December 16, 2011

The squelching of our freedom to bask in the warm light of incandescent light bulbs...

... has been pushed back from January 1st to September 30th.

Great! Now, it can be an issue in the 2012 elections. Even though I've already hoarded many light bulbs, this is an issue that can tip me. I'm very pro-incandescent. I fear and loathe the dimly, coldly lit future, which — may I remind you? — looks like this:



That "Joe Versus the Volcano" clip was originally posted on this blog 3 years ago, just before Obama took office. Palladian commented:
People don't want these ugly, mercury-filled things in their homes. Fluorescent light is ugly. I've experimented with these stupid CF "bulbs" and even the ones with a warmer color temperature do not produce the warm spectrum of an incandescent bulb. The problem is not color temperature or lumens, it's how the "bulb" produces light. Fluorescent sources create pulses of light rather than the continual burn of an incandescent. Save me the claptrap about better ballasts producing more even output: they're still terrible and still bother my eyes and trigger my migraines. Artwork looks terrible under their illumination. I thought these fucking hipster liberals were supposed to be the aesthetically superior ones? Fuck Obama. He can sit under the buzzing pallid glow of a mercury pigtail if he wants. I've bulk ordered every kind of incandescent bulb I'll ever need and the motherfuckers can send the EPA goon-squad over and take them from my cold, dead hands. After all, we have nothing bigger to worry about tha[n] light-bulbs, right?
The first link in this post goes to Politico, which presents opposition to the light bulb ban as right-wing stupidity:
"It's the power of Michele Bachmann and the presidential campaign," added Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee that approved the original language. "What can I say? If we can solve the energy problem with the outcome on the light bulb, America would be a great place."
The power of Michele Bachmann and the presidential campaign... uh, you mean democracy? Don't you lefties like to chant "This is what democracy looks like"? Well, this is what democracy looks like. And it looks a lot better with the lights on... though I can see why you people like to creep around in semi-darkness as you "solve" our problems.

137 comments:

traditionalguy said...

Let there be light!

Freder Frederson said...

I thought once the decision is made, we were supposed to accept it graciously. Wasn't that your beef with the Madison protesters.

I guess complaining about the process is only okay when the subject is one of your pet peeves.

Oh and by the way--you consistently misstate the law. It requires more efficient light bulbs. It doesn't explicitly ban incandescents or mandate the use of CFLs.

Scott M said...

Only slightly off-topic. I haven't seen Joe vs The Volcano in probably 20 years, but I still remember the scene that stuck with me was the luggage salesman.

Andy R. said...

You people (Althouse especially) realize that these regulations will not be banning incandescent bulbs and you will still be able to buy them after the regulations go into effect?

Are you people playing stupid or are you actually stupid?

Freder Frederson said...

Are you people playing stupid or are you actually stupid?

I often wonder if they are deliberately lying or stupid. Frequently, the answer is both.

SGT Ted said...

The 100 watt ones were due to be banned Jan 1. This is in dispute?

And what part of " it's none of the Federal governments fucking business doesn't apply?

How about getting to vote on it in the first place? This ban was shoved down our throats by the Democrats against the will of the people.

That's what leftwing dictators look like.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Obama can get the job, but can he keep the job?

Dan in Philly said...

I don't get to this day the love so many seem to have for incandescent bulbs. I get it to some extent, but to make this the metaphor on a par with John gault?

SGT Ted said...

Haha

Obama voters complaining about liars!

That's rich.

Tank said...

How will I know what kind of light bulbs to buy if Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi don't help me out?

I wonder if they can help me pick out a nice pot roast for Christmas? Maybe Nancy could give me some tips on how to cook it too.

I know, I know, they're too busy helping me in so many other ways.

Whew, thank God for all their help.

Herb said...

LED

Bushman of the Kohlrabi said...

If the government really wants to outlaw bulbs, they should start with LED Christmas lights. God those things are ugly. The old fashioned warm colors are so much better.

Andy R. said...

This ban was shoved down our throats by the Democrats against the will of the people.

We're talking about the one that Bush signed, right?

Freder Frederson said...

The 100 watt ones were due to be banned Jan 1. This is in dispute?

For those who can read, yes. The requirement is that bulbs be at least 30% more efficient at producing light than current incandescent bulbs (note that halogens meet this requirement). So if you can come up with a 30% more efficient incandescent bulb, you are welcome to produce it.

And energy efficiency standards have been the "Federal government's fucking business" for many years (e.g., refrigerators, air conditioners and furnaces). You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

I can't wait till Althouse becomes obsessed with mattress tags.

Andy R. said...

Incandescent Bulbs Not Banned. Repeat: Not Banned

Althouse: Would you care to explain what you think is going on?

rhhardin said...

Kroger's 100w bulb shelf is empty over a $1.59 (for 4) price sign, up from $1.19, which is up from $0.79 a few months ago.

Maybe there will be a price break.

Except that the on again off again regulations prevent production from restarting, and Big Bulb wants to sell the more profitable curly bulbs and is willing to pay off congress to do it, and congress is regulating it just for that payoff.

Freder Frederson said...

That's what leftwing dictators look like.

Yes, first they came for the lightbulbs, and I did not speak out . . .

Paul Zrimsek said...

I don't get to this day the love so many seem to have for incandescent bulbs.

That's the beauty of not telling other people what type of bulbs they have to buy-- you don't need to know.

LilyBart said...

We're talking about the one that Bush signed, right?

GW was a lot more "big government" than most lefties realized.

Andy R. said...

A link to Mother Jones no less!!!

That's called an ad hominem argument. It's what you do when you realize you can't win an argument on the merits.

ironrailsironweights said...

LED light bulbs have excellent light quality, right now they're quite expensive but the price keeps coming down.

Peter

Andy R. said...

What you are saying is not "fact" no matter how many times you assert it is.

How about this? "As Stephen Lacey tells us, Philips brought new, higher efficiency incandescent bulbs to market several months ago"

Can you explain to me what you think is going on here? How do people think incandescent bulbs have been banned? Althouse? Anyone?

