Federally mandated LED lightbulbs to cost $50 each

[Wild Cobra]

LNG: less than a month. Block leave in Sep. Thats when I'm coming back to TX.

LOL...

LNG...

Liquid Natural Gas...

Are you saying he's a gasbag?

SnC... Glad to hear you are hurt the way some get injured. Have a safe return trip home.

[Wild Cobra]

I also can't wait for there to be quality LED lamps that actually outperform CFL's at lumens per watt and cost less than $80 for a 600-750 lumen flood light

They are here. The one I bought at Home depot to test is pretty damn good. I don't expect it to dim over time like CFLs do. When first put it in, I put a new 60 watt equivalent CFL next to it in the same 2-bulb ceiling fixture. It appeared the same brightness. It is rated at 950 lumens and the CFL is rated at 800. It cost me $36.97. After putting the 75 watt equivalent CFL in, I notices it is brighter that that one.

Like I said, CFLs degrade over time. Far more than incandescents, and I expect LEDs will degrade slower than incandescents.

the flood lights I saw available would be far more than that 600-750 lumen range. Didn't get their price, unless you mean the indoor type. They were also around $40 if I remember right.

[boutons_deux]

Tea baggers take one in the scrotum

House Rejects Tea Party Effort To Screw Up Light Bulbs

| Tea Party conservatives fell far short of the two-thirds majority required to pass Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) BULB Act, which would have revoked lighting efficiency standards that are already reducing pollution, creating jobs, and spurring technological innovation. The 233 to 193 vote, although a majority, rejected the bill because it was being considered under suspension rules that allowed Republicans to avoid regular order. The five Democrats who voted in favor of this Republican joke were conservative Reps. Dan Boren (D-OK), Jerry Costello (D-IL), Jim Matheson (D-UT), Colin Peterson (D-MN), and Nick Rahall (D-WV). Ten Republicans voted against their party and for clean energy manufacturing, and one voted present.

http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/...p-light-bulbs/

[Wild Cobra]

I would vote NO on it also.

SEC. 3. MERCURY-CONTAINING LIGHTING.

No Federal, State, or local requirement or standard regarding energy efficient lighting shall be effective to the extent that the requirement or standard can be satisfied only by installing or using lamps containing mercury.

SEC. 4. STATE REGULATION.

No State or local regulation, or revision thereof, concerning the energy efficiency or energy use of medium screw base general service incandescent lamps shall be effective.

It's one thing to remove the federal requirements of Public Law 110-140, but to remove states rights?

No ing way!

[Winehole23]

Not true. There have been studies of how washers don't clean as well as one example.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=172865

[vander]

They are here. The one I bought at Home depot to test is pretty damn good. I don't expect it to dim over time like CFLs do. When first put it in, I put a new 60 watt equivalent CFL next to it in the same 2-bulb ceiling fixture. It appeared the same brightness. It is rated at 950 lumens and the CFL is rated at 800. It cost me $36.97. After putting the 75 watt equivalent CFL in, I notices it is brighter that that one.

Like I said, CFLs degrade over time. Far more than incandescents, and I expect LEDs will degrade slower than incandescents.

the flood lights I saw available would be far more than that 600-750 lumen range. Didn't get their price, unless you mean the indoor type. They were also around $40 if I remember right.

how many watts does it use and what's the color temp?
everything I've seen in LED that's soft or warm white isn't any more efficient than a CFL.

my guess is that your bulb is 12 watts (not much less than CFL) and its the clear/bright bluish white

[Wild Cobra]

how many watts does it use and what's the color temp?
everything I've seen in LED that's soft or warm white isn't any more efficient than a CFL.

my guess is that your bulb is 12 watts (not much less than CFL) and its the clear/bright bluish white

It's a 13 watt 950 lumens 4900k vs. a 13 watt 800 lumen CFL.

Ecosmart ECS A19 V2 CW 120

They have them in soft white also, but I prefer daylight.

Is this what you're looking for:

EcoSmart PAR30 15-Watt (60W) LED Flood Light Bulb (E)*

The EcoSmart PAR30 15-Watt (60W) LED Flood Light Bulb (E)* can be used to replace a PAR30 or 60-watt bulb. The energy-efficient LED flood light has an output of 725 lumens and can last up to 50,000 hours for extended use. The flood light can be used indoors or outdoors to allow for versatility and can help save up to $285 per bulb over the bulb's life. (E)* means this bulb meets Federal minimum efficiency standards.

