Now, what do I do with...

[Yonivore]

...my stockpile of 75 and 100 watt incandescent bulbs?

Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/)


Congressional negotiators struck a deal Thursday that overturns the new rules that were to have banned sales of traditional incandescent light bulbs beginning next year.

That agreement is tucked inside the massive 1,200-page spending bill that funds the government through the rest of this fiscal year, and which both houses of Congress will vote on Friday. Mr. Obama is expected to sign the bill, which heads off a looming government shutdown.

Congressional Republicans dropped almost all of the policy restrictions they tried to attach to the bill, but won inclusion of the light bulb provision, which prevents the Obama administration from carrying through a 2007 law that would have set energy efficiency standards that effectively made the traditional light bulb obsolete.
It also effectively turned every home into a potential Super Fund Toxic Waste Site.

[Th'Pusher]

This is a huge win for the GOP.

[boutons_deux]

Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban"

With some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 scheduled to go into effect on January 1, right-wing media have revived the false claim that the government is "ban[ning]" incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the law simply restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs and has led companies to develop numerous alternatives, including energy-efficient incandescents.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201111280004

There are already energy efficient incandescents available due to this "ban".

[Yonivore]

Right-Wing Media Continue To Mislead On Nonexistent Light Bulb "Ban"

With some provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 scheduled to go into effect on January 1, right-wing media have revived the false claim that the government is "ban[ning]" incandescent light bulbs. In fact, the law simply restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs and has led companies to develop numerous alternatives, including energy-efficient incandescents.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201111280004

There are already energy efficient incandescents available due to this "ban".
..."restricts the sale of inefficient bulbs..." being the operative term. That meant nothing over 60 watts, if I'm not mistaken. It was an effective ban on incandescent bulbs over 60 watts.

And, the alternatives are more costly. When they price comes down, I'm switching to LED bulbs but, right now, they're in the $18-$25 dollar range and, even though they might last decades, I would going to have trouble swapping out my entire house before January 1.

The "energy-efficient" incandescent bulbs amounted to those that come with an Easy Bake oven.

Also, the logical replacement is the CFL which is chocked full to carcinogens and other toxins that, if broken, pretty much require a Super Fund cleanup.

[boutons_deux]

http://www.verilux.com/full-spectrum-lightbulbs/incandescent-bulbs

http://www.usa.philips.com/c/standard-energy-saving-light-bulbs/36964/cat/#filterState0=BULB_SU_US_CONSUMER%3Dtrue

The regulation was to spur a switch to more energy efficient lighting, and "free market" producers responded where "free market" was not producing efficient bulbs.

Now if set top box makers would quit selling energy-hungry boxes, and vampire chargers were turned off or at least reduced to tiny milliwatts of standby waste

[ChumpDumper]

I would going to have trouble swapping out my entire house before January 1.You are astoundingly stupid if you think that's what the law said.

[Winehole23]

another LED thread. awesome.

[RandomGuy]

...my stockpile of 75 and 100 watt incandescent bulbs?

Congress overturns incandescent light bulb ban (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/16/congress-overturns-incandescent-light-bulb-ban/)


It also effectively turned every home into a potential Super Fund Toxic Waste Site.

Unfortunately for both you and your source, there was no ban on incandencent light bulbs, as has been determined here after an ad nauseum debate on the subject.

The ultimate source of the claim was a bizarre exaggerated claim from a chain email sent out by a group seeking election donations for Republican candidates.

The truth is that there was simply a requirement that they meet certain energy efficiency standards. The light bulb companies had already geared up their production lines to meet this standard, and are jumping in with compliant incandescent bulbs now, if memory serves.

Sorry, once again, the Conservative Avenger appears to have stepped on his dick.

[ChumpDumper]

Joke's on you, RG. He has no dick.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Is this the point in the thread when yoni disappears?

[JoeChalupa]

Those light bulbs that are supposed to last thousands of hours never do. They burn out just like the rest. At least that has been my experience.