Freder Frederson said...

LED light bulbs have excellent light quality, right now they're quite expensive but the price keeps coming down.

Wrong, Althouse tried an LED light bulb a couple years ago and she hated it. Therefore, LEDs will never be good enough for her (or anyone else for that matter).

rhhardin said...

You make a bulb more efficient by running it hotter, which changes its spectrum and reduces its life.

DaveW said...

I've stocked enough incandescent bulbs to meet our needs for at least a couple years or so. But having another 6 months to work on that project will help.

I've seen recently they came up with some 3-way versions of CFLs. Only problem being they're so enormous you can't put them in a normal lamp. Well, that's not the only problem obviously.

The fixtures in the bathroom are going to be a problem. The wife would rather light 100 candles to use for light to get ready every day than have one CFL in there. I've been piling up incandescents for in there as fast as possible.

An extra several months will help.

Freder Frederson said...

For those of you who think "incandescent bulbs are banned", check this out. I can't wait for Althouse to admit, probably for the first time in her life, that she doesn't know what the hell she is talking about. And for the apologies from the lying or stupid people who have been calling me and Andy R. liars all morning.

Joe Schmoe said...

From the article:
Fueled by conservative talk radio, Republicans made the last-ditch attempt to stop federal regulations from making their way into every Americans' living room.

It was all talk radio, huh? Not the will of the people?

Andy, it's not that we're all enamored of incandescent bulbs, although some are more than others. This is just not an area where we need government intrusion. This is a waste of time and money. Not to mention they are introducing mercury into every single house in the US. Unintended consequences don't mean anything when you have good intentions, I guess.

Craig said...

Watts aren't nearly as important as lumens. An 8 watt CFL has roughly the same luminosity as a 60 watt incandescent bulb, but it gives off very little heat. I've got track lighting in a three bedroom unit with roughly sixty light fixtures in the ceiling. I changed over from incandescent to CFL about six years ago. The difference in the price between CFL and incandescent bulbs is wholly compensated by the reduction in the expense for electricity about once every three months. Using incandescents I had to change at least half a dozen bulbs a month. During the six years since switching I don't think I've yet replaced a dozen bulbs. Incandescents make good sense if you live in a cold climate in a domicile with poor insulation. I live in the tropics with 24/7 air conditioning. I pay about $500/month for electricity and it would cost substantially more than that if I used incandescents.

Joe Schmoe said...

Did you need a government instruction book to clean up a broken light bulb?

You do now.

Monkeyboy said...

...Republicans made the last-ditch attempt to stop federal regulations from making their way into every Americans' living room.

Tell me again what is so sacrosanct about the bedroom? Libs want complete control over every other room in my house.

Seeing Red said...

I wonder if they can help me pick out a nice pot roast for Christmas? Maybe Nancy could give me some tips on how to cook it too.



Forget the pot roast, I want her financial tips. I'll be able to afford my own jet and fly to another country to buy them.

Seeing Red said...

Bans based on faulty science should be protested.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

2 completely different takes on this in the first 5 comments sums it up for me:

"I thought once the decision is made, we were supposed to accept it graciously. Wasn't that your beef with the Madison protesters."

No, liberals want everyone else to think this way.

"And what part of " it's none of the Federal governments fucking business doesn't apply?"

This seems more correct than the former view.

Liberties, snuffed out one light bulb at a time.

Joe Schmoe said...

Craig, I'm glad you had a choice and it sounds like it's working well for you. That's all I want; freedom to choose. Keep the government out of it and let us choose.

ricpic said...

Welch uses snark, the standard liberal device when there is no answer. In this case to Bachmann's defense of liberty!

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Rep Peter Welch, D-VT:

"What can I say? If we can solve the energy problem with the outcome on the light bulb, America would be a great place."

This. A meme crafted by our overlords.

That we could 'solve' the 'energy problem' just by changing light bulbs or inflating tires is overly simplistic. I'm not against becoming more efficient, I'm against faulty thinking such as this.

The pols want us to think 'green' one way while they think about it in terms of their lobbyist friends (favor-granting crony capitalism).

Heart_Collector said...

Next thing you know theyll take my thoughts away...

Henry said...

@Freder -- Read the reviews.

I suspect a lot of halogen-based alternatives will come on the market in the next year. Ikea will rake in the money. I've set up my basement workshop with 12V Ikea halogen fixtures -- with enough bulbs the light isn't too glaring. I also appreciate the fact that with low voltage current I can attach more MR16 lights with a pair of wire strands soldered to alligator clips.

But the halogen-bulb, like the CFL, is a solution to a regulatory problem, not an aesthetic or technology problem. It is a problem that the government created. They are more expensive and -- read the reviews -- are going to have quality control issues. They are also hot and may not work in small lamp fixtures.

For the upstairs rooms I bought a 100 unit box of G.E. Reveal 100W bulbs. I should probably spring for another one, and a 60W box as well before the end of the year.

SGT Ted said...

A very good point about it being signed by Bush. It shows that I don't care what political party promotes a stupid idea. It's still stupid and over reaching.

Fen said...

Damn. When Palladian knocks it out of the park, he really nails it.

Except we already know that "elites" of Obama's ilk won't abide by their own rules:

"As O'Brien passed the telescreen a thought seemed to strike him. He stopped, turned aside and pressed a switch on the wall. There was a sharp snap. The voice had stopped.

Julia uttered a tiny sound, a sort of squeak of surprise. Even in the midst of his panic, Winston was too much taken aback to be able to hold his tongue.

'You can turn it off!' he said.

'Yes,' said O'Brien, 'we can turn it off. We have that privilege.'


[...]

He saw Julia pick up her glass and sniff at it with frank curiosity.

'It is called wine,' said O'Brien with a faint smile. 'You will have read about it in books, no doubt. Not much of it gets to the Outer Party, I am afraid

Earth Girl said...