Light output: 725 lumens
Energy used:15 watts
Life hours: 50,000 hours
Can last up to 46 years for extended use
Replaces PAR30 or 60-watt bulbs for a savings of $285 per bulb over the life of the bulb
Can be dimmed for light customization
Suitable for indoor or outdoor use to allow versatility
Clear bulb has a medium base type
Eco Options : Eco Options
MFG Brand Name : EcoSmart
MFG Model # : ECS 30 WW FL 120
MFG Part # : ECS 30 WW FL 120

A CFL 65 watt equivalent flood is only about 640 lumens at 14 watts.

EcoSmart 14-Watt (65W) Soft White CFL Floodlight Bulbs (2-Pack)

Home depot also lists one at 650 lumens, but I've linked enough. The 14 watt 650 lumen CFL is 46.4 lumens/watt. The 15 watt LED is 48.3 lumens/watt.

Technology is getting there.

[RandomGuy]

The old 100 watt light bulb has it's uses. In some cases, it doubles as a heat source, like in chicken coops.

I am all for more energy efficient bulbs. Like I said, I just don't think people should be forced to buy something they don't want. If I had small children, I would not be buying the florescents. There are not any other affordable energy efficient ones that I know of. there is talk of the halogen, but they are expensive compared to incandescents, and not much more efficient.

No one forces you to light your house with electricity. That is your choice, as there are plenty of alternatives.

[boutons_deux]

Why the Biggest Energy Suck in Your House May Have to do With Your TV

In the United States alone there are over 160 million set-top boxes perched inside entertainment centers and on television sets. That's one for every two people in the country or 80 percent of U.S. households. The problem is largely due to the fact that modern set-top boxes operate at near full power even when nobody is even watching or recording a program. A new study reports that consumers in this country alone spend over $2 billion in electricity per year to run these little machines.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/...paign=alternet

[Wild Cobra]

No one forces you to light your house with electricity. That is your choice, as there are plenty of alternatives.

Really? At what cost? Do renters improve property for the owners? Then what about heat?

How much would it cost me to have natural gas run to a place without it?

What about those renting? Can they force the landlord to pay to have natural gas piped in, then change the appliances?

How about a remote farmer who keeps his chicken coupes warm with a lights rather than paying extra for heaters when only a little heat is needed?

One size fits all legislation always stinks.

[Wild Cobra]

Why the Biggest Energy Suck in Your House May Have to do With Your TV

In the United States alone there are over 160 million set-top boxes perched inside entertainment centers and on television sets. That's one for every two people in the country or 80 percent of U.S. households. The problem is largely due to the fact that modern set-top boxes operate at near full power even when nobody is even watching or recording a program. A new study reports that consumers in this country alone spend over $2 billion in electricity per year to run these little machines.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/...paign=alternet

Sorry, don't buy the whole story. The standby power is dramatically lower than the on power. However, bigger cheaper TV's do make for more power usage than in the past, and associated air conditioning costs as well.

[coyotes_geek]

???

The article is talking about the cable/satellite/dvr box hooked up to the tv, not the tv itself.

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry, don't buy the whole story. The standby power is dramatically lower than the on power. However, bigger cheaper TV's do make for more power usage than in the past, and associated air conditioning costs as well.

It never goes on standby. Thats kind of the point.

[Wild Cobra]

???

The article is talking about the cable/satellite/dvr box hooked up to the tv, not the tv itself.

OK, sure. They use energy about the same energy 24/7, but it's so small to begin with.

I assumed the article meant the TV sets also. Still, does a modern refrigerator only average 10 watts?

[ElNono]

OK, sure. They use energy about the same energy 24/7, but it's so small to begin with.

STB's are notorious for poor engineering when it comes to power saving.
For satellite, it has to do with the fact that if tuners are not kept constantly going, locating satellites can take anywhere from 3-5 mins. Obviously people want to watch TV as soon as they turn on their boxes. It's poor engineering though.
For digital cable boxes, the modem has to remain on and pinging the mothership, getting updates and key changes.

