Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

DonViejo

(60,536 posts)
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 11:05 AM Jan 2014

Republicans are still trying to save traditional light bulbs. It likely won’t work.

BY BRAD PLUMER
January 15 at 1:36 pm

Another day, another fight over... lightbulbs. Yes, lightbulbs.

Back in 2007, Democrats in Congress passed a bill to increase the energy efficiency of the most common types of lightbulbs in the United States. This was often referred to as a "ban" on incandescent bulbs since the law would effectively phase out the manufacture and import of those cheaper, old-fashioned incandescents by Jan. 1, 2014.

In their place, manufacturers have been offering more efficient (but also more expensive) compact fluorescent, LED, and even incandescent bulbs. But the newer bulbs aren't always popular, and conservatives have long criticized the rule.

Now there's a new twist. Congress is getting ready to vote on a $1.012 trillion spending bill for 2014 that would bar all funding for enforcement of the new light bulb standards. That rider had been pushed by Republicans for years. Now they may finally get it passed.

The catch? It probably won't make much practical difference to U.S. manufacturers, who have largely switched over to making newer, more efficient bulbs. But it could create a loophole for anyone who wants to import the old bulbs. Here's a rundown:

:::snip:::

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/15/republicans-are-trying-one-last-time-to-save-traditional-lightbulbs-it-likely-wont-work/?tid=up_next

21 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Republicans are still trying to save traditional light bulbs. It likely won’t work. (Original Post) DonViejo Jan 2014 OP
What the hell is wrong with these people? BlueStreak Jan 2014 #1
Does that mercury in the coal come into your house? former9thward Jan 2014 #8
Yes. It is in the air. It comes into EVERYBODY's lungs BlueStreak Jan 2014 #10
No it is not. former9thward Jan 2014 #12
So your education tells you power plants don't belch out mercury? BlueStreak Jan 2014 #14
You are not breathing it in. former9thward Jan 2014 #16
How would you break an LED? They're solid globs of plastic with the diodes inside. jmowreader Jan 2014 #18
Maybe you should inform the EPA of your views. former9thward Jan 2014 #19
Whose bright idea was that? jmowreader Jan 2014 #20
My issue is not the mercury. former9thward Jan 2014 #21
They probably fought to save the outhouse too. Change is BAD! polichick Jan 2014 #9
i have a fairly old house, and i was blowing multiple bulbs a week. 2 years ago i switched over to dionysus Jan 2014 #13
And they really aren't much more money than Edison bulbs BlueStreak Jan 2014 #15
Why is it, if you are a politician, you can actively work to destroy your constituents very lives, RC Jan 2014 #2
Incandescent bulbs don't last nearly as long as CF or LED bulbs meow2u3 Jan 2014 #3
The problem with the newer bulbs is that it has harsher lights than the older standard bulbs. Xyzse Jan 2014 #4
That's the issue I have too LTR Jan 2014 #6
Yes. Xyzse Jan 2014 #7
I hope so. My optometrist says I need the old bulbs in my reading lamps. CTyankee Jan 2014 #11
I changed every bulb in (and outside) of my house to high-efficiency bulbs several years ago. RedSpartan Jan 2014 #5
It will meet the same fate (eventually) Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2014 #17
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
1. What the hell is wrong with these people?
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 11:18 AM
Jan 2014

If ever there was a no-brainer in public policy, this is it. CFLs are LESS expensive than incandescent bulbs when you consider the electrical savings. I don't like the mercury in the CFLs but I don't like the mercury in the coal that produces the extra electricity to power Edison bulbs. So I prefer LED, but they are more expensive for sure.

You can buy a 4-pack of CFs for under $10. That same 4-pack of Edison bulbs would cost $2.00. However those 4 CFLs will save about $100 during their life.

Absolute no-brainer.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
8. Does that mercury in the coal come into your house?
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 02:31 PM
Jan 2014

If you break a CFL the EPA has a harardous waste method to dispose of it. If you break a LED do you have to clear out the room??

Before Cleanup
Have people and pets leave the room.
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.

Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
stiff paper or cardboard;
sticky tape;
damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

After Cleanup
Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.
If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

http://www2.epa.gov/cfl/cleaning-broken-cfl

Its a no-brainer to keep these things out of homes.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
12. No it is not.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 05:06 PM
Jan 2014

You are talking to someone who has a graduate degree in public health sciences. Not some science illiterate who accepts every internet claim that is posted. Does the EPA have a hazardous waste protocol when you break a LED?

