OFFLINE

It doesn't have the ring of "Remember the Alamo," but a new battle cry has gone up in Texas: "Remember the incandescent bulb."

Texas has become the first state seeking to skirt a federal law that phases out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs in favor of more efficient lamps — a move that has emerged as a shining example of Republicans' resolve to strike down what many view as excessive federal regulation.

Texas hopes to get around the law with a measure recently signed by Republican Gov. Rick Perry declaring that incandescent bulbs — if made and sold only in Texas — do not involve interstate commerce and therefore are not subject to federal regulation.

"I think that Texans as a whole are tired of the federal government trying to micromanage our lives," said George Lavender, a Republican state representative who sponsored the legislation.

Critics of the federal mandate hope the Texas action will spur Congress to repeal the light bulb rules or prompt other states to adopt similar laws. The Republican-controlled U.S. House on Monday is expected to take up a repeal measure sponsored by a Texas congressman. Efforts also are underway in Pennsylvania and South Carolina to follow Texas' lead.

The 2007 federal energy legislation phases out the old-style incandescent bulbs over three years, starting with 100-watt bulbs next Jan. 1. Supporters said that consumers will be able to buy a new kind of incandescent bulb that is more efficient and cost about $1 more. The latest model — shown off to lawmakers recently — surrounds the filament with a halogen capsule that uses fewer watts.

But that hasn't stopped attacks targeting an alternative to incandescents — the spiral-shaped compact fluorescent light.

"I just believe that we should be able to buy what we want," Lavender said of the Texas law. "I've had calls from people in every state, and even in foreign countries, saying how much they appreciate this bill."

"This is about more than just energy consumption, it is about personal freedom,'' said Rep. Joe L. Barton (R-Texas.), who's leading the repeal effort in the House. He recently cheered his state's action, declaring on Fox News: "I do thank the Lord that I live in Texas."

Ironically, it was President George W. Bush, a former Texas governor, who signed the energy bill.

Supporters of the new rules, who say the fluorescent lights save money and reduce energy demand, don't understand the fuss.

The Texas law is unlikely to withstand a court challenge, said supporters of the new regulations, citing a far-reaching Supreme Court ruling in 2005 that upheld federal restrictions on home-grown marijuana in California. The court ruled that because marijuana moved in a national market, the federal government could regulate its use, even if it were grown and used only in California.

The Natural Resources Defense Council, in a letter to the Texas governor, said "the sale of inefficient bulbs in Texas … could lead to an interstate black market in light bulbs that do not meet federal energy efficiency standards."

Rep. Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, recently pulled one of the more efficient bulbs out of his pocket in the House and warned, "I'll be very careful not to drop it on the House floor because if I do, we'll have to evacuate the House floor," a mocking allusion to mercury. He then cheered his home state for protecting Texans from an "absurd abuse of federal power."

OFFLINE

I don't understand either, all this does is to make Texas sound ass backwards.

OFFLINE

well here's what i think is a pretty good argument for the old bulbs, or against the new ones. the new bulbs cost 8-9x what incandescents do. not only that, but the two factories that produced the bulbs here in the states, closed down. and guess where they're coming from now. one guess. that's right, china. so any carbon that is being saved, is being burned up in the form of diesel fuel to ship them across the pacific. and then of course there is the poisonous mercury aspect. you break one and you have to practically clear your house out. AND you're supposed to have to find a proper facility to dispose of them, but i'm sure many of them just wind up in the trash, and in our landfills.

how about this. if the new bulbs are that much better, then wouldn't they simply outsell the old ones? why does there have to be a big government ban? why can't the people choose? why does something that's seemingly this insignificant have to be mandated by washington?

OFFLINE

Group opposed to light bulb law claims consumers are being pushed to compact fluorescent light bulbs that are environmentally unsafe.

Politifact.org

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/24/ameripac/group-opposed-light-bulb-law-claims-consumers-are-/

A fundraising letter making the rounds from a conservative political action committee draws a political line in the sand over light bulbs.

"The Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs (that you and I use even today!) in favor of DANGEROUS fluorescent light bulbs," writes Alan Gottlieb, chairman of AmeriPAC, a political action committee that largely supports conservative Republican candidates.

In another fact-check, we looked at the first half of this claim, that Democrats voted to ban incandescent light bulbs (and rated it Pants on Fire). In this item. we'll address safety issues regarding the curly-shaped compact fluorescent light bulbs and whether the small amount of mercury contained in them presents an environmental hazard in homes.

First, let's take a look at the arguments in the AmeriPAC letter and attached arguments from the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund.

The letter claims people will be required to "throw away" their existing incandescent light bulbs when the new law takes effect (a claim we rated Pants on Fire), and replace them with more expensive (a claim we rated Barely True) compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) bulbs that are "supposedly" "environmentally safe."

"I say 'supposedly' because the one thing the CFLs are not is 'environmentally safe,' " wrote Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

The letter then relays an anecdote that has made Maine housewife Brandy Bridges a poster child of the anti-CFL movement.

"Just ask Ellsworth, Maine housewife, Brandy Bridges, who dropped and shattered a compact fluorescent light bulb on the carpeted floor in her daughter's bedroom," the CDFE letter states. "Aware that CFLs are potentially hazardous, Bridges called the local Home Depot store to ask for advice. Home Depot told her that the CFL contained mercury and advised her to call the Poison Control hotline. Now remember, this is the replacement to the electric light bulb you've used for your whole life. You know...you drop one on the floor. It breaks. What do you do? Get a broom and dust pan and sweep it up. What happened when Brandy Bridges called the Poison Control hotline?

"The hotline had her contact the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP sent Andrew Smith, a toxicologist, to her home. He sealed the room with plastic and told Bridges it would cost about $2,000 to clean up the mess from the one toxic $3 CFL device that broke on her floor."

But when a CNN reporter followed up on her story in Sept. 3, 2009, he concluded that the fear engendered by the story was largely overblown.

Maine officials said they gave Bridges some bad advice and eventually came to her house and cut out the carpet.

"When contacted about the Bridges case, Maine officials said the advice to get a professional hazardous waste cleaner and remove the carpet was given before a policy on fluorescents was fully developed," the CNN story states. "They no longer tell people to call a hazmat crew or remove rugs, unless the homeowner is particularly concerned."

Maine environmental officials, who continue to be enthusiastic supporters of CFL use, also studied the issue of mercury emissions from broken CFLs and published recommendations on how to clean them up if they break. For example, they recommended using index cards or playing cards to pick up broken pieces of the bulb (don't vacuum it up, as that can spread the mercury dust). Then, place the waste in a glass jar and take it to a recycling center. They also recommend ventilating the room for several hours by opening windows.

"Our advice, if you have one of them break, just clean it up and get it out of the house," said toxicologist Dr. Deborah Rice of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention.  "There's no question that mercury is a toxic substance. But the amount of it in CFLs is very small."

She also tells people not to put CFLS in rooms where a small child might be likely to knock over a lamp.

The CDFE letter also cites an April 3, 2011, San Jose Mercury News story that begins:

The nation's accelerating shift from incandescent bulbs to a new generation of energy-efficient lighting is raising an environmental concern -- the release of tons of mercury every year.

The most popular new light -- the curlicue, compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL -- accounts for a quarter of new bulb sales and each contains up to 5 milligrams of mercury, a potent neurotoxin that's on the worst-offending list of environmental contaminants.

Demand for the bulbs is growing as federal and state mandates for energy-efficient lighting take effect, yet only about 2 percent of residential consumers and one-third of businesses recycle them, according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers.

"If the recycling rate remains as abysmally low as it is, then there will certainly be more mercury released into the environment," said Paul Abernathy, executive director of the Napa-based recycling association. "Until the public really has some kind of convenient way to take them back, it's going to be an issue."

However, CDFE does not include a later passage in the Mercury News article that presents a counterweight to concerns raised about small levels of mercury in CFLs:

Even with mercury worries about CFLs, they still ultimately lead to fewer mercury emissions than incandescent lights, according to the California Energy Commission. Although the old-style bulbs contain no mercury, they're often powered by coal-fired electricity plants -- which release mercury as a pollutant. The end result is about 40 percent less mercury emissions per bulb when using energy-efficient CFLs, according to EPA figures.

The fact is that incandescent light bulbs result in much more mercury being introduced into the environment, because they require four times as much electricity to operate, and much of that electricity comes from coal-fired power plants that emit mercury into the air, said Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"If you are really concerned about mercury," Horowitz said, "you should really be buying CFLs even though they have small amounts of mercury in them."

Claims about CFL safety concerns are "wildly exaggerated," he said.

"They have extremely low levels of mercury, that's true," Horowitz said. "But it is still in the bulb when you use them. When you are finished with them you should recycle them."

And there are now many more places to recycle spent CFLs than there were just two years ago, he said. For example, Home Depot and Lowe's both allow people to bring their spent CFLs there for free recycling, even non-customers. And, he said, CFLs generally have about half as much mercury in them as they did just a few years ago.

Besides, he said, there is nothing in the law that requires people to buy CFLs. Light bulb companies have also developed halogen incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency requirements; and LED technology is another option. Neither of those types of bulbs contain mercury.

It's misleading to warn about the small amount of mercury in CFLs without also noting that less efficient bulbs require more electricity and result in more mercury in the environment, said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

"They tell, shall we say, part of the story," Nadel said.

The tone of the letter is clearly designed to heighten fears about CFLs in an effort to bolster an argument about government over-regulation. Mercury is, in fact, a toxic substance, and CFLs contain a small amount of mercury (a fraction of the amount contained in a mercury thermometer). But government and environmental officials say the risk they pose is very small, particularly if the light bulbs are disposed of properly and cleaned up properly if one shatters. Moreover, the warnings fail to acknowledge that there is a price to pay for sticking with less efficient traditional incandescent light bulbs. Those bulbs require far more electricity to operate, and, if they are powered by coal-fired power plants, result in even more mercury emitted into the environment. We rate the claim Half True. I think this article addresses most of your concerns.  Also, I don't know how it is in your neck of the woods, but I can pick of CFL's real cheap all day long over here.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:


Even with mercury worries about CFLs, they still ultimately lead to fewer mercury emissions than incandescent lights, according to the California Energy Commission. Although the old-style bulbs contain no mercury, they're often powered by coal-fired electricity plants -- which release mercury as a pollutant. The end result is about 40 percent less mercury emissions per bulb when using energy-efficient CFLs, according to EPA figures.

The fact is that incandescent light bulbs result in much more mercury being introduced into the environment, because they require four times as much electricity to operate, and much of that electricity comes from coal-fired power plants that emit mercury into the air, said Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"If you are really concerned about mercury," Horowitz said, "you should really be buying CFLs even though they have small amounts of mercury in them."

Okay, I gotta call BS to some extent here.

Before I get into it I must say that I use CFL's in my house. Even though they cost more, they last much linger so it more than evens out over time.

Now, I have tracked my energy usage since switching over to CFL's to see if the claims on the box is true. They claim something like $50/ year energy saving per bulb. Long story short; I have yet to notice any dramatic change in overall household wattage use per year so my savings, as far as energy usage is concerned, has been minimal at best. Therefore, in my case at least, the amount of mercury these things save the planet is minimal at best.

I mean come on. With the growing number of personal computers/laptops, gaming systems, big screen TV's, and all those other things we use to make life just a bit better, has more than offset any kind of benefit we see from using these lights.

Bottom line......all this is doing is making a mountain out of a molehill. Of course I know how these things work. I see these as something like Nomex. Nomex is a fabric created by Dow Chemical and it has pretty good fire retardant qualities as far as fabric is concerned. They will protect the individual wearing them for about .65 seconds from a typical fire that is of chemical origins. Even so protection is just a tad bit over 1/2 a second, Dow was successful in lobbying OSHA into passing regulations requiring that all workers in the petrochemical industry wear Nomex for safety reasons. Now Dow has a market for its proprietary fabric even though that fabric will not even come close to protecting an individual as OSHA says it will. Same with CFL's really. That is the way things work. In order to produce and sell a product, a market must either exist or be created for that product.

Of course, in truth, there is saving for the consumer in terms of life span of the bulbs and for that reason the consumer should consider buying CFL's, but as far as a savings in overall energy consumption or protection for environmental problems......well that is just......BS.  

Question:
Why do we continually put pressure on the individual consumer when commercial consumption far outweighs all individuals put together???

OFFLINE

"I've tried CFLs, but they don't even last as long as incandescents, let alone 10 years." This was the biggest complaint among readers. Consumers have tried CFLs, even recently, and found that some burn out quickly, nowhere near the decade-long lifespan promised on the box. They feel lied to and cheated.

"I would not dispute those people at all," Drengenberg said.

The problem is heat can damage the electronics in the base of the CFL, he said, likening it to leaving a camera in the car on a hot day. So, enclosed CFLs, especially near the ceiling, can die long before the advertising on the box says they should.

Terry Drew, director of energy efficiency and sustainability for CSA International, a certification organization for light bulbs, agreed that CFLs that are enclosed and in "can" ceiling lights present a problem.

