What Say To $50 Light Bulbs?

I’d dearly like to blame this mess mostly or solely on Democrats, alas, President Bush signed the legislation which was sponsored by Fred Upton (R-Mi), who now sits as chairman of House Energy and Commerce committee. But, it is supposedly for Gaia’s sake, or, more aptly, because the Federal congress has dearly lost their way, and thinks it’s their job to regulate a commonplace consumer product which is no danger to anyone

Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.

Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.

The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.

You can get a regular 100 watt bulb for about $2 bucks, and it’ll last around a year. Anyone think these LED’s will last 25 years? A cheap CFL will cost you around $6. Think it will last 3 years? Granted, standard bulbs do wast a lot of energy, but, isn’t that your choice, not Congresses?

To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don’t meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.

You have to love the use of the word “encourage.” I don’t think so. You encourage your kids to go study. You forcibly mandate that your kid goes to his/her room and do his/her homework right now, no TV, no music, no games. Congress is not encouraging, they are forcing. There are no penalties (yet) if you are caught with a florescent bulb: you’ll just have a damned hard time finding them. California has already mandated that stores cannot stock 100 watt florescent bulbs.

It begs the question (well, this whole mess begs lots of questions, such as the sanity of lawmakers who vote for this, and where their copy of Mein Kampf or Little Red Book are kept), how many 100 watt bulbs are actually used. I don’t have a single one at home. The closest I have is a three way bulb….can’t seem to find any LEDs, and would probably get the vapors at the price. CFLs are at least $12.

I’ve said before that I used to like CFLs, when they were made well, and lasted a long time. However, when talking about CFLs and LEDs, do you know what kind of light they put out? With florescent, you can get clear, soft white, daylight, and others. You know how they will work, regardless of the brand. Not with CFLs/LEDs. Do you really want to experiment for those prices?

Oh, and most are made in China.

The big problem with LEDs is that although they don’t produce as much heat as incandescent bulbs, the heat they do create shortens the lifespan and reduces the efficiency of the chips. Cramming a dozen chips together in a tight bulb-shaped package that fits in today’s lamps and sockets makes the heat problem worse. The brighter the bulb, the bigger the problem is.

So, you may (lots) more and they don’t last longer? Thanks, Congress, but, hey, here’s a chance for new (stupid) legislation

What’s really needed, (Bob Karlicek, the director of the Smart Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy) said, is a new approach to lighting — new fixtures and lamps that spread out the LEDs, avoiding the heat problem.

There you go: you can mandate new fixtures and lamps.

Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “What Say To $50 Light Bulbs?”

  1. gitarcarver says:

    One of the companies that is a leader in making LED lights is right in my town. The City Council has given them awards for helping save the planet and at the same time given them huge tax breaks to locate here.

    The company’s bulbs are too expensive for the city to afford at this time, although they are pushing for more tax revenues to buy the bulbs.

    But the kicker is that the company was awarded a government contract and has announced that it is moving production facilities to Mexico.

  2. LOL. Figures, they want to go someplace where the corporate taxes are lower.

  3. Him says:

    Your traditional incandescent lightbulb converts electricity into 10% light and 90% heat. They were invented in the first decade of the 1800s.
    The whale oil lobby had the same complaints you do. Writing things doesn’t change the outcome.

    Meanwhile, yes, they are made in China. This means that China will have a manufacturing industry for these while countries which don’t make them don’t.

    Personally I don’t believe Germany (land of the endless summer?) believes any more in the eco-whatever of solar panels than anywhere else. But they sure are smart enough to see that if the world wants to buy them, they will supply them.

    I tell you what I don’t have at home, a Dodge.

  4. captainfish says:

    There are no penalties (yet) if you are caught with a florescent bulb: you’ll just have a damned hard time finding them. California has already mandated that stores cannot stock 100 watt florescent bulbs.

    With florescent, you can get clear, soft white, daylight, and others.

    I assume you mean INCANDESCENT.