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
14. So your education tells you power plants don't belch out mercury?
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 06:53 PM
Jan 2014

You should ask for a refund.

http://www.epa.gov/mats/powerplants.html

Power plants are currently the dominant emitters of mercury (50 percent), acid gases (over 75 percent) and many toxic metals (20-60 percent) in the United States.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
16. You are not breathing it in.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 07:35 PM
Jan 2014

Unless you break one of your CFLs in your house. Most exposure to Hg comes from diet, namely fish and shellfish. Volcanoes "belch out mercury" far more than any power plant. Power plants have emission controls which capture much of the mercury. Don't believe me -- call your local EPA office and ask how much mercury is in the air.

If you want to bring in a little mercury bomb into your house go ahead.

jmowreader

(50,553 posts)
18. How would you break an LED? They're solid globs of plastic with the diodes inside.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 08:51 PM
Jan 2014

You could drop an LED bulb off the roof of a three story house and not damage it.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
19. Maybe you should inform the EPA of your views.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 08:52 PM
Jan 2014

Since they have an established protocol for cleaning it up when it breaks.

jmowreader

(50,553 posts)
20. Whose bright idea was that?
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 09:14 PM
Jan 2014

I can see it with a CFL because they're glass. But I have worked with light-emitting diodes since the 1970s (back when they were just used for indicator lights).

The only way you are in danger from LED bulbs, which are made out of cast plastic, is if you grind one up in a food processor and eat it. The government sees "Arsenic!" (which is in the active part of an LED) and thinks death. There is an infinitesimal amount of gallium arsenide in an LED, and it's encapsulated...not only within the IC pacage but the plastic bulb.

former9thward

(31,981 posts)
21. My issue is not the mercury.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 09:22 PM
Jan 2014

I don't care about that and because of my science background I am not afraid of the element as some are. I really don't like the light from CFLs.

dionysus

(26,467 posts)
13. i have a fairly old house, and i was blowing multiple bulbs a week. 2 years ago i switched over to
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 06:20 PM
Jan 2014

the CFL bulbs, and they are just starting to go; 2 (out of the 30 or so total) of them burnt out this month.

yeah they're more expensive, but it sure as hell was cheaper than buying a few cases of the old ones!

 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
15. And they really aren't much more money than Edison bulbs
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 06:58 PM
Jan 2014

Here is an 8-pack of 60-watt equivalents for $1.50 per lamp.
http://www.amazon.com/GE-13-Watt-Energy-SmartTM-replacement/dp/B000NISDNU

You can get that kind of deal every day at Lowe's or Home Depot. It boggles the mind why Republicans would be planting a flag on this issue.

 

RC

(25,592 posts)
2. Why is it, if you are a politician, you can actively work to destroy your constituents very lives,
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 11:24 AM
Jan 2014

yet can pretty much count on being reelected to cause more misery and damage? Why are our politicians destructive actions so sacrosanct, they can run on them to get reelected?

meow2u3

(24,761 posts)
3. Incandescent bulbs don't last nearly as long as CF or LED bulbs
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 11:27 AM
Jan 2014

They may be cheaper to buy, but you have to buy 10 times more for the same light output, not only in terms of the electric bill, but also with the number of times you have to replace incandescents.

I guess conservos like to waste their money on unnecessarily high electric bills and more trips to the store to buy light bulbs. As for me, I like my CF's; I can get 4 for $5 at Home Depot.

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
4. The problem with the newer bulbs is that it has harsher lights than the older standard bulbs.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 11:40 AM
Jan 2014

However, the way I see it, I think of this as an opportunity for light manufacturers to come up with better products that with filters can simulate the light of a standard bulb.

LTR

(13,227 posts)
6. That's the issue I have too
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 12:46 PM
Jan 2014

I use the curly bulbs in the kitchen, the bathroom and a few torchier lamps. But I still prefer the warmer glow that incandescent bulbs give off in the living room and bedroom. CFC bulbs give off a light similar to fluorescent tube lights found in retail stores and offices.

Xyzse

(8,217 posts)
7. Yes.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 12:50 PM
Jan 2014

Thing is, they think about curtailing progress, rather than looking at it as an opportunity to find better alternatives.

CTyankee

(63,903 posts)
11. I hope so. My optometrist says I need the old bulbs in my reading lamps.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 04:46 PM
Jan 2014

But I put the newer ones anywhere else that I can...

RedSpartan

(1,693 posts)
5. I changed every bulb in (and outside) of my house to high-efficiency bulbs several years ago.
Thu Jan 16, 2014, 11:47 AM
Jan 2014

Cost about $85 overall (they were on sale at Costco). My electric bill went down $80 a month immediately, and I've only had to change maybe 5 or 6 bulbs in the three years since.


Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Republicans are still try...