19
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:17 pm
OK the government didn't ban incandescent light bulbs, instead it merely set new standards for them that are apparently difficult to attain. The remaining U.S. manufacturers of the old style bulbs are shutting their operations down now. The Chinese dominate the market for the new bulbs in part because of looser environmental laws there and the greater amount of manual labor involved in their fabrication.

Yet another component of the U.S. manufacturing industry is shut down at the hands of environmental zealots who want to tell us all how to live. Despite this we blame the growing gap between rich and poor on the very industries they are destroying.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:27 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
OK the government didn't ban incandescent light bulbs, instead it merely set new standards for them that are apparently difficult to attain
So it is claimed, however, the very complaint about incandescent bulbs is that they put out so much heat, which is considered wasted energy. Given that the very definition of incandescent is "producing light by way of heat" is is not honest to say the the goal is other than to outlaw incandescent bulbs.

Quote:
The incandescent light bulb, incandescent lamp or incandescent light globe makes light by heating a metal filament wire to a high temperature until it glows. The hot filament is protected from air by a glass bulb that is filled with inert gas or evacuated. In a halogen lamp, a chemical process that returns metal to the filament prevents its evaporation. The light bulb is supplied with electrical current by feed-through terminals or wires embedded in the glass. Most bulbs are used in a socket (a housing giving mechanical support to the bulb, keeping its terminals in contact with the supply current terminals).
Incandescent bulbs are produced in a wide range of sizes, light output, and voltage ratings, from 1.5 volts to about 300 volts. They require no external regulating equipment and have a low manufacturing cost and work equally well on either alternating current or direct current. As a result, the incandescent lamp is widely used in household and commercial lighting, for portable lighting such as table lamps, car headlamps, and flashlights, and for decorative and advertising lighting.
Some applications of the incandescent bulb use the heat generated by the filament, such as incubators, brooding boxes for poultry, heat lights for reptile tanks,[1][2] infrared heating for industrial heating and drying processes, and the Easy-Bake Oven toy. In cold weather, the heat produced by incandescent lamps is a benefit as it contributes to building heating, but in hot climates this waste heat increases the energy required by air conditioning systems.
Incandescent light bulbs are gradually being replaced in many applications by other types of electric lights, such as fluorescent lamps, compact fluorescent lamps, cold cathode fluorescent lamps (CCFL), high-intensity discharge lamps, and light-emitting diodes (LEDs). These newer technologies improve the ratio of visible light to heat generation. Some jurisdictions, such as the European Union, are in the process of phasing out the use of incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient lighting. In the United States, federal law has scheduled the most common incandescent light bulbs to be phased out by 2014

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_Light


When the bosses say "we are not outlawing incandescent bulbs" what they are saying is that they are not forcing us to by fluorescent bulbs, which the people hate. They are however outlawing incandescent bulbs just as is claimed. As per usual we are being lied to.
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:28 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Yet another component of the U.S. manufacturing industry is shut down at the hands of environmental zealots who want to tell us all how to live.


Well, you certainly don't give US any other choice but to live with the pollution provided by your choices; do you think that we simply get no say in that, or that we shouldn't be able to complain about being forced to pay for the external costs of YOUR lifestyle?

Poppycock! Heightened government efficiency standards have really helped to clean up our environment, and those who argue against them always pull the same bullshit lines. In the meantime, we keep enjoying more efficient cars and devices, and everyone's better off.

Cycloptichorn
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:41 pm
@georgeob1,
You argue as if incandescent bulbs are made in the USA. I doubt you can find too many made here. Most are made in China, Korea or Mexico.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
So it is claimed, however, the very complaint about incandescent bulbs is that they put out so much heat, which is considered wasted energy. Given that the very definition of incandescent is "producing light by way of heat" is is not honest to say the the goal is other than to outlaw incandescent bulbs.


I guess you want to completely ignore my post.

I can buy incandescent lightbulbs that meet the new standard. You can too.
contrex
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 03:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Great Idea! Hopefully this concept of the states challenging federal bullying will catch on...


Like in the 1860s?
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 04:00 pm
@parados,
Quote:
I can buy incandescent lightbulbs that meet the new standard. You can too
What is being heated?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 04:07 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Poppycock! Heightened government efficiency standards have really helped to clean up our environment, and those who argue against them always pull the same bullshit lines. In the meantime, we keep enjoying more efficient cars and devices, and everyone's better off.


Except those whose jobs were wiped out.

I made no argument about the environmental consequences of these rules. You are arguing against something I didn't say. Instead I made a point about the economic consequences of those rules. They are real.

Besides, the cost of energy does more to stimulate cunsumer choices for more efficient vehicles and appliances than government rules. We would be better off with taxes on energy than with automobiles and toilets designed by bureaucrats.

Now the Fish and Widlife Service is trying to shut down the highest producing oil fields in the contiguous states on behalf of a 5 inch subspecies of common lizard. Good article in today's WSJ.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 04:15 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Except those whose jobs were wiped out.


Is there any actual evidence that this is a wide-spread problem?

