With so many atrocious things happening in Congress — and necessary things not happening – it may seem odd to focus on a relatively minor provision in the omnibus spending bill that defunds a small program at the Department of Energy.
But the dim bulbs in the House and their Tea Party followers deserve attention for insisting on a measure that will raise your monthly utility bills, enrich coal and gas companies and increase global pollution. You have to be exceptionally stupid to accomplish all that.
From Politico and ThinkProgess we learn that the tea party zealots in the GOP House demanded that we not keep the government functioning unless the omnibus spending bill deleted this fiscal year’s funding for DOE to implement its new energy efficiency standard for light bulbs.
The standard has already been adopted and was set to go into effect in January. It requires that new bulbs be 30 percent more efficient than the typical incandescent bulbs from the last century. And the standard is supported by the industry, which is already producing complying products and is all set to market them — and make money. In other words, people’s jobs are based on this standard.
This is just another “performance” standard of the kind that regulators — including my former energy agency — began to use back in the 1980s. Affected industries preferred performance standards to prescriptive standards. The agency adopting the standard defines some baseline of energy performance that is both technically feasible with current technology and economically justified — “cost effective.” That usually means that even if a complying product costs more at first, it saves the consumer money in the long run by using less energy and thus lowering your utility bill. Given a performance standard, it’s up to industry to decide how to design, manufacture and market products that meet the standards.
And it works. Your utility bills are much lower today than they would otherwise be because your refrigerator must meet an energy efficiency performance standard that requires it use only a fraction of the energy the old models used. That’s also true for your air conditioner, and your central furnace or heat pump, and your water heater, and your washer/dryer, and so on. America has saved tens of billions of dollars because of these performance standards; the utilities have needed thousands fewer megawatts from new power plants and produced thousands fewer tons of pollutants from existing ones. It’s call win, win, win, win . . .
But the Tea Party zealots believe in making everyone losers. They don’t know this started as a Republican idea, a concession liberals made decades ago to the notion that if you give the market maximum flexibility, the market will figure out the least-costly or most profitable way of achieving the social goal. To the zealots, it’s just “regulation,” and regulation must be evil, even though it’s not.
The dim bulbs in the GOP-controlled House either don’t know or don’t care; killing DOE funding was just a way to throw red meat to their supporters and avoid a primary from people even dumber than they are. We have a Congress full of losers and we need to get rid of the whole lot.
Meanwhile the coal industry will be thrilled that instead of buying cheaper light over the long run, you’re buying and burning more dirty coal now.




51 Comments

Increasing energy efficiency is great but one thing that gets over-looked is that the replacement compact fluorescent bulbs have mercury, an extremely toxic poison.
If you are concerned about both energy energy efficiency and poisons in the environment, it’s a tough choice to make.
Mind you, I’m not saying that concern has anything to do with why the Repubs do what they do.
Golly Gosh- Darn tootin’.
Those evil old, mean, stinky Republicans. Bad Repubs. Mean, stinky and just bad old meanies. They wear funny cloths too.
You know that less and less of us are falling for this, right?
Rocky Anderson for President.
1. What is the most energy efficient appliance/light bulb/house, etc? A: the one that already exists.
2. My appliances are now 20-30 years old. The appliance repair guys (3) have been adamant in telling me I must never replace them as long as they are repairable bc the newer products fall apart much sooner. I realize the repair guys have a vested interest, but since I’ve had to use them only a couple or three times in those decades, I have some personal evidence to back up their statements.
So it’s not just the time it takes the final consumer to recoop the new product cost in electricity bills, it’s the subsidized energy costs in mining, mfg, transport and others that are hidden in the new product, PLUS the higher repair costs & earlier scrappage, cycling back to the embedded energy costs of yet another new product.
These new florescent bulbs are a nightmare. If you break one in your house you and your family’s health is at risk from mercury poisioning. Your house effectively becomes a toxic cleanup site. If even a small percentage of them make it into the garbage our groundwater and garbage workers are exposed.
