Trump Administration Is Rolling Back Rules Requiring More Energy-Efficient Bulbs (nytimes.com) 391
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The Trump administration announced new rules on Wednesday to roll back requirements for energy-saving light bulbs, a move that could contribute to the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. The Energy Department's filing in the Federal Register will prevent new efficiency standards from going into effect on Jan. 1 under a law passed in 2007. The changes are likely to be challenged in court. "We will explore all options, including litigation, to stop this completely misguided and unlawful action," said Noah Horowitz, director of the Center for Energy Efficiency Standards at the Natural Resources Defense Council, last week in anticipation of the move. "One part of the new standards would have required the adding of four kinds of incandescent and halogen light bulbs to the energy-efficient group: three-way, the candle-shaped bulbs used in chandeliers; the globe-shaped bulbs found in bathroom lighting; reflector bulbs used in recessed fixtures; and track lighting," the report adds. "A rule that will be published Thursday in the Federal Register will eliminate the requirement for those four categories of bulbs."
"The Department of Energy was also supposed to begin a broader upgrade concerning energy efficiency in pear-shaped bulbs, scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2020. The department is proposing a new rule that would eliminate that requirement, subject to a 60-day comment period."
"The Department of Energy was also supposed to begin a broader upgrade concerning energy efficiency in pear-shaped bulbs, scheduled to go into effect Jan. 1, 2020. The department is proposing a new rule that would eliminate that requirement, subject to a 60-day comment period."
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
On the plus side, I hear buggy whip manufacturing is coming back to the US?
Did it ever leave? (Score:4, Interesting)
Westfield Whip [westfieldwhip.com], operating continuously since 1884.
Re: (Score:3)
But now it's coming back in force, be sure to invest at the ground level! Or something.
Re: (Score:3)
As long as it is between some number of consenting adults, who are we to judge this fad?
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
That ship has sailed. The Trump administration's fascination with going back to the good old days is just sad.
Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind? You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.
No. (Score:5, Funny)
Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind? You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.
No.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, Trump isn't a business wunderkind. He just plays one on TV. Looks can be deceiving, though. After all Trump's business works on basically screwing people over.
You know how the joke goes now, that a startup is how to take investor money and funnel it into the CEO's bank account? Trump is the same thing - basically all his business knowledge (real estate) is in doing that - how to buy a thing, take all the money from it, and leave before it falls apart, leaving basically everyone else on the hook for paying for it and killing many companies as a result.
It's the sort of thing that almost rises to fraud, but falls just under, so he gets the protection of the corporate veil.
Why do you think he doesn't want people to see his tax returns? Because he's rich? We all know that. Problem is, he's so piss-poor at money management his tax forms would reveal it.
Might want to ask him about his climate change policies on his properties - like why he's applying for permits to "protect" them from rising seawater levels and such.
So he's no business wunderkind. He is, however, business savvy and knows how to enrich himself by stealing it off of the proles.
My mom used to do this (Score:5, Interesting)
She also hated Danny Devito because he usually played creeps. He's actually an incredibly nice guy in real life and she knew this, but she couldn't separate the man from the roles he played.
Looking back it was weird how heavily influenced by TV and movies she was. There were times I don't think she could separate fact from fiction. But she wasn't senile. She held a job down fine, knew where her keys were, etc, etc. It was smoking that got her, not senility or Alzheimer's.
I think there's a lot of folks like her. They can't understand that Trump isn't a sharp businessman because that's how he is on TV. They don't know fact from fiction. Trump used that to his advantage.
It's an important point (Score:3)
One thing life has taught me is that mental illness is way, way more common then we think. Hell, I had a spot of random anxiety attacks. I was perfectly lucid, could tell myself nothing was wrong, and still couldn't stop panicking. Lasted about a year and then just stopped.
