Apologies to Charlton Heston for butchering his line about the Second Amendment, but I’m increasingly disgusted and irate about the looming light-bulb ban.
For more than a century, incandescent light bulbs have brightened our world.
But the 100-watt bulb doesn’t provide enough light to compensate for the dark and malignant impact of politicians. In less than one month, stores no longer will be allowed to sell these bulbs – and will force us to use toxic bulbs instead.
So let’s bid a fond farewell to quality lighting – and part of our liberty – with this new video from Reason TV.
Speaking of videos, here’s a good speech on the issue by Congressman Poe of Texas.
By the way, this idiotic idea is another dismal legacy of the statist Bush presidency.
[…] touching farewell to the 100-watt light […]
[…] Banning light bulbs. […]
Cy_Guy
Yes tax on bulbs – which could help pay for cheaper energy saving alternatives
– would be better than regulations and more likely to get Congress approval in budget saving times
(Govmt income for Democrats, which could be extended to buildings, cars, and much else, keeping GOP choice)
That said, market competition would surely be better,
also to save energy, as covered http://ceolas.net/#li23x
The CFL v Coal does not hold up though
It would be an odd justification anyway,
to force a lamp switchover to reduce emissions
– rather than dealing with the probelm itself.
The coal plant argument keeps doing the rounds,
but USA EPA administration themselves are not now pursuing that
argument (whatever about old diagrams floating around), following the
90% mercury emission reduction mandate under Lisa Jackson.
It never was true anyway, for the extensive referenced reasons here:
http://ceolas.net/#li198x
Also, does not hold given 1-2% grid electricity is saved, as linked above
(but would not do so with supposed greater savings either)
Of course, to the user, a broken bulb in the home is a likely greater
worry than a distant chimney emission release anyway, again with
reference to EPA, in their clean-up mandates
What’s the energy savings related to the nerve damage from the mercury off-gassing into folk’s homes? Since most of the purchasers of light bulbs have no CLUE about the dangerousness of a broken CFL.
I’m not for banning the sale of anything, but there should be a carbon tax on incandescent bulbs to make CFL and more importantly, LED bulbs cost competitive at the time of purchase. CFLs and LEDs are the cheaper choice in the long-run due to energy savings, and longer bulb life (to the commenter above whose bulbs only last a s year, are those in enclosed fixtures, outdoors or on dimmers? Those are uses that don’t work well for standard CFLs. Make sure you are getting CFLs rated for dimmers or outdoor use, or ones that are already enclosed in a fake bulb if you intend to use them in an enclosed fixture.)
As to the toxicity argument, over the life of the bulb, a CFL powered by coal-fueled electric plants will generate many times the amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime, and that mercury inevitably enters the water supply, unlike the mercury in CFLs which if properly disposed can be recycled and not pollute the environment.
Lowes and Home Depot still stock the good stuff, a 10 8-packs will keep you a good number of years; plenty of time for someone clever to develop a compliant incandescent bulb that’s as good as the real thing (possible), or for the government to come to their senses and repeal the law (highly unlikely).
…though the crafty Germans have also been “Screwing the EU using Condoms”
that is, adapting clear bulbs to make them like the banned frosted bulbs
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/12/screwing-eu-with-condom.html
(yes, the EU bureaucrats are that petty…
arguing that people “can buy CFLs” instead of frosted (opaque) incandescent bulbs,
which happen to be the most popular type , without glare…
…. ….resulting in the “acute crisis” of CFL dumping hitting Sweden, of all countries (usually good at recycling, the Nordics) as seen in the report linked earlier on the blog.
Sam,
RE the German heatballs, they got banned in a local court, unfortunately
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/07/update-on-heat-balls.html
Ironman..
right on – re the valves (tubes) any guitarists out there? đŸ˜‰
Or, in “Remy – Ode – Mode”…
Maybe the time will come when, like its cousin the gleaming radio
tube, the simple bulb gradually fades away, the passing of old technology.
But let it be a democratic passing by the will of the people,
not a passing by committee dictats and decrees.
How many politicians should it take to change a light bulb?
None.
How many citizens should be allowed to choose?
Everyone.
(off http://Ceolas.net, final words )
This is retarded not only because:
a. If they are actually better, most people will buy them anyway, (nobody had to pass a law to say you can’t use Ni-Cd batteries in your cellphone and HAVE TO switch to Li-ion that I’m aware of).
So not only is it a USELESS law that is ironically WASTEFUL but,
b. Define “better”. Better for what? Better for whom? Why? And who should decide that?
My electronic devices use transistors instead of thermionic valves, because transistors have a lot of advantages – including power efficiency by a country mile – but that doesn’t mean valves don’t still have applications in 2011.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic_valve
So it’s also an ARROGANT and TYRANNICAL law. So if you have a genuine reason to produce, sell, or use incandescent bulbs, you have to get permission from some bureaucrat first? And what happens if you tell them to Edison screw off?
A German businessman is getting around a law banning incandescent bulbs by selling them under a different name: Heat Balls
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/energy/blogs/skirting-eu-law-the-rebranding-of-incandescent-bulbs-as-heat-balls
Clearly the ban is unwarranted – for any reason.
For anyone interested, regulation details and updates, including the announced Canada delay to 2014, and the repeal ban bills in 7 US States
(legislated in Mr Poe’s Texas!) http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
Particularly ironic that 100 Watt bulbs, that you mention,
are first to be banned:
Since low cost brightness is particularly hard with the main pushed
CFL or LED alternatives,
and the heat given off is not necessarily wasted:
Overall, just 1-2 % grid electricity saved (Dept of Energy etc data) with much better alternatives in generation, grid distibution and other consumption savings, as on the linked website.
Can’t the decision be opposed or reversed??
It’s not the design or function of CFLs at fault here. It’s the modern money-spinning potential of cheap mass-produced items from China and others being unloaded on the US market (think of most cell and “smart” phones.) Some may call it “planned obsolescence”, but choiceless consumers call it utter crap.
One of the promises of the new bulbs is that they last longer. I don’t think my wife and I have had 1 last more than year in our house. The often flicker long before the die.
We had one burn out on us the other night. I’d love to see a study on bulb life since we were promised how much longer they’d last. Not only am I paying more… I’m getting less quality (at least by my informal estimates)