Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Congress Voting To Repeal Incandescent Bulb Ban

Unknown Lamer posted about 3 years ago | from the most-important-issue-ever dept.

Earth 990

Bob the Super Hamste writes "CNN Money is running as story about a bill Congress is going to vote on today to repeal the 'incandescent light bulb ban' that was put into place during the Bush administration. The bill is supported by Republicans in Congress who are claiming this places unnecessary restrictions on the market. For those of you wondering, it does bring up the standard issues of energy efficiency, mercury (in both the bulbs and that emitted by coal power), and cost of the bulbs. The bill was introduced by Texas Congressman Joe Barton."

cancel ×

990 comments

Summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736374)

How about writing one that makes sense?

Re:Summary? (1, Troll)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | about 3 years ago | (#36736426)

How about passing laws that make sense in the first place?

Re:Summary? (1)

rlp (11898) | about 3 years ago | (#36736718)

How about passing laws that make sense in the first place?

What, and set a precedent?!

Re:Summary? (2)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 3 years ago | (#36736754)

How about not passing more laws and enforcing those that have passed.

Re:Summary? (-1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#36736756)

How about passing laws that make sense in the first place?

Hell, this sounds to me like it is one of the first bills in awhile that DOES make sense!!

The Federal govt doesn't need to be telling me what fucking bulbs I can or cannot buy. It is not the federal govt's job to try to mold my behavior!

Let these different bulbs compete on the mkt....people that want them...can get them...either one.

Free choice baby....nice to actually see some congress critters acknowledge that concept again!

Re:Summary? (5, Insightful)

Nethemas the Great (909900) | about 3 years ago | (#36736904)

They aren't telling you what kind of bulbs to f*****g bulbs to buy. The energy efficiency standards set to take effect do not specify the specific technology that must replace them. It just says that common application bulbs need to be more efficient. CFLs happen to fit that standard but there are actually alternatives including other incandescent bulbs [nytimes.com] .

Classic! (5, Insightful)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 3 years ago | (#36736382)

This is as close to a modern version of "fiddling while Rome burns."

Glad to see they're not wasting their time on silly things like the budget.

Re:Classic! (5, Funny)

TWX (665546) | about 3 years ago | (#36736434)

The congressman isn't wasting time, his constituency includes the factory where the Easy Bake Oven is made, and with the end of the 100W incandescent they'll lose tens of jobs!

Re:Classic! (2, Informative)

toastar (573882) | about 3 years ago | (#36736494)

This maybe offtopic, But this guy also introduced legislation to legalize online poker.

Re:Classic! (2)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#36736808)

This maybe offtopic, But this guy also introduced legislation to legalize online poker.

Wow...another reason to like this guy.

Heck..if he puts a bill forth to end prohibition...and other intrusions of the US Federal govt into our private lives and activities....I'm all for this guy!!

Re:Classic! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736506)

his constituency includes the factory where the Easy Bake Oven is made

R-China?

Re:Classic! (1, Troll)

Toonol (1057698) | about 3 years ago | (#36736644)

Actually, due to a technicality, you can continue to buy 'heat lamp bulbs' that just happen to emit light as a 'side-effect'. There are companies that are gearing up to sell them to those of us who prefer incandescents.

However, hopefully, the ban on incandescents will be lifted, and I can continue to purchase bulbs from the local grocery store.

Re:Classic! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736720)

The Bush ban did not ban incandescents. Incandescents will still be produced, just that they are more effeceint.

Re:Classic! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736496)

One of the functions of Congress is to pass laws (or repeals of laws). They need to figure out the budget, but they still need to handle their lawmaking duties as well. They *should* be doing both.

Re:Classic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736530)

Well, the ban has already cost people their jobs. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html [washingtonpost.com]

So people complain about wanting to save jobs, and when Congress does something to save jobs, they complain.

Re:Classic! (1, Troll)

Karl Cocknozzle (514413) | about 3 years ago | (#36736792)

Maybe they should get jobs making light-bulbs at companies that make efficient bulbs?

Or at any of the "heat lamp" companies that are springing up to sell incandescent "heat-lamps" that have a side-effect of giving off light.

Any "jobs saved!" by this bill will be offset by the cost of caring for the cancers caused by the increased mercury emissions the less-efficient bulbs will lead to. How many dozen coal-plants won't have to be built without incandescent bulbs? How many with?