On top of that, providers send updates and gather viewing information from the devices at wee hours, meaning not just the box needing to be on, but the harddisk spinning (on DVR models).

They're racking up the money with the rental paid on those boxes though, so don't expect them to have any incentive to improve them.

[Winehole23]

Thread got fascinatin.

[boutons_deux]

IT'S BAAAACK!

GOP Relights Effort to Extinguish Billions in Consumer Savings — as NBC Blows the Light Bulb Standards Story Entirely



Like some horrible Freddy Krueger film, blocking the new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is a bad idea that won’t die. The House of Representatives failed to pass it with the needed two-thirds vote on July 12, but it has arisen again to be offered as an amendment to the House FY 2012 Energy and Water appropriations bill, H.R. 2345. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) plans to offer an amendment to this spending bill that would prevent the Department of Energy from spending funds to enforce the standards, though they would remain in place. The House vote is expected on Friday July 15th.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...tory-entirely/

[RandomGuy]

IT'S BAAAACK!

GOP Relights Effort to Extinguish Billions in Consumer Savings — as NBC Blows the Light Bulb Standards Story Entirely



Like some horrible Freddy Krueger film, blocking the new energy efficiency standards for light bulbs is a bad idea that won’t die. The House of Representatives failed to pass it with the needed two-thirds vote on July 12, but it has arisen again to be offered as an amendment to the House FY 2012 Energy and Water appropriations bill, H.R. 2345. Rep. Michael Burgess (R-TX) plans to offer an amendment to this spending bill that would prevent the Department of Energy from spending funds to enforce the standards, though they would remain in place. The House vote is expected on Friday July 15th.

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/0...tory-entirely/

During the debate on the BULB Act, H.R. 2014, to eliminate light bulb efficiency standards, several representatives raised concerns about mercury in CFLs. For instance, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) ominously warned

“These new light bulbs, these CFL light bulbs, are dangerous to our health. Dr. Burgess has already pointed out they contain mercury. I thought for years we were trying to get rid of the mercury in our environment, but it is in these light bulbs.”

Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Michael Burgess (R-TX), and Randy Hultgren (R-IL) also raised concerns about mercury. Yet they all voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from setting safeguards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from cement plants – the third largest source of mercury pollution

.

[Winehole23]

Regulation is anti-business, m'kay?

[Wild Cobra]

During the debate on the BULB Act, H.R. 2014, to eliminate light bulb efficiency standards, several representatives raised concerns about mercury in CFLs. For instance, Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) ominously warned

“These new light bulbs, these CFL light bulbs, are dangerous to our health. Dr. Burgess has already pointed out they contain mercury. I thought for years we were trying to get rid of the mercury in our environment, but it is in these light bulbs.”

Representatives Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Michael Burgess (R-TX), and Randy Hultgren (R-IL) also raised concerns about mercury. Yet they all voted to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from setting safeguards for mercury and other toxic pollutants from cement plants – the third largest source of mercury pollution

The difference is proximity to children.

Would you agree or disagree this is an important distinction?

[MannyIsGod]

Disagree. Pollution from all around the world contributes to the incredible mercury levels in the food chain today.

[boutons_deux]

"difference is proximity"

how big difference?

A test of 400 rivers showed that the fish of every single one was contaminated with methyl mercury which doesn't occur in nature, but is product of coal burning. That contamination is also in the soil crops are raised on, mixed with all the poisionous crap from Monsanto, Bayer, du Pont

[Wild Cobra]

"difference is proximity"

how big difference?

A test of 400 rivers showed that the fish of every single one was contaminated with methyl mercury which doesn't occur in nature, but is product of coal burning. That contamination is also in the soil crops are raised on, mixed with all the poisonous crap from Monsanto, Bayer, du Pont

I guess you consider a broken CFL in a Child's hand doesn't represent a bigger threat with the mercury vapor as a stream or river. How many children will be living in homes with CFL's vs. next to one of these rivers? How many of these fish are used to go to market? Do they go to nearly every home, like the standards will have CFL's doing?

[Winehole23]

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/08/ff_lightbulbs/

[Winehole23]

Brett Sharenow with the Switch75.
Photo: Misha Gravenor