19
   

Texas wants to turn the lights off on a federal plan to phase out certain light bulbs

 
 
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 01:18 pm
Some Texas lawmakers say light bulb bill is bright idea
Jun. 12, 2011
By Anna M. Tinsley
[email protected]

Texas could soon be in a position to turn the lights off on a federal plan to phase out certain light bulbs.

State lawmakers have passed a bill that allows Texans to skirt federal efforts to promote more efficient light bulbs, which ultimately pushes the swirled, compact fluorescent bulbs over the 100-watt incandescent bulbs many grew up with.

The measure, sent to Gov. Rick Perry for consideration, lets any incandescent light bulb manufactured in Texas -- and sold in this state -- avoid the authority of the federal government or the repeal of the 2007 energy independence act that starts phasing out some incandescent light bulbs next year.

"Let there be light," state Rep. George Lavender, R-Texarkana, wrote on Facebook after the bill passed. "It will allow the continued manufacture and sale of incandescent light bulbs in Texas, even after the federal ban goes into effect. ... It's a good day for Texas."

Not everyone agrees.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, a New York-based environmental group, is calling on Perry to veto the bill.

"The Texas legislation is designed to showcase the state's independence," said Bob Keefe, senior press secretary with the council. "But what it really shows off is how some politicians in the Lone Star State will do anything to score political points -- even if it means echoing misinformation and wasting time and money passing legislation that can't practically be implemented and isn't in the best interest of constituents."

Perry has until Sunday to veto bills, sign them into law or let them become law without his signature.

Texas bill

Lavender has described his House Bill 2510 as a common-sense bill.

"The 'new and improved' compact fluorescent light bulbs don't work as promised, are significantly more expensive as are the LEDs and have environmental and disposal problems due to the mercury they contain," according to a statement from his office.

The goal of the bill is to make incandescent light bulbs manufactured in Texas -- that are sold in Texas and don't leave the state -- not subject to federal law or federal rules. Such a bulb would have to have "Made in Texas" clearly imprinted somewhere on it. There are no estimates of how many incandescent light bulbs are manufactured in Texas.

If the bill becomes law, it would go into effect Jan. 1 and would apply to light bulbs made from that day forward.

Federal move

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Arlington, is trying to repeal the 2007 energy independence act passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush.

The federal act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, but it creates new standards for them, such as requiring 100-watt bulbs to be 25 percent more efficient. After that, similar changes will go into effect for 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. The goal is to make the bulbs more energy efficient because much of the traditional bulbs' energy leaves the bulb as heat rather than as light.

The act requires the changes or essentially removes incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014, leaving consumers to mostly use fluorescent bulbs, which some say are more energy efficient and others say are just more expensive.

"People don't want the government dictating the lighting they can use," Barton said. "Traditional incandescent bulbs have been brightening the night since Thomas Edison created the first one in 1879. They are safe, cheap and reliable."

The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee may soon hold a hearing on energy efficiency and could include Barton's BULB act.

"I am happy that the state Legislature voted to keep incandescent lights on in Texas, but the state wouldn't have to get involved if the federal government would just butt out," Barton said.

Supporters

For some, the Texas bill represents this state's efforts to claim sovereignty from the federal government, proving that Texas has the right to regulate some commercial activities conducted only in this state.

"Telling Texans what types of light bulbs they can manufacture, sell, purchase and use is not the proper role of the federal government," said Janise Cookston, a spokeswoman for the Wharton-based nonprofit group "We Texans," which works to protect "private property, personal and economic liberty" as well as constitutional government.

"This bill sends the message to Washington that Texas will no longer sit idly by and take unconstitutional intrusion into our lives."

Some say they worry about fluorescent bulbs because they contain mercury, a toxic metal linked to birth defects and behavioral disorders. Estimates show the average bulb has 4 to 5 milligrams of mercury, enough to cover the tip of a ballpoint pin. No mercury is emitted while the bulbs are in use, but vapors can escape if a bulb breaks.

