A bunch of dim bulbs in Washington

The Rocky

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

A great many unkind things have been said about our current Congress - many of them merited. See the above editorial, for instance.

But nothing this august body has done this session has more exemplified its meddling ineptitude than its decision to phase out incandescent light bulbs, of all things, beginning in 2012.

As explained by Reuters in a recent report, the measure signed by President Bush on Dec. 19 requires lighting to use "up to 30 percent less energy," effectively outlawing the brilliant device engineered 125 years ago by Thomas Edison.

Proponents of the measure argue that replacing all 4 billion Edison bulbs in the United States with energy-efficient alternatives will cut carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 100 million tons and dramatically reduce household utility bills - by more than $18 billion a year.

But how will household budgets fare under the greater cost of compact fluorescent lights - surpassing $5 per bulb vs. about 75 cents for their incandescent counterparts? And let's not look too closely at the additional pollution that will enter the environment should the mercury inside CFLs escape. Moreover, will Americans - especially aging baby boomers - be satisfied with the poorer, harsher light shed by CFLs? Or will they merely use more CFLs to supply the same amount of light cast by a single incandescent bulb?

Whatever the answer to these questions, one thing is clear: When light bulbs are outlawed, only outlaws will have light bulbs.

• December 26, 2007

  10:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ScienceGuy writes:

  Let's face it. The Rocky's editorial outlook is essentially against any legislation that asserts that government is capable of making decisions that are good for society in the long term that might counterveil any consumer's short term interest. What's best for the individual may not be best for society, but that's why we have democratic governments.

  Certainly the incandescent bulb was "brilliant" in the 19th century, but if Vince and the crew had been around then, they'd have been griping about the loss of ambience created by candles and gas lanterns.

  CFLs may cost more in the short term, but as energy is only going to get more expensive, and the bulbs last longer, the cost issue is probably moot. Disposal issues are a valid concern, but consumer's habits can change, especially with appropriate product labelling and public awareness campaigns. How many of us recycled all our paper, plastic and bottles 20 years ago? Now it's a reflex. By 2012, cold cathode bulbs may be a viable alternative to CFLs anyway.

  For the Rocky, being conservative means staying stuck in the past. Even our Dear Leader knows that conservation is inherent in the term. You would benefit from a little more Teddy Roosevelt in your conservatism, and a lot less Robber Barron.

• December 26, 2007

  10:48 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  drow writes:

  That is, perhaps, the least intelligent thing I've read here today. And you need to look harder if you can't find a CFL for less than $5 per.

• December 26, 2007

  11:07 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  seeingeyeseesall writes:

  Anyone can buy CFL bulbs at WalMart today for a lot less than $5 - more like THREE for $5, and the cost is coming down each year. Citing mercury as a problem is plainly stupid - I suppose your office building doesn't use overhead fluorescent bulbs, right? Those bulbs contain FAR more mercury than CFLs, they have been disposed of improperly for decades, and CFL recycling is available to prevent loss of mercury - just take your bad bulb, if you ever have one, to any Office Depot (for example) for free disposal.

  Edison's bulbs use 90% of the energy they consume to generate heat, not light. CFLs reduce the waste by over 70%!

  The only real shame in this situation is that government has to act to get people to do something that makes so much sense! Dumping incandescents for CFLs, which pay for themselves in energy savings and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by millions of tons a year already, should be something everyone should do as a responsible member of society.

• December 26, 2007

  11:10 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  ScienceGuy writes:

  p.s. Let's not forget about the economies of scale the capitalist system is capable of generating to respond to greater demand. On other subjects, the Rocky is happy to crow about it.

• December 26, 2007

  11:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  jfrye writes:

  I'm not sure where in the constitution it provides for congress regulating light bulbs. If anyone can "enlighten" me, let me know.

  Now we'll be stuck with high priced, mercury toxic, compact fluorescent light bulbs.