Something that has not been mentioned yet is how little electricity light bulbs use. Turn down your thermostat to 62 during the winter like Althouse ("I keep the thermostat at 62°.") and then you see real energy savings. Forget air-conditioning and you get even more.

Hey, maybe those that agree to keep their thermostat under 65 during the winter and over 75 during the summer can use those energy savings on incandescents. But then we would need another federal agency to monitor this.

Fen said...

Freder: For those of you who think "incandescent bulbs are banned", check this out...

"the chocolate ration has been increased from twenty grammes to thirty"

Ambrose said...

"I changed over from incandescent to CFL about six years ago."

Craig: That's the beauty of free choice. You like CFL's, go with it man. You want to explain why (as you did nicely), thank you for your contribution. You want to ban the alternatives, go away.

Robert Burnham said...

This entire issue is a perfect example of micro-managing regulations that should be left to the market. And the fact that legislation was signed by W is simply more proof that his administration was in no way a conservative one.

Leave markets alone. No regulator can ever do as well as countless numbers of people making individual decisions.

traditionalguy said...

A principle is that the Government can not take over our choice of products consumed based upon moronic myths that it somehow saves the planet from overheating.

Truth marches on!

Psychedelic George said...

Matches were invented around 1824. Before that people rubbed sticks or used magnifying glasses to make fire.

Back in the day, self-igniting matches used phosphorus.

Unfortunately, this was so poisonous, matchmakers died with alarming alacrity and frequency. Plus, people ate match heads to snuff themselves.

So governments around the world banned phosphorus matches.

About a hundred years ago, our government levied a tax so punitive on phosphorus matches they went off the market. Soon enough the modern safety match came into widespread use. So sez Wiki.

Therefore, had it not been for U.S. government intervention Frank Zappa would never have written a song containing the immortal lyric:

"The evil dope pusher is cutting up a white gym sock, formerly owned by Carl Zappa and still damp. The shredded sock will be placed inside of a high-school diploma And ignited with a sulphur preparation . . ."

Therefore, government regulation is good. My case, I rest.

Scott M said...

A principle is that the Government can not take over our choice of products consumed based upon moronic myths that it somehow saves the planet from overheating.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Pogo said...

No need to worry, resident lefties, surely this vote can be overturned by faking a few hundred thousand signatures.

Get those pens workin'!

Sofa King said...

For those of you who think "incandescent bulbs are banned", check this out.

I have no great love for old-fashioned incandescents. But that doesn't prevent me from making a few observations.

1. The linked Philips bulb claims to emit the absolute lowest number of lumens (1490) considered by the regulation to be "100 watt" equivalent. In fact, most 100 watt bulbs emit considerably more light, around 1700 lumens. So one reason this bulb uses less energy is because it is dimmer. And the convenience of those two numbers being *exactly* the same...were the regulations specifically written for Philips to be able to market this bulb as a "100 watt" equivalent and effectively eliminating all competitors?

2. If, as claimed, this bulb is just as good as a regular 100 watt bulb, then there is no need for the regulation at all. Philips can market the bulb for saving energy, and customers who want to save energy will buy it.

NotquiteunBuckley said...

Light bulbs ought to be seen (glowingly) as a tenth amendment issue.

Don't worry folks, Justice Thomas is watching, thinking, preparing, and doing what he does best. Sure sure, the process is slow and frustrating.

But J.T. at this very moment, right now, might be researching what the authors of the Federalist Papers would recognize in today's power-clutching Democrats in order to find a more perfect argument to embolden his peers like Roberts, Alito, and Scalia.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/08/29/110829fa_fact_toobin

This link has a bunch of trash, but is still remarkable as testimony that proves Harry Reid is racist, as this article by J. Toobin proves ONLY a racist would claim J.T.'s opinions are poorly written and thought out.

"In several of the most important areas of constitutional law, Thomas has emerged as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Since the arrival of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., in 2005, and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., in 2006, the Court has moved to the right when it comes to the free-speech rights of corporations, the rights of gun owners, and, potentially, the powers of the federal government; in each of these areas, the majority has followed where Thomas has been leading for a decade or more. Rarely has a Supreme Court Justice enjoyed such broad or significant vindication.

The conventional view of Thomas takes his lack of participation at oral argument as a kind of metaphor. The silent Justice is said to be an intellectual nonentity, a cipher for his similarly conservative colleague, Antonin Scalia. But those who follow the Court closely find this stereotype wrong in every particular. Thomas has long been a favorite of conservatives, but they admire the Justice for how he gives voice to their cause, not just because he votes their way. “Of the nine Justices presently on the Court, he is the one whose opinions I enjoy reading the most,” Steve Calabresi, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law and a co-founder of the Federalist Society, said. “They are very scholarly, with lots of historical sources, and his views are the most principled, even among the conservatives. He has staked out some bold positions, and then the Court has set out and moved in his direction.”

Thomas’s intellect and his influence have also been recognized by those who generally disagree with his views. According to Akhil Reed Amar, a professor at Yale Law School, Thomas’s career resembles that of Hugo Black, the former Alabama senator who served from 1937 to 1971 and is today universally regarded as a major figure in the Court’s history. “Both were Southerners who came to the Court young and with very little judicial experience,” Amar said. (Thomas is from Georgia.) “Early in their careers, they were often in dissent, sometimes by themselves, but they were content to go their own way. But once Earl Warren became Chief Justice the Court started to come to Black. It’s the same with Thomas and the Roberts Court. Thomas’s views are now being followed by a majority of the Court in case after case.”

dmoelling said...

Residential Lighting is about 8% of total electric use. Pretty trivial. Unlike offices and stores, most home lighting is used only a few hours a day so initial cost, rapid start, and pleasing light is more important to USERS than energy cost.

But greens don't care about USERs or for that matter about energy savings. It's the penitential aspects of the green religion that matter. So think of it as a lamp based burka.

Skyler said...

I confess I like the new bulbs in many applications because they don't bake my office, which has several overhead lamps in the ceiling. I just wish they were fully bright immediately and lasted as long as they advertise.