Supporters also say fluorescent bulbs can cost more than $3 each; incandescent bulbs can cost as little as 35 cents each.

Opponents

Opponents say the health risks of the mercury are minimal. And they say the bill violates the constitutional clause that states the federal law is the "supreme law of the land."

They say the state can't prevent a light bulb from being taken across a state line, which would make it subject to interstate commerce rules and federal regulation. They also say incandescent bulbs are archaic and have been replaced by fluorescent bulbs that last longer, are more environmentally friendly and don't create the same fire hazards incandescent bulbs do.

"Nobody is forcing anybody to use only compact florescent bulbs," said Keefe, of the NRDC. "Several manufacturers are already making incandescent bulbs that have the same lighting quality as old-school incandescents that we all know and use. It's just that newer, more efficient versions use 25-30 percent less energy -- saving the average Texas household an estimated $100 per year and reducing overall Texas energy bills by more than $900 million."

Officials with Osram Sylvania, a popular producer of incandescent light bulbs, declined to comment on Texas' bill. But the company noted that it has developed a more efficient incandescent bulb called the Sylvania SuperSaver that will meet the new federal requirements.

GE, meanwhile, is moving forward to fill the demand for fluorescent bulbs.

Officials there say demand for traditional incandescent bulbs has declined and consumers have switched to more efficient lighting.

"As policymakers consider changes to current legislation, we hope they keep in mind that repeal of national standards would result in states establishing their own standards," said Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE Appliances & Lighting. "That could create a patchwork of inconsistent standards across the nation that would mean increased manufacturing and distribution costs, higher prices for consumers and lost sales for retailers."

Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/06/12/3146852/some-texas-lawmakers-say-light.html#ixzz1PBXV8Shu
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 01:54 pm
I don't like the new bulbs. They are no better than the incandescents and not brighter or as bright, generally speaking. I kind of think they started making incandescent bulbs of poorer quality to soften us up for the push to change over. Plus, they have yet to find a way around the mercury in the new ones. Sure, the amount of mercury per bulb is small, but millions of small quantities could add up in a hurry. The one plus to the new bulbs, they use less energy.
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 02:19 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I really don't see what the big deal is about 100 watt bulbs.
I haven't used anything larger than a 60 watt for many years.
Mostly I use 40's, it's such a simple thing to do to save a little energy.

Kinda reminds me of the old saying, "Indian build small fire, sit close, white man build big fire, sit far away"
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 02:41 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
Plus, they have yet to find a way around the mercury in the new ones. Sure, the amount of mercury per bulb is small, but millions of small quantities could add up in a hurry.

The mercury in the bulbs can't equal the mercury from the coal power plants required to power incandescents.

Quote:
In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 metric tons that year)
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  0  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 03:10 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
The one plus to the new bulbs, they use less energy.


and they last and last and last and last
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 03:20 pm
Great Idea! Hopefully this concept of the states challenging federal bullying will catch on...
Ceili
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 03:55 pm
I don't think they last and last... sadly. I can't tell you how often the various models I've bought have burnt out. I redid my bathroom three years ago and put in a new 3 light fixture. I've replaced each bulb about 4 times and counting. That's just the bathroom, but I've been told the new lights aren't great with being turned on and off, repeated ad naseum. The box says they should last for 7 years, I've been lucky to get a little less than a year out of each bulb, in reality not much better than the incandescents and they are about 3 times the price.
Mind you, they are coming out with some pretty funky designs
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:00 pm
@ehBeth,
They last longer than incandescent bulbs, but I've been using them for years and they don't come close to the advertised eight years. In fact, after a couple of years, they get dimmer.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:01 pm
@Ceili,
I've got a couple that have been in for 6 or 7 years now. They are mostly in spaces where they're mostly on versus on and off. Mebbe that's what made the difference.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:03 pm
@Ceili,
Quote:
but I've been told the new lights aren't great with being turned on and off, repeated ad naseum.
Or moisture...and I think temp changes effect them as well. The data on long life I would put money on is not derived from standard usage, it is either optimum conditions or some unrealistic usage such as the thing is turn on and never turned off. Our Government would support such lie telling in the interest of their agenda to convince people to switch, or that the Government knows best. Just look back on all the lies we were told by government and the idiot environmental political pressure groups about corn ethanol for illustration.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:05 pm
Roger (quote) they get dimmer.
One of my greatest complaints.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 04:07 pm
@ehBeth,
A bulb that's never blown out and never been turned off, and then on and then off again... (Mind you it's in California, you'd think it might have suffered a brown out or two in it's 110 year lifespan.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1243138/Still-glowing-strong-109-years-worlds-oldest-lightbulb.html
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/01/14/article-1243138-07DADECC000005DC-423_306x497.jpg
0 Replies
 
