Seeking Alpha

Maybe this will be one less thing to replace around the house: The House approves a provision to...

Maybe this will be one less thing to replace around the house: The House approves a provision to save the 100-watt incandescent light bulb for at least a year. Legislation passed in 2007 would have effectively pushed the traditional bulbs off store shelves, starting with the 100-watt version next year.
Comments (44)
  • With all going on in the world, this is what we are focused on? For the love of God already. Forget this, focus on the real news of the day, whatever that may be, but not this nonsense!
    15 Jul 2011, 05:56 PM Reply Like
  • This just brings to a point the extreme republicans in Washington. Conservativies are the worst.
    15 Jul 2011, 06:14 PM Reply Like
  • Its about time someone addressed this abuse of the political system. Sure, I agree its small, but with Obama obstructing the people, why not go ahead and work on some other things.
    15 Jul 2011, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • Mr. Jerry 369. This is news. Free men able to choose the lightbulb they want. What's your idea of news? Soccer matches?


    Next thing you know, we'll be able to get shower heads that flow. After that...?
    15 Jul 2011, 06:30 PM Reply Like
  • Toilets that flush? And no I am not into Soccer or any other sports for that matter. I couldn't agree with you more about free men and choice, you are correct sir!
    P.S. Sometimes my sarcasm is not well received. Forgive me...
    15 Jul 2011, 07:15 PM Reply Like
  • Good. No more problems to solve then. Shall we fire the Congress and save some money? Not that we need the money for anything useful since all problems are solved, but it sounds fun.
    15 Jul 2011, 07:11 PM Reply Like
  • Hey Bo,
    I'm always up for some fun. I'm not a constitutional lawyer but I do believe the constitution says something to the effect;
    The constitution demand's that if the government of the people gets so far away from its mandates it be disbanded and replaced. Don't know if that answers your question but we couldn't do worse than Nancy Pelosi and this progressive administration,{Republ... and Democrats alike}, I don't need to hear how I am picking on Dem's alone...
    15 Jul 2011, 07:19 PM Reply Like
  • The Southern perspective on that "provision" did not go very well for them
    16 Jul 2011, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • Quoting Warren Buffett
    I could end the deficit in 5 minutes. You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP all sitting members of congress are ineligible for reelection.


    i say fire the politicians! we need new Leaders!


    China will soon power past us in LED adoption
    16 Jul 2011, 01:26 PM Reply Like
  • This light bulb controversy has been making the rounds over the talk radio/tv airhead circuit for most of the year. Way to take stand and stick to your guns guys!!!


    You know all that common sense saving money and reducing energy costs takes a back seat to ideology once again! You sure showed the man that is big government!


    Personally I'm trying to bring back lead based products too. It's more important that I get whatever I want, screw everybody else, I got my freedom.


    Now get ALL of our men and women home from overseas and get rid of Homeland Security and I might actually believe you understand anything about "big government".


    16 Jul 2011, 05:11 AM Reply Like
  • Ironic, isn't it.


    That Lightway uses toxic lead pollution as an example of forcing people to use a new technology that contains toxic mercury, unlike traditional lightbulbs.
    16 Jul 2011, 02:06 PM Reply Like
  • I know right. It's probably leeching into the air now. All those florescent tubes we've been using for decades have been poisoning people this whole time.


    Glad to see extreme conservatives can also invoke green ideals when it's convenient.


    More fear mongering by your friendly Fox News:



    A far better solution over both is to use LED lights instead, more energy efficient than both and no chemicals.

    16 Jul 2011, 09:13 PM Reply Like
  • Lightway, You need to see the Light,


    Yes very effective.


    Put a $35 light in the closet, that gets used perhaps 10 hrs per year, and ROI will be about 400 years or so.


    You are a moron.


    It's not about politics (GWB signed it by the way. I did not know you were a Bush Fan)


    It's about Math.


    BTW, don't jerk me around by spinning data.


    I'm in this industry for 30+ years.


    Take me to task, and you will just demonstrate ignorance to a level beyond what you already have.


    More Irony.