Whoops, forgot who I was talking to!

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 04:23 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
You can easily check on employment now in the manufacturing, metals processing and textile industries, compared to (say) two or three decades ago.

Would you also like proof that the sun rose this morning?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 04:28 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

You can easily check on employment now in the manufacturing, metals processing and textile industries, compared to (say) two or three decades ago.

Would you also like proof that the sun rose this morning?


Well, a lot of that is also due to modernization; greater productivity with less people due to greater use of automation and machinery. Has nothing at all to do with environmental regulations. How do you determine that some jobs are lost due to one, and not the other?

That's why we ask for proof or evidence; not because of a simple statistic, but because of the complex factors that inform the statistic. Your flip comment about the sun is reminiscent of those who argued strongly against the heliocentric model of the solar system; the proof is right there, for a simple person to see. Right? Not so much.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 04:40 pm
@georgeob1,
Largely documenting your claims


By Peter Whoriskey
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 201

An American innovation in light bulbs, but will manufacturing stay in the U.S.?
Quote:
Lighting Science Group is, as a result, just the sort of manufacturer that many, including the Obama administration, have said they would like to keep in the United States.

But while the company's manufacturing roots lie here, they may not remain.

The connection between American innovation and manufacturing, which for generations created U.S. jobs, has been unraveling under the pressures of globalization, and the light-bulb industry may be a prime example.

Ordinary incandescents, the bulbs pioneered by Thomas Edison, are manufactured almost entirely outside the United States, with the country's last major General Electric factory set to close this month. The company will continue to make incandescents in Mexico and China.



In the near term, compact fluorescents are expected to replace the traditional bulbs that are being phased out by new U.S. energy standards. But CFLs, as they are called, are almost entirely made in China, though it was an engineer in the United States who came up with the breakthrough design.

Now, as Lighting Science rapidly expands its production of what is considered the next-generation technology, the company is being courted by China and Mexico. Aside from the enticement of lower-wage workers, those countries offer significant cash incentives for capital equipment and labor, amounting to as much as $4 million, company officials said.

The United States, by contrast, has offered financing under the stimulus program, but the process has proved too cumbersome for the small company. Lighting Science is largely owned by Pegasus Capital, a private equity group.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/15/AR2010091507173.html?sid=ST2010091507249

hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 05:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
But as the Washington Post reports, one unintended consequence is the contribution it makes to the “continuing erosion” of U.S. manufacturing. As companies transition over to making CFLs, local plants close and jobs are moved out of the country. The cost of making CFLs and other new technologies is much cheaper abroad. As the Post reports, CFLs must be twisted into a spiral, a task which requires more manual labor. This is cheaper in China.

Many of the innovations for greener light bulbs originated in the United States. The CFL was invented by GE engineer Ed Hammer in the 1970s after the energy crisis. Then Ellis Yan, a Chinese immigrant to the United States, streamlined their production. Yan brought their assembly back to China, where labor was cheaper. As Yan explain to the Post, he would consider bringing his production to the United States even though it would add 10 percent to the cost of doing business. This is due to the fact that consumers have expressed a desire for goods made in America.

This is cold comfort for the workers at GE’s Winchester, Va., plant. Workers at the plant, where jobs have paid as much as $30 an hour, worry that they will be unable to find new positions. Many express grievances with the government. Despite promises that the move to green technologies would result in more manufacturing jobs, the government has allowed most of the contracts to go overseas. In 2007, the government passed legislation that would essentially ban incandescent light bulbs by 2014 while greatly decreasing domestic energy costs and greenhouse gases. But when the cost of creating the CFLs proved cheaper abroad, replacement positions were not available
http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/gadgets-electronics/stories/last-major-us-factory-making-incandescent-light-bulbs-closes
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Jun, 2011 09:34 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, a lot of that is also due to modernization; greater productivity with less people due to greater use of automation and machinery. Has nothing at all to do with environmental regulations. How do you determine that some jobs are lost due to one, and not the other?
And after your comment, how do you know it "had nothing at all to do with environmental regulations"????

The loss of our formerly dominant steel & aluminum industries had very little to do with the effects of automation. Indeed more of it might have saved some of the industry. However labor unions steadfastly opposed it. Our only remaining major steel company, Nucor (headquartered in Charlotte NC) is highly automated, strongly opposed to unions, and very successful. Despite repeated attempts to organize it by the Steelworker's union, no Nucor plant has ever voted to certify a union.

Our metals manufacturing and textile industries were lost due to a combination of Labor Union exploitation and resistence to competitive pressures; lower labor costs in other countries; the cost of compliance with environmental rules and restrictions; and increasing local taxes on plants & equipment. These factors worked together to prevent those companies, otherwise willing to invest and adapt to foreign competition, from doing so. The work and the jobs went overseas and the companies mostly failed, though some survived in other countries.

I'm not suggesting that all environmental regulation is bad: indeed most of it has accomplished its intended purpose. However, it is simply a fact that this "benefit" is not an unmixed blessing - it does adversely affect other areas of our lives. Those who blithely accuse the unseen rich or some other conspiracy for the growing income gap between the well educated and others are blinding themselves to important facts and deceiving those to whom they address their complaints.