Reyn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 05:40 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
... I've been told the new lights aren't great with being turned on and off, repeated ad naseum. The box says they should last for 7 years, I've been lucky to get a little less than a year out of each bulb, in reality not much better than the incandescents and they are about 3 times the price. ...

Yup, I've heard that, too.

I'm hoping that the LED lights will be better than those ones.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Jun, 2011 05:44 pm
@Reyn,
Mine last significantly longer than the incandescents, but not no way anything close to the eight years I see on the local packaging.

I want to see the LEDs in use before I spring for any. They're made up of many individual lamps, and look like they would work fine for floodlights or spotlights, but maybe not so good for general overhead lighting. Anybody know about this stuff. I'm sure Lightwizard does, but we haven't seen him in ages.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 07:39 am
@Ceili,
There are several things with compact fluorescents.

Most come with a warranty and will replace them if you want to take the time. (I have noticed they seem to be better quality the last couple of years.)

Cheap fluorescent bulbs shouldn't be used in certain circumstance because they won't last. Don't use them in ceiling fans because the movement will cause them to fail. Don't use them in enclosed fixtures because heat build up will cause them to fail. Good quality bulbs should work in those fixtures. I believe they even market compact fluorescents now specifically to work in ceiling fans.
parados
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 07:42 am
@parados,
It looks like the US government increased testing in 2009 to force companies to comply with the standards to achieve energy star rating.

I guess what I noticed was a result of government intervention.

edit**
It looks like all fluorescents are required to warranty their product for minimum of 2 years of home use.

23 pages of requirements
www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/product_specs/.../cfls_prog_req.pdf
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 08:29 am
This is a horseshit story.

Quote:
The federal act doesn't ban incandescent light bulbs, but it creates new standards for them, such as requiring 100-watt bulbs to be 25 percent more efficient. After that, similar changes will go into effect for 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. The goal is to make the bulbs more energy efficient because much of the traditional bulbs' energy leaves the bulb as heat rather than as light.

The act requires the changes or essentially removes incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014, leaving consumers to mostly use fluorescent bulbs, which some say are more energy efficient and others say are just more expensive.


Paragraph one is accurate, paragraph two is a lie. There is an assumption made by some (dim) people, not shared by the light bulb manufacturing industry, that the new regulations are beyond the capabilities of our technology. These are the same people who said (Or maybe they are the children of the people who said):
"There will never be an automobile capable of 20MPG!"
"What!!! No lead in gasoline!!!! yipes!!"
==
The real problem, other than the shrieking falsehoods, (to repeat- the law does not ban incandescent light bulbs.) is that Americans think the words "100 Watts" refers to how bright a light bulb is. It does not. "100 Watts" refers to how much you have to pay to use the light bulb. The amount of lumens reports how bright a light bulb is.

So here's what happens: Let's say the current 100w light bulb puts out about 1600 lumens. What the law says is 'find a way to make a light put out 1600 lumens but only use 75 watts'. You get the same light, you use less energy. Good, right?