    You Left wing nuts hate getting ripped of by "Big Business"


    yet demonstrate your Sheeple ways.


    How long before Jeffrey and Obama get their ROI?



    It will be less than 400 years ,I can assure you.


    Apparently you did not read my prior links either.


    Jeffrey thanks the People for the Donation.


    He also loves the fact that GE pays virtually no taxes, thanks to Obama.


    WAKE UP!


    Jeffrey and GE's (Yes only 49% now) MSNBC can tell you anything, and you're buying it?


    Give me a Break.
    16 Jul 2011, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • I like how you picked the most extreme case of the closet, where nobody ever uses the light. I get enough light from my bedroom I hardly ever turn it on. I think out of all the places I've ever lived, I've probably used 1 closet light and that was rare.


    So you didn't really make any points you just went off on a rant.


    For someone all about math, way to inflate the numbers. You can get an 8 pack CFL for $5.


    The upfront cost of an LED is overpriced now, but that's because there is no economy of scale behind them. That's simple understanding of economics. Any newer technology is going to be like that, DUH. But it still saves more in the long run, especially with frequently used areas, which is where you would put it, not the closet. DUH.


    That's the thing with you extreme conservatives, you're so busy playing scared and running away from progress, always focusing on why you're scared of everything, it's a wonder you ever get ANYTHING done.


    I'm not the one that made it political. Just pointing out it's every conservative talk show has to take up this stupid light bulb cause as if it was threatening universal suffrage, instead of focusing on more important issues.
    16 Jul 2011, 10:21 PM Reply Like
  • No I'm not extreme conservative.


    Wrong again.


    The LED's you refer to, will only become competitive with cheap, Chinese competition. Or, outsourcing. (Read Obama's Job Czar Immelt)


    This is an investment site despite what you may believe.


    Just look at a 52 wk chart of CREE


    You do Hate Big business outsourcing of jobs, don't you?


    The CFL's you refer to have been around since the 1980's and still will not provide any ROI in many applications.


    They are full of Mercury BTW.


    Keep making comments on subjects you are not knowledgeable about, and demonstrate your ignorance.


    And, since you did not respond to my assertions re GWB, one has to assume you agree with him, or are a fan.
    16 Jul 2011, 10:41 PM Reply Like
  • You're an extreme conservative, just admit it, your views speak for themselves, whether you want to be honest about it or not.


    Bush may have signed the law, but the part you are conveniently leaving out is who is running the opposition to it - all the conservatives and those who watch the Fox News crowd, such as yourself.


    Most lighting is moving towards LEDs anyway, and economies of scale continue to bring prices down.


    The outsourcing argument is a joke, as jobs would have been moved overseas anyway regardless of the technology, so don't try and pin it on fluorescent lights. I haven't supported GE or outsourcing, so don't even try it.


    For a self procolaimed called expert, you're all over the place with alot of wild assumptions, duct taping alot of unrelated information together, then constructing weak strawmen that you can punch down.


    17 Jul 2011, 03:30 AM Reply Like
  • Lightway,


    You are even more ignorant than I thought.


    If most lighting is "moving towards LEDs anyway" why do we need a law outlawing conventional incandescent?


    Economies of scale? Really. The only economy will come with cheap, inferior, chinese imports.


    LEDS, CREE, RBCN, all at 52 wk lows this week.


    Then, when I spell out the impractical economics of LED's you suggest using CFL's.


    But still have not addressed the Mercury issue.


    All, after using Lead paint as an example of justifying this mandate.


    It appears you may have been exposed to a bit too much of either lead or mercury as a child.


    And what does Fox News have to do wth any of this?


    BTW, GE supports this law. If GE wants it, it is likely bad for America.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:53 AM Reply Like
  • Mercury has been in fluorescent lighting for decades,compacts actually contain less than traditional. Plus you can just take one to Home Depot and they will recycle it for you when it's done. So there are issues with landfills.


    However, using compacts actually lessens power plant emissions, which results in net reduction of mercury, along with other pollutants, from being spewed into air, when coal is burned. (The mercury inside the bulb is actually not being released into the air the way leaded gasoline released lead).


    You seem to want to make an argument to support antiquated technology and bad products as if that will somehow protect jobs. Oh wait, you're the guy that said how awesome GM (nice bailout lol) was and enjoys supporting inferior products that suck. You got your cause and effect wrong. So I hate to burst your bubble, but any company that is offshoring, is going to do it regardless of what they are producing.


    But hey, you're the ignorant guy that had no clue about emissions and how Detroit dropped the ball over the past 20 years while being surpassed by Japan by a mile.


    Fox News has everything to do with it because it's the Fox News and every other conservative talk show that has championed this cause as if it was a threat to everyone's Constitutional Rights. It just looks ridiculous.


    Keep up with the strawmen arguments though.


    Hey where's the $35 dollar closet light bulb you were talking about anyway? For a self-proclaimed expert, you have a nice tendency to pull things out of your ass.


    Oh and by the way,


    "Lighting giant Philips (PHG) is predicting that LEDs will take 50% of the lighting market by 2015."



    Thanks for the tip on the 52-week low stocks. Maybe it's time to load up.
    17 Jul 2011, 08:17 AM Reply Like
  • I brought up discussion of this subject based purely on economics, not politics


    When I suggested the poor economics of LED's, you suggested using less expensive CFL's instead.


    They do in fact contain mercury.


    BTW the bulb is $40

    17 Jul 2011, 08:30 AM Reply Like
  • Nice cherry picking. You could have gotten the eco-smart bulb for $17. Duh?



    And using the compacts results in net less mercury being spewed into the atmosphere due to less coal being burned.


    I found this super-hippie and ultra-political National Geographic talking about how "dangerous" they are:


    17 Jul 2011, 08:39 AM Reply Like
  • Lightway,


    Wrong again,


    Your example is the 40W equivalent.


    This thread and law focuses on the 100W


    And just who is cherrypicking?


    You still have not provided a economic argument in favor of forcing somebody to puchase a $40 Lamp (light bulb) in an application that may only see 100 hours of use of less per year.


    I know why you can't. bcause there isn't one.


    So just go back to Fox news comments or somthing similar again.


    And your off subject comment re autos.


    Toyota really seems like a leader in emmisions technology and compliance, huh?



    17 Jul 2011, 08:56 AM Reply Like
  • You can bet Philips' prediction is partly based on anticipated mandatory legislation thanks to lobbying from big business, the likes of themselves & GE


    GE wants the LED's, and not 'cause it's good for America, but because it enables the Crony capitialsts to continue to fleece the Sheeple, the ones just like you.




    Why is it you left wing nuts turn even a basic economic anaylsis and feasability discussion into a political one?


    I sell and install $3M worth of lighting every year along with detailed cost/benefit analysis for my customers.


    They should decide for themselves where to deploy their own capital.



    They're all lining up for a piece of the fleecing

    17 Jul 2011, 03:09 PM Reply Like
  • Wow, that's the biggest dodge in the history of the internet. First off you are limiting it to 100W, the law only STARTS with that bulb, it does not limit it to it. It will force out ALL incandescent bulbs by 2014. Secondly you talk about a the strawman of someone using a light for only 100 hours, yeah nice work. Of course you are going to pick the most extreme examples. Why the hell would I need a 100W light bulb in my closet I never use anyway? Your example.


    Oh by the way you got demolished previously when stuck up for GM and cited them as creating the catalytic converter, but you couldn't find crap in the last 20 years. Meanwhile I posted development after development which showed Honda independently meeting government standards years before they were even enforced. The whole time Honda was pushing more emissions-friendly cars, GM is emphasizing bigger and bigger gas-guzzling trucks, some close to single digit MPG.


    Finally when you talk about politics, these are direct quotes from the article. It's pretty clear this is a political issue along party lines, and it's also clear which side you have chosen.


    "which has become a pear-shaped symbol of personal freedom to some Republicans."


    “The federal government has no right to tell me or any other citizen what type of light bulb to use at home,” said Representative Michael Burgess, a Texas Republican who sponsored the amendment, during debate yesterday. “It is our right to choose.”


    "Democrats rejected Republicans’ complaints that the bulb standards would restrict choice, saying companies already produce more than one type of lighting that would comply with the law, including a more efficient and more expensive incandescent."
    17 Jul 2011, 07:01 PM Reply Like
  • "Philips Lighting is launching a new line of incandescent light bulbs that the company says will meet federal energy efficiency standards coming into force in the US over the next few years.


    While not as efficient as compact fluorescent or LED bulbs, the EcoVantage is likely to appeal to consumers who are unhappy with the quality of light delivered by the more energy efficient models."





    I gotta salute Phillips. They understand the silly politics going on here. I'm surprised you extremists haven't taken up their banner as the defenders of freedom.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:05 PM Reply Like
  • Varan, And what year did Honda start using the Catalytic converter?


    Not until about 1980


    They fought it every step of the way


    GM has been using it since 1975



    BTW, they use it today.


    We know you hate America, everything about it, and everything it stands for.


    Give it a rest.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Well. If they can create an Economical Lamp that meets the standards, and still deliver a CRI of 100, than good for them and the consumer.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • GM trucks fuel mileage vs Toyota Tundra


    I say "GM Trucks" Because the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra are essentially the same vehicle


    Oh, BTW Toyota, unlike GM, does not make a Full size Hyrbrid Pick Up.




    Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot?




    Worse warranty, fuel mileage, safety ,braking performance and payload capacity.


    The latter especially beneficial


    to you as you are shoveling so much BS
    17 Jul 2011, 07:25 PM Reply Like
  • Our original discussion was about how Detroit dropped the ball with regards to emissions standards by focusing on making bigger and bigger trucks while the Japanese companies got ahead of the curve and developed most fuel efficient vehicles.


    So the recessions happened and Detroit was once again left with its pants down and needed a BAILOUT to survive.


    Why don't you repost your GM electric vehicle links? Oh wait they were complete flops.


    Meanwhile people continue to buy the Prius in droves. (And bought them years before GM had anything equivalent).


    Can you find the equivalent GM dedication of this?



    Oh wait, GM used our BAILOUT money to battle emissions laws:



    So no you can't. Wow to go geniuses in Detroit.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:35 PM Reply Like
  • Does not matter how many Prius' they sell if they don't make money selling them.


    Unlike yourself, I'm here to make money.


    BTW, your Mom is calling you up outa the Basement for Dinner.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:42 PM Reply Like
  • I know right, GM has made a ton of money, hugely successful.


    Successfully bankrupt


    17 Jul 2011, 08:07 PM Reply Like
  • From the front page:


    "Tuesday, July 19, 2:09 PM SemiLEDs (LEDS) leaps +12% on speculation General Electric (GE +1.2%) has taken a stake."


    Nice work buddy. Guess I should have bought on that low huh?
    19 Jul 2011, 02:14 PM Reply Like
  • They also passed a bill that gay persons can't use lightbulbs while performing abortions on illegal, Spanish-speaking immigrants.
    16 Jul 2011, 08:20 AM Reply Like
  • While they're at it can we have the old toilets back so I don't have to flush four times to get a single turd down?
    17 Jul 2011, 01:05 AM Reply Like
  • Get more fiber in your diet instead of so much processed food.
    17 Jul 2011, 03:31 AM Reply Like
  • "While they're at it can we have the old toilets back so I don't have to flush four times to get a single turd down?"


    You can do what all of our friends do and that is to hold the lever down and just let the water run for a couple of minutes. There is no way rules and regulations can control behavior in spite of the fact that liberals, socialists, and Democrats what everyone to believe that their regulations are in everyones best interest. They are not and never will be. Yes, we needed some environmental changes in the 60's, but grow up, we are over that now.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:57 AM Reply Like
  • Neil is confusing anarchy with democracy.
    17 Jul 2011, 08:45 AM Reply Like
  • Lightway, the problem is you're ignorant of history. The Founders didn't want a democracy, so they founded a republic whose powers to meddle in the lives of it's citizens were strictly limited by a constitution. If they were brought back to life today they wouldn't recognize the US as the country they founded.


    You telling me what I can eat is typical of you leftists/fascists (aka American liberals). You're a bunch of control freaks and have taken over the government as your instrument of control, and you want total ownership of our bodies and minds and what we're allowed to do with both.
    17 Jul 2011, 11:13 AM Reply Like
  • "Neil is confusing anarchy with democracy."


    No, I am saying that some rules have no other purpose than to limit freedom. Yet the ignorant Democrat socialist liberals, just keep thinking they are saving the world as if they are gods.


    One example is the toilet water limitation. If you live in a desert, and don't have water, then sure you should limit it. But it should only apply to the areas that have limited water.


    I live in the midwest and we have plenty of water. Guess what happens when I flush the toilet, the water goes down the drain, to the processing plant, then back in the ground where it is pumped back up and used for, (now the really big surprise) water in the tap to be flushed again. The water does not magically go away. So the only reason to limit the water in my toilet is to limit my freedom to be able to flush once and be done with it. Its one of the stupidest things I can imagine and its nothing but government interference with freedom.


    But that's not all. The government in their infinite stupidity has straightened out all of the rivers so that now when it rains the water runs off to the Gulf of Mexico instead of seeping back into the ground water reservoir or evaporating into the air. Again these government liberal socialists think they can fix the world and are just screwing it up because they think they are gods. So in the next 50 or 100 years we will have a water problem caused by the liberal socialists.


    None of this would be happening if we had limited government the way the framers of the Constitution wanted. If we did not bail out flooded residents, then guess what, they would not build in flood areas and we would not have to keep straightening rivers and ruining the natural irrigation.
    17 Jul 2011, 02:00 PM Reply Like
  • You guys are hilarious. Don't talk about the Constitution as if you were there. You also think you live upon some island where you are self-sustaining and self-made men with freedom to choose whatever you want. Well I hate to break it to you, but your actions do affect the communities you live in.


    People back in the Constitutional days were also dependent on the government, (that's kinda why it's the called the government) even those brave pioneers had government troops clearing indigenous populations and giving them hugely discounted land. I guess Custer was a liberal?


    We should take back things like fire codes because it's my right if my house burns down, screw everybody else if the fire spreads to them.


    Finally, do some homework for once in your lives:


    "Paradoxically, the Midwest also faces the possibility of more frequent short-term droughts in the coming decades due to falling amounts of summer rainfall combined with rising temperatures. Long-term droughts should be less frequent, according to the UCS report."



    Seriously, I think you Republicans and Tea Party people need to go back to a 4th grade Civics class.
    17 Jul 2011, 07:14 PM Reply Like
  • Lightway, you haven't a clue. Most folks back then rarely had any interaction with government. A landowner might have to pay property taxes, and for those engaged in trading of goods duties on certain goods were levied, but that's about it.


    Your example of troops is in fact one of the few powers granted to the federal government. What the Constitution doesn't grant is the power to dictate the fiber in my diet or how my toilet works or what types of lightbulbs I may use.


    The fact is your couldn't give a damn about the Constitution. You're a typical leftist control freak that can't stand to have folks living lives outside of the restrictive boundaries that you want to force upon them.
    18 Jul 2011, 12:38 AM Reply Like
  • Yes, I hate the Constitution and I hate America, all because you complain about flushing your toilet.




    Try Metamucal or something.


    Constitution is a living document, it is made for being updated, and also make provisions for laws to supplement it.
    18 Jul 2011, 01:25 AM Reply Like
  • No, you hate the Constitution because it was written to allow individuals to do things without your approval, which angers you to no end.
    18 Jul 2011, 01:33 AM Reply Like
  • "Constitution is a Living Document"


    That is an excuse used by those that hate it, because they are unable to amass the 2/3 majority mechanism contained therein to modify it.
    18 Jul 2011, 08:49 AM Reply Like
  • The tea-baggers should be reminded that the gig of Fox News is up, at least in UK, but should be soon near us here.


    So spouting off Murdoch-Ailes talking points will not do you any good.
    17 Jul 2011, 03:27 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)