Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for

[dpb]

WASHINGTON – Members of Congress are beginning to have second thoughts
about the ban on incandescent light bulbs ...

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).

--

 

[James Sweet]

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)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

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.

 

[dpb]

James Sweet wrote:
....

Both the ban ,,,

Again, there is _not_ a "ban"...

--

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

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)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

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:

http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/consumer/hes/display.php?mode=1

Cheers,
Paul

 

[metspitzer]

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)

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67573

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 14:33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge


Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...Jim Thompson

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:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/halogen/pdf/p-5901.pdf
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/incan/pdf/p-8493.pdf

Anything else we can clear-up for you?

Cheers,
Paul

 

[James Sweet]

Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!

...Jim Thompson

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.

 

[Theidiot Tecumseh]

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=>

Group: alt.engineering.electrical Date: Fri, Jun 20, 2008, 3:09pm
(EDT+1) From: [email protected] (Paul M. Eldridge)
33:54 -0300, Paul M. Eldridge
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:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/consumer/hes/display.php?mode=1
Cheers,
Paul
Of course... 70W IS less than 100W. Read the fine print on lumens
output. Sheeeesh!
                                                                                ...Jim
Thompson
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:
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/halogen/pdf/p-5901.pdf
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/ecatalog/incan/pdf/p-8493.pdf
Anything else we can clear-up for you?
Cheers,
Paul
===============>
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®

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

--
Joe Leikhim K4SAT
"The RFI-EMI-GUY"©

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."

"Follow The Money" ;-P

 

[David Nebenzahl]

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.

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.

 

[krw]

The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
standards.

....and where is the sanctioned in the Constitution?

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).

Sounds good to me.

 

[krw]

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..

Strawman. Not all electricity comes from not need come from coal.

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.

Exactly the point.

 

[James Sweet]

Well in all fairness...

Seen any CFL's that'll work outdoors in the winter? I need a few for my yard
lights.

Yes, plenty of enclosed CFLs work outside in the winter. If you live in
an area of extreme cold, there's always HID. A 39W metal halide lamp
produces much more light than a 150W incandescent, and lasts 6-10 times
as long. I use exclusively CFLs in all my outdoor fixtures, it only gets
down to about 15F at the lowest here, so the plain exposed spiral type
work fine. Since these are on from dusk till dawn, the savings are
substantial and I get 2+ years out of a bulb. Even the vilified mercury
vapor lamp so common in yard lights and street lighting of the past is
more than twice as efficient as incandescent.

Got any that'll work on 3V DC? Need some for my flashlights.

Yes, I do, but what's wrong with LEDs? They're perfect for flashlights.
You can pick up a 3W white LED Maglight for $22 at Home Depot, they've
really come down in price, work better, and the batteries last longer. I
do have a fluorescent flashlight, it uses a small cold cathode tube, as
well as I have a camping lantern with a conventional 9W CFL tube in it
powered by 4 D batteries.

Will
CFL's work in cars? Lots of incandescents there.

Not very many anymore. LEDs and HID are making rapid headway into
automotive applications as prices drop and technology improves. I'd bet
that within a decade there will be virtually no incandescent lamps
anywhere in new cars. No more taking out a zillion screws and clips to
dig into the dash and replace lamps, no more burned out taillights, or
melted lenses from someone installing the wrong bulbs. There's no delay
as the lamp filaments heat either, so response of the brake lights is
quicker, not by much, but at 70 mph every millisecond is valuable.

 

[James Sweet]

Here in Arizona's mild winters even regular fluorescents tubes flicker
in my garage.

...Jim Thompson

They're probably those crappy 34W energy saver tubes with magnetic
ballasts that usually don't drive them harder than about 25W. Those were
a hack from the 70s energy crisis and hardly work in a drafty room
indoors. Try some electronic ballasts driving T8 tubes, they work fine
in the near freezing temperatures in my unheated garage in the dead of
winter. As an added bonus they're 32W and brighter than most of the old
40W tubes and the high frequency operation pretty well eliminates
strobing with rotating machinery.

 

[Nate Nagel]

They're probably those crappy 34W energy saver tubes with magnetic
ballasts that usually don't drive them harder than about 25W. Those were
a hack from the 70s energy crisis and hardly work in a drafty room
indoors. Try some electronic ballasts driving T8 tubes, they work fine
in the near freezing temperatures in my unheated garage in the dead of
winter. As an added bonus they're 32W and brighter than most of the old
40W tubes and the high frequency operation pretty well eliminates
strobing with rotating machinery.

Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate

 

[James Sweet]

Can someone please explain what T8, T12, etc. are and what are the
differences? I have plenty of old T12 40W tubes, fixtures, ballasts,
etc. I've had several people recommend updating the ballasts and tubes
but are the keystones the same? Length of tubes?

nate

T = Tubular

The number is the diameter in 8ths of inches. Another number in the full
designation is usually the nominal wattage, but sometimes the length in
inches.

Examples:
F40T12/CW Fluorescent, 40 Watts, 1.5" diameter, Cool White
halophosphate phosphor

F32T8/850 Fluorescent, 32 Watts, 1" diameter, 80+ CRI 5000K
trichromatic phosphor

F96T12/D/HO Fluorescent, 96" length, 1.5" diameter, Daylight
halophosphate phosphor, High Output (800mA)

and a really rare bird...
F48PG17/D Fluorescent, 48" length, 2-1/8" diameter Power Groove
dimpled tube, Daylight halophosphate phosphor, VHO (1500mA)



T8 and T12 use the same sockets and have the same lengths. High Output
(HO) and Very High Output (VHO) are also available, those use RDC rather
than bipin end caps and are slightly shorter to accommodate the larger
sockets. Fixture lengths are the same for all those.

Not all ballasts are created equally. The wattage stamped on the tube is
the nominal rating. The actual power is determined by the ballast, which
is a constant-current source. The low energy retrofit tubes such as the
34W T12 accomplish this by changing the gas fill to have a lower voltage
drop, so with the same current, the wattage is lower.

 

[Don Klipstein]

The bill did _not_ "ban" incandescent bulbs, it set minimum efficiency
standards.

That some incandescents available at Home Depot already meet.

Also, only certain incandescents are affected - there are many exceptions
(colored, flood, spot, appliance, decorative, ones of brightness of "usual
25 watt ones and dimmer, ones brighter than the brighter 150 watt 750 hour
ones, other exceptions).

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])

 

[Paul M. Eldridge]

Strawman. Not all electricity comes from not need come from coal.

Roughly half of all electricity generated and about 60 per cent of
what is generated by electrical utilities.

Source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat1p1.html

Cheers,
Paul

 

[Don Klipstein]

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,

Plenty of A19 lightbulbs 40-100 watts are USA-made. So are plenty of
4-foot fluorescents.

- Don Klipstein ([email protected])