Germany is to a significant degree unique in this area in that it has managed to maintain active labor unions while combining environmental improvement and very energetic modernization of its industries - along with social services and prudent financial management. Indeed, it is one of the world's leading exporters of heavy and specialized industrial equipment, automobiles and many other products. How they have done all this so far , I don't know. However, they're Germans. Unfortunately, they are increasingly short of working age people; have a very low birth rate; a declining population; and they are not successful at assimilating (or even welcoming) immigrants. It may not last.

Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 12:55 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
And after your comment, how do you know it "had nothing at all to do with environmental regulations"????


The entire point is that neither of us know, George. And yet, you feel perfectly comfortable making declarative and sweeping statements as if you DO know.

What makes your statement true, and mine false? That's why we should be linking to supporting documentation. Otherwise, how can conversation move forward?

Quote:
I'm not suggesting that all environmental regulation is bad: indeed most of it has accomplished its intended purpose. However, it is simply a fact that this "benefit" is not an unmixed blessing - it does adversely affect other areas of our lives.


Well, yeah - it used to be easy to make a lot of money by engaging in activities and ignoring the externalities and waste associated with those activities. Now that we don't let people ignore their waste and environmental problems anymore, a whole bunch of stuff which LOOKED cheap has been revealed to be not so cheap after all. This causes certain businesses to close their doors.

Now, this is a bad thing in terms of economic output - but so what? Since when is economic output the most important thing?

Quote:
Those who blithely accuse the unseen rich or some other conspiracy for the growing income gap between the well educated and others are blinding themselves to important facts and deceiving those to whom they address their complaints.


Well, you transitioned to a real meaningless sentence here, because it is indeed tax policies started by Reagan (and anti-regulatory policies forwarded by EVERYONE since then, especially in the financial sector) which have led to the growing gap between the rich and poor.

Quote:
How they [Germany] have done all this so far , I don't know.


Oh, I think it has quite a bit to do with the fact that - and this is per my German friends - the acquisition of unlimited wealth is looked on rather more poorly than it is here in America.

Cycloptichorn
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 01:32 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Those who blithely accuse the unseen rich or some other conspiracy for the growing income gap between the well educated and others are blinding themselves to important facts and deceiving those to whom they address their complaints.


Well, you transitioned to a real meaningless sentence here, because it is indeed tax policies started by Reagan (and anti-regulatory policies forwarded by EVERYONE since then, especially in the financial sector) which have led to the growing gap between the rich and poor.

Cycloptichorn


Amusing circular argument. I proposed a counter thesis to your earlier, utterly unsupported allegation that it was tax policy that created the growing gap between rich and poor, and you accused me of making unsupported arguments.

Now you finish the job merely by repeating your original unsupported belief.
0 Replies
 
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 01:49 pm
@edgarblythe,
Yes, the mercury amount is small, but if you drop the bulb and it brakes you have to leave the room right away and stay away for at least 20 minutes so the mercury can fall on the floor and you do not breathe it. That is what we are told.
You are not allowed to throw the bulbs in a garbage can - it has to brought to special place. Who is going to do that? Drive long distances for one bulb.

The oldfashioned help heat the room when used. So now in long cold winter I have to use more oil to get the same heat. Ha Ha.......Saving energy...

parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 01:55 pm
@saab,
Quote:
You are not allowed to throw the bulbs in a garbage can - it has to brought to special place. Who is going to do that? Drive long distances for one bulb.

Do you manufacture your own bulbs? Or do you have to drive long distances to buy the bulbs?

Keep the old bulbs with your stock of new bulbs. It doesn't take up any more room than keeping new bulbs on hand. Then return the bulbs when you have to go buy new ones.

Quote:

The oldfashioned help heat the room when used. So now in long cold winter I have to use more oil to get the same heat. Ha Ha.......Saving energy...
Gosh.. I wonder why you didn't heat your entire house with light bulbs? No need to buy a furnace that way. I bet you think it would have saved you money.
saab
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 02:03 pm
@parados,
Of course I can buy bulbs in the next store, but I cannot return the old ones when burnt out. There I have to bring it to some place to get rid of it. It is not like old batteries, which I can bring to the store.
People do throw out old batteries in the garbagecans and they will do the same with the new bulbs. Nor everyone is careful when it comes to the envirement.

It´s a joke we have over here about the bulbs and the oil heating. Of course we cannot heat a whole house with bulbs.
But we are starting to get selfheating houses - very expensive - which use no furnace, no gas, no electricity to warm up the house. Only the sun, the bulbs and the people living in the house. It works even in the winter.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 17 Jun, 2011 02:14 pm
@saab,
saab wrote:

But we are starting to get selfheating houses - very expensive - which use no furnace, no gas, no electricity to warm up the house. Only the sun, the bulbs and the people living in the house. It works even in the winter.

You mean earthship houses?
 

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
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 05:52:56