The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency standards.
I'm not taking a position, but if it isn't constitutional, neither are CAFE standards for automobiles or most any other regulations regarding performance levels of any product (say drug effectiveness, for another example).
--
Both the ban and the reasons cited here for questioning the ban are the silly result of politicians with poor understanding of the issues involved. The amount of mercury in a CFL is tiny, burning coal to generate electricity also releases mercury, few light bulbs of any sort are US made, and for some applications, incandescent still has advantages.
I was searching for a light fixture the other day and discovered that
*every* flush mount at both hardware stores I tried are now fluorescent. Naturally they're all super cheaply made, and the ballasts do not support dimming. I was irked and left the store without purchasing anything. The ironic thing is that I've long been using almost entirely compact fluorescents in my house for years and enjoying the substantial energy savings, however I use the screw-in retrofit type which is readily available in a dimming version, various wattages and color temperatures, and the ballast, which in my experience fails as often as the tube, is replaced each time with the tube. I don't need legislation to get me to use more efficient products, it makes economic sense to do so, but if someone wants to pay a fortune to run something inefficient, let them.James Sweet wrote: ...
Again, there is _not_ a "ban"...
--
First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly, lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:
Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens output. Sheeeesh!
...Jim Thompson
WASHINGTON ? Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts about the ban on incandescent light bulbs effective in 2014 as a result of an energy bill signed into law earlier this year.
Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, says his objection is very basic ? the Constitution doesn't authorize Congress to do anything remotely like banning a product that has been used safely and efficiently for more than 100 years in favor of Chinese-imported compact fluorescent light bulbs that pose considerable health and safety risks.
Poe cited the dangers associated with CFLs, which carry small amounts of mercury that can enter the environment through breakage and disposal. He also objected to reliance on the CFL alternatives when, currently, all are made in China.
"Congress passed an energy bill that should be called the anti-American non-energy bill because it punishes Americans for using energy when it should be finding new sources of available energy," Poe stated.
(Story continues below)
Hi Jim,
A 70-watt soft-white Philips Halogená Energy Saver has a 3,000 hour rated service life and produces 1,600 lumens (22.8 lumens per watt). A Philips Duramax soft-white A19 incandescent has a rated service life of 1,500 hours and provides 1,550 lumens (15.5 lumens per watt). Watt for watt, a 70-watt Halogená ES generates 1.5 times more light.
Sources:
Cheers, Paul
That came to mind, but I didn't see the lumen output quoted on the page. What is it compared to a standard incandescent? The one incandescent fixture in my house has older Halogena lamps in it, the efficiency of those is exactly the same, but the life is longer, I've never had one burn out.
CFLs will reduce mercury entered into the environment, the coal burned to generate electricity releases 2-3 times the amount of mercury over the life of the bulb.
What isnt made in china, even 30-45% of dental caps etc are made in china. how about poes tv, etc etc
Its not a ban,
Since when was an incandesant Effecient, do you know only 4-7 watts of a 100w bulb are out put as actual Light you can see, the rest is heat, Thats effecient? Put in 11, 100w bulbs and you have a 1000w heater, and now pay more to run the AC to remove that heat, and release more mercury from Coal plants to run that AC, They should be Taxed to death and CFLs rebated, not banned.
Poe is a moron and so are you for not seeing the facts and posting this crap, incandesants should have limited use in todays world
Poe is an idiot. Either the bulbs in question got here through Interstate Commerce or they miracled themselves into existence.
If the former, Congress has unfettered authority to regulate them; if the latter, "Let there be light" takes on a new meaning.
Re: Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb
Roy says [{ I wasn't aware of this ban } i do know that Mercury,Sodium, Metal Halide bulbs must be dispossed of in a specific way]continues below=3D>
Group: alt.engineering.electrical Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 3:09pm (EDT+1) From: snipped-for-privacy@ns.sympatico.ca (Paul=A0M.=A0Eldridge) On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:47:48 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote: On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge wrote: First of all, Congress did not "ban" incandescent lamps -- they simply set minimum efficiency standards, as they have with other consumer products such as air conditioners and refrigerators. Secondly, lighting manufacturers already sell high efficiency incandescent lamps that meet these new standards. You can buy these ones at Home Depot:
The way I see it.,Though advancements in The Lighting Industry are appreciated for several reasons - Consumers have the right & will seek out & purchase the regular edison type incandecent bulbs. They are easy to install & use.......