I would prefer a choice to buy less efficient bulbs and pass on the mecury thank you! There seemed to be a time when there was a balance in these decisions but now it seems like it is all to cater to some corporate interest who want to monopolize some part of the market.
Sorry, but I won’t be switching to the florescent bulbs. I tried and hated them. Everyone looked like a corpse and I found them difficult for reading. I try to do things that help our planet but I won’t do this.
The difference between the two parties is that one pretends to care about the American people, and the other one … doesn’t even bother to pretend to care.
As to the new bulbs, new INCANDESCENT (not CFL) bulbs are in development, but in the meantime I think halogen bulbs are getting a big push – however since they get so hot new light fixtures might be needed. Hopefully eventually LEDs will get cheap enough to use for general lighting purposes.
I have a great use for only one florescent bulk.
It is a 1930s floor lamp that I use for reading when I sit in my fave chair or on the couch. I’m a senior & my eyesight is not what it used to be. If I put a high enough wattage incandescent bulb in the lamp, it would burn (i.e. yellow) the shade in no time flat. The florescents are much cooler for the same light intensity so I have switched for that lamp.
Besides the mercury/new manufacture problems, the color of the light from florescents is horrible.
bulb, not bulk
In the lamp I described above that I use for reading, the shade mitigates the lack of light quality to a significant extent.
The Young Turks tee vee just said the President will not veto the Bill that takes from the Social Security Trust Fund, and gives us The Sticky Gooy Pipeline.
LEDs are supposedly the best if you own paintings, antiques & florescents are the worst. Light degrades such items PDQ.
New fixtures, along the point I made below, with their embedded energy content, just to save a few shekels on you electricity bill? Doesn’t sound like a good tradeoff either for the environment or your budget.
No one should be surprised at that.
I have a 30′s floor lamp too. I love it!
But I read in bed with a blue flood lamp at 60 watts. It really show s the print.
Yeah, Mr “Cave” Obama is up to his old tricks again. I don’t see how anyone could vote for him and still sleep at night. The Republicans are still obviously in charge.
It’s just sickening to have the wool pulled so many times and still hear excuses.
The nicest thing a person could say is that he’s terminally incompetent. But the reality is more that he’s sold his soul and is a modern interpretation of an old Roman demagogue.
I’m reading McCullough’s “First Man in Rome” series, about the end of the Republic and the corruption is so identical that all you’d really need to do is insert some different names
If the electric company/power company has less revenue, how does it stay in business? ‘In business’ is a term of art here since some utility companies are (cough) public utilities. If they were making up those constant short falls in the past from new housing development and growth — well, you know how the sentence would end if I ended it.
Fluorescent lighting as a major source over many years destroys the visual purple in the eye, hence ‘night blindness’ — the eye’s inability to recover from light-bursts.
I can’t read the usual nonfiction stuff I devour (small print dontcha know) at less than 100 watts.
Ir doesn’t have to be. Look for a lamp and fixture from Ott or similar. I use CCFL’s for critical color work, and the majority of flat screen monitors use CCFL, although LED’s are on the rise and still a better light source for color.
Then monitors using CCFL’s have to be even worse.
I suspect it’s the UV that CCFL’s produce that cause the problem. I didn’t know it was a problem.
Florescents do not have a continuous spectrum, being composed of bands of wavelengths with certain breaks in the spectrum.
When I worked in an office tower, where all the artificial light is florescents, I had to have a supplementary incandescent on my desk, otherwise I got headaches.
As for power corps, they have a monopoly pricing power going so I wouldn’t shed a tear for their loss of revenue.
One additional difference is those old fashioned florescents had a flicker rate at line frequency, which is the basic source of problems for people. The current bulbs run at a much higher frequency than 60Hz.
Interesting tangentially related topic on “screen blindness.”
I have read, but can’t remember where so don’t take my word, that kids are requiring eyeglasses in greater numbers at earlier ages. Hypothesized reason: so much time on the screens rather than playing outdoors, that they don’t develop distance vision properly.
I got mine when I was 6 or 7. That was at the very beginning of home TV, after WWII.
