snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Business

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 22 December 2007, 10:53 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,355
Icon13 U.S. Has 4 Years to Replace Its Light Bulbs

The new energy bill makes it official. When 2012 hits, stores can no longer sell the cheap but inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are fixtures in most homes. (B1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22light.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 23 December 2007, 12:36 AM
Ravenhull's Avatar
Ravenhull Ravenhull is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 1,935
Icon27

Now, how many of us know somebody that is certain to have a room full of old-fashioned incandecents by the time this kicks it because they are angry about 'goverment interference'?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 23 December 2007, 04:42 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,355
Blow Your Top

Comment: I was sent the following e-mail and cannot find anything on
Snopes.com about it, either way.....
Is this true?

ALERT!

A new law has just been passed that will make incandescent light bulbs
unobtainable. This is being done in the name of preventing global warming.

The only form of light bulb that will be available in the future will be
flourescent bulbs. These are toxic and I strongly advise against using
them. They cause many sorts of health problems.

So I strongly urge you to stock up now on the older type of light bulb,
the incandescent bulbs, that are the only kind of light bulb that is safe
to use.

Get a lifetime supply of them now. You will not be able to buy them much
longer.

If you can afford it, and have a place to store them, it might be a good
idea to get a few hundred more of them than you think you will need for
the rest of your life. There is bound to be a good market for them after
they are no longer being made.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 23 December 2007, 05:44 AM
hevach
 
Posts: n/a
Default

There's something that's confusing me...

ETA: That one I posted about soil contamination was a state bill.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-2012
"H.R. 2012: Contact Lens Consumer Health Protection Act (To amend the Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act to require contact lens sellers to provide a toll-free telephone number and a dedicated email address for the purpose of receiving communications from prescribers.)"

S. 2012: Agricultural Emergency Financial Assistance Act of 2007 ("A bill to amend the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, to extend the period of emergency financial assistance to certain individuals and entities.")
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-2012
Again, I can't find mention of light bulbs in any form.

What I'd like to know is, WHAT bill 2012? What members of Congress sponsored it?

There was a bill on the table in California only earlier this year that would have given a phase-in of taxes designed to lower the cost of CFL's and increase the cost of incandescent bulbs, but I don't believe it was intended to ban the old bulbs entirely. It failed.

As for them being toxic: There is a very small amount of mercury vapor in them. Short of habitually inhaling the contents, you won't get mercury poisoning yourself from them. The worry is that people won't recycle them, since most normal florescent bulbs end up being thrown away in regular trash, and that the combined mercury dumping will cause soil contamination around landfills.

Last edited by hevach; 23 December 2007 at 05:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 23 December 2007, 05:51 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,355
Teacher

Quote:
What I'd like to know is, WHAT bill 2012? What members of Congress sponsored it?
The number 2012 is the year the light bulb provision of the energy bill takes effect, not the bill number.

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 23 December 2007, 05:57 AM
Esprise Me's Avatar
Esprise Me Esprise Me is offline
 
Join Date: 02 October 2005
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 5,431
Default

I have yet to replace my incandescents with fluorescents, because I have no idea where to dispose of the latter. I tried researching it on the internet once, but gave up after about 20 minutes. I've asked around to see if anyone else knows where I can drop them off around here, and no one I know uses them--except one girl who's been using them for years, and didn't know they weren't safe to toss in the garbage! I hope this bill spurs a dialogue about this subject on the local level, and inspires some businesses to offer and advertise CFL recycling.

Although I do think changing out older, less efficient bulbs for anything better is a step in the right direction, I think there are many other avenues for improvement in personal energy use that don't get nearly as much attention--probably because there isn't as much marketing incentive. For example, most TVs manufactured in or for use in the U.S. don't really "turn off" when you hit the power switch; they go into standby mode, which still sucks up an awful lot of power. Same with VCRs, DVD players, and cable boxes. If you plug all that equipment into a power strip, and switch off the strip when you're not using it, you'll save a lot more than you would by switching out a few light bulbs. I also know quite a few people who leave their computers running on screen saver 24 hours a day. Or have dozens of chargers for cell phones, iPods, PDAs, digital cameras, laptops, and other gadgets, which stay plugged in (and draining power) even when they're not charging anything. And unless you live in a really hot climate, having central air conditioning seems wasteful to me. I've always just had a window unit in the bedroom, and for the two weeks or so out of the year that it's just unbearable without A/C, I hang out in my bedroom and only venture out to the kitchen or bathroom as needed.