Re:Classic! (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#36736580)

there will be no rational solution to the budget problem, the USA will continue to get further in debt regardless of the details, and the parasites of the global banking cartel will continue to enrich themselves.

Re:Classic! (5, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36736850)

Same guy who apologized to BP for all those hard questions they were getting about that thing in the gulf. He also has called for two witch hunts into global warming studies.

This isn't the guy fiddling while Rome burns. This is one of Nero's dedicated foot soldiers actively setting the fires on command. Except that there are multiple Neros, and it's not Rome, it's the world that's being set on fire.

fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736386)

first?

Re:fp (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736692)

No.

Bitchslut whorecunt bastardfag.

CFL are no savings (4, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | about 3 years ago | (#36736408)

I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings. And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?

Re:CFL are no savings (4, Insightful)

jandrese (485) | about 3 years ago | (#36736470)

Check your manufacturer, most of the reputable ones offer multi-year replacement guarantees on the bulbs. Although if you buy good ones originally you generally won't need to use those guarantees.

Unlike old style bulbs, CFLs are complex enough that quality matters. The ultra-cheap ones are really crap.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

FudRucker (866063) | about 3 years ago | (#36736544)

most people are unaware, or forget, or dont want the hassle, and will not be bothered with the methods with proper disposal of hazardous and/or toxic mercury inside, and they will be in the local landfills

Re:CFL are no savings (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736646)

My GE CFLs died a lot faster than the wal-mart brand ones that I've bought. Many of them have died long before their supposed 7 year life span ran out. Even if I did use the guarantees to get replacements, there is still the mercury concern.

I'm done with CFL bulbs. I'll buy incandescents until LEDs are cheap enough.

Re:CFL are no savings (3, Interesting)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#36736708)

Reputable like GE, Sylvania or Phillps? I've had early failures with all those, and good luck with actually getting a replacement. In six more months I'll know if my use of them over the past three years was worth it, might be a wash. I have many CFL in the house, except for two places with dimmers (CFL dimming bulbs suck, won't go to low brightness but just off), and three of the "three-way" bulbs (CFL versions also suck and die early).

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736820)

I've had them fail too and they were reputable brands, how does temperature changes affect their life? I think that's what is killing mine.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736860)

IIRC, temperature changes and humidity are both bad for them. They're not particularly well-suited to bathrooms or front porches.

Re:CFL are no savings (2)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 years ago | (#36736898)

I think they are super sensitive to shitty power supplies.

I've had a few outlets that destroy them rapidly.

And ceiling domes don't last long, yes I know, there are special bulbs for that, but where? Not at the local store I usually buy light-bulbs from.

They suck in door lamps too (I think both the heat and the cold).

The work great in floor lamps, and ceiling fans, but the other 50% of my fixtures cause them to die as fast or faster than older bulbs.

Re:CFL are no savings (0)

brian0918 (638904) | about 3 years ago | (#36736910)

Unlike old style bulbs, CFLs are complex enough that quality matters. The ultra-cheap ones are really crap.

Despite the way you've worded your reply, that is actually another plus for incandescent over CFL.

Re:CFL are no savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736476)

We've had CFLs (and an early LED bulb subjected to temperatures from -10 to 100) work for years. It's easy to buy bad bulbs, and quite obvious that you are doing so. And yes, we do dispose of them properly, and everyone we know who uses CFLs (which is most people now) does too.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#36736560)

everyone in my neighborhood throws them in the trash since centers that take them are too far away, and everyone has had at least one break in their home. Face it, these are a bad solution compared to the newly announced LED bulbs, we should have skipped over this step.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36736662)

Yup. Politicians, in their endless stupidity and desire to look good to tiny constituencies, forced upon everyone a bad stopgate measure that is, environmentally speaking, much worse than the technology they sought to replace.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 3 years ago | (#36736872)

everyone in my neighborhood throws them in the trash since centers that take them are too far away, and everyone has had at least one break in their home. Face it, these are a bad solution compared to the newly announced LED bulbs, we should have skipped over this step.

Interesting...I'd never heard of a 'lightbulb disposal center' of any type till I started reading these posts here.

Like any other trash..I throw it all into one big trash can...and the city hauls it away twice a week.

Re:CFL are no savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736478)

CFL's come with 1-2 yrs warranties.. why not use the warranty?

