[ALUmnus]

It may sound really silly, but the upcoming ban on incandescent light bulbs is (for me) one of the most infuriating things the feds have done. I get so ticked every time I think about it.

Well, all the guys who are gunning to be chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee say they will revisit that ban, including the most liberal candidate:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45360.html

Hoping to counter attacks from his right, Rep. Fred Upton is promising to reexamine a controversial ban on incandescent light bulbs if he becomes chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

The Michigan Republican told POLITICO on Thursday that he's not afraid to go back after an issue he once supported...

Really, the only reason I posted this is because I think it's great news, and I wanted to post this money-quote from Dennis Miller:

"I don't care what my electric bill is. I haven't worked my entire life so that my living room can look like a Soviet Bloc stairwell during a James Bond fight scene."

[El Scorcho]

I don't even understand how this is remotely possible. There are all kinds of practical applications for incandescent bulbs that I don't know how you avoid. Professional lighting for photography, for example.

I've also read studies that removing all of the incandescent lighting from the average home is offset by the amount that home then has to be heated in the Winter. Those bulbs put off a lot of heat that we've come to take for granted.

Silly.

[LUconn]

can you dim florescent bulbs? Millions of dimmer switches will be useless!

[olldflame]

They make dimmable florescents now.

[Sly Fox]

I bought some recessed lighting that an electrician installed in a couple of our rooms this weekend. We had to make some decisions if we went with standard lighting or the LED route in light of the incandescent concerns. But the LEDs were about 4x the cost. So we're living on the edge.

I have a feeling that technology will come up with a solution that will be amenable by the time the deadline arrives.

[ATrain]

I don't even understand how this is remotely possible. There are all kinds of practical applications for incandescent bulbs that I don't know how you avoid. Professional lighting for photography, for example.

I've also read studies that removing all of the incandescent lighting from the average home is offset by the amount that home then has to be heated in the Winter. Those bulbs put off a lot of heat that we've come to take for granted.

Silly.

And I read an article debunking the heating argument.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ygreen/20101115 ... kewithheat

Not agreeing with, just saying use a better argument.

As for me, I am beginning the installation of LED track lighting fixtures in the kitchen and upstairs bathroom. LOVE TRACK LIGHTING!!!

[ALUmnus]

Track lighting is so 5 years ago.

Anyways:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/ ... nspir.html

The ban's defenders still insist that it would reduce the need for up to thirty coal-fired electric power plants, according to Noah Horowitz, spokesman for the Natural Resources Defense Council in a recent letter to the Wall Street Journal. This might be true if household lighting were used during peak hours. But it's not. Household lighting is used primarily in the early morning and evening hours, when electric power demand is nearly at its lowest. While energy-efficient lighting may reduce homeowners' operating costs, falling kwh demand in off-peak hours will simply depress electric utility revenues, leaving power plant operations and costs unchanged, provoking the utilities to file for rate increases to keep their revenues even and profits whole. How's that for unintended consequences? Who will win the Nobel prize in economics for that?

How many coal fired power plants have been shut down due to energy efficiency demand reductions from CFLs that have already captured 25% of the incandescent market? Can you name one? How many proposed shutdowns due to additional energy efficiency from a billion more CFLs have been filed for PUC approvals? Can you name one? I didn't think so. Neither could Joe Barton, and now Fred Upton is scratching his head.

Should we wonder why electric utilities have been silent about the incandescent ban but now actually favor power-hogging electric vehicles? Electric utility operators aren't dopes, either.

Apart from the headache-inducing lousy color and slow warm-up and poor dimming options, CFLs are hand-held toxic mercury bombs -- and now a billion of them have infiltrated sockets all across the country. Would you rather have mercury trapped in power plant scrubbers or tossed in the household curbside trash barrels when the CFLs burn out -- usually long before the end of their advertised lifespans? Where are the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the Sierra Club when we really need them?

While LEDs don't share the same hazmat component as CFLs, who can afford these luxury candles anyhow? For brightness levels far less than a 60-watt incandescent, consumers are expected to pay not 29 cents, but 29 dollars for an LED light bulb. Whoa! For 30 million unemployed Americans and 75 million seniors on fixed incomes, this is just another economic kneecapping delivered by the geniuses inside the Beltway.

The light bulb ban, for all of its absurdities -- including the job creation and economic boon to China, where all of the incandescent replacements are produced -- is almost as witless as the low-flow flush toilet mandates. The last time I flew from the Upper Midwest to the East Coast, the Great Lakes still looked full. And while the rising sea levels and more abundant tropical rainstorms from global warming give us more water than a trillion flushes, tell me again the purpose of low flow-toilets that don't work. Maybe Upton can reopen hearings on why multiple flushes are more of a necessity than a courtesy.

Unlike members of Congress who may have passed the bar exam but flunked Econ 101 and forgot how to read, regular everyday Americans know that the light bulb ban doesn't pass the Everyman uncommon sense test.

[El Scorcho]

And I read an article debunking the heating argument.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ygreen/20101115 ... kewithheat

Not agreeing with, just saying use a better argument.

That article didn't debunk anything. It just offered the opinion of the author, which is that he doesn't understand the logic behind what I said. He provided no evidence.

[LUconn]

Yeah, none of his points had any evidence or numbers but point number 10 about incandescent bulbs was 100% commentary. He even said "I doubt", which doesn't inspire a lot of confidence. I actually switched to CFLs in the upstairs of my house because the incandescent bulbs were making it unbearable in the summer.


The whole incandescent vs fluorescent battle is so obnoxious. I understand that it's actually an argument of liberty vs government but it always results in unnecessarily disparaging and both products which each can serve a purpose. Yes the color is not what you're used to with CFLs but I don't know anybody that constantly has headaches as a result of their use.

That guy also seemed to be advocating 68 degrees in the winter. Is that what the average "green" joe has it set at? Yeesh, that's coincidentally what I keep it at in the winter but it's admittedly cold. I prefer blankets to keep warm and I assume it's cheaper. Also my wife hates me until mid spring.