Anyway, I'm all for better light bulbs, but when it comes to global warming, CFLs are really the proverbial Band-Aid on a gunshot wound. We need to think bigger than that.

Last edited by Esprise Me; 23 December 2007 at 06:05 AM. Reason: Spelling
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 23 December 2007, 06:10 AM
hevach
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
The number 2012 is the year the light bulb provision of the energy bill takes effect, not the bill number.

- snopes
Ok, I see my screwup above, I did turn up one bill regarding CFL light bulbs.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=s110-1562

It only does one thing: "(a) Establishment- The Secretary shall establish and carry out a program under which the Secretary shall provide grants to States for the distribution of medium base compact fluorescent lamps to households in the State."

Section (b) states that the grant must be used for public education and outreach as well. (c) only states that low-income households must be given priority for distribution.

Again, nothing regarding any change to the availability of any type of light bulb. This does even less than California's bill, since it does nothing to decrease the price of CFLs. Also no mention of the year 2012.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 23 December 2007, 06:15 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,355
Read This!

This is the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 23 December 2007, 06:54 AM
hevach
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I just finished reading the sections regarding light bulbs in that bill, and they don't ban incandescents either, and 2012 has nothing to do with anything except funding the bill as a whole.

The timetable is 2014, and the requirement is to determine if a 45 lumens per watt limit is neccessary. "The rulemaking (I) shall not be limited to incandescent lamp technologies." At that point, if neccessary, the limit has to be passed by 2017 and enacted in 2020. Many types of incandescent bulbs are explicitly exempted from the requirement, including 3 way bulbs, and anything without a medium screw base.

So in 12 years, rather than 4, most incadescent bulbs (Not all, and probably not even most, as the new incandescent bulbs already mentioned in this thread exceed 45 lpw), and a reasonable chunk of current florescent bulbs (again, with new technologies in development likely to be out by then) will all get the same treatment.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 23 December 2007, 07:11 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,355
Read This!

SEC. 9021. EFFICIENT LIGHT BULBS.

(a) Prohibition-

    (1) REGULATIONS- Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue regulations--

        (A) prohibiting the sale of 100 watt general service incandescent lamps after January 1, 2012, unless those lamps emit at least 60 lumens per watt.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 23 December 2007, 07:28 AM
hevach
 
Posts: n/a
Default

That's a different bill, though, and one that's effectively doomed, as Bush has already vowed to veto it for a number of reasons (Some of them pretty lousy ones, but the fact stands), and it doesn't have the support to get an override (which happens so rarely anyway that discussion is usually academic).
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 23 December 2007, 07:46 AM
lazerus the duck
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Sorry but we still have an old style bulb in our front room, energy efficient light bulbs everywhere else but it looks horrible with the low light they give out.
Why don't they worry about the people with private jets before penalising Joe Public.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 23 December 2007, 07:56 AM
hevach
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerus the duck View Post
Sorry but we still have an old style bulb in our front room, energy efficient light bulbs everywhere else but it looks horrible with the low light they give out.
Why don't they worry about the people with private jets before penalising Joe Public.
Sylvania makes a very nice CFL (I can only find them at Home Depot in my area, though) that has the same color as an incandescent soft white bulb. I use them in my bedroom and anywhere I read. They're a regular CFL, but they have a second round bulb outside of the tube that changes the color. It's listed on their website catalog as product 29526 (because of the way their catalog uses javascript, I can't get a direct link to it).

There's a few other CFLs that do the same thing - look for ones that list the "color temperature" on the package, and look for something below 3500. Most CFLs are 5000 or 6500, but there are cool white and soft white versions that are easier on the eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 23 December 2007, 08:59 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 108,355
Read This!

Quote:
Originally Posted by hevach View Post
I just finished reading the sections regarding light bulbs in that bill, and they don't ban incandescents either, and 2012 has nothing to do with anything except funding the bill as a whole.
The bill modifies standards for lamps that were already enacted in the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6291) -- particularly adding to it the "GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS" table -- and changes the effective date for the referenced standards to apply "to each lamp that is manufactured or imported after December 31, 2011."