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

gfxguy (98788) | about 3 years ago | (#36736776)

Have you ever tried? I'm wondering... you save light bulb receipts, and then maybe label them with the socket you put the bulb in so that you know for sure? Then what do you do when one breaks? Bring it back where you bought it or contact the manufacturer? Fax or send proof of purchase, plus the barcode from the box? Really? It's one of those things they know most people won't take advantage of... it's still more worthwhile for them to not put resources into QA.

Re:CFL are no savings (3, Informative)

gstoddart (321705) | about 3 years ago | (#36736510)

I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings.

I'm in the same boat ... given the massive increase in cost, and the claims for bulb life ... even one or two failures basically means you've wiped out any savings for the next decade or so. Which means as soon as they start dying anywhere less than the claimed lifespan, you start replacing with old school bulbs.

And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?

They might think it, but I seriously doubt people are doing it.

I'm definitely not impressed so far with actual bulb life vs claimed.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

mcmonkey (96054) | about 3 years ago | (#36736538)

Good. I thought I was the only one.

I'm not performing a scientific study, but I have replaced enough CFLs that disposal is an issue. Many of them don't last years. And those that don't go, in the trash and out to the landfill.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

gid (5195) | about 3 years ago | (#36736822)

I talked to the local City Sanitation department about disposal of Mercury (had an old thermostat that I replaced), and CFLs. They have no restrictions, said just toss em in the trash. As far as CFLs go, I believe most big box hardware stores have recycling programs, where you can drop you old bulbs off.

The problem I have with CFLs is
1) No dimming unless you buy and install a special dimmer and bug special dimmable CFLs--c'mon get real.
2) Very slow start up (if at all) in cold weather--some light up better than others, but none that I've seen advertise outdoor use.
3) Non standard sizes, such as candelabra bulbs are extremely unreliable. I bought 4 of these, after 3 months, only 1 was still working. Perhaps I had a bad batch...

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 3 years ago | (#36736568)

My CFLs have long outlasted their budgeted lifetime, so I've taken your savings. And I properly recycled the one that failed and the one that broke in the past decade. Ikea has a drop-off point right in the front of the store.

Re:CFL are no savings (2)

Toonol (1057698) | about 3 years ago | (#36736698)

I have no doubt that you're outnumbered more than 10:1. I doubt even 5% of the CFLs are 'properly' recycled.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

dswensen (252552) | about 3 years ago | (#36736814)

Well, as long as you have your unsupported suppositions, I guess that should be good enough.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

r_naked (150044) | about 3 years ago | (#36736584)

In the past week, I have had two CFL bulbs "explode". I put that in quotes because I wasn't around when it happened, so I am not sure what caused them to fail or if there was an "explosion". These lights were not on at the time. One was in my garage -- I came home and found glass all over the garage floor since it was in an open socket. For the other one, it was in my bathroom. I came home and went to turn the light on and when I unscrewed the housing a second one had busted. I was concerned about the mercury that had been released, but had no clue what to do about it other than open all my windows.

Suffice it to say, that hit just a little too close to home (no pun intended), and I won't be buying CFLs anymore. I could handle a failure a year, but I bought these bulbs when I bought the house -- and that wasn't quite a year ago.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 3 years ago | (#36736834)

there is about 3 -5 mg of Mercury in a CFL bulb. Take about 1000 bulbs and you will have enough mercury for a dental filling.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

alen (225700) | about 3 years ago | (#36736630)

where do you buy them? home depot and costco sell them so cheap that it's cheaper than the old bulbs

Re:CFL are no savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736632)

Ditto - I have had nearly half of my CFLs fail within 18 months of purchase. In two cases, the bulbs smoked and smelled terrible.

Re:CFL are no savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736712)

I have had several CFL's fail within months, completely destroying any potential long-term savings. And do they really think anyone is properly disposing of these bulbs?

I see the problem here, and it is you. Seems like one of two issues:

  1. 1. You bought some kind of ridiculously cheap, low-quality bulbs from somewhere, and got what you paid for.
  2. 2. You just didn't notice that any halfway decent CFL comes with a warranty, and you could have easily gotten a replacement for a defective bulb.

I've had many CFLs run for years now. In fact, I think I've only had to replace one in the last few years. Maybe figure out what the hell you're talking about before bitching about it.