[Winehole23]

Is this the point in the thread when yoni disappears?lol yoni the doorbell ditcher

[Winehole23]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knock%20knock%20ginger

[Yonivore]

Unfortunately for both you and your source, there was no ban on incandencent light bulbs, as has been determined here after an ad nauseum debate on the subject.

The ultimate source of the claim was a bizarre exaggerated claim from a chain email sent out by a group seeking election donations for Republican candidates.

The truth is that there was simply a requirement that they meet certain energy efficiency standards. The light bulb companies had already geared up their production lines to meet this standard, and are jumping in with compliant incandescent bulbs now, if memory serves.
At what cost? And, yes, the legislation effectively banned low-cost incandescent light bulbs over 60 watts.

[Yonivore]

Those light bulbs that are supposed to last thousands of hours never do. They burn out just like the rest. At least that has been my experience.
CFL's are a costly disaster.

LED's have more promise and, are more durable. I suspect the claim LED's can last decades is closer to the truth than the absurd claims that were made about the CFL's.

If they can just bring costs down. But, even if they don't, I plan to start replacing my incandescent bulbs with LED's, one at a time, if I have to. They make sense.

[Th'Pusher]

I've put in a few LEDs. I like them, but the soft white one was still a touch too blue for my taste. I'll get used to it.

[Wild Cobra]

I've put in a few LEDs. I like them, but the soft white one was still a touch too blue for my taste. I'll get used to it.
I like the one LED bulb I bought some time back.

What are they down to for 60 watt equivalents? Have you seen 75 and 100's yet?

I suggest the "daylight" variety. They will keep you in a better mood in the winter months.

[Stringer_Bell]

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=knock%20knock%20ginger

That's odd, where I'm from we call that Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ knocking.

Personally, I prefer the soft yellow glow of my old incandescents. Makes me feel all 80s and shit.

Edit: Awesome, I finally got auto-censored for saying nugger (with an I).

[Th'Pusher]

I like the one LED bulb I bought some time back.

What are they down to for 60 watt equivalents? Have you seen 75 and 100's yet?

I suggest the "daylight" variety. They will keep you in a better mood in the winter months.

Mine were 60w equivalents. Were like $25, but I was replacing an incandescent every couple of months at like $4 per bulb as it was a unique size.

Daylight is way too blue for me.

[Winehole23]

That's odd, where I'm from we call that Luck_The_Fakersthat's what we called it too

[Wild Cobra]

That's odd, where I'm from we call that Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_ knocking.

Personally, I prefer the soft yellow glow of my old incandescents. Makes me feel all 80s and shit.

Edit: Awesome, I finally got auto-censored for saying nugger (with an I).
I still don't see why we can't say niggеr, when we can say fuck, shit, etc.

[clambake]

shit, you're a stupid fuck.

[Yonivore]

I still don't see why we can't say niggеr, when we can say fuck, shit, etc.
Apparently YOU can.

[LnGrrrR]

:lol

[Stringer_Bell]

Apparently YOU can.

He's sneaky about it tho, he knows some kind of hacker trick with computer languages or somethin'. That's mighty coon of him to tip-toe like that, if ya ask me. :rolleyes

[CosmicCowboy]

CFL's are a costly disaster.

LED's have more promise and, are more durable. I suspect the claim LED's can last decades is closer to the truth than the absurd claims that were made about the CFL's.

If they can just bring costs down. But, even if they don't, I plan to start replacing my incandescent bulbs with LED's, one at a time, if I have to. They make sense.

CFL's aren't bad in a situation where they stay on all the time but turning them on and off kills em.

[Yonivore]

CFL's aren't bad in a situation where they stay on all the time but turning them on and off kills em.
I am reminded...

72AVXpeo_ZI

[Wild Cobra]

He's sneaky about it tho, he knows some kind of hacker trick with computer languages or somethin'. That's mighty coon of him to tip-toe like that, if ya ask me. :rolleyes
Using it in conversation taking about it rather than around it is the correct way in my view. As long as I'm not using it in a derogatory way, what's wrong with using the actual word when the topic is about it?