Note That: Halogen as well as Quartz bulbs (and such others) operate at much higher temperatures and are not suitable for all locations., as in the case of the Average Family Residence with growing children, et al non electrically savy indivuduals................. Reported Fires have decreased dramatically with Consumer Education, but remain emminent where they are in use & prone to accidental falls.
TT=AE
This thing sounds a lot more like a troll than a real message.
Of course I don't limit how stupid Congress can be, I can't see where there is a constitutional issue. The "facts" provided are weak at best. Frankly I would question any information coming from the same source.
I'll check those out. The ones I've seen on-shelf had less lumens.
...Jim Thompson
Here in Florida, the governor Charlie Crist has crammed Gasahol (10% Ethanol) onto consumers without any rational discussion or consideration of consumers.
Notwithstanding the arguments that ethanol production uses fat more petroleum than it saves. The glaring issue is that the gasahol mix actually reduces fuel efficiency significantly in many if not most vehicles. For example, my vehicle averages 15 MPG with regular unleaded (I will not apologize for not driving a Prius) but now with gasahol it now averages 12.5 MPg. This means that when driving a trip of 150 miles I have to purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel.
So:
1) I was ripped off at the pump paying full price for an adulturated product. 3.96 gallon X 10 gallons X 10% = $3.96 stolen 2) I was ripped off a second time at the pump needing to buy 2 more gallons of same adulturated product. 3.96 X 2 = $7.92 stolen 3) My vehicle still burned 10 gallons of regular gasoline out the tailpipe into the air. Plus it burned an additional 1.2 gallons of ethanol out the tailpipe into the air.So I am ripped off $11.88 for what should have been 1/2 tank full. And the earth is further polluted.
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.
Here in Florida, the governor Charlie Crist has crammed Gasohol (10% Ethanol) onto consumers without any rational discussion or consideration of consumers.
Notwithstanding the arguments that ethanol production uses far more petroleum than it saves. The glaring issue is that the gasohol mix actually reduces fuel efficiency significantly in many if not most vehicles. For example, my vehicle averages 15 MPG with regular unleaded (I will not apologize for not driving a Prius) but now with gasohol it now averages 12.5 MPG. This means that when driving a trip of 150 miles I have to purchase an additional 2 gallons of fuel.
So:
1) I was ripped off at the pump paying full price for an adulterated product. 3.96 gallon X 10 gallons X 10% = $3.96 stolen 2) I was ripped off a second time at the pump needing to buy 2 more gallons of same adulterated product. 3.96 X 2 = $7.92 stolen 3) My vehicle still burned 10.8 gallons of regular gasoline out the tailpipe into the air. Plus it burned an additional 1.2 gallons of ethanol out the tailpipe into the air.So I am ripped off $11.88 for less than 1/2 tank full. And the earth is further polluted.
Please someone tell me where all this makes any sense? I think this benefits only Archer Daniel Midland and Big Oil.
Yes, I was left wondering what kind of an idiot this Congressman is too. He's certainly free to object to the law that Congress passed regarding light bulbs and there is certainly some basis to do so. However, to drag constitutionality into it is silly. Congress has actually banned private ownership of gold and eliminated freon in air conditioning, etc. How can it suddenly be that it's unconstitutional?
I think the large numeric dollar-value of "Big Oil" profits confuses the ordinary guy on the street, and politicians use that to their advantage.
What is "Big Oil's" ROI?
Are they not paying _market_ price for oil?
...Jim Thompson
Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? I need a few for my yard lights. Got any that'll work on 3V DC? Need some for my flashlights. Will CFL's work in cars? Lots of incandescents there.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant. Speak softly and carry a loaded .45 Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy Web Site:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
On 6/20/2008 2:30 PM David Starr spake thus:
Well, he did say "incandescents should have limited use in today's world", which pretty much covers what you've described; the great majority of light bulbs are used for domestic, commercial or industrial lighting, where CFLs are appropriate. The few exceptions where incandescents can't be replaced or where it's impractical to do so are small potatoes by comparison.
Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker in my garage.
...Jim Thompson
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.