Re:CFL are no savings (3, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about 3 years ago | (#36736744)

In a lot of places, there are no savings whatsoever. CFLs take orders of magnitude more energy to manufacture, which are supposed to be offset by lesser efficiency of incadescents. Except, every bit of energy that is "wasted" in your house lowers your heating bill by just that much. Unless you live in a hot region where air conditioning is needed, this is either a win or neutral. Very few businesses and even fewer private houses use indoor lighting during day (at least around my parts), and during summer... right, neither light nor heating are needed. Thus, incadescent light bulbs end up with almost no waste.

Which cannot be said about manufacture and disposal of CFLs.

Unnatural colour of CFL light being harsher on your eyes is another story...

Re:CFL are no savings (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736804)

Me, too. And the last failure produced a massive amount acrid, probably toxic, smoke while I was gone. The entire house stank for weeks. The whole base of the bulb melted into a glob of plastic. I'm concerned about the safety of them now. It was definitely quite hot, if it had dripped something, and the bulb had happened to be over something with a low flashpoint...

I've taken to writing the date on them with a sharpie so I will know just how badly I got ripped off.

Re:CFL are no savings (1)

plindse (1873276) | about 3 years ago | (#36736876)

I actually did this. There is only one location in the two neighbouring counties where I live that accepts them.

I went to the location and what looked like a administrative assistant took me back into the warehouse. I had properly contained the 18 CFL bulbs in a zip lock bag. ( And yes, that was 18 out of 50 bulbs failing over a 3 year period or so. She took the bag of bulbs, opened the bag over a normally looking work desk (with paper work on it and all), and proceeded to pull out the bulbs one at at time using her bare hand and place them on the desk, including the now broken bulbs. I reminder her about the danger of mercury, but she shrugged it off.

I asked her why she was counting the bulbs so specifically. Her reply was, "Because there is a $0.60 fee for disposing of each bulb."

She then handed me a form that required a good bit of personal information and recorded on it the number and type of bulbs returned along with the additional $11 I was charged for the privilege of "saving the planet".

The whole experience was surreal!

Dang (1)

davegravy (1019182) | about 3 years ago | (#36736422)

I figure there's a pretty good load of money to be made by stockpiling these things and selling them to desperate homeowners in a few years once they're scarce. Anyone who's already started stockpiling may be in for a scare...

Good Riddens (0, Flamebait)

dmomo (256005) | about 3 years ago | (#36736432)

Instead of banning incandescent bulbs because they are inefficient, why not simply ban inefficient bulbs? If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.

Re:Good Riddens (5, Informative)

blueg3 (192743) | about 3 years ago | (#36736482)

Funnily enough, setting efficiency standards for lightbulbs (which most incandescents made at the time the law was passed did not meet) is exactly what the law did. Calling it a ban on incandescents is propagandizing. (Most incandescent manufacturers now have bulbs that meet the efficiency standards.)

Re:Good Riddens (1)

DanTheStone (1212500) | about 3 years ago | (#36736706)

One man's inefficient light bulb is another man's reptile light/heat bulb. I really don't want to have to buy $40 specialty bulbs instead of $.50 standard bulbs.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736504)

That is what the law actually does. It sets a certain lumens/watt limit, and any technology that can reach it is allowed. There is no "ban on incandescents."

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736672)

Yes there is. The "standards" were made up so that the incandescents would fail.

You are describing the law as written. (4, Informative)

pavon (30274) | about 3 years ago | (#36736508)

why not simply ban inefficient bulbs?

That is exactly what the law does.

If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.

Some companies have in fact done just that, and they are now upset at the prospect of having the law revoked after having spent all that money to comply with it.

Re:Good Riddens (2)

ihaddsl (772965) | about 3 years ago | (#36736518)

And thats exactly what the "ban" does. It provides efficiency targets so efficient incandescent bulbs should they exist would be allowed

Re:Good Riddens (1)

Skarecrow77 (1714214) | about 3 years ago | (#36736522)

Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?

btw, try a fluorescent bulb in anything with a dimming mechanism and you'll go right back to incandescent for that socket... my god the seizure-inducing horror.

Re:Good Riddens (5, Insightful)

SydShamino (547793) | about 3 years ago | (#36736634)

Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?

Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.

Re:Good Riddens (3, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | about 3 years ago | (#36736828)

Then the right way to go about this is to use taxes and fees so the externalities are included in the power bill. I don't understand the fixation on light bulbs - there are lots of ways to conserve power. Let's let people decide for themselves how they want to do it.

Re:Good Riddens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736658)

It's because electricity doesn't cost enough for market forces to induce the changes TPTB want.