    I am happy about the LED technology, but that is only useful for new homes that can have the fixtures built for them. Would cost way too much money to retrofit an existing, or even old, home to “disperse” the LED lights around a room.

    And sometimes, we just want a single light source, maybe in a corner while reading a book, etc.

    CFL or LED will never be able to fully replace bulbs in ovens, heating\cooling\freezing equipment, and stadium\arena type lighting.

  5. PatriotUSA says:

    This is why we have a huge stockpile of incandescent bulbs in all wattages etc.

    We had several CFL’s literally burst out from the base, inside out. I cannot afford LED’s and forget about retrofitting our home built in 1970. If we had not been home at the time our house might have burned down. I also have numerous fixtures for the incandescents for future use. We are going to be in our home for a very long time and fuck the gov’t and their evil ways.

  6. […] Bill Teach: What Say To $50 Light Bulbs? […]

  7. Debra says:

    I think the most important issue, aside from the expense of retrofitting the homes, is the fact that they passed legislation to be able to walk into “YOUR” home….. for the purpose of spot checking and assessing fines upon people. Our constitution rights are being eroded, and not enough people are paying attention.

  8. DHardy says:

    For those who can’t afford the retrofit, and get fined on top of it, will one house after another start going dark at night in America, or will they have to resort to candles? Guess that will be the “REAL” way electricity is saved.

    Glad Zrii has started a health and wellness revolution to help remove stress our of our lives, this light bulb thing is enough to hurt a lot of people financially and spiritually. I would like to see the stock purchases of everyone voting legislation through anymore.

  9. Edward says:

    I am a retired electrician so I can testify to the expense that will be heaped upon the American public for the cost of retrofitting.

    With the economic condition our country is in, people need help pulling out of the economic slump, FIRST, so they have unlimited money to spend on everything the government is telling them they need for their own well-being. California went broke for a reason. Over-spending from over-legislation.

  10. captainfish says:

    Don’t forget, the Indiana Supreme Court has just said that the 4th Amendment is invalid. They have ruled that people do not have a right to be free from searches in their homes – even if those searches are wrong. Homeowners do not have the right to fight against the, now, legal-illegal home intrusion by law enforcement. The court ruled that it is in the best interest of peace to force homeowners to be compliant during a search even if that search is illegal.

    And, I’ve heard that this judge was appointed by Mitch Daniels.

    the Court ruled 3-2 that police can force their way into a person’s home without a warrant if they deem such entry is necessary. Writing for the majority, Justice Steven David said that “a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest.”

    In other words, if you resist the police who are barging in to your home without a warrant, you could be arrested just for… protecting your rights and property.

    Because, after all, the rights in the Constitution were just writing on a piece of paper, right?

  11. gitarcarver says:

    The question is, Cap’n did people ever have the “right” to resist an entry by the police when 1) they knew it was the police and 2) it was part of a continuing investigation?

    Do people have the right to physically resist and place people in physical danger?

    If I know the police are coming to talk to me about a robbery, do I have the right to shoot at them if they walk onto my property without a warrant?

    While most people such as yourself are commenting on the erosion of the Fourth Amendment, there is another issue that very few have noted. Part of the ruling is based on the idea that it is better for the person to let the police into the property without violence, and then deal with the illegality of lacking a warrant and damages later. The problem is that qualified immunity precludes suing the police for damage done to the home or the actions of the police during the illegal, warrantless search.

    For some unknown reason, the Indiana Supreme Court relied on allowing the person whose home was violated to sue or recover damages from law enforcement when in fact, qualified immunity shields them from such lawsuits.

  12. captainfish says:

    you are assuming that the cops are acting in good faith. I’m not. I never like the warrantless anything that has been allowed of late. To me those trample on the 4th amendment as well.

    Besides, how does one know that it is REALLY the cops on the other side of your door trying to bust it down. If you are in your bedroom and they come pounding through… the first thing I am going to grab is my gun. And I won’t put it down till I see a warrant.

