Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Obama gave us back the incandescent light bulb!

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 19, 2012, 12:03 p.m. EST by Kirby (104)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

But he waited for several years so his pal Jeff Immelt, the genius he appointed to his politburo to be our jobs czar, profited millions for GE by driving the cost of incandescent bulbs up. Nothing like our president helping out his wall street backers.

38 Comments

38 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by lighthouse (2) 2 years ago

You are more right than you might know...

The industry first achieved the 1000 hour lifespan standard, via the Phoebus cartel between GE, Philips, Osram and others, increasing bulb sales and thereby profits.

Switching to bulb price instead, they then achieved the CFL switchover programs, and energy efficiency standards, that guarantees big sales of more expensive bulbs, with greater profits also with respect to lifespan, as Philps US representatives and Osram CEO Goetzeler has admitted. This was covered in a recent US book "I light bulb" by Leahy and Brandston (the latter a well known lighting designer, who actually sat in the Senate meetings with industry representatives prior to the 2007 EISA legislation)

A long rundown, quoting that and other sources and copies of communications
( http://ceolas.net/#phoebuspol )

[-] 1 points by lighthouse (2) 2 years ago

Moreover: Society energy savings from lighting regulations, are less than 1% of overall energy use, around 1% of grid electricity ( http://ceolas.net/#li171x ref US Dept of Energy stats and surveys, and with much more relevant generation, grid, and consumption savings )

Individuals don't necessarily save much either, for example, as Sylvania/Osram admit, and as linked on above website with other references, most CFLs use twice the energy at the power plant to what your meter says (due to their "power factor"), but of course individuals have to pay for that eventually too. LEDs also have the power factor issue, without paying more for balanced versions, mostly sold to industry users (who unlike residential customers directly have to pay for the power factor imbalance).

A list of more deception behind the ban (and it is a "ban", on the 45 lumen per Watt EISA end-regulation that will effectively ban also the touted "Halogen" etc incandescent replacements) on http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/11/deception-behind-ban.html

.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

So the government wanted to make light bulbs 25% more efficient and that's somehow a bad thing? Nobody tries to outlaw incandescent bulbs. It was only an attempt to make them more efficient, just like every other appliance in one's home. Less, expensive, better for the environment. But it did serve to create another false boogie-man in the (tiny) minds of libertartds and repelicans.

And, of course, it has NOTHING to do with OWS. Just more static instead of real issues.

[-] 0 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Government needs to take a long walk off a short peer with all the control and mandates constantly coming at us.please mr.obama, just stay away from us. Go stay in Hawaii where you can do us no harm.

[-] 3 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

You are a moron. Efficiency rules for home appliances have existed for many years before Obama was even a Senator. They help the environment and keep energy costs down. You are fighting for an issue that was entirely manufactured for demagoguery alone, and are too stupid to know you are being manipulated by the extreme right wing for purely partisan political gain. It is a non-issue.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Free markets come up with great ideas without the need for government interference. Cfl's are poisonous worthless shit. They don't work well in cool temps, give people headaches, and the light is not bright enough. Efficiency is an objective of designers because people want efficiency. Government and it's tyrannical bullshit can fuck off with you.

[-] 2 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

More misdirection and falsehoods. the efficiency rules do NOT, repeat DO NOT require CFI's They only require a 25% gain in efficiency in light output/electrical use than incandescent bulbs currently have. So you're full of shit, along with your darling Michelle Bachman.

The light bulb manufactures actually support, UNANIMOUSLY, the new efficiency standards. Without them being uniformly imposed, they can be undersold by manufacturers who make cheaply produced, inefficient, energy hogs. The regulation allows for a more LEVEL marketplace of manufacturers competing for the same market: a greener one. And the government not only has every right, but every OBLIGATION to promote a greener country.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Sure the manufacturers support CFL's. Hell, they burn out in 30 days so you have to buy a new $3 bulb. I would promote it as a good little corporation would do. YOU are supporting sales for corporations,,,, good for you.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The regulations had NOTHING TO DO with CFLs. hey had to do with efficiency, just like CAFE standards for fuel efficiency in cars.

THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE!

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

I'm all for YOUR efficiency goal,,, using earth poisoning mercury. (which is not an issue)

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The regulations have NOTHING to do with requiring bulbs that use mercury.

Go tell another lie.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Of course they support it. It's money mandated for them.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

You clearly have no understanding of what a limited central government is. You prefer the government in every aspect of your life? With obamacare we have truly arrived.