Re:Good Riddens (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 years ago | (#36736736)

why not let the market decide when truly viable solution appears (ie. less cost, true long life, true good light output, not toxic if broken).

Re:Good Riddens (2)

Danse (1026) | about 3 years ago | (#36736758)

Instead of banning incandescent bulbs because they are inefficient, why not simply ban inefficient bulbs? If incandescent bulbs can be made more efficient, it'd be silly to have to repeal or modify a law later.

That's exactly what they did. Guess who's lying to you...

Re:Good Riddens (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about 3 years ago | (#36736858)

That's what they have done, so you will still be able to buy halogen bulbs.

There was a ban? (1)

jandrese (485) | about 3 years ago | (#36736442)

Maybe I'm nuts, but last time I checked my local store still had plenty of incandescent bulbs for sale. Wait, I can check.

Nope, not nuts. [homedepot.com] .

If there was a ban on these things, it doesn't appear to be working.

Re:There was a ban? (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 3 years ago | (#36736520)

Not only is it not a ban, it doesn't go into effect until 2012 and doesn't reach full force until 2020.

Re:There was a ban? (1)

Toonol (1057698) | about 3 years ago | (#36736728)

"It's not a ban, and they aren't banned until 2012 anyway."

Re:There was a ban? (3, Informative)

PIBM (588930) | about 3 years ago | (#36736542)

Starting in 2012, standars would slowly keep increasing until reaching the peak in 2020. So, that means that none should have yet disappeared, and depending on their caracteristics some of them could still be sold for a while. Anyway, that was all in TFA, but this is slashdot, so, that was expected :)

RTFA (1)

pavon (30274) | about 3 years ago | (#36736564)

Seriously the first line in the article is "The so-called light bulb ban, set to begin in 2012".

Re:There was a ban? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736890)

If you had RTFA, you'd see - in the first sentence - that the ban is set to begin in 2012.

There is no bulb ban! (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 3 years ago | (#36736474)

There never was! There are new efficiency standards, which both GE and Osram Sylvania say they can meet with new incandescents. The whole thing started as a talking point for a Republican primary, and took off when the punditry caught a whiff of it and smelled red meat.

Re:There is no bulb ban! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736512)

It used to be that Slashdot used to be full of people with all different kinds of opinions. Now so much of it is stupidity like this.

Re:There is no bulb ban! (0)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 years ago | (#36736794)

You mean next year in the US you'd still be able to buy 100 watt incandescent bulbs? Oh you won't? Because the efficiency ratings make it illegal to sell. Well shit I guess they *are* banning bulbs.

Talk about fucking spin.

Ban is not the answer (4, Interesting)

pnuema (523776) | about 3 years ago | (#36736480)

I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them. Considering that my house is entirely lit by canned lighting on dimmer switches, an incandescent ban means I basically have to rewire my house - fluorescent dimmables just don't work. If they were heavily taxed - to the point of being slightly more expensive that the fluorescents - then I would have an alternative, while the majority of the market will still make the choice you want them to. Everybody wins.

Re:Ban is not the answer (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | about 3 years ago | (#36736724)

I'm in the same boat. and >$100 per dimmable LED is a bit expensive to be testing with.. my Bedroom alone has 6 dimmed canned lights.. But hey, double the cost of the lights from $1 each to $2 each, and dump that into research...

Re:Ban is not the answer (2)

hasbeard (982620) | about 3 years ago | (#36736748)

I would rather see the tax code used to raise a reasonable amount of revenue to meet the true needs of our country (defense, roads and other infrastructure), things that government really needs to do. Other than that, the government should keep its hands out of people's pockets.

Re:Ban is not the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736852)

Dimmable CFLs do exist.

And just a reminder, despite the bad headline (good thing we're not stuck with those lame mainstream media headlines, right?) this isn't a ban. It's an efficiency requirement - you know, saying that REALLY CRAPPY CENTURY-OLD TECHNOLOGY syould get out of the way so that its low price will stop blocking new technology.

Re:Ban is not the answer (1)

RKThoadan (89437) | about 3 years ago | (#36736862)

As others have noted, both GE and Sylvania have bulbs that do meet the efficiency requirements, so you won't have that much to worry about. Your approach is certainly very viable though, although exactly where and how to tax it might be tricky. The Republican's aren't likely to support any taxes anywhere right now, that's just their schtick now.