But then you put your new 75watt 1600 lumen bulb on the market and the Americans ask:
"Where are the 100 watt bulbs?"
"um. This 75 watt bulb is just as bright as the old 100 watt."
"ACK!! You've BANNED 100 watt bulbs!!! "

jeez.
Of course, GE/Sylvania/Phillips could, under the law, make a 100 watt bulb and it would have to put out 2000 lumens, but the yahoos would be happy.

BTW: this process has been going on in the USA for over nine years. Manufactures started with large (R40) Flood lights and have already worked their way through all of the smaller sizes of flood and spots. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to someone that the 135w R40 Flood puts out the same lumens as the 150Watt R4o used to. It's only now, that they are down to the most common 100, 75, 60 A19, the familiar "bright idea" avatar light bulb, that people started to really notice.
==
Meanwhile, replace all the light bulbs you use the most often with fluorescents and/or LEDs. And, if you are concerned about long life, 1) don't buy the cheap-ass big box crappola ones. 2) only buy ones that have a clearly stated guarantee, save the frigging package/receipt and ask for a replacement if the thing doesn't meet the time and light standards.

You don't want to bother with that kind of record keeping?? Right. You've got every copy of Sports Illustrated back to 1972, but you don't have the file space for 12 flattened bubble-packs. Of course, at $7.00 for an eight year light bulb that is less than a buck a year.

Joe(I spend that on coffee every day.)Nation
hawkeye10
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 02:36 pm
@Joe Nation,
Because the technology does not exists to get the current amount of light from a 100 watt bulb out of an incandescent bulb using only 75 watts the law is in fact a ban. The lie is in claiming otherwise. If you want the light you currently get from a 100 watt incandescent then you will need to move to a non incandescent bulb.

The expectation was that by the time the law started that the non incandescents would be cheap enough and last long enough that people would not mind the switch, the claim was that industry just needed a push to make it happen. THis has proved to not be the case, as we see so often with government military purchases, the challanges of technology improvement have been vastly underrated.
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:05 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Are you stocking up on incandescent bulbs? I value my eyesight and don't plan to read by a light that gives off the equivalent wattage of what my great grandfather had to put up with - whale oil.

That said, South Carolina is trying to do something about it. The Foundry:

The Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, which unanimously passed South Carolina's Senate panel, would allow South Carolina manufacturers to continue to sell incandescent bulbs so long as they have "Made in South Carolina" on them and are sold only within the state. Other states have floated the idea, and last year Arizona passed a bill that would have done the same thing, but Governor Jan Brewer (R) vetoed the legislation.
Whether the legislation becomes law remains to be seen, and even if it does become law, lawsuits will likely ensue. Regardless, South Carolina's efforts demonstrate the will to remove the federal government's ability to restrict individual choice. If the compact florescent light bulb (CFL) is a better choice, consumers will make that choice without the government's push.
The complaints of CFLs are fairly well known by now. Many consumers prefer the soft yellow lighting of incandescents to the unnatural, office-like white light of fluorescents. Other critics point out that CFLs do not work well in colder temperatures, so they emit less heat, forcing Americans to use their heaters more. Residents in houses with well-and-septic systems use the heat from incandescent bulbs to keep the water above freezing. Furthermore, CFLs do not work well with dimmer switches, and the lifespan of the bulb diminishes when turned off and on frequently.
And they're more expensive. But that's all right, says the Department of Energy, because they use less energy than incandescents and last longer
.

And, it's not their money so why should they care? I don't hold out much hope for this approach; states cannot overrule the federal government in matters of interstate commerce, a power granted exclusively to congress. But it should be interesting to see the arguments put forth in its favor


http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/05/sc_senate_passes_the_incandesc.html
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:10 pm
@hawkeye10,
That isn't true

Halogen A lamps meet the standard required under the law. They are incandescent but a different technology than the old style.

http://www.bulbs.com/images/landing_page_resources/halogen_astyle_top.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Texas wants to turn the lights off on a federal plan to phase out certain light bulbs
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2024 at 08:43:37