My electric company — Duke Energy — gave me free-of-charge a carton of 15 CFL light bulbs (mix of 13w & 20w), also delivered free. Many months earlier, they had sent me some coupons for free CFL bulbs, the coupons redeemable only at Wal*Mart. The coupons languished in the bowl on my dining room table until long after they’d expired. It was when I chose paperless billing that Duke rewarded me with the box of bulbs.
White Shoulders and Chanel #5 are florescents. They give dogs boners in the testing labs. The light bulbs are fluorescent, named for the gas.
Incandescent light is very red, fluorescent greenish & blueish. Our brain makes the corrections so paper looks white &c.
CRT’s especially cheap RCA (patented & licensed) tube TV’s created sonic dissonance from the hum-buzz of the cathode ray combined with the audio squawk.
For some useful information about new lighting:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm
CFL == compact fluorescent light
“CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury sealed within the glass tubing – an average of 5 milligrams (roughly equivalent to the tip of a ball-point pen). Mercury is an essential, irreplaceable element in CFLs and is what allows the bulb to be an efficient light source. By comparison, older home thermometers contain 500 milligrams of mercury and many manual thermostats contain up to 3000 milligrams. It would take between 100 and 600 CFLs to equal those amounts.”
Treat it normally and do not sweat the small stuff. If you do break one, cleanup does NOT require a hazmat tema to show up:
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Money savings
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_savings
Change one bulb — save $40 or more over the lifetime of the bulb.
Change 5 bulbs — save $200 or more over the lifetime of the bulbs.
The color problem was solved a long time ago:
http://www.springlightcfl.com/cfl_color_temperature.aspx
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_color
LED bulbs are affordable now, competitive price-wise to cfls, etc. etc. but as this comment is link filed as it enough already, so I leave as an exercise to the energy-saving person to check into it.
=========================
“If torture produced national security, the regimes in the Middle East would be the safest places in the world.” Reem Bahdi, a law professor at the University of Windsor
Presuming this thread is representative (which it prolly isn’t),I’d conclude that florescents might be great but consumers hate them
Ah, sorry about the spelling error. I manage to get that one wrong more than not, which is why I rather say CCFL!
I still use a CRT monitor, and as I have to move into flat panel, the whole notion of CCFL vs LED is front and center.
See AitchD for proper spelling!
Off to dinner….
That depends on a lot more assumptions than you are putting forth in your argument.
For example, older still functional toilets use up to five gallons of water per flush. New ones are right around 1.28 gallons per flush. Consider how many times per day one person uses the toilet, or how many times per day a family sends wasted water down the drain (sorry, could not resist) and the money and environmental savings quickly add up. Remember the water has to be treated before it comes into your toilet (that takes lots of energy, lots of energy to get it to your house so that it can be sent back out) – do it enough and buying a new toilet is a relief to the planet. :^)
The idea is that replacing things due to energy considerations should be done on a case by case basis. Sometimes, it is not a good idea, but usually it is better to buy new peroducts built from recycled materials than having ALCOA send teams out into the wilderness to locate new deposits of minerals, tear up the widerness, extract them, etc.
Interesting experiment we’ve been running since Edison, and ratcheted way up since TV when we literally stared at artificial light for hours at a time.
For millions of years we evolved ingesting only natural sunlight. Our pineal gland ‘reads’ the light’s stimulus and directs the brain to drip this or that hormone.
We know and we don’t know.
We treat premature babies by bathing them in the glow of different colors of light to stimulate or to retard hormonal activity.
You should also add that the mercury emitted by coal fired power plants would be reduced by an amount greater than what’s in a CFL bulb, due to the reduced power requirements of the CFL bulb.
I guess stories started by Fox Noise never die!
Thank you for pointing that out. Yeah, Faux Noise does breathe life into some zombie whoppers.
I figured I was better off not finding out if I was too close to a link-quote limit, just stick with the starting information and gofrom there.
All well and good, but if an incandescent bulb breaks in my home, I don’t have to worry about this:http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
Keep in mind that the EPA is very good at downplaying risks when it comes to offending corporate America and draw your own conclusions about the relative merits of using CFLs.