[-] 0 points by ZenDog (20508) from South Burlington, VT 2 years ago

You clearly have no concept of the proper functions of government in modern life.

YOu have had waaay too much kool-aide

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Just trying to support the sugar industry.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Have been using compact flourescents for over 20 years. Some last long, some don't. But even the lowest life bulbs last longer than incandescent.

They save 75% on energy usage, plus don't produce as much heat. That saves on your summer cooling bill as well.

In socal the electric company subsidizes the purchase of bulbs so their cost is a dollar each at most. It's a win win.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

CFLs are also filled with mercury vapor which is toxic.

You are better off with LED lighting. They last 10 times longer than CFLs, are smaller, and use less energy.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

Still do damn expensive Farmer Joe. I know they're coming down in price, but I wish they would hurry it up a bit.

[-] 1 points by JoeTheFarmer (2654) 2 years ago

They do need to come down a bit however you can get them for around $25 but you will never have to buy another. CFLs used to be $25...

Oh, and they are dimmable and CFLs are not.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Cant wait until entire cities across the country have mercury poisoning issues with kids,,, (that was a joke),,, so that liberal attorneys can make billions of dollars filing against bulb companies for manufacturing EPA approve bulbs. Just wait,,, it will happen.

[-] -1 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I don't like the idea of government subsidizing light bulbs. That is guaranteed cash I GE's pocket. But your other points are good. I don't like the idea of mercury in the bulbs eithEr. When LED prices drop further, I'll be switching to those.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The electric company, not the government, subsidizes the bulbs because it's cheaper than building more power plants. They also subsidize energy saving appliances for the same reason. This too is a win win.

Love my LED flashlights. Hope the LED bulbs will come down in price as well for my home.

[-] 0 points by freakyfriday (179) 2 years ago

Yeah, and they waited til GE closed the last domestic incadescent bulb plans in Ohio. News Flash: Ge is out of the Light bulb business.

Cfl's may be energy efficient, but they are toxic. Kinda like Nuclear Power Plants.

[-] 0 points by ssjkakkarotx (-77) 2 years ago

CFL's have alot of issues.

In order to get full life outta them you need to run them at least 2 hours at a time. If you run them short spans less than 45 mins you shorten the life by 85% Vibrating fixtures are not good for em either. The same goes for lights with dimmer switches. LED will be the ideal replacement for all light bulbs. CFL are that in between junk like the Chevy Volt

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Ummm, you forgot to mention that they contain Mercury and if one breaks in your home, you are required to contact a HazMat team to clean up the mess.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

In 5 years the OWS will protest CFL bulbs and the EPA will ban them

[-] -2 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

GE was not making as much on the incandescent bulbs as they are on the new junk "energy saver bulbs" so with the help of the Gov they are being outlawed. Immelt is a poor excuse of a human being for his assignment of job czar. He is the CEO go GE and sending about all of their jobs to China

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 2 years ago

Why are the junk? I switched over to them about 2 years ago and it has made a big difference in my electrical bill.

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

I hope you saved your receipts. The 7 year guarantee is a joke. The spaghetti style spiral ones are designed for upright fixtures and don't last very long at all. I made the mistake of putting them everywhere in the house, and in four years have had to replace 14 bulbs. I save my receipts now. Perhaps they will improve, but for now I hate them, especially for reading.

[-] -2 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

The lighting with these bulbs is rather poor compared to the incandescent. The new energy saver bulbs operate at a much higher temp and in some cases have been catching on fire http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=55577

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"The new energy saver bulbs operate at a much higher temp"

Totally incorrect. They produce about 75% less heat.

[-] -2 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I hope the LED technology comes down in price. You would hardly have an electric bill with those.

[-] -1 points by FreeDiscussion1 (109) 2 years ago

Why do they come with heat fins to dissipate the heat?????? heat is energy.

[-] -2 points by muddFlapp (-108) 2 years ago

Yes they would be a lot better

[-] -2 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

I have three of them, all in a hallway. They are rated at 30 watts and each use about 4 watts. I bought them at menards a couple years ago and have not seen them since.

[+] -4 points by Kirby (104) 2 years ago

I know. Perhaps Obama is giving him envelopes under the table?

[+] -4 points by FarIeymowat (49) 2 years ago

He is turning out to be less Stalinist than I thought.