Pogo said...

The point of the ban is not saving energy but, like the healthcare mandate, trans fat bans, and the recent ban on car texting, a naked desire for power over people in every aspect of their lives.

Even most of the Republicans quoted in the article couldn't mention the basic idea that this was none of their business.

So I have no hope at all for our future as a nation. We are heading straight for totalitarianism, a soft, mostly smiley and smug one, but a nation with total control over every room in the house, our garage, our offices, and every business that is allowed to operate.

The lust for power is too enticing, and the living Constitution too accommodating to resist it.

So fear not, Freder and tilty cap man, you're gonna get your authoritarianism, good and hard.

EDH said...

Perfect example of perverse government incentives.

Now that people have already stocked-up on 100w bulbs for the indefinite future, it's likely people will now use the higher wattage bulbs in lamps where they otherwise would have used a lower wattage.

Not only using more energy, but in some cases a fire hazard.

Bender said...

Like I said the other day, "freedom of choice" is a one-way street. The ONLY acceptable "choice" is to have an abortion.

Freedom of choice does not mean being free to choose what school your kids go to, it does not mean choosing what light bulbs you buy, it does not mean choosing to buy or not buy health "insurance," it does not mean having the freedom in choosing the thousands of other activities and behaviors of daily life. Choice means one thing and one thing only -- to abort.

If you don't want to abort, shut the hell up and you will take whatever f*cking light bulb the government tells you to take!

Bruce Hayden said...

I agree with Pogo - it isn't the government's d*** business what I do with my light fixtures.

And, the absurdity of the whole thing is that the government isn't regulating the amount of power that anyone uses for lighting overall, but rather, on a per fixture basis. That means that the 1% in their mansions, like AlGore, can use dozens and dozens of bulbs, and use far, far, more electricity than the one room shack. But, that is ok, since the 1% are using CFLs and single sheets of toilet paper (that was, I believe, one of his buddies, Laurie David).

Craig said...

One of the reasons I had to change bulbs so often when using incandescents is that the voltage where I live is 220 instead of 110 and the system doesn't regulate spikes or fluctuations very effectively. Spikes were a major factor in the rate at which the incandescents burned out. The bulbs I use now advertise an average life of 8,000 hours or four years. The incandescents that were in place all burned out within six months or a year, so replacing them with CFLs was a gradual process. I don't think I ever bought more than half a dozen at a time. I would guess that two thirds or more of the original CFLs I bought are still in use after six years. They seem largely immune to spikes in current and caught on very quickly in a country where the cost of a dozen CFLs is more than half of what most people earn in a month.

Calypso Facto said...

"Everything within the state, nothing outside the state."

Mussolini would be so proud at how far we've come.

Jay said...

"What can I say? If we can solve the energy problem with the outcome on the light bulb, America would be a great place."


And what, exactly, is this "energy problem" he is referring to anyway???

edutcher said...

At the time the bill passed, wasn't this a windfall for Red China, which seemed to have a corner on the rare earths used to make the new bulbs?

And wasn't Dr Evil heavily invested in said Red Chinese rare earths?

Andy R. said...

You people (Althouse especially) realize that these regulations will not be banning incandescent bulbs and you will still be able to buy them after the regulations go into effect?

Are you people playing stupid or are you actually stupid?


Spoken by the expert.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...

Can you explain to me what you think is going on here? How do people think incandescent bulbs have been banned? Althouse? Anyone?



Here is what is going on:
The government, through regulation, is seeing to it that incandescent light bulbs that are currently available for sale, will not be at a date in the future. They are banned. Which is why factories closed and laid of workers, for example.

Can you point out where Ann or anyone else said all incandescent bulbs are being banned?

Because that is what you are arguing against.

Original Mike said...

" So if you can come up with a 30% more efficient incandescent bulb, you are welcome to produce it."

This is rich, coming from you. Have you figured out how a light bulb works, yet?

Hoosier Daddy said...

"... I often wonder if they are deliberately lying or stupid. Frequently, the answer is both..."

Says our resident physics professor.

bagoh20 said...

If the people ignore the law, will the SWAT teams smash down your door, shoot your dog and haul you off.

And what if you are growing pot with 100 watt bulbs. They might even be justified in shooting the damned goldfish.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It sure would be nice if the Federal government was as intrusive over things like illegal immigration as they are with my light bulbs.

Then again regulating our borders is probably too much even for leftists to accept.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

LED light bulbs have excellent light quality

Maybe....maybe not. Depends on where you are using them and for what purpose.

The use of the bulbs and preference for LED over incandescent or mercury laden CFL bulbs depends on the application for which you are using the bulbs.

You just cannot substitute for an incandescent when you need not only the light BUT also the heat it produces. Poultry brooders. Seed starting. Pump house and unheated garage applications to prevent freezing of water supply lines.

The quick on feature of incandescents is also important in areas where the lights are outdoors and in sub freezing temperatures. We have not had a day for over 3 weeks where the evening and morning, when it is freaking DARK, temps are above 20 degrees. Other bulbs just do not work, comeon in a timely manner.

If you want efficient....you cannot beat Rough Service light bulbs.....5000 hours. And they are inexpensive.

The quality of the light is also important. Incandescents give good warm, comforting light. Fluorescents make everyone look like they are zombies. Plus the flickering gives me headaches.

The bottom line is that is none of the government's business what light bulbs I use.

If other choices are better for you....have at it and butt out of my life.

MadisonMan said...

I just wish they were fully bright immediately

Yes. We have on in our kitchen, and on winter mornings, it's just not bright at first.

So, I come downstairs and turn it on, then go out in the dark and walk the dog. When I come back in, after flushing away the dog's business, the light is as bright as an incandescent would have been from the start.

Scott M said...

Poultry brooders. Seed starting. Pump house and unheated garage applications to prevent freezing of water supply lines.

...heat presses for woodworking. Four 100W bulbs in an inclosed crate work wonders.

Joe Schmoe said...