Re: Who cares? (Score:3)
The whole tax return thing is kind of stupid. Trump said the Mueller investigation was a witch hunt, which was comical because the circumstances definitely merited an investigation. But after it didn't yield the result that Democrats were practically demanding and even counting on, guess what they did? They went ahead and validated that idiot's claims about it being a witch hunt by going after his tax returns in an attempt to find anything they could (honestly if he had done something wrong, I think the IRS
Re: Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think that a business wunderkind who runs a bunch of Hotels would know what more energy efficient lightbulbs and energy efficiency can do to lower your energy bill and thus make your hotels more competitive.
Then why do you need a law to enforce it?
If you're right (which I think you are) then this is win/win; everyone who can do so will switch to the new bulbs anyway since they save money, and you avoid implementing a useless law. Seems like everyone should be happy.
Re: Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're right (which I think you are) then this is win/win; everyone who can do so will switch to the new bulbs anyway since they save money
No, because energy-efficient bulbs cost more in the shops and people are poor at making that "better in the long run" call.
and you avoid implementing a useless law.
It's not a difficult one to implement, large retail outlets are easy to police.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Who cares? (Score:3)
No, because energy-efficient bulbs cost more in the shops and people are poor at making that "better in the long run" call.
I think you have a rather dim view of your fellow man. I was recently in an African country which has a lot of issues with their power grid; every single bulb I saw was an LED. I can tell you with absolute certainty that there were no regulations in place mandating LEDs; people used them because they were poor and LEDs allowed them to light their homes at significantly lower prices.
It's not a difficult one to implement, large retail outlets are easy to police.
It's not a question of difficulty. The government should not be in the business of creating useless laws and regulations, o
Re: (Score:3)
What you suggest is true now. However, it would take some research to determine if that would have been true before this regulation was put in place.
Putting a regulation like this in place increases the demand for the replacement product, which in turn increases the production of the replacement and results in all the usual economies of scale and production.
I remember when led light bulbs were in the USD $30-40 dollar range per bulb, now they are less than one USD per bulb for a variety of reasons, but in n
Re: (Score:3)
This regulation didn't go into effect but there were other regulations that put limits on standard (i.e. e27 A19) incandescent bulbs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Weren't these people elected on the basis of being business geniuses led by a president who is a business wunderkind?
No. They were elected based on race-baiting, exploiting white-grievance and fake news generated by Russia-funded troll farms.
But thanks for asking.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In which case why do you need legislation? If the new bulbs are cheaper, then people will buy them anyway without needing to have their choice taken away.
Many countries phased out incandescents years ago, but the early replacements were terrible - CFLs cause headaches for some people, and early ones were slow to start up, didn't support dimmer switches etc. If you offer cheaper alternatives people will switch over to them as they become reasonable replacements, if you mandate then you're just punishing anyo
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
The market has moved on. Again.
For anyone who wondered how someone could take Trump's enormous gifted start in life and turn it into multiple bankruptcies (including a CASINO!!!) and 8-9 figure debt, this is how. A truly stunning masterclass in ignorance.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
A lot of people are very curious. However, he's gone to extreme lengths to hide those finances where every other president in living memory has released that information, which makes me believe that the state of those finances are a) humiliating to him - as in massive debt or b) criminal in nature, or c) some of b mixed with a lot of Russian money/loans/leverage. We all know he is one of the most vain braggarts on the planet and if his personal finances actually supported that brag, he'd be the first to trot them out for public view. But he hasn't. Take that as you will.
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
> we have a ~200 year tradition of no tax returns/financial data shared.
So everything should always remain the same no matter what? So how are those "daily" press conferences coming? Also, last I looked there was a 200+ year tradition of Presidents NOT tweeting. Let's have some more of that.
> Trying to use law to go after a single individual is not just wrong, it is - IMHO - inherently evil and anti-American.
It's not "going after" someone, it's asking them to prove their financial status AND to he
Re: (Score:3)
> Thus he has a vested financial interest in keeping his name clean.
HAHAHA. Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder. I don't know if you've been paying attention to anything but The Apprentice, but the name Trump in business has rhymed with 'shit' for quite some time now. There's a reason he had to go to Deutsche and (allegedly) have Russian cosigners - and that's because nobody reputable would do business with him any longer. As for the "brand", Trump's name's already been removed forcib
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
Fun Fact: Over the past 20 years or so, very few of the properties which bear the Trump name were actually built or operated by any of Trump's companies. He simply licenses his name to them.
