• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

White House rolling back energy efficient light bulb mandate

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
25,147
968
126
Don't care. LED and other technologies are already at price parity, TCO is way below incandescents, and new tech has an 84% adoption rate per the article you linked. Let the old codgers who still have POTS telephone service and such have their legacy bulbs until they croak soon and the problem will solve itself. Plus there might be a few percentage points of use cases where an incandescent actually is the best solution even given the advantages of newer technologies.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
30,829
4,108
126
It's probably too late really to make a huge difference. Newer LEDs even in less common shapes are far superior to the incandescents they're replacing in energy cost, service life, and the ability to select preferred color temp. You'd have to be really dumb to prefer incandescents over them now.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
22,673
705
126
Don't care. LED and other technologies are already at price parity, TCO is way below incandescents, and new tech has an 84% adoption rate per the article you linked. Let the old codgers who still have POTS telephone service and such have their legacy bulbs until they croak soon and the problem will solve itself. Plus there might be a few percentage points of use cases where an incandescent actually is the best solution even given the advantages of newer technologies.
Yeah, I used to put a 15 watt incandescent in a cabinet to proof stuff (i.e. keep it at 80-85F), so yeah. I actually have one of these bulbs next to me as a night light. I don't leave it on, but it's OK for a few seconds to allow me to check clock in middle of night, stuff like that.

I haven't thrown out my incandescents (does that make me a criminal? I suppose not.). But all but that one by my bed have been replaced by CF or LEDs. I have a drawer filled with bulbs, mostly legacy at this point, but I figure I shouldn't recycle my CFs.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
20,072
5,101
136
Don't care. LED and other technologies are already at price parity, TCO is way below incandescents, and new tech has an 84% adoption rate per the article you linked. Let the old codgers who still have POTS telephone service and such have their legacy bulbs until they croak soon and the problem will solve itself. Plus there might be a few percentage points of use cases where an incandescent actually is the best solution even given the advantages of newer technologies.
Don't care Trump administration is moving environmental standards towards wasteful and inefficient?

Has his incompetence and lying beaten you into complacency?

Don't care he lied about the path of hurricane and sharpied an alternate path on an official NWS storm projection?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

emperus

Diamond Member
Apr 6, 2012
6,977
395
126
Could someone explain what possible rationalization there could be for this.
 

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
3,759
1,268
136
I really don't understand this. LED bulbs are so efficient, cheap, long-lasting, and are now at the point where they put out the same color temp/color as an incandescent... hell, they even have LED bulbs that look like incandescents.

Can you even buy incandescents anymore?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gradoman

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,306
993
126
Trump uses less efficient light bulbs, lefty heads explode.

Al Gore and Leo take private jets to climate change conference? Lefites think they're heroes.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Luna1968

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
20,570
2,423
126
This will bring American manufacturing right back fellas, we can corner the incandescent market and leave the LEDs to China! Of course, we’ll tariff the shit out of LED bulbs so price parity is no longer an issue. Tell GE to get the mothballs outta their bulb factories in NJ! This is gonna be yuuuge!
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,586
1,754
116
I read through some of the document here:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2019-18940.pdf
It's exceedingly wordy, but I think this is the relevant bits:
In this rule, DOE withdraws the revised definitions of GSL and GSIL established in the January 2017 definition final rules which would otherwise take effect on January 1, 2020. These definitions included certain GSILs as GSLs in a manner that is not consistent with the best reading of the statute. Additionally, DOE withdraws the supplemental definitions established in 8 the January 2017 definition final rules that are no longer necessary in light of the withdrawal of the revised definitions of GSL and GSIL. This rule maintains the existing definitions of GSL and GSIL currently found in DOE’s regulations, which are the same as the statutory definition of those terms. Specifically, the rule maintains the statutory exclusions of specified lamps from the definition of GSIL, and thus, such lamps would not be GSLs. DOE does not make a determination in this rule whether standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended. Rather, this rule establishes the scope of lamps to be considered in that determination. DOE will make that determination in a separate rulemaking.
...
In the February 2019 NOPR, DOE proposed to retain the existing statutory exclusions from the GSIL definition by withdrawing the revised definition of GSL, which, among other lamps, included as GSILs the five specialty incandescent lamps regulated under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4), namely rough service lamps, vibration service lamps, 3-way incandescent lamps, high lumen lamps and shatter-resistant lamps.
So this is a revision to a definition on a term used within the mandate, that removes requirements for five specific bulb types, and defers to DOE definitions for the terms used within the mandate. I personally think it's an unnecessary change, and there should be no good (read: financial) reason to do this, but that's just my opinion. I care more about the earth than profits.
 

