$50 a bulb??

[whell]

So, no incandescent bulbs can be sold in the 100 watt and above range starting next year. The replacements? LED bulbs at a cost of $50 each!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110516/...9saXN0BHNsawNs

Talk about an government policy that pursues achieves its goals on the backs of the little guy, working family, poor, whatever...!

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by whell

Talk about an government policy that pursues achieves its goals on the backs of the little guy, working family, poor, whatever...!

not really, it simply causes us to value lighting more than we had previous

[finnbow]

We still have compact fluorescents. As for the LED bulbs, they too will be down to a couple of bucks in the future (this coming from a guy who spent $3,500 on a Pentium 133 computer with a 1.6 GB hard drive).

There will be a learning curve as well as the need for economies of scale to kick in. It does make sense, however, that Republicans seem wedded to the a technology that is 130 years old.

[flacaltenn]

Actually LED lighting is one of our current projects with a client. That's what I SHOULD be doing right now instead of reading this board.

Here's the deal. CF bulbs suck. LED bulbs will EVENTUALLY win out. The problem is the type of wiring we have in our homes. BOTH technologies would benefit from DC distribution of power internal to the house. Trying to power a 6 or 10 Volt string of LEDs from AC line mains means that you have to have a "complicated" switching power supply in EVERY bulb! Clearly, a better scheme would be to centralize the AC/DC conversion and make simpler "bulbs" which have only the basic LEDs. Also would help to have DC wiring to incorporate power gained thru local wind/solar generation..

[BlueStreak]

The first time I ever saw a CF bulb, it cost something like $15 per bulb.

And I don't understand why so many people hate them. My house is full of them now that they are cheaper. One outside has been burning 24/7 for three years now.

So what's the big deal?

Dave

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

The first time I ever saw a CF bulb, it cost something like $15 per bulb.

And I don't understand why so many people hate them. My house is full of them now that they are cheaper. One outside has been burning 24/7 for three years now.

So what's the big deal?

Dave

Ugly cold blue cast light. They have become much better than they once were. I hate tube lighting in stores because I'm sensitive to the 60Hz cycle rate. It is bad enough that I routinely leave the store if they have unfiltered fluorescent tubes. The CFLs are much better. I like Verilux full spectrum work or task lights, but much prefer incandescents for ambiance lighting.

Government regulation here is just another symptom of our overbearing goveernment. I'd much rather deal with the increased polution of a coal plant than the chemicals used in widespread CFL and LED light manufacture.

[BlueStreak]

So, really, it's a matter of personal preference. I have no problem with them. I've always regarded LEDs as having the weird bluish light.

I think people may even have a bigger issue with LEDs, if they must change the wiring in their homes to accommodate them. Although, that shouldn't be all that hard. Except when it comes to AC-120v driven appliances. Then what? An inverter at every standard appliance?

Dave

[JonL]

I wonder why the gov't didn't get serious about CAFE standards instead? How many MPGs better would the fleet have to achieve to equal the energy savings from these bulbs?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by JonL

I wonder why the gov't didn't get serious about CAFE standards instead? How many MPGs better would the fleet have to achieve to equal the energy savings from these bulbs?

It needs to be attacked on all fronts. Gas mileage needs to be improved; electricity usage needs to be decreased; habits have to be changed.

If this move toward more energy efficient lighting is not important, do you think the government could have withstood the pressure from lobbyists? Advertising has encouraged excessive usage of energy for years. Advertising is just a more subtle means of directing people's behavior. It requires stronger measures to respond.

I changed to CFD's more than five years ago. Even though I use the average pay plan for my electric bill, it did not take long to notice the improvement. Our bill went down as the rates were going up. Got another big chunk of savings when we replaced our old heater and air conditioner with a heat pump and a three stage gas heater. With the regular rate increases, I would hate to see what our electric bill would be now.

The headline for the $50 light bulb just so much hyperbole. As the cited article shows, as the market expands, and technology improves, the price of the bulbs will drop.

Regards,

D-Ray

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

It needs to be attacked on all fronts. Gas mileage needs to be improved; electricity usage needs to be decreased; habits have to be changed.

If this move toward more energy efficient lighting is not important, do you think the government could have withstood the pressure from lobbyists? Advertising has encouraged excessive usage of energy for years. Advertising is just a more subtle means of directing people's behavior. It requires stronger measures to respond.

I changed to CFD's more than five years ago. Even though I use the average pay plan for my electric bill, it did not take long to notice the improvement. Our bill went down as the rates were going up. Got another big chunk of savings when we replaced our old heater and air conditioner with a heat pump and a three stage gas heater. With the regular rate increases, I would hate to see what our electric bill would be now.

The headline for the $50 light bulb just so much hyperbole. As the cited article shows, as the market expands, and technology improves, the price of the bulbs will drop.

Regards,

D-Ray

So we should leverage government regs to force the issue at the expense of US jobs? Also, it would appear the lobby was in favor of this.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/op-eds...s-factory-jobs