House to reconsider 2012 light bulb ban

[soundforbjt]

Then they can CHOOSE to use them!

To hell with the forced banning of the light bulb.

Don't you get it yet? They're not banning incandescent bulbs!

They're just requiring them to be made more efficient...

 

[K1052]

Then they can CHOOSE to use them!

To hell with the forced banning of the light bulb.

The bulb makers had minimal incentive to develop the new units and make them cost effective.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I snagged some CFL's out of some lamps my sister had retired to the garage. I don't know the brand or type, but they are much better than the CFL's I tried a year or so a go. Bright from the start and not too white, I wouldn't mind these in every light in my house even before any energy savings.

And overturning this ban is a step in the wrong direction. But then what steps do Republicans take these days that aren't.

 

[Craig234]

Then they can CHOOSE to use them!

To hell with the forced banning of the light bulb.

LOL. Ideology can be amusing.

Give me liberty, and a light bulb only an idiot and irresponsible person would prefer! And childrens' toys made of lead and mercury!
- Patrick Henry, paraphrased

 

[nick1985]

And overturning this ban is a step in the wrong direction.

Not a fan of free-will and being able to buy whatever bulb you deem fit?

 

[K1052]

Winner!

Do the big-government types in here just think private electrical companies will just eat that loss? Nope, they will just pass that along to the consumers.

Power consumption in general will only increase. Lighting is a small (but meaningful) percentage of overall use. It will just grow less quickly than anticipated.

This actually helps the utilities so they aren't under the gun even more to add capacity (spend $$$ on capital projects) or make marginal/heavily polluting plants tread water for longer.

 

[nick1985]

LOL. Ideology can be amusing.

Yeah, your own. You seem to be the laughing-stock of these forums. Keep it up Craig, we are all laughing at you, not with you.

Save234

 

[nick1985]

Power consumption in general will only increase. Lighting is a small (but meaningful) percentage of overall use. It will just grow less quickly than anticipated.

This actually helps the utilities so they aren't under the gun even more to add capacity (spend $$$ on capital projects) or make marginal/heavily polluting plants tread water for longer.

LOL. No.

The correct answer is they will make up for the loss in revenue. Trying to argue that 6 billion in revenue loss actually helps them is asanine, and I suggest you rethink your position.

 

[her209]

They'll just raise the rates.

Rate increases have to be approved no?

 

[highland145]

Rate increases have to be approved no?

IIRC, they do but I don't remember SCE&G ever being denied. And twice a year I get a nice seasonal notice of rate changes on gas/elec.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not a fan of free-will and being able to buy whatever bulb you deem fit?

Nobody's stopping you from buying an incandescent bulb, period.

 

[sandorski]

I've been pleased with my CFLs, but they still have too short a life span(albeit longer than Incadescents). So will be slowly transitioning to LED.

It's stupid to oppose this change. "Choice" is about the worst argument ever when not only does the individual $save, but it dramatically decreases Demand on the Electrical Grid and Energy supply. It's a Win-Win.

 

[ElFenix]

Then they can CHOOSE to use them!

To hell with the forced banning of the light bulb.

LOL. Ideology can be amusing.

Give me liberty, and a light bulb only an idiot and irresponsible person would prefer! And childrens' toys made of lead and mercury!
- Patrick Henry, paraphrased

speaking of mercury, which bulb has mercury in it and which doesn't?

because only an idiot would prefer a bulb that costs 1/10 as much, will last longer in the particular application, doesn't contain toxic waste, and stands a good chance of being made in the US unlike the other bulb.

 

[K1052]

LOL. No.

The correct answer is they will make up for the loss in revenue. Trying to argue that 6 billion in revenue loss actually helps them is asanine, and I suggest you rethink your position.

It's more complex that that.

The utilities have increasingly come under pressure to make their generation mixes cleaner over the last several decades. To do this they either have to equip marginal ancient coal plants with billions in modern emissions controls or shut them altogether. A slightly shallower demand curve actually can work in their favor by saving them this massive capital expense and others related to it.