DBQ, please forgive me chuckling at your expense. When I read poultry brooders, I knew what you meant, but I immediately started thinking about what a poultry brooder would do.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

@ Craig

An 8 watt CFL has roughly the same luminosity as a 60 watt incandescent bulb, but it gives off very little heat.

That is negative feature for us. We want the heat. Heat is a positive side effect, not only in the applications I already mentioned, but also in a bedside reading lamp. That radiant heat is welcome in the winter.

Incandescents make good sense if you live in a cold climate in a domicile with poor insulation. I live in the tropics with 24/7 air conditioning. I pay about $500/month for electricity and it would cost substantially more than that if I used incandescents.


Exactly. YOU chose to use the appliances that make sense for you.

I should have the right to CHOOSE what is best for my lifestyle.

We pay about $220 a month for natural gas and electricity in the winter. Actually rather low for our area given the cold cold winters because we have passive solar heating contribution and are very well insulated.

Like Althouse, we have also stocked cases of bulbs. Parked right next to the stocked ammo and cases of canned foods.

Original Mike said...

"If, as claimed, this bulb is just as good as a regular 100 watt bulb, then there is no need for the regulation at all. Philips can market the bulb for saving energy, and customers who want to save energy will buy it."

But, but, but, but, but ...!!!

Joe Schmoe said...

I gotta go check youtube for Hitler parody light bulb films...

Original Mike said...

"You just cannot substitute for an incandescent when you need not only the light BUT also the heat it produces."

You must be mistaken. Light bulbs don't give off heat. The energy not emitted as light goes..., well, it's not clear where it goes. But it doesn't go into heat. It's all in "Physics According to Freder". Well worth a read.

Pogo said...

Just 3 years ago, I had no ammo at all.

Sofa King said...

We pay about $220 a month for natural gas and electricity in the winter. Actually rather low for our area given the cold cold winters because we have passive solar heating contribution and are very well insulated.



Of course you should buy what you want, but if you are heating your house with natural gas, which is almost certain to be less expensive per joule than electricity, you would still be saving money by using high-efficiency bulbs and replacing the electric heat with gas heat. Granted, it's likely to be a marginal difference, but technically it's not a complete wash as you imply. It would only be a complete wash if you were using electric heat.

MadisonMan said...

I took her to mean that the electrical 'heat' was 'waste' heat from incandescents.

Sofa King said...

Also, for what it's worth, LED bulbs should be achieving their full brightness immediately. They actually work better in cold temperatures.

Sofa King said...

I took her to mean that the electrical 'heat' was 'waste' heat from incandescents.

Yes, me too. But even though that heat is "waste" as far as the light bulb is concerned, it is not "free!" You are still paying for the electricity to generate that heat, which would certainly cost less if obtained from burning gas.

Hagar said...

I tried one of the CF bulbs in my utility room. It gave a out a sickly yellow light and fortunately did not last long.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Michael McNeil said...

I just wish they were fully bright immediately and lasted as long as they advertise.

Instant-on CF bulbs, in pleasing spherical shape and soft-white color, have been available for years. I had a row of them lighting the front hallway of my house at least a half-dozen years back. They seemed to work rather well as I recall.

Eugene said...

Let's consider the incandescent the government didn't have to regulate out of existence: the television tube. A television tube is a big vacuum tube, and the filament is basically a low voltage incandescent bulb. It sucks up current and puts out a lot of heat.

Vacuum tubes were replaced by junction diodes and transistors. Transistors were replaced by integrated circuits. The cathode ray tube was the last to go, but has been replaced by plasma and LCD screens. I noticed a few years ago that all the tube televisions had disappeared from the shelves of the local Walmart, a good indication that a technology has saturated every economic stratum of the consumer market.

None of these steps had to be "mandated" by law. They occurred when they made technological, economic, and aesthetic sense to the consumers and to the manufacturers.

ricpic said...

MadisonMan said...

...I come downstairs and turn it on, then go out in the dark and walk the dog. When I come back in, after flushing away the dog's business, the light is as bright as an incandescent would have been from the start.

So let me get this straight, a clear loss of freedom is okay because you can adjust to it?

SDN said...

"Mussolini would be so proud at how far we've come."

And Freder would be providing him tongue baths regularly.

WV: rerit. One can rerit every Freder comment with one sound: "WAAAHHH!"

Original Mike said...

"None of these steps had to be "mandated" by law. They occurred when they made technological, economic, and aesthetic sense to the consumers and to the manufacturers."

That's just not as satisfying as imposing your enlightened will on the proletariat.

ricpic said...

MadisonMan said...

...I come downstairs and turn it on, then go out in the dark and walk the dog. When I come back in, after flushing away the dog's business, the light is as bright as an incandescent would have been from the start.

So let me get this straight, a clear loss of freedom is okay because you can adjust to it?

Blue Ox said...

110 years and still burnin' strong!

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I took her to mean that the electrical 'heat' was 'waste' heat from incandescents.



How is it "wasted" if I want the heat, like the heat and use the heat from incandescent bulbs to warm my side of the bed while reading?

:-D

you would still be saving money by using high-efficiency bulbs and replacing the electric heat with gas heat.

No I wouldn't. First. The high efficiency bulbs don't save me money because they cost more. The ones that I HAVE used in areas like closets, laundry room etc. don't last any longer and often last for shorter periods than comprable incandescents.

Second. I don't use electric heat so that isn't an issue.

Third. We rarely have any ANY lights on during the day (with the exception of entering a closet or one of our bathrooms) because we have passive solar ---large windows facing the sun and skylights. While it can be very cold in the winter we generally have over 260 to 290 sunny days a year so solar contribution is good.

If I really wanted to 'save money' I would install a woodstove and cut down some trees and burn them.

jeff said...

"What can I say? If we can solve the energy problem with the outcome on the light bulb, America would be a great place.""

Truer words have never been spoken. Also if the energy problem could be solved with unicorn farts and magic glitter, America would be even a greater place. Vermont, what is wrong with you?

bgates said...