It's pretty easy to tell which ones were actually built/operated by Trump -- they're the ones which went bankrupt.
Strategically, of course.
Yep, why complain? (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly LED bulbs are a lot better at this point for many uses - but I see nothing wrong with anyone being able to manufacture some classic bulbs as well for those that prefer the look. There are some fixtures where classic bulbs just look nicer.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly LED bulbs are a lot better at this point for many uses - but I see nothing wrong with anyone being able to manufacture some classic bulbs as well for those that prefer the look. There are some fixtures where classic bulbs just look nicer.
Filament LEDs are amazing - they have a much better color spectrum and warmth than even incandescents in some cases. Not to mention they have a great retro look. No, I don't see any going back unless you are a "rolling coal" (gratuitous waste/pollution) kind of guy.
Re: (Score:3)
Pro tip for converting people to a cause: Don't be an asshole.
Dude, did you forget that you're not new here, that we've been here when you accidentally told us what you really think about various things?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly LED bulbs are a lot better at this point for many uses - but I see nothing wrong with anyone being able to manufacture some classic bulbs as well for those that prefer the look. There are some fixtures where classic bulbs just look nicer.
I also prefer LED bulbs. I've replaced all the bulbs in my house with them. Same thing with my camper. However, I believe that people should be able to make a choice as to what they prefer--or are able to afford. Believe it or not, $10 is a lot for four light bulbs for some people. Hopefully though this will make LED light bulb manufacturers to lower prices since they will now have competition. If not, I probably have a good 10 years left on all of mine, and they should be cheaper by that point anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is good to be free if LEDs are better then get those, actually energy efficient technology will win due to economics rather than legislation. Perhaps we should ask why we even have a government, to wrap us in cotton wool and legislate every part of our life or to give us the freedom to be able to be healthy and happy.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't believe there are any US incandescent bulb manufacturers left. So all of these bulbs are going to be imported. This is a case were tariffs make sense to me. Put a 20% tariff on incandescent bulbs, and then raise it 20% every year to incent people to stop using them. Fine with me if it hits 400% after 20 years. Let the market sort this out.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)
Certain categories of speciality bulbs have always been exempted even under the Obama rules -- like oven lights.
Re: (Score:3)
Because AFAIK there is no LED or fluorescent bulb on the market that can handle being in with the turkey at 350F for ~4 hours.
Plus the oven is probably using a resistive heating element anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
We still need tubes! trying puts a 5v transistor in your 1918 radio!
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
I support a waiver specifically for Easy-Bake Ovens.
Re: (Score:3)
You can get those still. These rules are not about all possible forms of incandescent bulbs ever. The rules are about a subset of bulbs most commonly used for room lighting. Ie, "general service" incandescent bulbs. So it is possible to have regulations that apply to energy savings while still being able to look inside your oven, there is a ground between no regulation and full regulation.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"Conventional" halogens (which are just a special form of incandescent) also fail to meet the efficiency requirements, although appliance bulbs (usually A15) are explicitly exempted in the regulations (Energy Independence and Security Act, EISA); though you should want LEDs in your refrigerator/freezer.
I wonder why, for gas ovens at least, nobody's done one with a lantern mantle for the interior light?
Re: (Score:3)
Your right, I should just leave the oven door open so I can see when the pizza crust goes from chewy to golden brown.
You do realize that you are either ignorant or purposely making shit up. No jack booted Democrat thugs are going to make you use LEDs in your oven, and you'll still be able to get them.
Hillary's a- comin' fer our light bulbs! Hide 'em quick!
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)
No jack booted Democrat thugs are going to make you use LEDs in your oven, and you'll still be able to get them.
That's not what the original poster stated. They stated that no one in the USA is making them, and we should tariff the heck out of them to stop people from buying them.
Because Tarrifs are in the same category as price and wage controls, and haver no place in any successful economy ever.