By the way, I don’t watch Fox, never have, so I can’t comment on your claim about Fox. I got my information about the dangers of mercury from research prompted by my dentist, who refuses to work with amalgam fillings because of mercury.
Well, I hope I do not ruin your evening, but if you recall incandescent bulbs use tungsten for filaments.
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/2396656
Tungsten is listed as an “emerging contaminant of concern” by the Defense Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, although its overall toxicity is low compared to lead or mercury. Chronic exposure can cause respiratory and eye irritation, but the long-term effects are not yet known.
If you are curious about why the DOD is concerned, check into what is being used to replace depleted uranium on shells.
Additionally, rmacdonald’s point cannot be stressed enough. Folks that have to live downwind from coal burning plants know this too well.
No you didn’t ruin my evening. I’ll take the low toxicity any day. By the way, you do know the tungsten doesn’t vaporize and spread like mercury when an incndescent bulb is broken?
In any event, it is not an either-or situation except the government chooses to make it that way.
Mercury emissions from coal could be virtually eliminated if the EPA so chose. Then, I wouldn’t have to put up with lectures about the need to introduce mercury into my home in order to save people downwind.
A CFL containing 5 mg of mercury breaks in your child’s bedroom that has a volume of about 25 m3 (which corresponds to a medium sized bedroom). The entire 5 mg of mercury vaporizes immediately (an unlikely occurrence), resulting in an airborne mercury concentration in this room of 0.2 mg/m3. This concentration will decrease with time, as air in the room leaves and is replaced by air from outside or from a different room. As a result, concentrations of mercury in the room will likely approach zero after about an hour or so.
Under these relatively conservative assumptions, this level and duration of mercury exposure is not likely to be dangerous, as it is lower than the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) standard of 0.05 mg/m3 of metallic mercury vapor averaged over eight hours.
Helen Suh MacIntosh, a professor in environmental health at Harvard University
http://www.treehugger.com/culture/ask-treehugger-is-mercury-from-a-broken-cfl-dangerous.html
Notice how she points out it is unlikely that the mercury wil vaporize. The coal-burning plant is waaaaaay more danger to you than the cfl bulb is.
I additionally point out the the EPA is releasing new standards for coal burning plants release of toxics, but expect the congress critter to once again prevent them from going into effect. Even with the Supreme Court basically telling the congress critters to let the EPA do its job.
The repair guys are right, and it is true across the board in household appliances. Also holds for clothes. We found an Italian couturiere who has managed to take all my old stuff and turn it into new stuff, for $50 per stuff. I also have a cobbler down the street who is doing the same for my shoes. If you buy good stuff to start with, it is better to repair than buy new bad stuff.
OK, so you select sources that bolster your claim, and ignore the ones that don’t.
The bottom line is the mercury is highly toxic and it will vaporize unless it is left undisturbed. Wonderful, I’ll train my young children to follow those EPA instructions to the letter. On second thought, I won’t. I will avoid using CFLs if I can.
I’m well aware of the dangers of coal-fired emissions. As I stated, mercury, as well as other toxic heavy metals could be virtually eliminated if the government so chose. I choose to focus on getting the government to address that aspect rather than accept an approach that needlessly substitutes one danger for another.
Thankfully, it looks like some progress is being made: thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/16/390939/after-20-years-of-poisoned-babies-epa-will-finally-close-coal-industrys-toxic-mercury-loophole/
And oldie but a goodie.
How many internet newsgroup subscribers does it take to change a light bulb?
1,331 !!
1 to successfully change the light bulb and to post to the newsgroup that the light bulb has been changed.
14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.
7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.
27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.
53 to flame the spell checkers.
6 to argue over whether it’s “lightbulb” or “light bulb”.
6 to condemn those 6 as puerile.
156 to write to the newsgroup moderator complaining about the light bulb discussion and its inappropriateness to this newsgroup.
41 to correct spelling in the spelling/grammar flames.
109 to post that this newsgroup is not about light bulbs and to please take this email exchange to alt.lite.bulb.
203 to demand that cross posting to alt.grammar, alt.spelling and alt.punctuation about changing light bulbs be stopped.