I come downstairs and turn it on, then go out in the dark and walk the dog

A light bulb that you turn on before you leave the house, in order to save energy.

Sofa King said...

Second. I don't use electric heat so that isn't an issue.

No, if you DID use electric heat it wouldn't be an issue. The fact that you have gas heat makes using electricity for heat a waste of money. Basically, by using incandescent bulbs, you *are* using electric heat.

As a thought experiment, imagine you had hundreds of incandescent bulbs, such that they sufficiently heated your home in addition to providing light. You wouldn't need your gas heat at all, so that bill would be reduced to zero. However, your electric bill would increase by an amount *larger* than what your gas bill was.

Now suppose that you replaced these bulbs with high-efficiency lighting (leaving aside purchasing costs for a moment.) Your gas bill would go up, but your electric bill would go down MORE. This is because per unit of heat energy, gas is much cheaper than electricity.

If you used electric heat, it would make no difference because you would be using the same amount electricity for heat generation either way. (This is what Fredfred got wrong.)

Sorry to be so pedantic. I'm not trying to tell you what to do, really. It just bothers me when people get the facts wrong.

Freeman Hunt said...

CFL bulbs are environmentally friendly if you don't consider the inside of your own home to be an important part of the environment. How's that environment going to be after a few decades of people occasionally breaking CFL bulbs and not following the cleanup procedures?

And the landfills after a couple decades of people throwing used CFL bulbs in the trash? Oh right, your average person is going to take all of his used bulbs to a special disposal facility. Sure.

Sigivald said...

I oppose that ban on none-of-their-business grounds. I also don't choose CF bulbs.

But I disagree (personally, not as a policy matter) with Palladian - good non-CF flourescents - the tube ones - produce excellent, clean white light with no pulsing I can detect.

I use them for my arts-and-crafts space, and they're excellent sources of non-ugly, even light.

(Yes, they're not "warm" - they're neutral. Which is exactly what I want.)

rcommal said...

This is the exact point my husband (an electrical engineer) makes. He objects to the apples-oranges comparisons that are sometimes made as being disingenuous. He does not listen to talk radio of any stripe.

We have a mixture of bulbs (halogen,fluorescent and incandescent) in the house as I write and have for many, many years. They have different virtues. I prefer the incandescent bulbs, myself, AND I prefer that they be bright due to eye issues.

As noted, we do use the fluorescents in a number of places in our home. Unfortunately, in our very old house (also large and drafty), they do not, in fact, last the touted number of hours in almost any application. They are also a problem, as noted, in dimmer applications, of which we have many.

And, yes, I find that light ugly.

Original Mike said...

"Sorry to be so pedantic."

Some might say obnoxious. Not me, mind you ...

Sigivald said...

Freeman Hunt asked: How's that environment going to be after a few decades of people occasionally breaking CFL bulbs and not following the cleanup procedures?


It's going to be... pretty much exactly like it is now.

The "zomg mercury!!!" hysteria was and is ... hysteria.

Break one? Open the window for an hour if you're pregnant or paranoid.

Yeah, it'll release enough mercury in the short term to exceed chronic exposure recommendations, which are themselves conservative. But chronic is just that - not acute, and not temporary.

And in the long run, it does vaporize. Frankly, I'd rather have broken CF bulbs than live near a coal power plant. Less mercury that way.

(So, let's go for nuclear power and incandescents! Everyone wins!)

damikesc said...

And what, exactly, is this "energy problem" he is referring to anyway???

I'm betting it's NOT anything involving getting more oil from people who don't hate our guts and want to kill us...

John Cunningham said...

How about you DemonRAT fuckfaces leave our bulbs alone? You are just a bunch of pissant little dictators, no?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Now suppose that you replaced these bulbs with high-efficiency lighting (leaving aside purchasing costs for a moment.)

Or leaving aside the fact that we rarely use light bulbs of ANY kind during the day and generally go the bed by 9pm. Our usage is very low on an hourly basis and on an per item/bulb or location basis, so the efficiency versus cost rational doesn't mean much. Cost benefit analysis dictates that incandescents are the best use for value and efficiency for me.

Your gas bill would go up, but your electric bill would go down MORE. This is because per unit of heat energy, gas is much cheaper than electricity.


Yes. Natural gas is les expensive per unit than electricity, which by the way in our area is 100% derived from renewable or 'green' sources. Hydro electric.

To be pedantic, I like pedantic, the rationals that you are using may have some meaning elsewhere but have zero relevance to my situation.

This is why the mandatory draconian measures by the government of one size fits all are stupid. I should be allowed to chose the best path and choice of appliances and heating/lighting methods for MY circumstances.

ken in sc said...

Walmart has been selling 90 watt bulbs under their Great Value brand name for about a year now. I cannot tell the difference between them and 100 watt bulbs. I am pretty sure they are the same as 100 watt bulbs and this is a brilliant strategy.

Jay said...

"What can I say? If we can solve the energy problem with the outcome on the light bulb, America would be a great place."


Is this the energy problem?

Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt -- the CEO, co-founder and executive chairman of the Web search giant, respectively -- have, through a company they control, proposed paying the full $33 million cost of revamping the iconic hangar. But there's a catch: They want to use up to two-thirds of the floor space of the hangar to house their fleet of eight private jets.



So 3 rich liberals running a "green" company have 8 private jets and that is a-ok, right?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

And now the giant nanny state of California is going to tell us how often we can change the oil in our cars.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-autos-oil-change-20111215,0,4554184.story">Really? Butt out!

Is there ANY way short of violence that we can get these people to back off, butt out, get off of our backs and mind their own business? Any?

Scott M said...

Bad link or they pulled it down DBQ.

Sofa King said...

Some might say obnoxious. Not me, mind you ...


Oh! That's an arrow to my knee!

Scott M said...

Oh! That's an arrow to my knee!

Nerd.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Try this link

Joe Schmoe said...