    And, if it is “a good idea” to not fight against the law who has barged in to your home without a warrant, then why does it have to be made in to a ruling – which has now been made law by a judge instead of the legislators? Isn’t it already illegal to resist arrest?

    And on your second point, you are right, which I hadn’t thought about. How can one gain recompense from an authority which has immunity? Sure, you can file a damage suit for the damage to your home, and hope that they will respond in a timely manner to matter, but to expect to take the town or city to court for trespassing and emotional and punitive damages? HA!

    That is not a counter to the invasion of one’s home.

    The judges are basically saying – suck it up and just roll over.

  13. gitarcarver says:

    you are assuming that the cops are acting in good faith.

    Far from it. In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled previously that any warrant-less search is, until shown otherwise, contrary to the Fourth Amendment.

    And I won’t put it down till I see a warrant.

    While I understand the sentiment, remember that the Fourth Amendment does not outlaw all searches conducted without warrants.

    And, if it is “a good idea” to not fight against the law who has barged in to your home without a warrant, …..

    Look, I am not agreeing with this ruling. However, it is important to note that the ruling does not give police the right to enter property without a warrant. The ruling has, in an important way, been mis-interpreted.

    The question in the case was not the warrant, the lack of a warrant or even the conducting of a “reasonable search.” The issue was whether a person could legally resist. The first paragraph of the ruling gives the issue:

    Barnes contests that the trial court‘s failure to advise the jury on the right to reasonably resist unlawful entry by police officers constituted reversible error and that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his convictions. (emphasis mine)

    The court admits entry into the house was illegal because the standard that a warrant-less entry is always illegal until proven otherwise was not met.

    Barnes (the plaintiff) was found guilty of assaulting a police office and resisting arrest. Barnes asserted that because the police’s entry into the house was illegal, he had the right – long established by common law and precedence – to physically resist the police.

    It is that right – not the Fourth Amendment – that took it on the chin in this ruling. There is nothing in the decision that changes the standards of searches and entries under the Fourth Amendment. If the police had found something illegal in the house or whatever, they would not be able to use it in a court case because the search or entry was illegal.

    The decision deals with the resisting and the resisting alone.

    Isn’t it already illegal to resist arrest?

    This is where the ruling turns. It has always been legal to ignore or disobey an illegal order or direction from a police officer. There may be consequences to doing so, but the defense has always been that citizens do not have a duty or responsibility to follow directions that are illegal from a LEO.

    For example, if you are standing on your porch watching a policeman make an arrest in the street, and he tells you to “get in the house,” prior to this ruling you did not have to comply and even if the cop arrested you for failing to comply or resisting without violence, the charges would be dismissed because the order of the policeman was illegal.

    Now, this ruling says that failing to follow an illegal order or command from a LEO still opens the citizen to criminal charges.

    In essence, the ruling makes it a crime to not obey illegal directions from LEO’s.

    That’s nuts.

    That is wrong.

    I have always disagreed with the notion that a cop can give an order and a citizen has to comply. The saving grace was that the legality of the order or search could always be challenged and if found to be illegal, the charge of “resisting” or “failing to comply” was automatically thrown out.

    This ruling changes that (at least in Indiana.)

    It isn’t about the Fourth Amendment. The ruling is about resisting.

  14. captainfish says:

    Oh, I see what you are saying. I agree with you whole-heartedly. Of course, we seem to be moving toward this overhead totalitarian system in our governance, while sustaining a socialist economic system. As I’ve said, welcome to USSA.

    It is unbelievable to me, as a non-learned man in the legal system, that our own judicial system could fall like this. And yet, there is little to stop them. We have little hope any longer in a “saving grace” US Supreme Court. Recent rulings from there have quashed freedoms as well – I refer to one case specifically – Kelo. And now, we have illiterate and incompetent “judges” being appointed solely based upon their race and gender.

    Makes my heart sick.

    Thus, I hold out NO hope that this case will be reversed by the Supremes.

Pirate's Cove