111 to defend the posting to this newsgroup saying that we are all use lightbulbs and therefore the posts are relevant to this newsgroup.
306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty.
27 to post URLs where one can see examples of different light bulbs.
14 to post that the URLs were posted incorrectly, and to post corrected URLs.
3 to post about links they found from the URLs that are relevant to this newsgroup which makes light bulbs relevant to this newsgroup.
33 to concatenate all posts to date, then quote them including all headers and footers, and then add “Me Too.”
12 to post to the newsgroup that they are unsubscribing because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.
19 to quote the “Me Too’s” to say, “Me Three.”
4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.
44 to ask “What is a FAQ?”
4 to say “Isn’t there always a FAQ on Usenet?”
43 to ask “What’s a Usenet?”
41 to propose a new newsgroup alt.change.lite.bulb.
47 to say this is just what alt.physic.cold_fusion was meant for, send it there.
————–
“OK, so you select sources that bolster your claim, and ignore the ones that don’t.”
You are making claims without presenting any evidence, you have no idea which sources I have considered. I have not understated any risk, I pointed out risks you have not even alluded to. :^)
Try LED lights, they are pretty good.
So you accidentally stumbled upon and cited only sources that bolster your claim. It could happen.
Pointing out risks is great. Good man. Ignoring relative magnitude (tungsten vs mercury) and setting up a false choice (coal vs CFLs) is not so great.
As to minimizing risks, if you think the average adult, much less child, can, or will follow the EPA clean-up guidelines you are, no offense, harboring a delusion.
Thanks for the tip, but current LEDs still have drawbacks, particularly when it comes to bright, diffused lighting. Maybe soon they will hit their stride.
“OK, so you select sources that bolster your claim, and ignore the ones that don’t.”
You are making claims without presenting any evidence, you have no idea which sources I have considered. I have not understated any risk, I pointed out risks you have not even alluded to. :^)
Try LED lights, they are pretty good.
Each person can save energy in their own way. I have a high efficiency a/c unit, correctly sized for my house, and a couple hundred light bulbs bought on the internet.
Shades of ENRON.
In 2001, Bush and Republicans let ENRON run wild on the West Coast, where ENRON’s on-line traders were rigging the energy markets. Bush and Republicans refused repeated requests to have the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission look into what was happening and who was doing it. Result of Republican obstructionism? West Coast utility rate payers ended up paying doubled and even tripled monthly utility bills and as we know, ENRON finally imploded, costing investors a whole lot of money and the jobs of everyone at ENRON.
Costly “dirty tricks” are the norm in the Republican Party, not the exception.
I might also add that the light bulbs are 130 volt so hopefully they’ll last longer.
There are several folks that blog and comment here that are pretty good at probability, perhaps you might consult with them as to the veracity of your line “So you accidentally stumbled upon and cited only sources that bolster your claim. It could happen.”
“Pointing out risks is great. Good man. Ignoring relative magnitude (tungsten vs mercury) and setting up a false choice (coal vs CFLs) is not so great.”
There was no false choice presented between coal and a cfl. It was not presented as a choice. Comparisons between the two metals are not pertinent to the discussion (red herring). If you want to compare the evidence I presented concerning the risk posed by a broken cfl bulb to a coal burning plant then add this to the previous:
March 2011, WASHINGTON – In response to a court deadline, today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed the first-ever national standards for mercury, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from power plants. The new power plant mercury and air toxics standards – which eliminate 20 years of uncertainty across industry – would require many power plants to install widely available, proven pollution control technologies to cut harmful emissions of mercury, arsenic, chromium, nickel and acid gases, while preventing as many as 17,000 premature deaths and 11,000 heart attacks a year. The new proposed standards would also provide particular health benefits for children, preventing 120,000 cases of childhood asthma symptoms and about 11,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis among children each year. The proposed standards would also avert more than 12,000 emergency room visits and hospital admissions and 850,000 fewer days of work missed due to illness.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/1e5ab1124055f3b28525781f0042ed40/55615df6595fbfa3852578550050942f!OpenDocument
I stand by what I wrote: coal plants are waaaaay more dangerous to you than a cfl bulb is.