Re:Ban is not the answer (1)

gearsmithy (1869466) | about 3 years ago | (#36736886)

I'm a firm believer in using the tax code to influence behavior. Tax the snot out of them.

I'm glad you're not an elected official.....Wait a minute, are you an elected official?

Re:Ban is not the answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736894)

Tax loopholes and taxing behavior are what create budget messes. I used to think as you did. However, I see the little children can not properly play with the toys. It just becomes a game of 'we vs they'. So one simple set of rules would be easier/cheaper to enforce. Instead of 40k lines of law and needed a degree to tell if you need to pay taxes. Also instead of a game of he said she said which distracts from the goal of helping people.

I have 3 places I can not use CFL. All three are outside. The CFL bulbs just do not last me outside for whatever reason (moisture/bugs). The rest of my house is CFL though (got them cheap/free) and they have already paid for themselves.

However, the problem is there are many places where CFL just does not work. You have a good example. There are also many places where CFL is just not cost effective. I have a craw space with a bulb in it. If I do have to replace the bulb I use about twice a year for 2 mins it will be with something seriously cheap. In places like this reliable is more important to me not cost.

When LED comes down in price and up in lumans I will be replacing with those. As they have a very good longevity and even lower power usage. But it will not be a 100% switchover overnight. It will be a 'as the bulb burns out' sort of thing.

I want more choice not less. Imposing taxes lowers choice. As you can in effect price producers out of the market. See sales tax debate in CA for examples.

ban ALL lightbulbs (3, Funny)

FudRucker (866063) | about 3 years ago | (#36736486)

this message brought to you by the Acme Kerosene lantern company.

usually, I'm not a invisible hand sort of guy but (1)

Thud457 (234763) | about 3 years ago | (#36736540)

Shouldn't we allow the market to handle this? Once the efficiency vs up-front cost gets in the right place, the $$$$ should take care of it, right?.
(assuming any externalities are accounted for some way...)

Re:usually, I'm not a invisible hand sort of guy b (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736638)

You are incorrectly assuming that humans are "rational economic actors", or even a close approximation thereof. Sorry.

there was never a ban (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736558)

in other news congress bans sharia law

Does this mean.. (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 3 years ago | (#36736594)

Congress finally balanced the budget and agreed to raise the debt ceiling? I mean it looks like they have time for trivial matters now.

Dangerous mercury vapor does not belong near kids (3, Interesting)

DrDitto (962751) | about 3 years ago | (#36736612)

Several months ago, a CFL broke right next to my 2-year old son. I had the sense to get him out of the room, but not for about 10 seconds.

After much research, I discovered that a CFL has about 4 milligrams of Mercury that is released as a vapor (which is readily absorbed by the body unlike the solid form).

The EPA website's cleanup instructions were vast. They even recommended that all clothing that came in contact with any of the CFL be destroyed. I assumed this also meant the wall-to-wall carpeting in my son's bedroom where he plays.

Do I think the EPA is probably being a bit paranoid? Sure. But this is my son we are talking about during his key mental development years. A little paranoia is in order. Who knows how much mercury vapor he inhaled. Yes, I got rid of the carpet.

I'm personally stocking up on incadescents until LED or Halogon alternatives become viable. BTW-- I vote Democratic ticket and am otherwise pretty liberal.

Skewed summary (1)

Etcetera (14711) | about 3 years ago | (#36736616)

Not that I'm expect much in the way of impartiality here, but...

"During the Bush Administration"? There's a subtle bit of tweaking going on there... it was passed by a Democratically-controlled Congress (albeit with a Republican pushing it, who has now mea culpa'd and is leading the drive to repeal it) and stuck in a 300 page energy bill.

Background:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-10/need-a-light-bulb-uncle-sam-gets-to-choose-virginia-postrel.html [bloomberg.com]

And for more of the right-ward/libertarian spin on why this is a dumb idea, just keep scrolling:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/?s=bulb [pajamasmedia.com]

Re:Skewed summary (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 3 years ago | (#36736884)

So you're trying to say "Democrats pass green initiatives, and Republicans repeal them"? That's pretty much what happens...

Drill baby drill! Hey, let the government pay for BP's cleanup! Let's avoid solar and wind power in favor of 'Clean Coal' and natural gas technology...hell, all we have to do to extract it is pump diesel fuel into your water supply!

Pig tail CFL's are....a very stupid idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736620)

LED lights are a much better idea than the, now infamous, "pig tail" CFL's. LED lights use less energy and therefore produce less heat.