My mistake, DBQ. I thought poultry brooder was supposed to be poultry breeder. I've never heard of a poultry brooder. Well, I guess it's obvious I've never worked with chickens. Poultry brooder makes me chuckle, though.

A few more seconds on the sandstone and the axe would be suitably sharp to its task. He hated this part; the familiar gnawing in his gut, anticipating the gush of blood and the headless form careening around. This time would he adequately clean the carcass, or would someone finally be lain low by salmonella?

But this was the life he chose. The life of a poultry brooder.

Joe Schmoe said...

And in the long run, it does vaporize. Frankly, I'd rather have broken CF bulbs than live near a coal power plant. Less mercury that way.

It's settled then. We're bringing all of our broken CFLs to Sigivald's place.

If we're talking about fracking (hydraulic fracturing) instead of CFLs, would you have an equally accepting attitude towards that if the people who advocate the fracking provide you with scientific claims as to its harmlessness?

I'm not saying CFLs are the new silent killer. I'm merely asking if people downplay risks for causes they favor versus exaggerate them for causes they don't favor. Seems to me they do.

caplight45 said...

I went to the Althouse Amazon portal and bought two cases of 100w incandescent bulbs. The GE bulbs were cheaper than Sylvania but I bought Sylvania. I try to buy as little from GE as I can. Nanny staters.

caplight45 said...

Freder said:
"And energy efficiency standards have been the "Federal government's f*****g business" for many years (e.g., refrigerators, air conditioners and furnaces). You may not like it, but that's the way it is."

Government gelding.

Palladian said...

"Is there ANY way short of violence that we can get these people to back off, butt out, get off of our backs and mind their own business? Any?"

There are less opportunities for a non-revolutionary, non-violent solution every day.

As you can see from the comments of Crooked Hat Douchebag and Frederson, and other phony "liberals" around the web, the main reason they like this sort of intrusive engineering and regulation is because it makes their "enemies" upset. It's not about ideology anymore, it's simply tribalism, and using the repressive power of government as a weapon to punish enemies.

The whole "they're not banning the light bulb, you stupid right wing stupid people!" act is either disingenuous or they really are ignorant about how economies work. Even if certain bulbs are not "banned", the government's ability to manipulate and punish the markets for certain goods has no equal in the world. By regulating and punishing the market for (so-called) high-wattage incandescent bulbs, they are effectively killing the market for all of them. Eventually, it will become too expensive to make them, and the profit margin will be so low, and enough people will have matured knowing only the CFL lamps, that they'll cease to be manufactured.

Markets die naturally, of course, but that's not what we're discussing. The market for incandescent bulbs is being artificially manipulated by the Federal government, which will have the same drastic results as almost everything else the Federal government chooses to tinker with: disaster.

I don't let "right-wingers" off the hook when it comes to the impulse to regulate and control; there are plenty of them who are perfectly happy to use the power of big government to poke their pricky noses into all manner of personal and private affairs. I regard the impulse to legislate so-called "morality" with the same disgust with which I regard authoritarian "progressives. Both are manifestations of the same base, totalitarian impulse, forcing other people to suffer and comply, for no other real reason but the thrill of control.

I was a little hyperbolic in the comment of mine that Althouse posted, but my opinion hasn't changed. It's not really about light bulbs at all. It's about my ontological discomfort with assumed authority of any kind.

I would have though, had I not known better, that so-called liberals would be in complete agreement with the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices without having those choices manipulated away from them by the State.

Palladian said...

"You may not like it, but that's the way it is."

No totalitarian ever said it better.

Liberal, my ass.

I'm so fucking liberal it would make Freder piss his organic cotton panties.

caplight45 said...

Palladian said: "I would have though, had I not known better, that so-called liberals would be in complete agreement with the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices without having those choices manipulated away from them by the State."

Today a liberal defines freedom solely as the ability to have sex any where, with whomever they wish in any manner they prefer. In all else they are fine with submitting to government imposed restrictions on their freedom yet thinking they are free.

Palladian said...

"Today a liberal defines freedom solely as the ability to have sex any where, with whomever they wish in any manner they prefer."

That's important too.

Palladian said...

And don't get me started on the unpleasantness of sodomy under fluorescent lighting...

I prefer my sodomy, and my electric lighting, to be incandescent!

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

DBQ made the central point, repeatedly. That an incandescent bulb is "inefficient" and gives off heat as well as light is a bug only if you don't want heat.

I had a co-worker who used to set up tea-lights in her bathroom before she went to bed. Because she needed light? No, because she wanted a moderately warm bathroom when she got up.

And that was in the SF Bay Area. Mark Twain notwithstanding, it isn't really the coldest part of the country.

This house is all CF inside and LED outside, but that's by choice. It burns me up that people think it shouldn't be by choice.

wv: dessesti.

Sofa King said...

DBQ made the central point, repeatedly. That an incandescent bulb is "inefficient" and gives off heat as well as light is a bug only if you don't want heat.

*facepalm*

Revenant said...

I love that Obama supporters have decided to defend the light bulb ban.

So far as I can tell every last person I know -- liberal, conservative, moderate, libertarian, apathetic, whatever -- thinks the bulb ban is somewhere between "moronic" and "completely insane". I suspect lefties would enrage FEWER people if they advocated for legalized puppy-strangling.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Palladian,

I prefer my sodomy, and my electric lighting, to be incandescent!

Or, as Homer Simpson put it, "I like my beer cold, my TV loud, and my homosexuals flaming!"

wv: stspiere. What do you suppose the Sts. Piere were up to there?

Revenant said...

And energy efficiency standards have been the "Federal government's fucking business" for many years (e.g., refrigerators, air conditioners and furnaces). You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

This may be the last straw for middle-class voters, though. Government regulations have successively ruined toilets, washers, dryers, dishwashers, cleaning agents, and now *light bulbs*? Eesh.

It used to be easy to sell people on "it is environmentally friendly, but just as good". The realization is dawning that the more accurate statement would be "it is crap, and quite honestly isn't very good for the environment either".