Just because the political party that at one time was fiscally conservative has embraced tarriffs as a good thing, just shows how financially incompetent they have become. They simply don't work.
The Hillary tie in is based on the new Republican dogma. Hillary bad - Tarrifs and trade wars are easy to win.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Only over the short term. In the long term [cnn.com], the blue-heavy light from LEDs is generally believed to be bad for your eyes and your overall health, which costs a lot more to fix than you could possibly save in power costs.
BTW, this was well understood even back when Congress first proposed this idiotic law. Some of us were complaining about how shortsighted that law was even way back then.
Re: (Score:3)
Lightning standards have been bad (Score:5, Insightful)
The dumb lighting standards pushed people to buy those horrible compact fluorescent bulbs instead of waiting a few more years for the excellent LED bulbs to become economical.
Re: (Score:3)
There are terrible CFLs, and a lot of them were given away to induce people to use them. This soured the reputation of all CFLs, but many of them really aren't bad at all. Nowadays you can either get really good ones or really bad ones and not much in between.
Re:Lightning standards have been bad (Score:5, Insightful)
There are no "good" CFLs, Some are just not as bad as others.
Re:Lightning standards have been bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, but the excellent LED lighting wouldn't have ever been a thing without a push for more efficient lighting standards. To this day people aren't buying them because they save you $3 a year on your electric bill, they're buying them because that's mainly what's out for sale on the shelves.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well no they wheren't horrible.
And this law also accelerated LED development.
But you keep going on about the 99 cents CFL you bought meaning all CFLs are bad.
High quality CFLs were great (Score:4, Insightful)
The cheapo 99 cent CFLs though, yeah, those suck. Especially 10-15 years ago when they were being pushed.
I still prefer LEDs for the cost savings. And I understand why, if you're poor, a $5 light bulb ain't happening. I think better subsidies and better quality control on subsidized lightbulbs would have been the solution. Those cheap CFLs gave everything that isn't incandescent a bad rap.
I could see some interest (Score:5, Interesting)
I can see how some folks like incandescents over say, CF or older LED bulbs, but the newer filament LEDs [1] are amazing - they almost look better than incandescents. At this point, they're cheap enough, give you more light, for the power, and last longer than incandescents, so it's unclear if there's any interest left in going back to incandescents. Also LEDs run much less hot so aren't oppressive in the summer.
[1] https://www.superbrightleds.co... [superbrightleds.com]
Re: I could see some interest (Score:3)
We in the West will Fight and Win! (Score:3)
We are the majority of the US economy.
We will fight.
We will win.
And we will drag you into the new century, no matter what you say.
You'll love the new more efficient lighting, the new more efficient electric cars and trucks, that mean you spend less on maintenance and send less money to the government.
Re: (Score:2)
No you won't.
You will just keep complaining on twitter about and hating yourself due the racist propaganda that was shoved down your throat and you refuse to let it go, meanwhile the republicans will keep stealing more and more of your talking points and doing horrible things with em.
Re:We in the West will Fight and Win! (Score:4, Funny)
I'm an ex-Army Sergeant ...
You seem not to understand who lives in Seatle, Portland, San Francisco, LA.
Where do you think the military bases are? My father-in-law was Base Sergeant Major for Fort Lewis.
Next ...
Re: (Score:3)
My father and grandfather also served in the USAF, not that that matters.
You demonstrate you have no idea who actually lives in the West.
Anyone who had served could have told you that.
A broken clock is right twice a day (Score:3, Insightful)
My disdain for the current administration is no secret, but this is the right call.
The free market has already solved this problem itself - there are LED bulbs for sale at my local Dollar Tree for, you guessed it, $1. If someone sucks so badly at math that they can't understand the watt guzzling, heat spewing incandescent bulbs are going to cost them more in the long run, their higher power bill is just a tax on stupidity.
I'll likely never be able to afford an EV, photovoltaics, or any of the other expensive green tech the left keeps trying to push (without much regard for how us folks of limited means are supposed to pay for it), but I've long since abandoned incandescent bulbs and don't miss them. Now if the free market can just come up with a zero emissions vehicle that won't need a super expensive battery replacement in 10 years...