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
25,147
968
126
I really don't understand this. LED bulbs are so efficient, cheap, long-lasting, and are now at the point where they put out the same color temp/color as an incandescent... hell, they even have LED bulbs that look like incandescents.

Can you even buy incandescents anymore?
Most people don't want to when the alternatives to incandescent bulbs are cheaper, better, and last longer. We're at the point where banning makes little sense since anyone buying them nowadays is willingly paying more for less. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that they're either old and set in their ways, or they have reasons to buy an inferior alternative. We didn't ban horse-drawn carts when cars came along that made piles of shit on streets a public health hazard, we just figured everyone but the Amish would switch over willingly. I think light bulbs are the same deal.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
10,357
459
126
Could someone explain what possible rationalization there could be for this.
LEDs were invented by college educated (ie. liberal brainwashed) snowflakes. Real men use incandescent....or something like that.
Someone PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong. :D

Seriously though...someone probably told Trump LEDs cause cancer, or maybe him/his family just recently bought some stock in an incandescent bulb manufacturer? Who knows lol.
 

nOOky

Golden Member
Aug 17, 2004
1,390
218
106
Trump uses less efficient light bulbs, lefty heads explode.

Al Gore and Leo take private jets to climate change conference? Lefites think they're heroes.
I think the point is why would anyone even waste the time exploring the option to reverse this? I would hope all hands are on deck crafting the first fucking awesome health care plan that Trump plans to roll out to the amazement of the country very soon. From my perspective not one thing he has done has done anything to contribute the overall health of the country economically or environmentally, and followers like you crow about his accomplishments.
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
13,365
1,468
126
It's probably too late really to make a huge difference. Newer LEDs even in less common shapes are far superior to the incandescents they're replacing in energy cost, service life, and the ability to select preferred color temp. You'd have to be really dumb to prefer incandescents over them now.
I bought a really cool looking faux oil lamp at Ikea that was sold with a 15k hour dimmable LED candelabra bulb. I'd be very lucky to get a tenth of that with incandescent. Not to mention it only draws 5 watts.

Maybe Trump will require that they be powered with clean coal.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Diamond Member
Dec 15, 2015
5,586
1,754
116
I think the point is why would anyone even waste the time exploring the option to reverse this? I would hope all hands are on deck crafting the first fucking awesome health care plan that Trump plans to roll out to the amazement of the country very soon. From my perspective not one thing he has done has done anything to contribute the overall health of the country economically or environmentally, and followers like you crow about his accomplishments.
This may, honestly, be some busy-body's pet project to align internal definitions with the established bodies which are supposed to define these things. If you see my reply above, it really looks like they're just saying 'we're not going to redefine terms that another govt entity has already defined, if they choose to redefine them to include the stuff we were previously including, fine'.

Again, I don't see the point, but I guess that guy's job exists for some reason.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
97,447
11,999
136
Another petty, purely anti-Obama thing Trump is doing just to stamp his name on being the msot anti-Obama.

It doesn't mean anything. No one is going to be throwing money away making incandescents for all of the use purposes that they have been completely replaced with LEDs. It just isn't happening.

One has to wonder why such "policy rollbacks" even exist. All I see is some tic mark where Trump can claim "I did this thing that I promised!" Which is literally doing nothing because the policy has already achieved its goal, the industry has completely pivoted, and so this is Trump just putting out a statement tied to nothing, with no power over anything.

What a petty dickhole.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS