• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Energy Secretary Steven Chu defends light bulb standards as GOP seeks repeal

American said:
Where are all these bulbs made?
Click to expand...

Myth #3: The U.S. will lose manufacturing jobs.
New jobs are being created. Lighting standards are driving innovation in the United States and creating manufacturing jobs when we most need them.
 Sylvania has retooled a plant in Pennsylvania to make the new, efficient incandescents.  Philips in California, Cree in North Carolina, and Lighting Science Group in Florida are creating jobs to produce LEDs and components.  Though GE did close a plant in Virginia last year, it also announced a $60 million expansion of a linear fluorescent lighting factory in Ohio.  TCP is planning to build a new factory in Ohio to meet the increased demand for CFLs.
 
Badmutha said:
....as long as 300 million Americans never break one of the billion bulbs.....and as long as every one of the billion bulbs makes it safely to a recycling center.
.
.
.
.
Click to expand...

Myth #4: Mercury levels will increase with CFLs.
Overall mercury levels will decrease. Using more energy with less efficient products means more mercury enters our environment because energy production from coal (51%) is the main emitter of mercury in the U.S. The more energy you use, the more mercury that enters our environment. Even though CFLs contain small amounts of mercury, you actually prevent more mercury through the energy savings by using CFLs. Even if you don’t consider the mercury benefits from reduced energy use, CFLs are still just a tiny fraction of human‐caused mercury emissions – about 0.1%.
EPA recommends recycling CFLs where it’s available. Major retailers such as Home Depot and Lowe's recycle CFLs for free. More information on mercury and CFLs can be found at epa.gov/cfl.
 
danarhea said:
You should read carefully before making ignorant statements. This was signed into law by the Bush administration.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know who signed it into law. I was pushed through the Dem controlled House and Senate first. Or do you think Bush made this law up on his own?

Does it make it a Conservative Position because a Republican Signs it?

Bush signed the NCLB act, he signed the McCain Feigngold act too.

What, when you need him to be a Conservative for cover suddenly bush is your standard barer?
 
Last edited:
Badmutha said:
Well your either very young or extremely careful for a liberal.
Click to expand...

If I'm a liberal, so is Gringrich. Navypride got hammered when he made that asinine comment, Opportunitycost realized the mistake he was making when he accused me of being a liberal. You going down the stupid path?

And no, you don't have to be careful, just not clumsy.

But even so..... lets say 600 million mercury bulbs broken.......does it cause you concern yet?
Click to expand...

Considering the necessary impact to actually break a CLF is massively different from the thin glass on a regular bulb, your comparison is wrong.

That was your comparison and contention
.
Click to expand...

Only if you are extremely dishonest and have to lie about what others say to have any hope of an argument, so no. It was not my comparison nor contention and you are once again lying your ass off
 
obvious Child said:
If I'm a liberal, so is Gringrich. Navypride got hammered when he made that asinine comment, Opportunitycost realized the mistake he was making when he accused me of being a liberal. You going down the stupid path?

And no, you don't have to be careful, just not clumsy.



Considering the necessary impact to actually break a CLF is massively different from the thin glass on a regular bulb, your comparison is wrong.



Only if you are extremely dishonest and have to lie about what others say to have any hope of an argument, so no. It was not my comparison nor contention and you are once again lying your ass off
Click to expand...

Watch out badmutha, whenever someone disagrees with oC, they HAVE to be lying.
 
danarhea said:
Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers.
Click to expand...

Then the law shouldn't matter because they'd just buy the swirly bulbs anyways, right?

Or are they for more efficient light bulbs but will magically be brain washed by the big evil voodoo republicans into buying less efficient ones against their will?
 
Moderator's Warning:
Last I checked the thread's topic isn't "OC"
 
Zyphlin said:
Moderator's Warning:
Last I checked the thread's topic isn't "OC"
Click to expand...

Very good point, things get momentaryily derailed sometimes, when people get personal. Guess we should watch that.
 
1Perry said:
I hope so. I'll certaintly take your word for it that some test claims this. I'll see for myself at some point. Might be awhile if these bulbs are $6.00 or more.



Any single bulb uses very little electricty in a year.



Still, if it's a good deal, people will switch on their own.
Click to expand...

LED's save a lot of energy but only under certain conditions is the payback for the energy saved vs the cost of the lamps or fixtures very good. In order to make it cost effective you need conditions where an LED lamp or light fixture operates for long periods of time. An example would exterior lighting that stays on all night. You also have to have a condition where you can live with lower illumination levels when you use LED. They just don't make direct LED replacement lamps in a package that can fit into existing light fixtures and give you the same light output. The LED lamp manufacturers try to sell that new LED replacements produce a more efficent or higher quality light so you don't need as much light output but that is just not true in a lot of cases. The energy payback for using these LED replacemnt lamps in your home is probably 15 to 20 years. I love the new LED lighting technology for a lot of applications like signage and exit lights and decorative lighting applications. Hopefully it will get less expensive and the technology will improve to make it more viable in the years to come.
 
danarhea said:
Considering that the new bulbs last much longer than the old ones, and use much less electricity on top of it, consumers are actually saving money.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Compact fluorescents only maintain their energy advantage if you leave them on for long periods of time. If you're the type of person who uses the bathroom light only when you're in the bathroom - compact fluorescents will last no longer than incandescent bulbs, will produce inferior light, cost five times as much, and will likely end up leaching mercury in a landfill.
 
danarhea said:
Who is for more efficient light bulbs? Consumers, and yes, even the light bulb manufacturers. Who is against it? Energy companies who want to charge you for using more electricity, and who have House Republicans in their back pocket.
Click to expand...
My electricity company wants to charge me so much that they send tips for reducing energy costs with every bill, provide dozens of pages on their website on the same topic, and provide free in-home consulations on ways to reduce energy costs.