• December 26, 2007

  11:46 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  Dan2 writes:

  I think I'll just stock up on Edison's bulbs. I have 4 years to do it. Thanks for the head's up RMN EB

• December 26, 2007

  11:54 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  halperk1 writes:

  Flourscent bulbs will not work with dimmer controls, and occupancy sensors. There are no flourscent bulbs available for fixtures that use candalabra base bulbs. There are no flourscent bulbs available for appliances. Thousands of dollars will have to be spent to replace fixtures and controls that are not compatible with flourscent. This will not be as easy as unscrewing a bulb, and screwing in a new bulb. Anyone that thinks its this easy is a dim bulb himself. By the way, more than half of my bulbs ARE flourscent.

• December 26, 2007

  12:24 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  anya writes:

  The government is wrong to tell businesses what kind of light bulbs to manufacture, and it is wrong to tell citizens what kind of light bulbs to buy. What with rising costs of energy and all, the market would have solved the problem just fine without those idiots in Congress.

  That said, I replaced EVERY light bulb in my home with CFLs a couple of years ago, and this Christmas, we used only LED strings of lights. I have also put all of the "vampire" transformers and things like TV sets, stereos, etc. on power strips. The energy savings are very dramatic, and it has really saved a lot of money. Just a few weeks ago, Home Depot and Excel had a program where CFLs were $1.00 each - I ran over there as soon as I saw the ad, thinking that they would quickly sell out. But in fact, it seemed that I was the only one buying them. Sigh.

  I've always said that the Lottery is a tax on people who are bad at math, and I guess I will add people who don't use CFLs to that.

• December 26, 2007

  2:10 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  seeingeyeseesall writes:

  It's spelled "Fluorescent" by the way ...

  >>>Flourscent [sic] bulbs will not work with dimmer controls, and occupancy sensors.

  Some will. By the time everyone has to have them, most will.

  >>>There are no flourscent bulbs available for fixtures that use candalabra base bulbs.

  Actually, there are.

  >>>Thousands of dollars will have to be spent to replace fixtures and controls that are not compatible with flourscent.

  And where are the facts to support this idea? You're not talking about changing everyone over this afternoon. There's plenty of time for innovation in dimming and odd-base bulb development.

  >>>Anyone that thinks its this easy is a dim bulb himself.

  Not true. A dim bulb is someone who doesn't see this as a great opportunity. I'm going to invest in CFL-makers, myself. They'll be a dirt-simple way to make money over a few years, those companies...

• December 26, 2007

  5:02 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  freethinker07 writes:

  There are two kinds of light sensor. CFLs work with the more expensive kind which is much slower to react to light.

  I don't know about dimmers.

  I held off because of light color, but that too is changing. My question really is about the mercury pollution. But I guess that phasing out mercury thermometers will go a long way to solving that problem.

  As for appliance bulbs, I don't see why not unless the fluorescent bulb doesn't physically fit.

  I myself used the second to the last wonder-bulb. The Halogen bulb. I have a large number of matching fixtures which take pin type halogen bulbs, for which there is no fluorescent equivalent. Since it appears that since halogen bulbs are a form of incandescent, I may have to replace hundreds of dollars of fixtures.

• December 26, 2007

  6:33 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  socrates writes:

  The edison incandescent bulb is an obviously inefficient technology that should be phased out. The Congress was correct in taking this step. I'm not sure what the Rocky has against progress, but 95% of the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb is released in the form of heat, not light. CFLs are a better bulb, a better technology and should be the standard.

• December 26, 2007

  10:03 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  kathyM writes:

  I recently bought a home that has 12 (yes, 12)--giant fluorescent ballasts--even one in the bathroom! The harsh light does not make the rooms feel comfortable at all. I feel like I live in a warehouse.

  When manufacturers make CFLs that more closely imitate the softer light of an incandescent, I'll buy.

• December 27, 2007

  11:02 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  I bought my first CFLS 18 years ago. Yes, I said 18 years! They cost over $20.00 each at that time. I didn't tell anyone for fear they would think I was crazy! I wasn't too certain myself! I am now purchasing third generation bulbs. These are far superior to the early CFLS. Most technological things do improve over time.