Free market does not solve everything (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but the right kind of government regulations would be to stop propping up coal and natural gas and tax them correctly for said externalities. We need a better pricing structure for power. The baseline bill for power should be fairly low (for po people) but once you go above a certain use it should become increasingly expensive per additional kwh. Want to buy incandescent bulbs? Fine, you'll pay for it..
But both sides prevent this sort of thing for different reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Definitely helped drop power usage?"
Well, possibly. Except that, in most places, it didn't.
What happened was that a lot of people started leaving their lights on all of the time, and installed more lighting, as well as using more electricity for other things. We had a general lowered per capita electricity consumption when LED bulbs took over - but that was during the weak economy from 2008 to 2016. Consumption is rising again.
Re: (Score:2)
Dollar store price check: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, its the wrong call and it sends the wrong message.
This law is why there are LED bulbs at the dollar stare.
Re: (Score:2)
there are LED bulbs for sale at my local Dollar Tree for, you guessed it, $1.
Good for people to stock up on regularly so they don't run out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If you have the space for an EV installation, you might shop around, see if you can get a loan to install some panels. Having free electricity is great no matter your political leanings and it's fairly easy to get a loan since it has a predictable payback
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. (Score:2, Offtopic)
The Trump administration is finally accidentally doing something sensible. Conserving your way to a clean environment is as absurd as hunting your way to an unmolested garden patch.
The law was basically a "We need to do something; this is something, so we must need to do this" sort of law. Companies and organizations that use the overwhelming majority of power produced are already going to do whatever they can to save power, even without laws that limit incandescent bulbs. (When is the last time you s
Nope (Score:2)
I don't get it. (Score:4, Interesting)
DOE does not make a determination in this rule whether standards for GSLs, including GSILs, should be amended.Rather, this rule establishes the scope of lamps to be considered in that determination. DOE will make that determination in a separate rulemaking.
Rule change for how lamps are classified and not bulb standards. Ok.
DOE tentatively determined that since these lamps are subject to standards in accordance with a specific regulatory process under 42 U.S.C. 6295(l)(4), there is no need to undertake an additional process for determining whether to establish energy conservation standards for these lamp types as GSLs under 42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(6)(A)(i). Doing so would potentially subject these
21lamps types to two separate standards and create confusion among regulated entities as to which one applies.
Sounds like much ado about nothing. These lamps classify under 2 laws and the DOE is amending their classification in the hopes to clear up confusion. Doesn't seem bad.
DOE pointed out that since IRLs are twice excluded from the definition of GSL in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii)(II), it is clear that Congress did not want the Secretary to include IRLs within the definition of GSL. 84 FR 3124 ...
DOE does not have the authority to regulate IRLs as GSLs, because the statute plainly states, in 42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(BB)(ii)(I), that the term “general service lamp” does not include the list of lamps that were excluded from the term general service incandescent lamp (which includes reflector lamps).
So, DOE can't regulate Incandescent Reflector Lamps as general service lamps because Congress said they are not GSLs.
What is the controversy here and why should I care about a rule that didn't go into effect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how much conservatives will sacrifice to "stick it to the libs". You'd think paying less for lighting would be popular, but instead of that they'll complain we can only solve one environmental problem at a time.
Strategy (Score:2)
I doubt that Trump even has an opinion on the issue but it's exactly the sort of thing that will make his opponents overreact, and he will gain more from the overreaction than he will lose by embracing an objectively bad policy decision.
Too many people still have not figured this out and will play right into his hands.
Efficiency + Quality (Score:3)
I think they should bundle some kind of quality/lifetime standards with the efficiency requirements. My bathroom fixture has those globe lights and I switched to CFLs years ago, but most of they have gone to the trash prematurely, including one that shot a flame out the side.
Considering the length of time a properly used bathroom fixture is actually turned on, is the amount of greenhouse gases produced worse that the waste electronics and such in the LEDs and CFLs, especially in geographic areas like mine where fossil-fuel electric generation is already low and being phased out?