Funny that after all of that, they are secretly plotting with house republicans to bleed me dry in a devious scheme that would allow me a choice of what bulbs I want to use.
 
obvious Child said:
Most people don't think more then a month ahead. Furthermore, power companies are in on this too as it reduces the additional capacity they have to increase at the same making it easier to meet renewable percentages. In the long run, this is basically better for everyone except incandescent manufacturers and jewelers.
Click to expand...

They do not need to think more than a month ahead. The world will not end if we do not have all of our bulbs changed by the end of the year. For many $10 is a hell of a price to pay for a lightbulb. (When they get this low)
 
Polotick said:
We switched over to the new bulbs about 8 months ago. While I haven't noticed a difference in my utility bill, I haven't had to replace any bulbs over this time.

Having said that, I think it more important for the government to worry about nuclear plants aging and safety requirements constantly being downgraded just to keep them on line.

Wind generated power is rapidly expanding, and it leaves no waste and is very efficient. That, IMO would do far more to reduce our foreign oil dependency.
Click to expand...

This is a very good point. They are so concerned about what light bulbs we use but they can't even balance their own budget.
 
apdst said:
The consumers want to pay twice as much for a light bulb? I don't buy that. Are you excited about paying 5 times more for freon for your a/c, too?
Click to expand...

To save up to $900 a year in energy costs, only a stupid person wouldn't.

Besides, this does NOT outlaw incandescent light bulbs - it outlaws inefficient ones.
 
MrVicchio said:
Watch out badmutha, whenever someone disagrees with oC, they HAVE to be lying.
Click to expand...

Still upset you can't win an argument against anyone without having to resort to blatant lying?

And thing is Mr. V, I actually prove my accusations of lies.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
And my point being that when it comes to the air I breathe sometimes the free market is not enough.
Click to expand...

So old technology light bulbs were making it difficult for you to breath and you feel the government should tell people what kind of new light bulbs they should use in their homes.

I agree. It's for everyone's good, and maybe we can save the planet.
 
Moderator's Warning:
OK. ALL personal attacks need to stop, now.
 
A recent peer reviewed scientific paper claims that broken CFL bulbs can release toxic mercury vapor over time that exceeds recommended levels. Would you want this to happen around your children?

New Rochelle, NY, July, 6, 2011—Once broken, a compact fluorescent light bulb continuously releases mercury vapor into the air for weeks to months, and the total amount can exceed safe human exposure levels in a poorly ventilated room, according to study results reported in Environmental Engineering Science, a peer-reviewed online only journal published monthly by Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. (Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.). The article is available free online at Environmental Engineering Science

The amount of liquid mercury (Hg) that leaches from a broken compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) is lower than the level allowed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), so CFLs are not considered hazardous waste. However, Yadong Li and Li Jin, Jackson State University (Jackson, MS) report that the total amount of Hg vapor released from a broken CFL over time can be higher than the amount considered safe for human exposure.

They document their findings in the article “Environmental Release of Mercury from Broken Compact Fluorescent Lamps.”
Click to expand...
Environmental Engineering Science

I replaced the incandescent bulbs in my living room with LED bulbs. I like them, my wife hates them. She says they are too dim to read anything by, and she is right. I like LED bulbs, but they are too expensive right now.

I hate CFL bulbs. They are slow to become fully luminated. They are totally unsuitable for any outdoor application or anywhere else where it is cold. Few people will actually recycle them and most will be thrown into the trash where they will be broken. I find it funny that many liberals rail against coal fired electrical generation because of mercury, yet gladly bring in mercury filled CFL bulbs into their house where their family can be exposed.

Note to OC: CFL bulbs don't have filaments.
 
Gill said:
A recent peer reviewed scientific paper claims that broken CFL bulbs can release toxic mercury vapor over time that exceeds recommended levels. Would you want this to happen around your children?
Click to expand...

Did anyone argue otherwise or are you in search of someone you can actually win an argument against via fabricating arguments no one ever made?

Note to OC: CFL bulbs don't have filaments.
Click to expand...

Did I say they did? Oh look, another member of my hate club
 
obvious Child said:
Did anyone argue otherwise or are you in search of someone you can actually win an argument against via fabricating arguments no one ever made?
Click to expand...

Really??? Did someone else post a quote from a recently published peer reviewed scientific study verifying that broken CFL bulbs emit mercury beyond recommended levels ?????

Please point it out. I must have missed it.

Did I say they did?
Click to expand...

Yes, as a matter of fact you did...........

obvious Child said:
Where I broke the actual glass? About two. But that was after the filament was totally shot and I crushed deliberately it to make space in the garbage.
Click to expand...

Oh look, another member of my hate club
Click to expand...

Disagreement does not equal "hate".

Do you exhibit this persecution complex in your real life like you do here on DP???
 
apdst said:
But, what happens when millions of these bulbs are dumped into the environment?
Click to expand...

Oh and they aren't dumping those old bulbs in the garbage now?? Get real dude!! You arguement is about something that happens anyways?? At least with everyone switching to the new bulbs it will end.. That is what you meant to say right??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom