Why Fighting Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs Is So Stupid

Why Fighting Energy-Efficient Light Bulbs Is So Stupid

There's dumb, there's dumber and then there are the House Republicans—nearly all of them—who voted this morning to set the U.S. back on energy efficiency. By a quick voice vote, the House approved an amendment that would prevent funds from a 2012 spending bill to be used to implement federal light bulb standards.

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/0 ... z1SPZRytGC

Obviously government standards that would require more energy-efficient IT would be a boon for 1E, but Kariya would prefer to let industry make its own standards. "With high technology, business is often going to be ahead of government," says Kumiya. "You risk having inferior technologies frozen in place."

Read more: http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/0 ... z1SPcI6NUx

Are we going to give up all our rights to the government, or are we going to allow citizens to have freedom of choice to think for themselves? In some cases, the incandescents are the best for the application, broad based 'feel good' legislation ignores special cases.

I'm not exactly comfortable with the CFLs because of the mercury content, I wish the LED bulbs were more available and cheaper. I do like the reduced energy costs, I don't like legislation that forces me to buy anything and worse, laws like this one that don't let the consumer decide for themselves.

There are several great reasons not to fight for these bulbs:

1) Congress shouldn't be mandating what light bulbs I use
2) the economy is a mess, we're fighting in three foreign conflicts - and Congress is arguing over lightbulbs
3) CDLs are bad for the environment when they're trashed, bad for people in the immediate vicinity when they're accidentally broken - and apparently, bad for us when they're in use (something NO ONE in government is talking about right now:

Energy saving bulbs 'release cancer causing chemicals', say scientists

By Daily Mail Reporter

Last updated at 2:07 PM on 20th April 2011

New fears: Cancer causing chemicals are released by energy-saving bulbs when they are switched on, scientists said

Energy saving bulbs emit cancer causing chemicals it was claimed last night as new fears were raised about their safety.

Scientists said they should not be left on for long periods of time or placed close to a person's head because they release poisonous materials.

The EU has unveiled plans to phase out 'normal' incandescent bulbs by the end of next year as they try to cut carbon emissions.

They should not be used by adults to read or kept near a child's head all night, the experts said.

While it is already known that harmful amounts of Mercury are released if one of the new 'green' bulbs is broken, the latest research shows other carcinogenic chemicals are emitted when they are switched on.

The German research shows that the chemicals are released as a form of steam.

The harmful substances include phenol - a poison injected by the Nazis to kill thousands of concentration camp victims during World War II - and the human toxins naphthalene and styrene.

Tests showed that the materials used to make the lamps are probably responsible for their potentially harmful side effects.

Andreas Kirchner, from the Federation of German Engineers, said: 'Electrical smog develops around these lamps. I therefore use them only very economically. They should not be used in unventilated areas and definitely not in the proximity of the head.'

The report on German television forced the country’s environmental protection agency to issue a warning against 'public hysteria.'

The Department for the Environment has insisted that the bulbs are safe.

Dr Michelle Bloor, lecturer in Environmental Science at Portsmouth University, told the Daily Express: 'Further independent studies would need to be undertaken to back up the presented German research.'

Oh great, now I have energy saving CFL's that may be killing me!

Oh well, at least they are saving me $$ while they do it

The standards did not mandate the elimination of incandescent bulbs, just required that they meet certain energy standards. There are incandescent bulbs that do meet those standards. What is left now is a fragmented market place where California and other states will mandate these standards, forcing manufacturers to decide whether to market lower energy efficiency bulbs in a few states.

Why I think both should still be allowed: Most places in my house have CFL's, but there are a couple spots where I just need a quick burst of light, like a closet, where I much prefer faster to waiting for the energry efficient to warm up. And some say for short use like that, the CFL is actually less efficient.

Something the Dog Said wrote: The standards did not mandate the elimination of incandescent bulbs, just required that they meet certain energy standards. There are incandescent bulbs that do meet those standards. .

Do you have a link? I would like to buy some.

Flourescent bulbs have been in commercial use since 1938. They have always had mercury, but today's bulbs have much less. Until the compact versions came out (CFL's), they were mainly in use in office buildings and stores where many of us worked at, and still do. Amazing we have survied under their use if they are so dangerous.

They are about 10x more effecient than incandescent bulbs (22% of energy used converted to light for flourescents, vs. 2% for incandescents). Hence the longer life.

They are not perfect for every application, but are ideal if you want constant light that is not often switched on and off. That is why incanescents will still be allowed in many applications.

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

So far as government telling you what to do, I can see that arguement. But we only have limited energy resourses. We've had mileage targets for cars for some time now, which have been passed by administrations from both parties. Why not preserve our electrical capability as well? If you are adrift on a raft with limited food, people will usually agree to preserve what you have (unless someone has the gun). Why not do the same with our resourses as well?

I know the arguement in many cases has been that it will cost us all more. But in this case it will cost us less. No brainer?

pineinthegrass wrote: So far as government telling you what to do, I can see that arguement. But we only have limited energy resourses. We've had mileage targets for cars for some time now, which have been passed by administrations from both parties. Why not preserve our electrical capability as well? If you are adrift on a raft with limited food, people will usually agree to preserve what you have (unless someone has the gun). Why not do the same with our resourses as well?

I know the arguement in many cases has been that it will cost us all more. But in this case it will cost us less. No brainer?

Who cares what it costs. Lets do it no matter what.

[youtube:11ck1oso][/youtube:11ck1oso]