LED bulbs (Score:3)
Industry is pushing for this, not the consumer (Score:3)
This is all the result of big lighting companies lobbying to avoid the escalation of standards to the next level, making bulbs more expensive. I am in the LED lighting business as well and really don't care either way. As many have said, the market has already decided LED lighting is better. LED bulb prices have dropped so much it really doesn't make sense for anyone to buy an incandescent bulb unless they really have a special need, like tiny oven bulbs or high CRI color-accuracy.
Re:Call the Whaaaaaaambulance (Score:5, Informative)
> Incandescents are great. They're also cheap. The only downside is they waste power and put it out as heat.
A device that puts out 95% of the power run into it as heat instead of the job it was intended for? Sounds great to me.... not. The world's moved on, grandpa, go have a nap.
Re: (Score:2)
A device that costs me 3-5X the original, saves me 70% of operating costs, requires replacement at the same time, net savings no better than 10% over the original? No thanks, CFL, I bought into the hype.
The Cree LED calculator tells me replacing my CFLs overhead with LED is saving me $2.63 per year net. I am so so thankful for this. Actually, not really, saving about 3% of my total electric bill isn't much of an incentive. The additional savings from lower heat load etc have some appeal, but is that really
Re:Call the Whaaaaaaambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
> A device that costs me 3-5X the original, saves me 70% of operating costs, requires replacement at the same time, net savings no better than 10% over the original?
I am somewhat skeptical of that math. I replaced all my MR16 incandescents (10 of them) when I bought my condo, and at the time calculated that going from a 500 watt load to a 60 watt load for an average of 5 hours a day was saving me 12 cents per day in electricity. The LED replacement bulbs cost me a total of $70. That was 4 years ago this November. All the lights still work great, and by my math I've saved $96 so far in electricity after the bulbs were paid for. Not to mention in the summer that's 450 fewer watts of heat being radiated into my living space to be dealt with. Add in the rest of the lights in my condo that are in other fixtures and I see similar cost savings.
> The Cree LED calculator tells me replacing my CFLs overhead with LED is saving me $2.63 per year net. I am so so thankful for this. Actually, not really, saving about 3% of my total electric bill isn't much of an incentive
No, but the quality of light improvement switching from those horrific CFLs should be all the reason you need unless you're literally so tight on money that you're eating tinned cat food for dinner.
Re: (Score:3)
> But, since I'm saving money, why do we need regulations? The market has taken over, so it's not an issue.
Because it's worth pointing out that "the market" never felt a need to go in this direction until regulation said "holy crap guys, incandescents are horrific wasters of energy. Do better"
And now that "the market" was forced to being more energy efficient, it's a net benefit for all. The Market isn't an all knowing beneficial force for the human race. That's why regulation exists, to address probl
Re:Call the Whaaaaaaambulance (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
If your CFLs and LEDs are failing at the same rate as incandescents, you have some serious issues with your electricity
Not electricity, fittings. The "trendy" way of creating a light fitting ended up being one with a reflector that funneled heat into the socket area. This wasn't a problem with incandescent as those sockets were usually made of high temperature materials. It certainly became a problem when we started putting capacitors and silicon in that area.
CFLs and LEDs failing is a thing. It's a thing caused by the very people who complain about reliability but it's a thing none the less.
Re: (Score:3)
A long time ago, a house I shared had constant (incandescent) bulbs failing. It was almost a weekly sort of thing that somewhere around the house a bulb would blow.
One weekend I decided to investigate - around the house literally none of the screws that hold the wires into the sockets or switches were tight. I spent a couple hours visiting every switch and socket and tightening them up, and voila - no more bulbs blowing (well, within the normal lifecycle of incandescents).
I wonder if the same is true of LED
Re: (Score:3)
No, he's pretty spot on. Either you're getting very bad CFLs or you've got some serious electricity issues. Most of mine lasted years. It was a bit of a problem because when I wanted to switch to LEDs, I had to toss a bunch of good CFLs because they just wouldn't die in a reasonable amount of time.