[Wild Cobra]

CFL's aren't bad in a situation where they stay on all the time but turning them on and off kills em.
Yep, they get weak over time. They are said to last longer, but what good is 50% to 75% intensity?

What I do like about them is I can put 100 watt equivalents in sockets that say 60 watt max.

[boutons_deux]

December 19 News: U.S. Lightbulb Industry Slams GOP, Saying Repeal of Efficiency Law Will “Undermine Investments”


Big Business usually loves it when the GOP goes to war over federal rules.

But not when it comes to light bulbs.

This year, House Republicans made it a top priority to roll back regulations they say are too costly for business. Last week, the GOP won a long-fought battle to kill new energy efficiency rules for bulbs when House and Senate negotiators included a rider to block enforcement of the regulations in the $1 trillion-plus, year-end spending bill.

The rider may have advanced GOP talking points about light bulb “freedom of choice,” but it didn’t win them many friends in the industry, who are more interested in their bottom line than political rhetoric.

Big companies like General Electric, Philips and Osram Sylvania spent big bucks preparing for the standards, and the industry is fuming over the GOP bid to undercut them.

After spending four years and millions of dollars prepping for the new rules, businesses say pulling the plug now could cost them. The National Electrical Manufacturers Association has waged a lobbying campaign for more than a year to persuade the GOP to abandon the effort.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/19/391784/lightbulb-industry-slams-gop-saying-repeal-of-efficiency-law-investments/

[boutons_deux]

Mercury threat from CFLs is trivial compared with ACTUAL damage from coal plants spewing 1000s of tons of methyl mercury ever year, which "free market" environmental destruction doesn't bother Yoni and ilk one iddy biddy bit.

Now, for some goog REGULATORY NEWS (until the Repugs destroy it and the EPA).

AP IMPACT: EPA rules threaten older power plants

More than 32 mostly coal-fired power plants in a dozen states will be forced to shut down and an additional 36 might have to close because of new federal air pollution regulations, according to an Associated Press survey.

Together, those plants — some of the oldest and dirtiest in the country — produce enough electricity for more than 22 million households, the AP survey found. But their demise probably won't cause homes to go dark.

The fallout will be most acute for the towns where power plant smokestacks long have cast a shadow. Tax revenues and jobs will be lost, and investments in new power plants and pollution controls probably will raise electric bills.

The survey, based on interviews with 55 power plant operators and on the Environmental Protection Agency's own prediction of power plant retirements, rebuts claims by critics of the regulations and some electric power producers.

They have predicted the EPA rules will kill coal as a power source and force blackouts, basing their argument on estimates from energy analysts, congressional offices, government regulators, unions and interest groups. Many of those studies inflate the number of plants retiring by counting those shutting down for reasons other than the two EPA rules.

The AP surveyed electricity-generating companies about what they plan to do and the effects on power supply and jobs. It was the first survey of its kind.

The estimate also was based in part on EPA computer models that predict which fossil-fuel generating units are likely to be retired early to comply with the rules, and which were likely to be retired anyway.

The agency has estimated that 14.7 gigawatts, enough power for more than 11 million households, will be retired from the power grid in the 2014-15 period when the two new rules take effect.

The first rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. The second, expected to be announced Monday, would set the first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plant smokestacks.

Combined, the rules could do away with more than 8 percent of the coal-fired generation nationwide, the AP found. The average age of the plants that could be sacrificed is 51 years.

These plants have been allowed to run for decades without modern pollution controls because it was thought that they were on the verge of being shuttered by the utilities that own them. But that didn't happen.

The first rule curbs air pollution in states downwind from dirty power plants. The second, expected to be announced Monday, would set the first standards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from power plant smokestacks.

http://mobile.sfgate.com/sfchron/db_41687/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=8oIwXNE3&full=true#display

===

Of course, the Repugs are squealing like little pigs anxious for BigCoal contributions.

[Cry Havoc]

I still don't see why we can't say niggеr, when we can say fuck, shit, etc.

http://i.imgur.com/CFB8x.gif

[Yonivore]

http://i.imgur.com/CFB8x.gif
You set 'em up and I'll knock 'em back, Lloyd.

[JoeChalupa]

Why anyone wants to use the "N" word is beyond me. Grow up already.

[Wild Cobra]

Mercury threat from CFLs is trivial compared with ACTUAL damage from coal plants spewing 1000s of tons of methyl mercury ever year, which "free market" environmental destruction doesn't bother Yoni and ilk one iddy biddy bit.
I disagree. Proximity is one factor to consider. Those in the hot gasses rise and mix with the atmosphere and get very diluted before coming in contact with anyone. A broken CFL in the home is not good, especially for small children and infants.

[Yonivore]

Why anyone wants to use the "N" word is beyond me. Grow up already.
In the context of adults discussing current events, euphemisms are sometimes inadequate.

Saying "N-word" is no different than saying "n-i-g-g-e-r" if you're, in fact, you're using "N-word" as a replacement for "n-i-g-g-e-r."

I think if you want to condemn someone for using the term in a derogatory sense, saying the actual word has more of an impact that some juvenile euphemism. Adults should have the capability of discussing big and difficult ideas without reverting to practices we use to protect our children from being exposed to words that are difficult to explain to them.

[Wild Cobra]

In the context of adults discussing current events, euphemisms are sometimes inadequate.

Saying "N-word" is no different than saying "n-i-g-g-e-r" if you're, in fact, you're using "N-word" as a replacement for "n-i-g-g-e-r."

I think if you want to condemn someone for using the term in a derogatory sense, saying the actual word has more of an impact that some juvenile euphemism. Adults should have the capability of discussing big and difficult ideas without reverting to practices we use to protect our children from being exposed to words that are difficult to explain to them.
My sentiment as well. So why is niggеr banned here?

[Winehole23]

it's not

[Wild Cobra]

it's not
If I enter it from my keyboard, I get this:

Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_

I guess technically it's not banned, it's just auto-edited.

[Winehole23]

well, you just said it

[Winehole23]

and everyone who sees


Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_know s exactly what you meant, so what's the diff?

[Wild Cobra]

well, you just said it

LOL...

It depends on how I say it now, doesn't it?

[boutons_deux]

I disagree. Proximity is one factor to consider. Those in the hot gasses rise and mix with the atmosphere and get very diluted before coming in contact with anyone. A broken CFL in the home is not good, especially for small children and infants.

there was a study that analyzed fish from 400 US rivers, every single fish had methyl mercury contamination, which doesn't exist in nature, only from coal burning. That shit adds up, and not only in fish, but in all the produce fields. Your "proximity" is everywhere for methyl mercury.

[Wild Cobra]

and everyone who sees

knows what you meant, so what's the diff?
I thought it was used for spelling Eliott a certain way also?

[Winehole23]

Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_

[Wild Cobra]

there was a study that analyzed fish from 400 US rivers, every single fish had methyl mercury contamination, which doesn't exist in nature, only from coal burning. That shit adds up, and not only in fish, but in all the produce fields. Your "proximity" is everywhere for methyl mercury.
It doesn't occur from mining extraction? They used river quite a bit. Unless you can eliminate all other possible sources, you cannot blame it on coal burning. Dumping their waste in the rivers would be illegal too. This may have been what happened, or it may have happened before they knew the waste ash was harmful.

[Winehole23]

it's ee el el eye oh tee

[Wild Cobra]

it's Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_

LOL...

See what I mean?

Now how do I know what you said if it's used for more than one thing?

[Winehole23]

that's two. are there others you know of?

[Yonivore]

niggеr

[Wild Cobra]

that's two. are there others you know of?
There is another n- variation, I forget but spelled it in a way to make it work also before. I don't know if there are any others. I have to wonder if it's somebody's twisted way of saying Εllliot is a niggеr?

Don't have time to continue. Just took a quick shower and have to leave. My last post today.

[Yonivore]

If you cut and paste you can use it but, damn, N-word is easier.

What kind of input device do you use Wild Cobra? Surely not a standard keyboard.

[DMX7]

I still don't see why we can't say niggеr, when we can say fuck, shit, etc.

Yes, I'm sure you don't.

[Drachen]

Sigh.... You can't have two back to back "fail of the year" threads on the same subject.

[boutons_deux]

Yoni's kind of slimabags:

Republicans' Frightening Logic for Being Against Preventing Mercury Poisoning

The Focus on the Family letter says it all:

According to the EEN, one of every six American babies is born with harmful blood mercury levels, “which causes permanent brain damage in the unborn and infants.” Therefore, the 12 federal legislators EEN is thanking with radio, TV and billboard ads for supporting the EPA restrictions are “pro-life.”



In truth, only one in every 1,000 American babies is exposed to harmful doses of mercury, and the slight delays in cognitive development it may cause generally disappear by age 7, says Beisner. Moreover, all 12 of the federal legislators EEN is supporting are among the most pro-abortion Congress has to offer.

“Calling this ‘pro-life’ is quite a misnomer, but it will result in a lot of people being confused about who’s really pro-life and who’s not,” Beisner said. “Some of these people have 100 percent pro-abortion voting records in Congress, so people need to know they’re really getting the wool pulled over their eyes if they fall for this.”

Right. Mercury is no biggie and, more importantly, being against babies being exposed to it without also being anti-abortion is meaningless (and confuses the rubes.) Therefore, "pro-lifers" must be against environmental regulations that might prevent permanent brain damage. (Pay no attention to the fact that this charlatan is paid by the industries that are causing the brain damage.)

http://www.alternet.org/module/printversion/newsandviews/750635

=========

What's a little mercury brain damage? Corporate-Americans' profits always win over Human-Americans' health and safety.

[boutons_deux]

Calaveras mercury emissions up

The stacks belched 540 pounds of the neurotoxin into the air in 2010, up from 358 pounds in 2009, according to the

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/Calaveras-mercury-emissions-up-2447307.php#ixzz1inJ9lq1F

How many broken CFLs would be required to release 540 pounds of mercury?

240 Kg mercury.

A CFL has about .005 Kg

so it would take about 50K CFLs to release a Calaveras amount of mercury.

The coal ash also contains poisonous mercury, cadmium, lead, etc that goes into landfills or road paving.

Clean Coal? My ass!

[Wild Cobra]

Calaveras mercury emissions up

The stacks belched 540 pounds of the neurotoxin into the air in 2010, up from 358 pounds in 2009, according to the

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/energy/article/Calaveras-mercury-emissions-up-2447307.php#ixzz1inJ9lq1F

How many broken CFLs would be required to release 540 pounds of mercury?

240 Kg mercury.

A CFL has about .005 Kg

so it would take about 50K CFLs to release a Calaveras amount of mercury.

The coal ash also contains poisonous mercury, cadmium, lead, etc that goes into landfills or road paving.

Clean Coal? My ass!
Again, it's proximity, concentration, and area.

One broken bulb in a home is probably more concentration in the immediate air for a child than the well mixed emissions of a power plant stack.

[ChumpDumper]

Again, it's proximity, concentration, and area.

One broken bulb in a home is probably more concentration in the immediate air for a child than the well mixed emissions of a power plant stack.lol probably

[MannyIsGod]

I would going to have trouble swapping out my entire house before January 1.



:lmao

[MannyIsGod]

Again, it's proximity, concentration, and area.

One broken bulb in a home is probably more concentration in the immediate air for a child than the well mixed emissions of a power plant stack.

One broken bulb is about as dangerous as one can of Tuna - or where a small portion of the mercury in the power plant ends up.

[boutons_deux]

Toxic Enough to Require Haz-Mat Transport... Yet Safe for You and Your Children?

The final WHO report urges "a switch in use of dental materials" away from amalgam.As reported by Charlie Brown, director of Consumers for Dental Choice,"[F]or many reasons," WHO explains, "restorative materials alternative to dental amalgam are desirable." As Consumers for Dental Choice, which was founded by Bob Jones and Sue Ann Taylor, reported, WHO noted the following three reasons for the new position:

Amalgam releases a "significant amount of mercury" into the environment, including the atmosphere, surface water, groundwater, and soil. WHO reports:

"When released from dental amalgam use into the environment through these pathways, mercury is transported globally and deposited. Mercury releases may then enter the human food chain especially via fish consumption."