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

Sofa King,

Wanting ambient heat where you're reading, as DBQ says she does, isn't unreasonable. Wanting it in other places in your house isn't. And though I have a gas furnace here, a lot of people do have electrical heat. We have a DeLonghi heater ourselves, and it's good to have on hand when you've turned the thermostat down and someone has a violin lesson.

wv: carmen. Someone guaranteed to warm any room on the planet.

PatCA said...

The Restoration has begun!

Meade said...

Term of Enlightenment!

Don't Tread 2012 said...

DBQ said

"Is there ANY way short of violence that we can get these people to back off, butt out, get off of our backs and mind their own business? Any?"

We need to simply ignore the pansy left every chance we get.

I also concur with Bender's take about choice. It only applies to women in the eyes of the (modern) liberal faithful.

"I prefer my sodomy, and my electric lighting, to be incandescent!"

Enlightening! Is it easier to insert traditional incandescents? I imagine the CFL's really irritate the bowel.

denmotherblog said...

I have used CFs for years and don't mind them at all in shaded lamps. I've even gotten used to them in above my bathroom mirror (nice looking globes with the fluorescent coil inside). I don't use them in my dining room because the dimmable ones don't dim enough.

The point is that I have the option of using them where they work for me and using incandescents elsewhere.

My question for the CF totalitarians is this: when did you decide that it was a good idea to REQUIRE people to use products containing mercury? For decades and until not that long ago, the very same people were railing against mercury thermometers, mercury thermostats, even the mercury switches that power those flashing sneaker lights that kids like so much.

PatCA said...

Say Meade, is that your blog about sweet potatoes? I just made sweet potato fries cooked in duck fat. Yum!

denmotherblog said...

I just got around to reading the other comments. A question for the rocket scientists who insist that the legislation in question doesn't actually ban 100-watt bulbs: do you also think that poll taxes in the Jim Crow south weren't a ban on black suffrage? I'm sure that all those people who were never allowed to vote will be greatly relieved.

See, here in the real world (which you are invited to join any time you like), a policy that is designed to ban something but doesn't explicitly do so is still a ban. So saying that a 70-watt bulb that produces the equivalent light output of a current 100-watt incandescent bulb would be perfectly legal is meaningless, because THERE IS NO SUCH BULB and THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGY TO PRODUCE SUCH A BULB. It may never be possible to produce such a bulb, but even if there were in the distant future, that doesn't change the fact that the law in question would ban 100-watt incandescent bulbs (and, incrementally, other wattage incandescent bulbs, too).

It's the effect of the legislation that counts, not what some political spinmeister wants you to believe.

MarkD said...

If it takes electing a dim bulb like Bachmann, well, she would be replacing Obama. I say go for it.

Meade said...

Hey, PatCA. If you send me a photo of your duck fat -fried sweet taters, I'll make a blog post with it. Sounds tasty.

John Lynch said...

I had a CFB burst in my face while I was replacing it. Now I have a detached vitreous and floaters everywhere in my eyes. Not sure if one caused the other, but I don't like CFBs at all.

PatCA said...

I will, Meade, next time I make them!

Kirk Parker said...

Craig,

You did all that without the government forcing you to? Amazing!!!

No way Freder is going to believe you, though.

Bender said...

saying that a 70-watt bulb that produces the equivalent light output of a current 100-watt incandescent bulb would be perfectly legal is meaningless, because THERE IS NO SUCH BULB and THERE IS NO TECHNOLOGY TO PRODUCE SUCH A BULB
_______________

Oh please. So what if there is no technology? Government can simply legislate the technology.

Government can simply decree the laws of physics be whatever they say it is, how else do you think that we are going to get cars averaging 55 miles per gallon? If it is impossible under the laws of physics, then the government can simply amend those laws, wave Obama's magic wand and, presto, it will be done.

n.n said...

The market economy (consisting of producers and consumers), free from monopolies and excessive monopolistic influences (e.g. government), is the premier example of a democracy.

It is the position of authoritarians to exploit the democratic process as leverage to elevate their own individual condition. The optimal exploitation is conducted through a limited quid pro quo arrangement, which serves to obfuscate the underlying motivations.

That said, there is room to motivate efficient energy production and consumption. With that in mind, we should be careful to select technology and processes which are suitable to task.

The CFLs have their limited value and circumstantial applications. The CFL "mandate", however, should have experienced greater scrutiny once the profitable relationship between industry and advocacy businesses (in this case it was environmental NGOs and non-profits) was exposed.

Too often the scientific process is short-circuited and proper discussion is prematurely terminated when special interests intervene.

Fen said...

The "zomg mercury!!!" hysteria was and is ... hysteria.

Break one? Open the window for an hour if you're pregnant or paranoid.


Have you even read OSHAs guidelines for cleaning up after a breakage? It reads like a hazmat immediate action scenario.

Iapetus said...

It's interesting how many people are claiming what the relevant law says or does not say without citing the specific text. Has no one here actually read the law? The short title of the bill is the "Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007." The full text is available on-line. The relevant section that applies to lighting is Title III, Subtitle B, Sec. 321.

That section of the bill assigns rule-making authority for setting lighting standards to the Secretary of Energy. It also provides a table of minimum performance, which limits any general service incandescent bulb capable of producing 1490 to 2600 lumens to a wattage of 72W as of January 1, 2012. In effect, it outlaws the 100 W bulb.

The table also lists minimum efficiency standards for bulbs that produce fewer lumens, which are phased in at the beginning of subsequent years.

The following page of the bill directs the Secretary of the DOE to establish further lighting standards by January 1, 2014, which would include a mandatory goal on manufacturers to achieve a minimum standard of 45 lumens per watt. That goal is beyond the reach of any incandescent bulb. However, CFLs do meet the standard.

jemi said...

We conducted extensive research and study how the super bright SMD led light can achieve not only high brightness and high-quality green lighting, but also provides lighting solutions cost-effective compared with conventional lamps for applications pelvis.