"From a performance perspective, it is acknowledged that CFLs, when used in a base-up position, in a recessed can, may experience a shorter life due to higher operating temperatures," he said in a statement.

"The mercury in CFLs is a health hazard. Just look at the extraordinary measures the EPA suggests for cleaning up a broken CFL."

If a CFL bulb does break, the EPA suggests evacuating the room and letting it air out by opening a window. Shut off central force air heating and air conditioning. Clean up bulb debris manually and place the materials in a sealable container or bag. Place the debris outdoors until trash collection. According to the EPA, vacuums or brooms are never to be used in the cleanup, as either can put mercury into the air and increase exposure.


Long-time lighting designer, consultant and lecturer Howard M. Brandston of Claverack testified before the U.S. Senate Energy Committee March 10 in favor of BULB.

Researchers with the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy in their study “Projected Annual Electricity Savings from the New Energy-Efficient Light Bulb Standards” project that the average New York State bill per household would see a savings of $138 and would see a statewide savings of $1.016 billion. Nationally, the savings are projected to be $12.54 billion, but Brandston said Americans are being misled.

“They don’t factor in the manufacturing of these lamps or the plastic jackets that are required to protect the bulbs,” Brandston said. “In a word, it’s bull s___!” He added that the savings, if properly calculated, would average out at $1 a person. “If there are 37 million people in California and they save $35 million ... If you break it down per capita, who cares?”

His attitude reflects his testimony in March. “You will hear a wide range of statistical data of energy saved in comparative terms that give the illusion of saving energy and the environment,” Brandston said. “The plain truth is – according to the Energy Information Administration – only 3.6 percent of total energy is consumed by incandescent lamps. So you will save some portion of that miniscule number. But I ask, when you enter everyone’s home, and subject them and their families to the list of potential consequences I will list, is that worth it? I do not believe it is.”

Safety over finance seemed to be the biggest issue for Brandston. He said that aside from the mercury issue, the bulbs are also fire hazards under certain circumstances. “If placed in enclosed fixtures they heat up and can explode from warming up. There are some applications they are not suited for,” he said, “and one of those applications is the residence.”


  so i ask again, why do you have to ban one kind of bulb over another? why can't they both be left on the market? do we need to be micromanaged in this way by washington? if they can influence our everyday lives in this way, what's to stop them from doing it in other ways?

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

If a CFL bulb does break, the EPA suggests evacuating the room and letting it air out by opening a window. Shut off central force air heating and air conditioning. Clean up bulb debris manually and place the materials in a sealable container or bag. Place the debris outdoors until trash collection. According to the EPA, vacuums or brooms are never to be used in the cleanup, as either can put mercury into the air and increase exposure.

Hah, I've broken loads of those bulbs, just swept up the big bits and put them in the trash, then hoovered u0p the rest.  Never did me any harm <twitch>.

OFFLINE

I use the new bulbs too because I got tired of blown bulbs.  So far I have decent results.  I have one in an outdoor light that has been burning continuously for 2 years.  

However, I have recently begun to notice that newer CFL bulbs are a bit different from the ones I currently have.  They dont seem to give off as much light as the CFLs I originally bought.  They give off fluorescent light rather than the warm yellow light I currently have...so something has changed.

Here's what I think about the lights.  If the new lights are so much better than the old incandescent bulbs, let the market decide.  The better product will outsell the inferior one.

OFFLINE

You guys do relies, like the highlighted part of the article I posted said, their is no law saying you have to buy a CFL, that was a lie perpetrated by FOX News (others may have too, but they're the only ones I saw).  It dictates energy standards for light bulbs.  They even have new incandescent light bulbs that meet these standards.  They also have LED light bulbs (I don't think I've seen one of these in use, I think I'll try one out next time I loose a bulb).

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Bryant Platt:
You guys do relies, like the highlighted part of the article I posted said, their is no law saying you have to buy a CFL, that was a lie perpetrated by FOX News (others may have too, but they're the only ones I saw).  It dictates energy standards for light bulbs.  They even have new incandescent light bulbs that meet these standards.  They also have LED light bulbs (I don't think I've seen one of these in use, I think I'll try one out next time I loose a bulb).

i heard the LEDs are quite expensive. dunno.

OFFLINE

Originally Posted by Dødherre Mørktre:

i heard the LEDs are quite expensive. dunno.

They're more expensive, but they're supposed to last a hell of a lot longer than CFLs...

http://www.eternaleds.com/The_Definitive_LED_Light_Bulb_Buying_Guide_a/220.htm