If you break a pig tail light, even though it's a miniscule amount, the mercury contained therein constitutes a hazardous spill under current governement regulations. LOL

You can bring them to retailers for recycling but the dirty little secret is many retailers will not accept fluorescent bulbs if they are different from CFL's. OMG, what idiots we are.

Most pig tail lights are not supposed to be used in enclosed lighting fixtures. Do you have any expensive interior or exterior fixtures? TOO BAD, THE GOV'T EXPECTS YOU TO REPLACE THEM. LOL

 

Quartz Halogen Capsule bulbs (1)

djl4570 (801529) | about 3 years ago | (#36736668)

I was an early adopter of CFL's starting with the Phillips Earth Light back around 1990. Back then they lasted a couple of years. Today CFL's frequently burn out in a month making any energy savings imaginary. Given the issues with mercury and the high failure rate I have switched to quartz halogen capsule bulbs and LED bulbs where I don't need a lot of light. The quartz halogen bulbs are more efficient than regular incandescent bulbs.

Normally, I don't spam (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736670)

But this is appropriate:

http://lightbulbsdirect.com/

Less than fifty cents each if you buy by the case. Stock up now, just in "case".

CFLs (1)

CopterHawk (981545) | about 3 years ago | (#36736676)

I have converted to mostly CFLs in my house over the years. I only buy the instant on ones. I usually stock up when they are on a good sale, so I get them at a decent price. About a year ago, i started collecting the burnt out ones in a drawer in my garage to be disposed of properly all at once, saving time. So far I have only collected 2 burnt out CFLs. I have found that putting a CFL in an inclosed light fixture with an incandecent will shorten it's life substantially.

Dubious flirtation (0)

michaelmalak (91262) | about 3 years ago | (#36736716)

"If memory serves, there was a dubious flirtation with mercury-filled light bulbs resulting in toxic side effects"

About to become moot point (1)

rbrander (73222) | about 3 years ago | (#36736786)

This is like repealing a ban on EnergyStar CRT monitors and allowing more wasteful CRTs, just before the lighter, cheaper, much lower-power LCD monitors dropped below them on price and wiped them from the stores.

I refer, of course, to LED lighting. Your homework google for today is "CRI", colour rendering index, where sunlight (and incandescents) = 100. CFLs score in the sixties. Anything much above 80 can be quite hard to tell from incandescent for most eyes. An LED with a CRI of 85 is about to be released by a company called "Switch", profiled by Farhad Manjoo in Slate recently. Unlike CFLs, they really do last for decades under regular use, and save even more power. They're going to get much cheaper over just the next few years, and many claim will use even less power as well.

2011 and 2012 will just see early adopters, but by 2015, the end of incandescents will be as obvious as the end of LaserDisc was in 2000, if not quite gone yet.

Pure Abject Idiocy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736830)

First, the law only specified the necessary efficiency a bulb required. It didn't specify technology.

Two, there already exist more efficient, albeit more expensive, incandescent light bulbs.

Three, even if you don't believe in global warming, one must believe that there is a finite amount of electricity we can generate. Simply because that amount is large is not a good reason to waste it because 'you want choice'. Sorry, greater good should win out here since nothing of value is being lost (since the only thing being trampled is the pride of complacent, ignorant morons who care nothing for the future of humanity).

Congress is the Enemy of the USA (1)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | about 3 years ago | (#36736832)

Since when has it been Congress' job to be everything that is wrong with the USA? I mean, they can't even get the budget up to par and working correctly, and now they're bothering with repealing more green energy initiatives....but why?

Of course, because Philips and GE, and the entirety of the oil/energy industry probably threw millions of dollars or more at campaign contributions and lobbying to keep their existing product lines available. Greener technology means less energy consumed, and less energy consumed means less money for the providers.

Until we ban the outright sale of law and votes to corporations based on contributions and lobbying, this country will continue to march backward right into its grave.

Fuck the entire government, hard, sideways with a barbed metal pole.

More luddite whining... (1)

Ossifer (703813) | about 3 years ago | (#36736846)

Why not repeal the mandate to require 1.6 gal/flush toilets?

We heard the same lame arguments against that back then, but guess what? IT WORKED!!!

[citation needed] (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736888)

[citation needed]

Cheaper CFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36736892)

With the competition open, what are the odds the prices of the CFL bulbs will go down right away?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...