As for LEDs, the initial set of 6 that I purchased 10 years ago are still going strong. I've also not had any failures in the cheap-ass bulk boxes of LED incandescant look-alikes I bought off Amazon 2 years ago. $
Re:Call the Whaaaaaaambulance (Score:4, Informative)
The Internal Combustion Engine: 50-75% of input energy is thrown away as heat.
The Incandescent Light Bulb: 90% of input energy is thrown away as heat.
The Coal Power Plant: 65% of input energy is thrown away as heat.
We're supporting and/or bringing back dumb shit because a small segment of the population remembers the past through rose coloured glasses.
Re: (Score:3)
> I have HUE bulbs. The CRI is decent at best.
Oh lawd it's only DECENT. What ever shall we do?
> People are literally killing themselves because of this shit.
Really. Citation needed, tinfoil boy...
There is NOTHING superior about incandescents!! (Score:3)
For quality of light (color and CRI), you go incandescent. They also have the benefit of not fucking with nature, being properly visible to colorblind people, being suitable for filming, etc.
Why does nearly every filmmaker and videographer not use incandescents these days then?
Sorry Mr Troll. I'm calling you out on your BS. There is NOTHING superior about incandescents. They don't last longer. They produce a dangerous amount of heat and melt many plastics you'd use for diffusers, you can't run them off battery because they consume so much power. They don't look any better. Every professional I see shooting video or lighting for photographs uses something else, usually LED, although I
Re: (Score:2)
CCFL bulbs were trash. Cheap LED bulbs are trash. Both are terrible for the environment, and neither last nearly as long as they claim.
Expensive LED bulbs are good. But you sure as fuck shouldn't require them..
Exactly. Just telling people to buy (trendy bulb technology of the moment) is stupid without some hard requirement that those trendy bulbs will have a substantially long life to at least make up for their much more intensive manufacturing processes.
Cheap crappy quality LEDs (the kind flooding the market that most people will buy) being regularly replaced and sent to the landfill are very likely worse for the environment than incandescents being regularly replaced and sent to the landfill, even if they use
Re: (Score:2)
"But that problem solves itself through the utility bill."
no, it does not. The difference is small on the individual, but huge when enact towards 300million+ people.
Also, get up to speed on modern LEDs.
Re: (Score:3)
Incandescents are great. They're also cheap. The only downside is they waste power and put it out as heat.
You don't see having to replace them every few months as a downside?
Incandescents don't handle dirty power well, like we have in our area - neither did CCFs, for that matter. But now that we've switched over to LEDs for the past several years... I'm not sure when the last time was that I actually changed a light bulb.
Re: (Score:3)
For me, i must have the worst luck with led bulbs. I blow them all the time in certain fixtures. These are generally enclosed fixtures. But 1-2 led bulb changes per year at like $7 a bulb (x3 bulbs per fixture) is definitely not making me financially ahead...
I have also noticed that outdoors they do not fair well with the high variance in temperature. In both cases, incandescent worked fine in the same fixtures, and from what i recall, were like max 0.50 cents a bulb (they no longer sell them where i am).
In
Re: (Score:3)
Incandescents are happy to run hot. LED lamps aren't. It kills the power supplies. That's why LED lamps tend to die in enclosed fixtures. You have to replace the whole fixture, either with one that is vented and takes lamps, or one that's got the LEDs built in and which has to be replaced whole when it fails. As a result the switch to LED is often much more costly for commercial customers, who are more likely to have enclosed fixtures.
The alternative is to bash your own guts for the fixtures you've got. Get
Re: (Score:2)
Your not very smart; since they have already done a great deal.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't talk about a century old lightbulb and efficiency at the same time. Lamps that last that long do it by using a less resistive filament, which is to say, less energy is converted into heat. They use more power per lumen than short lived incandescents.
LED lamps can be crap, but even the crap ones tend to be pretty great these days. I bought one of those cheapest on eBay RGB E27 lights and it lasted for about four years, not bad for three dollars. When it died, I bought two more. They are now install