Companies are concerned with profitability and returns on investments not sheer revenue alone.

 

[her209]

Not a fan of free-will and being able to buy whatever bulb you deem fit?

I want to buy a light bulb that emits cancerous radiation but I can't.

 

[K1052]

speaking of mercury, which bulb has mercury in it and which doesn't?

because only an idiot would prefer a bulb that costs 1/10 as much, will last longer in the particular application, doesn't contain toxic waste, and stands a good chance of being made in the US unlike the other bulb.

LEDs will end up taking over cold weather applications. Many cities are already doing pilot programs to replace their sodium/mercury vapor street lights with LED units.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Not a fan of free-will and being able to buy whatever bulb you deem fit?

Not a fan of preventable waste and inefficiency.

Winner!

Do the big-government types in here just think private electrical companies will just eat that loss? Nope, they will just pass that along to the consumers.

Please explain how price, being a product of supply and demand, will increase from a reduction of demand.

 

[werepossum]

#1 legislative priority Republicans said they'd have after gaining the House: Jobs

# of jobs bills they've passed according to reports I've seen: 0

But there's a very long list of 'social conservative' legislation that helps them get votes to keep power. Here they're appealing to some childish petulance about light bulbs.

Great Value (i.e. Walmart) incandescent lamps are made in the USA, whereas no CFLs are still made in the USA. (Hint: Something made in the USA means jobs in the USA. Banning these for something NOT made in the USA means a loss of jobs in the USA.)

Personally I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there are a few places where incandescent lamps are still a better choice, and I really dislike government forcing me into a particular choice. Some of us are almost never smarter than all of us. On the other hand, CFLs are on balance much better for the environment; they do the same job for much less energy. In the end, I narrowly support the ban, but I really, really wish I could buy American-made CFLs.

 

[nick1985]

Please explain how price, being a product of supply and demand, will increase from a reduction of demand.

Because the company will pass along the loss in revenue to the consumer in the form of raised rates.

 

[Craig234]

speaking of mercury, which bulb has mercury in it and which doesn't?

because only an idiot would prefer a bulb that costs 1/10 as much, will last longer in the particular application, doesn't contain toxic waste, and stands a good chance of being made in the US unlike the other bulb.

Check your facts. As for where it's made, why should the type of bulb determine that?

 

[soundforbjt]

Great Value (i.e. Walmart) incandescent lamps are made in the USA, whereas no CFLs are still made in the USA. (Hint: Something made in the USA means jobs in the USA. Banning these for something NOT made in the USA means a loss of jobs in the USA.)

Personally I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, there are a few places where incandescent lamps are still a better choice, and I really dislike government forcing me into a particular choice. Some of us are almost never smarter than all of us. On the other hand, CFLs are on balance much better for the environment; they do the same job for much less energy. In the end, I narrowly support the ban, but I really, really wish I could buy American-made CFLs.

Read again please, incandescent bulbs can still be manufactured and sold, They'll just be required to be more efficient. (kinda like your car's engine)

 

[her209]

Great Value (i.e. Walmart) incandescent lamps are made in the USA, whereas no CFLs are still made in the USA. (Hint: Something made in the USA means jobs in the USA. Banning these for something NOT made in the USA means a loss of jobs in the USA.)

The bulbs are probably machine made, tested by turning them on via machine, packaged into a the retail packaging by a machine, and put into boxes for shipping by a machine. There may be some human involvement in that process but how many jobs are we talking here?

 

[ElFenix]

LEDs will end up taking over cold weather applications. Many cities are already doing pilot programs to replace their sodium/mercury vapor street lights with LED units.

some day we'll just have built in LED lighting for our closets and bathrooms. LEDs really need a different sort of mounting than the standard edison screw.

though i am concerned about how much LED stoplights actually cost. they're not supposed to burn out but i often come across lights with swathes of LEDs that aren't lighting up.

