White House rolling back energy efficient light bulb mandate

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,632
50,853
136
No, we're enjoying winning. The country is on a great path now, we really dodged a bullet in 2016. You're only move is to call me stupid... <yawn>

So what are your thoughts about why Trump lied in his post that you liked?
 

ondma

Platinum Member
Mar 18, 2018
2,999
1,520
136
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.
This. I wasnt a fan of the early replacement bulbs (expensive, the light quality was poor, and they were too big to fit some of my fixtures), but LEDs are excellent, and the price is competitive.
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
15,284
13,581
146

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
Could someone explain what possible rationalization there could be for this.

I was opposed to it for a long time as well. But victory to LED, they no longer cost $40 a bulb and are now beginning to mass replace incandescent as our stock pile dries up and replacements are needed. We had 10+ years of bulbs saved up.

TL;DR: Price shock was once a problem. Years ago.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
I wonder if the administration is going to order cities to tear out their street lights and put gas lamps back in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie
Feb 4, 2009
35,245
16,716
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.

Yeah this, LED lights are here to stay. I don’t think the public needs a nudge any longer.
 

snoopy7548

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2005
8,126
5,151
146
I wonder if the administration is going to order cities to tear out their street lights and put gas lamps back in.

Nah, that would be barbaric. We'll switch to clean coal lights. You just need to have someone constantly shoveling in the clean coal, but that creates jobs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
After a bit of reading, I think manufacturers' objections have to do with commercial lighting, specifically HID lighting. I don't pretend to understand all the ins & outs of it. This is about the regulations that didn't go into effect-


It probably reflects the desires of their customers. LED lighting is more efficient & will pay for itself in the long run but sometimes that's a very long run for lighting used only intermittently as in sports venues. The upfront price for LED's is a lot higher & the effect is more critical when construction is done on borrowed money. LED's make huge sense in indoor/outdoor parking & public lighting applications where they stay on all night, also in industrial facilities where the lights are on 24/7/365.

The other side of it is that the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more product in the future, not less, which runs counter to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. Their influence in the Trump admin is obviously enormous.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
After a bit of reading, I think manufacturers' objections have to do with commercial lighting, specifically HID lighting. I don't pretend to understand all the ins & outs of it. This is about the regulations that didn't go into effect-


It probably reflects the desires of their customers. LED lighting is more efficient & will pay for itself in the long run but sometimes that's a very long run for lighting used only intermittently as in sports venues. The upfront price for LED's is a lot higher & the effect is more critical when construction is done on borrowed money. LED's make huge sense in indoor/outdoor parking & public lighting applications where they stay on all night, also in industrial facilities where the lights are on 24/7/365.

The other side of it is that the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more product in the future, not less, which runs counter to the idea of reducing CO2 emissions. Their influence in the Trump admin is obviously enormous.

Maybe a win-win is to support an infrastructure bill to tear out all those old sodium streetlights and replace them with LEDs? Probably not the top need for infrastructure but if incandescent bulbs really drive you that batty then spend a few billion riding ourselves of them.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,222
136
Maybe a win-win is to support an infrastructure bill to tear out all those old sodium streetlights and replace them with LEDs? Probably not the top need for infrastructure but if incandescent bulbs really drive you that batty then spend a few billion riding ourselves of them.


Odd you mention that....my small town (pop. ~4500) just spent the last few months replacing every street light with LED's. City council says cost/benefit analysis showed they'd pay for themselves within a couple of years compared to the old vapor lamps. The town's certainly not awash in money so it had to provide a decent return on investment to spend our limited capital.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and Muse

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,077
37,268
136
Maybe a win-win is to support an infrastructure bill to tear out all those old sodium streetlights and replace them with LEDs? Probably not the top need for infrastructure but if incandescent bulbs really drive you that batty then spend a few billion riding ourselves of them.

Cities are already doing this because they can finance it on the utility savings.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,255
2,272
136
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.
Is Al Gore really all that relevant at this point and who is Leo?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Is Al Gore really all that relevant at this point and who is Leo?

Don't believe any of this climate change hokum because they're all hypocrites! That's the part that matters, not the truth. There is no truth in Trumplandia other than the wisdom of the Glorious Leader! It's a Chinese hoax!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
38,407
8,698
136
Even if that list was true, it'd all be because of the EPA, which Trump is actively trying to kill.
Trump is a dyed in the wool old school capitalist. As such he's against government regulation of [you name it]. Figures all that stuff is liberal whining.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
24,222
10,877
136
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.
Yep, that's really the only waY to explain the irrational. Actually, it's completely rational if you realize that it's
Fez yet another irrational response to destroy all things that Obama touched.