  Unlike years ago, one can find CFLs everywhere( I had to buy my first at a specialty electronics store). They are available in sizes from 40-150 watt equivalents. Outdoor floodlights,three way, dimmer switch and photoelectric compatible bulbs are all available, although these are more expensive. The ballast is now much smaller, the lights come on instantly and most now fit small lamps. The color is also much warmer.

  Cfls seem to last forever, in fact 3 of my originals are still in everyday use! The average bulb doesn't cost $5 anymore, and even if it did you save at least $35.00 a bulb in it's lifetime. You will use 1/4 the energy and replace them 1/6 as often.This is a concept that should have taken hold many years ago. Personally, I am beginning to move on to LEDS.If you don't know what those are, look them up! Don't wait 20 years!

• December 27, 2007

  11:39 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  webviking0579 writes:

  Ah, I shudder to think of what our founding fathers would say if they could see what kind of country we've become. Because of the US Congress, in a few years we'll barely have enough light to see well enough to clean out our low flow toilets.

  In all seriousness, this is a stupid, meddling law that is anti-ethical to the precepts that this country was founded on. Put out a low cost CFL bulb that emits as good or better light than an incandescent bulb and uses less energy, and consumers will make the right decision.

  Bludgeoning the populace with an never-ending litany of "nanny-says-do-this" and "nanny-says-don't-do-that" laws is degrading, immoral and a recipe for social unrest.

  Besides, if you treat people like children, they tend to act like children. Give people some credit for being able to think for themselves before you start ramming laws down their throats.

  Sheesh.

• December 28, 2007

  7 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  vudumom writes:

  I didn't realize our country was in such good shape that all our government has to do is tell us what kind of lightbulbs we have to use.This is truly a special day in History. One should write in in the history books so our children will grow up and learn in school American History about when our great nation stopped using regular lightbulbs and don't forget the Pilgrims and Indian story.At least our children will get to learn one more history lesson besides the Pilgrims and the Indians.
  We are truly blessed by the government we have.We must be because no one has been assassinated in years.( This is a sarcastic post for all of you dim bulbs out there)

• December 28, 2007

  6:25 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  halperk1 writes:

  I still cannot find candelabra based CFL bulbs, no matter what some of you say. My sources tell me that they might be available in a year or two. CFL bulbs will not physically fit in my oven, or my fridge, and I am not buying a new fridge to make you greenies happy. I have tried, and CFL bulbs will not work with some of my motion and occupancy sensors. To save energy I have four motion sensors in my yard, and two inside. Three have relay outputs, and do work. The others don't. The government is still filled with dim bulbs.

• December 28, 2007

  6:46 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  greenleaf writes:

  G.E. makes a 15 watt equivalent candelabra bulb ( I saw these on the Ace hardware website). I need these too and will now order them. I agree that it can be more difficult finding specific bulbs in the stores. I, increasingly, go to the internet and order online. I agree that some appliances have no cfl options. Most new appliances are beginning to use LEDS anyway that will outlast the appliances and save more energy than even cfls!

  Lastly, I agree that the government doesn't need to mandate CFL use. Whether you are a "greenie" as you derisively put it, or a fiscal conservative, business person or an especially poor person you owe it to yourself to use these bulbs wherever possible.

• December 28, 2007

  8:06 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  irisman writes:

  That editorial was badly uninformed, but judging from most of the comments, the readers know better. I will add that you can buy compact fluorescents in "bright white" that have better color than incandescents(which are deficient in blue), and "daylight" that matches the color of sunlight. The new law does not phase out special incandescents like appliance lamps or oven lamps, or projection lamps.

• December 29, 2007

  10:13 a.m.

  Suggest removal

  trailertrash writes:

  One place CFLs perform poorly is in porch lights in cold weather. When you turn on a CFL in extreme cold, it puts out a very feeble, inadequate light until it warms up for several minutes. Not very useful if you're trying to see who's standing outside your front door before opening the door.

• January 1, 2008

  1:30 p.m.

  Suggest removal

  SoldierInTheWarOfIdeas writes:

  I like to call them the Congressional Dimocrats...."Dims" for short.