 

[1prophet]

Compact fluorescent bulbs do save money if they are built and used properly,

the problem is the walmart mentality consumers will buy the cheapest fluorescent bulbs which don't last and end up spending more.

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/why-efficient-light-bulbs-fail-to-thrive/

anuary 27, 2009, 11:01 am Why Efficient Light Bulbs Fail to Thrive

By LEORA BROYDO VESTEL Michael Siminovitch, the director of the California Lighting Technology Center at the University of California, Davis, says C.F.L.s could be much better than they are.
Reader response to two recent Green Inc. posts made it very clear that while compact fluorescent light bulbs are undeniably more efficient, many consumers find them less than appealing.
Affirmation of this dissatisfaction comes from an unlikely source: Michael Siminovitch, a self-described C.F.L. advocate and a professor and director of the California Lighting Technology Center at the University of California, Davis.
Mr Siminovitch said the technology exists to create C.F.L.s that are comparable to incandescent bulbs. “They can be configured and made today with great color,” he said. “They can also be dimmed. They can also be put together in such a way that they last for a very long time.”
And yet, Mr. Siminovitch said, many manufacturers have been cutting corners and putting C.F.L.s of lesser quality on the market, skewing consumers’ perception of the technology.
Green Inc. recently chatted with Mr. Siminovitch about light bulb performance and efficiency, consumer expectations and “Super C.F.L.s,” among other things. Excerpts follow:
***
Green Inc. readers have expressed frustration about the quality of compact fluorescents following recent postings. Do you think their criticisms are legitimate?

I think we’re actually seeing heightened awareness of these problems and issues. People are interested in engaging in the energy efficiency equation, [and] what’s happening is that they’re bumping their heads against this now. They’re saying that, hey, this stuff is falling short.
How are they falling short?
A consumer buys a light source to look good and to provide quality lighting inside a space. They don’t normally go to a store to buy a light source to save energy.
Incandescent light sources typically are very flattering in terms of rendering skin and enhancing how we look. Consumers got used to a very high level of color quality in the home. Compact fluorescents can be some departure or produce less color quality in terms of rendering color inside a space.

“Certainly we’re asking consumers to do a lot more than they used to do.”​

— Michael Siminovitch


Some fluorescents are very good, but many are not. I think what we’re seeing today is we’re starting to bump up against our expectations for color quality in the home not being met by the energy efficient technologies. So consumers are dissatisfied — and rightfully so.

The next big [issue] is dimming. Many fluorescents that are available do not dim well. Incandescent lamps dim very nicely. They dim all the way from 100 percent light all the way to 0 percent light. They do it very smoothly and very predictably. Consumers are used to that kind of smooth dimming.

Typically when you dim a compact fluorescent it can flicker, it can buzz, it can create all kinds of what I call “unintended consequences” that disturb the consumer. So the consumer is left with a less-than-satisfied level with this kind of technology.

The third big one is product longevity. Consumers have an expectation that compact fluorescents will last a very long time — significantly longer than the incandescents that they’re replacing. This is technically achievable. Compact fluorescents can last a very long time. Unfortunately, I think we’ve compromised greatly on quality with many compact fluorescents and these things are not lasting quite as long as consumers have been led to believe. This is an issue.

How did we end up with such a low-quality product?

Early compact fluorescents came into the marketplace as a … technology that’s small, very compact and can fit in places where we traditionally put incandescent lamps, and it has the opportunity for great color, long life and all the kinds of attributes we’d like to see in a light source. But it was expensive. It was an order of magnitude more expensive than what we were traditionally using.

“In the case of compact fluorescents,” says Mr. Siminovitch, “we’ve compromised on quality.”

So there was great pressure by agencies, by retailers, to bring the cost down on this technology so that we can get big market penetration. Unfortunately, given the lack of really good, understandable specifications, what happened was when you reduce price you inevitably compromise something. In the case of compact fluorescents, we’ve compromised on quality.