Do have a good morning.
I guess I need to work on my sarcasm. No need to make an appeal to authority.
False choice? OK maybe I didn’t phrase that correctly. What I meant was that we don’t have to choose between replacing one risk with another. The third choice is to eliminate the exposure from emissions at the source, something
that could be done if corporations didn’t own our government.
Don’t give me credit for the red herring. You introduced tungsten into the mix, emphasizing its toxicity, not me.
Sure, coal emissions dangerous. And that is why we should eliminate them at the source. But we are not evaluating the risk of coal emissions in general versus the risk of a broken bulb.
What we are evaluating is the added risk of exposure caused by using CFLs versus the reduction in risk that results from the emissions reduction the bulbs are responsible for.
So far I’ve been concentrating on the added risk of exposure from the possibility of a broken bulb. But what happens when the bulb is discarded? That 5mg of mercury doesn’t just magically disappear, it gets dumped into the environment.
So, we have a bulb that reduces emissions by an unknown amount but introduces a risk of exposure into the home and then dumps a known quantity mercury into the environment.
Sorry, no CFLs for me.
Thanks for the EPA info but my link beat you to it. It looks like I somehow clobbered my link with an extra http in front. Let me try again:
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/12/16/390939/after-20-years-of-poisoned-babies-epa-will-finally-close-coal-industrys-toxic-mercury-loophole/
Do have a good morning? LOL, do I have to?
The way to handle this issue is a carbon tax or carbon trading scheme that pushes consumers towards greater efficiency but doesn’t rob anyone of free choice.
BTW, since Americans continue to allow dentists to put large quantities of mercury into their mouths, broken mercury-filled light bulbs are not the biggest worry many should have.
Appeals to authority are useful. You were engaging in ad hominem.
Reread the timeline. I did bring in the word tungsten, it replaced the word incandescent that you were using.
You are saying that mercury wil being dumped into the environment (somehow the very small amounts from a cfl bulb is worse than the large amounts from a coal plant) without alternative is more obfuscation, it is misleading.
For some time, the “big box” stores have had drop off boxes where folks can bring in discarded cfl bulbs. Many small stores do this as well. Cities have recycling programs to take care of these bulbs. These are successfully being used. People do learn.
By your logic, all cars should be banned because a few folks dump their ditry oil from an oil change into the local sewer system or local trash cans instead of properly disposiing of it.
The Repugnantcan (sic) members of Congress are not stupid. They only seem that way if you assume they have good intentions. They do not. As you point out, their actions will “enrich coal and gas companies.” That’s their goal in this. It is not to serve the common good.
The people who vote for these creatures fall into two categories: 1) the rich, greedy and unpatriotic scumbags who want to undeservedly profit at the expense of everyone else by gaming the system, and 2) the stupidest and most gullible people in the country.
Claiming an off-thread expert will back you up may seem useful to you but it means nothing to me. Ad hominem? You are funny.
Yes, you did bring up tungsten and then you accused me of using it as red herring. Make up your mind.
Sorry captain, I never said that the “very small” amount of mercury in a CFL bulb is worse than the “large amounts from a coal plant”. You are either being dishonest or silly.
I did say that using a CFL decreases risk of exposure by one number and conversely increases risk of exposure by another.
Further, the net effect on risk can only be determined by calculating and comparing those two numbers.
I favor eliminating emissions at the source rather than trading one risk for another while comforting myself with a recycling gimmick that doesn’t work by any real measure.
Your analogy at the end has nothing to do with the discussion. And where did my “logic” argue that anything should be banned?
Try this on for size:
A new oil increases gas mileage resulting in a reduction in the emission of a toxin relative to the amount of that toxin emitted when conventional oil is used.
Paradoxically enough, this new oil adds that very same toxin to the environment when it is discarded. Additionally, if the oil spills on me, I am subject to an exposure equivalent to many years of breathing the air.
I choose to continue using the old oil because, to me, the trade-off is not worth it.