WHO determines that amalgam raises "general health concerns": While the report acknowledges that a few dental trade groups still believe amalgam is safe for all, the WHO report reaches a very different conclusion: "Amalgam has been associated with general health concerns." The report observes:

"According to the Norwegian Dental Biomaterials Adverse Reaction Unit, the majority of cases of side-effects of dental filling materials are linked with dental amalgam."

WHO concludes "materials alternative to dental amalgam are available" and cites studies indicating they are superior to amalgam. For example, WHO says "recent data suggest that RBCs [resin-based composites] perform equally well" as amalgam. And compomers have a higher survival rate, says WHO, citing a study finding that 95% of compomers and 92% of amalgams survive after 4 years.

In particular, WHO explains that "Alternative restorative materials of sufficient quality are available for use in the deciduous [baby] dentition of children" – the population whose developing neurological systems are most susceptible to the neurotoxic effects of dental mercury. Perhaps more important than the survival of the filling, WHO asserts that:

"Adhesive resin materials allow for less tooth destruction and, as a result, a longer survival of the tooth itself."

The report also included mention of the known toxic effects of mercury exposure, stating:

"Mercury is highly toxic and harmful to health. Approximately 80% of inhaled mercury vapor is absorbed in the blood through the lungs, causing damages to lungs, kidneys and the nervous, digestive, respiratory and immune systems. Health effects from excessive mercury exposure include tremors, impaired vision and hearing, paralysis, insomnia, emotional instability, developmental deficits during fetal development, and attention deficit and developmental delays during childhood."

This is the latest revelation in a string of positive progress that has been made this year toward ridding the dental industry of dangerous mercury-containing amalgams.

The American Dental Association (ADA) has historically covered up that fact, and, as the 1990 60 Minutes video above noted, even at one time declared that removing mercury fillings is unethical -- despite the known fact that dental amalgam emits mercury vapor after it is implanted in your mouth, and this mercury is bioaccumulative and endangers your health in many ways.

Incidentally, the ADA also takes money from Coca-Cola and other companies whose products promote the formation of cavities. But the tide is certainly changing, as evidenced further by the FDA's December 2010 hearings, which included two days of testimony that were alternatively scientific and emotional. The results were utterly convincing, even to scientists handpicked by FDA. With no dissent, they recommended that FDA promptly:

Make sure that all consumers and all parents know that amalgam is mainly mercury
Stop amalgam use for children and pregnant women

As panelist Dr. Suresh Kotagal – a pediatric neurologist at the Mayo Clinic – summed it up, there is "no place for mercury in children."

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/08/major-progress-in-eliminating-mercury-in-dentistry.aspx?e_cid=20120108_SNL_Art_1

[boutons_deux]

Cheap LED Lighting Races Ahead with OSRAM Breakthrough

Cheap LED Lighting Races Ahead with OSRAM Breakthrough
January 14, 2012 By Tina Casey 5 Comments

OSRAM builds cheap LEDs on siliconInternational lighting industry giant OSRAM has just announced a research breakthrough that will make the cost of high-efficiency LED light bulbs sink like a stone.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/14/cheap-led-lighting-races-ahead-with-osram-breakthrough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

[Wild Cobra]

Cheap LED Lighting Races Ahead with OSRAM Breakthrough

Cheap LED Lighting Races Ahead with OSRAM Breakthrough
January 14, 2012 By Tina Casey 5 Comments

OSRAM builds cheap LEDs on siliconInternational lighting industry giant OSRAM has just announced a research breakthrough that will make the cost of high-efficiency LED light bulbs sink like a stone.

http://cleantechnica.com/2012/01/14/cheap-led-lighting-races-ahead-with-osram-breakthrough/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29
Nice on paper, but until it happens...