By and large the average consumer is buying a light source to provide the right quality of light. In this continuing trend to reduce cost, which is an important driver, we compromised quality.

We’ve gone too far on this thing, and what’s happened is some of these compact fluorescent technologies have become so inexpensive [that] at the same time they’ve lost a lot of their intrinsic quality. And they don’t last very long. And this is bad because the end result here is that yes, we have a very inexpensive technology, consumers will buy it, but they have a long memory.
Product failures instill a lack of confidence in the technology.

What needs to happen to change this light bulb?

When we only encourage energy efficiency, which is very important, we compromise other issues. The market penetration for compact fluorescents in this country, while we’re making good strides, is not very impressive. There’s no reason today why we shouldn’t be using all energy efficient technologies in the home. The reason we’re not is consumers don’t like this technology.

We need to get past that. We need to develop a lighting technology that people really like. They like the color, they like the quality, they like the delivery, and, by the way, it’s energy efficient. …
We need to encourage the industry to do that. The industry is in a very good position to do this. Once we have the education of what we need in the home, the industry can come in and make it.

But consumers are already complaining about the cost of compact fluorescents compared to incandescents. Isn’t increasing quality going to make the price of compact fluorescents go up?

Prices are coming down significantly for this technology, but as I said, there is corresponding reduction in quality. With a tighter specification that speaks to quality issues I think eventually we would see both a maintenance or increase in quality, as well as reduced costs with increased volume.

The main issue here is that there is not a level playing field, and that high quality products tend to be penalized in the marketplace because of the demand for low-cost. If we define a level playing field, then the economies of scale can be applied equally, and we maintain quality while reducing cost.

What can consumers do today to get the highest quality compact fluorescent?

A consumer should do the best job they can to educate themselves on what kinds of light sources are available for the home. And certainly we’re asking consumers to do a lot more than they used to do. If you would go into any hardware store and buy an incandescent lamp they’re all virtually exactly the same. That’s the strength of that technology. They all look the same, they all work the same and they all have great color. The only problem with them is they’re very inefficient.

Moving to compact fluorescent technology is going to require a consumer to become more educated. I think they need to be guided by the kinds of product information that’s available now. Now, the information that’s available now is still not adequate, but it’s better than it was. I look at things like Energy Star. Energy Star is a sorting process where you can see that there’s some minimum standard that these lamps will achieve.
What we’re looking at down the road is a better specification as we get more knowledge to say here’s a light source that really, really works well, sort of an Energy Star plus. I think that’s going to come.
What about California’s “Super C.F.L.” effort?

Here in California there’s a broad collaborative with the utilities to look at next-generation specifications for high-performance compact fluorescents for the home. Also, I think that we’re going to see a big drive down the road with L.E.D., light-emitting diode technology.

But if I look at the near-term horizon, the next one to four years, the bulk of the energy savings that we’re going to get in this country in the lighting arena for residential is going to be compact fluorescents. L.E.D.s are going to follow very quickly, I think that’s going to be another next-big opportunity for us for both energy efficiency and also product amenity.

Compact fluorescent is very close to being a big opportunity to save a lot of energy. By and large there’s going to be a fairly massive market transformation as we convert from incandescent technology to high-efficiency technologies. This is going to require a rapid movement up the learning curve both from consumers and also from manufacturers and their ability to provide the kinds of technologies that consumers want.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL. No.

The correct answer is they will make up for the loss in revenue. Trying to argue that 6 billion in revenue loss actually helps them is asanine, and I suggest you rethink your position.

US electricity use is increasing year on year no matter what. This will not lower US energy use so much as it will decrease the rate at which it goes up.

I love it. The myth of the T-1000 corporation rises again! If they have to build more power plants to meet demand, they will pass that cost on to you and rates will rise. If you make it so that power demand is less than that, they will notice lower revenue and increase your rates to compensate.

Since apparently we are doomed by the corporate rate hydra to pay more no matter if we increase or lower power consumption, we might as well have a cleaner planet for our trouble, huh?