India).
Step Two: Produce cheap and shoddy product.
Step Three: Because we as Americans are losing those jobs via outsourcing (after all, our standard of living is less than what it was 30 years ago), we can afford less, hence end up buying cheaper crap.
Step Four: Cheap craps poops out on us in a short period of time, hence we buy more cheap crap to replace said cheap crap. Of course, that cheap crap will have to be replaced soon enough, and so on and so on and so on.
Step Five: Suits responsible for outsourcing continue to pull in the money, saving quite a bit in payroll and material overhaul.
It's a win-win for conservatives!

 

[Ike Stain]

They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they... are improperly thrown away.

Now if I was gonna attack the Left, ^^^this^^^ is what I would use.

Mercury is a valuable material, we use it a lot of technology. As long as it's recycled properly, there's no problem. However...

I don't know how it is in Europe or San Francisco, but in America WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU DISPOSE OF THESE THINGS PROPERLY? MY RECYCLING COMPANY JUST DUMPS SHIT INTO A LANDFILL BY ALL REPORTS, AND APPARENTLY I HAVE TO DRIVE OUT TO A SPECIAL DUMP TO GET RID OF COMPUTERS, BATTERIES AND LIGHTBULBS, CUZ MY SHITTY-ASS RECYCLING SERVICE DON'T TAKE 'EM. SO I END UP JUST DUMPING THEM IN THE GARBAGE JUST LIKE 99% OF EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTRY DOES! THIS IS THE FUCKING PROBLEM WITH THE MERCURY! THIS IS THE LIBERAL DOUBLE STANDARD!

 

[Trident1]

Break a bulb it releases mercury. Great thanks Green people.

When the bulb is on it releases carcinogens..............thanks Green people.

Golly thanks for everything.

 

[Ike Stain]

When the bulb is on it releases carcinogens

This has not been confirmed. It's based on a single result from a single source. Science is based on repeatable results. Thus far I haven't seen any studies corroborating this. So maybe they do, maybe they don't. At this point, it's still a question.

(Unlike, I might add, global warming, which has the consensus of 99% of the scientific community. Michael Savage having an extremely compelling quote about global warming being a hoax does not make it true.)

I don't see too many people screaming about cell phones which also contain lots of toxic stuff and may be linked to brain cancer.