- snopes
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 23 December 2007, 09:03 AM
Ravenhull's Avatar
Ravenhull Ravenhull is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2005
Location: Mobile, AL
Posts: 1,935
Icon101

Quote:
Originally Posted by snopes View Post
Comment: I was sent the following e-mail and cannot find anything on
Snopes.com about it, either way.....
Is this true?

ALERT!

A new law has just been passed that will make incandescent light bulbs
unobtainable. This is being done in the name of preventing global warming.

[SNIP]
Not to be dense, but have you recieved this, or was it a response to my joke the post before?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 23 December 2007, 04:47 PM
Mycroft Mycroft is offline
 
Join Date: 29 January 2006
Location: Portsmouth, UK
Posts: 1,308
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerus the duck View Post
Sorry but we still have an old style bulb in our front room, energy efficient light bulbs everywhere else but it looks horrible with the low light they give out.
Why don't they worry about the people with private jets before penalising Joe Public.

I got some free bulbs from my electricity supplier; unfortunately they were 9 W (40W equivalent) - effectively useless. There are many offers available on 20W (equivalent to 100W incandescent), and (although much more expensive) 23W bukbs are available - equivalent to 2 60W bulbs. My main annoyance is the design, being comparatively long, although one company has introduced buls in which the tubes are twisted, reducing the length to that of an incandescent bulb.

One fundamental problem with flourescent bulbs is that they cannot be used with dimmer switches, although some lower power alternatives are available which are dimmable
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 23 December 2007, 06:05 PM
FullMetal FullMetal is offline
 
Join Date: 19 December 2005
Location: Edmonton, AB
Posts: 1,235
Default

the only problem I've had with them is dimmer switches.

The new ones which are getting down to the same price as incandescant bulbs, (I recently paid $1.50 a piece for a box of Compact Flourescents) and the light these ones give off is actually equivalent to a 100 watt bulb in a 23 watt package. a 100 watt burnt out in our bedroom and I replaced with a a Compact Flourescent and my wife never even noticed. people remember the first ones from 8 years ago, which were dim, and yellow, and didn't give off the right light. like the thousands of floursecent tubes in office. But people don't seem to understand that the technology is growing with them. the technology is getting better and better every year and i'm thinking of replacing my first ones that I installed (but still haven't burnt out yet although in the same time frame i would have gone through maybe 5-6 incandescants) just because the new ones are so much brighter.

My question is, the ones where the tubes are twisted are what i've been using for 6 years, and they're even getting smaller. because the ballast on them is the big space waster, these ones are quite literally the exact same size as the regular.

My greatest concern is outside. I'm can't use Compact FLourescents outside in the winter, they take about 5 minute to warm up to be able to turn on. those are the only incandescants I buy. and the light of the new ones are great. I love em. and as for disposal. at least my recycle depot has a place for flourescent tubes and compacts.

so I dunno, I've been using them happily for many years. and i have no normal usage annoyances. and I love the cost savings...
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 24 December 2007, 05:20 AM
Muadan's Avatar
Muadan Muadan is offline
 
Join Date: 25 April 2007
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 143
Default

You can dim fluorescent lamps, but to do so it take a special switch and a special ballast made just for dimming said lamps. Now, the problem with this is that the last one I installed at work cost my shop to buy was roughly $150 for the switch, and $90 for the ballast.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 16 January 2008, 03:14 PM
haakonsson
 
Posts: n/a
Ponder disposal

I know that up around where I live in New England many of the big box retailer state that they recycle the cfl's that are brought to them.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 16 January 2008, 03:22 PM
Buckle Up's Avatar
Buckle Up Buckle Up is offline
 
Join Date: 23 October 2006
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 6,164
Ponder

How come we in this nation are so freaking fast to implement and try new scientific things when we don't yet know how they will end - like atomic bombs, cloning, how the new bulbs will dispose and break down - and so freaking slow to implement and try things for which there are gobs of data showing they are good/safe/right/useful/efficient - like solar power, some eastern medicine, and even gay marriage for that matter?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.