Lighting-Gallery.net

General => General Discussion => Topic started by: rjluna2 on May 13, 2019, 05:27:45 AM



Title: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: rjluna2 on May 13, 2019, 05:27:45 AM
Read this at States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/states-fight-trump-rollback-of-obama-lightbulb-rules/ar-AABgPan?ocid=spartandhp) and what do you think?


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Lumex120 on May 13, 2019, 05:39:11 AM
First, I'm not really surprised by the states that want to do this.

Secondly, the whole "environmental impact" argument I think is really pointless. Modern coal plants are very clean, and they aren't the only source of power these days.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: halofosfaatti on May 13, 2019, 05:46:33 AM
It says incandescent bulbs are 30% efficient. (Better than LED.) Sure they are not.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Medved on May 13, 2019, 06:22:38 AM
It says incandescent bulbs are 30% efficient. (Better than LED.) Sure they are not.

Still this is no ground for an incandescent ban.
If energy production from fossil fuels is the problem (as it is presented), it is this production, what should be taxed.
Yes, the electricity will become more expensive, so consumers will have an incentive to invest into reduction of its consumption. The thing is, naturally the main investment (because the money is limited) will go towards the direction yielding most real net savings, so bring the most reduction possible.
Strongly doubt the incandescents will be really the first thing on the list, because the savings there is really marginal.
My guess: Even when lighting eventually became on the top, the result will be mainly elimination of all the strong lighting installed just for fancy look (basically the things ), really using the lights when really needed and only after that incandescents would get replaced by e.g. LED or so.
But till then I guess the main focus will be the HVAC, hot water management and so on, the lighting will come only after that.

Clearly one of the result would be people using less light and so less demand for fancy high cost lamps. And that is, what lobbyist were preventing: There would be less revenue in their production. The present direction was aimed to mainly boost the sales of the expensive "energy efficient products", so the makers will make more money. Nobody cared about the environment at all. Irony is, the net result is, the lighting business is taken over by production from countries with mainly cheap labor, pushing the domestic makers out of business at all (a company even with an "US" name I do not consider as "US" when they do not produce their things in the US).

The same is valid for car fuel efficiency and many other things. The governments are making legislation supposedly "enforcing conservation", but in reality with very marginal real effect.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: HomeBrewLamps on May 13, 2019, 06:30:02 AM
The less government intervention and regulation, the better..


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: halofosfaatti on May 13, 2019, 06:36:23 AM
Still this is no ground for an incandescent ban.
If energy production from fossil fuels is the problem (as it is presented), it is this production, what should be taxed.
Yes, the electricity will become more expensive, so consumers will have an incentive to invest into reduction of its consumption. The thing is, naturally the main investment (because the money is limited) will go towards the direction yielding most real net savings, so bring the most reduction possible.
Strongly doubt the incandescents will be really the first thing on the list, because the savings there is really marginal.
My guess: Even when lighting eventually became on the top, the result will be mainly elimination of all the strong lighting installed just for fancy look (basically the things ), really using the lights when really needed and only after that incandescents would get replaced by e.g. LED or so.
But till then I guess the main focus will be the HVAC, hot water management and so on, the lighting will come only after that.

Clearly one of the result would be people using less light and so less demand for fancy high cost lamps. And that is, what lobbyist were preventing: There would be less revenue in their production. The present direction was aimed to mainly boost the sales of the expensive "energy efficient products", so the makers will make more money. Nobody cared about the environment at all. Irony is, the net result is, the lighting business is taken over by production from countries with mainly cheap labor, pushing the domestic makers out of business at all (a company even with an "US" name I do not consider as "US" when they do not produce their things in the US).

The same is valid for car fuel efficiency and many other things. The governments are making legislation supposedly "enforcing conservation", but in reality with very marginal real effect.


I also like incandescents, and there in Finland electricity is produced mainly by non-fossil power plants, so it is clean. But it is a big mistake to say that incandescent bulb is 30% efficient while it really is about 1-4%.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Medved on May 13, 2019, 07:17:33 AM
...while it really is about 1-4%.

Well, when you are using electricity for (resistive) heating, incandescents efficiency becomes infinite: Their input power is exactly offset by the reduction of the heating system power (so the total remains exactly the same), that means you get light with no extra energy need at all.
Of course, so are any other light sources.
The thing is, these are exactly the conditions where replacing incandescents has no effect at all, it just pumps out the money which could be otherwise available to e.g. make better house insulation and that way really reduce the home energy consumption, so more remains e.g. to be exported (even when with limited efficiency because of power demand cycle timing) to continental Europe where most comes from the coal. So there the incandescent ban effectively blocks CO2 emission reduction instead.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: halofosfaatti on May 13, 2019, 07:27:51 AM
Well, when you are using electricity for (resistive) heating, incandescents efficiency becomes infinite: Their input power is exactly offset by the reduction of the heating system power (so the total remains exactly the same), that means you get light with no extra energy need at all.
Of course, so are any other light sources.
The thing is, these are exactly the conditions where replacing incandescents has no effect at all, it just pumps out the money which could be otherwise available to e.g. make better house insulation and that way really reduce the home energy consumption, so more remains e.g. to be exported (even when with limited efficiency because of power demand cycle timing) to continental Europe where most comes from the coal. So there the incandescent ban effectively blocks CO2 emission reduction instead.



In Finland we have so good insulation that using 200 W incandescent bulb on one small room on cold winter day heats it up to 30 °C from 20 over day. But the article still says that incandescent lamp (electricity to light) efficiency is 30 %, it is not. And also, heating with electricity is NOT cheap here. We have geothermal heat pump for heating. It is the most common heating here. Winter temperatures here can easily be -30 °C. We also have strict energy efficiency regulations for (new) buildings and other things. Despite our cold climate, our buildings are warm and sometimes warmer than those on warmer countries, and sometimes using less energy to heat per cubic meter.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Medved on May 13, 2019, 08:05:25 AM
Well, article is written by journalists. And journalists "ability" to really understand any real technical problem is quite well known I guess...
So I would not be surprised if they misused "%" instead of the correct "lm/W" or something similar (if you replace those "%" by the "lm/W" it becomes reasonable)

I know, the insulation uses to be that good, still it is no point to pay (both retail price, as the environment consequences of manufacturing and disposal) 10W LEDs and then 190W of heater power instead of 150W in incandescents (cheaper both in purchase, as well as environment impact) and just the remaining 50W in the heaters.

And when speaking about conversion electricity to radiation in general, incamdescenmts use to be 95% efficient. Only small fraction of it happens to be visible...


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: halofosfaatti on May 13, 2019, 08:16:08 AM
Well, article is written by journalists. And journalists "ability" to really understand any real technical problem is quite well known I guess...
So I would not be surprised if they misused "%" instead of the correct "lm/W" or something similar (if you replace those "%" by the "lm/W" it becomes reasonable)

I know, the insulation uses to be that good, still it is no point to pay (both retail price, as the environment consequences of manufacturing and disposal) 10W LEDs and then 190W of heater power instead of 150W in incandescents (cheaper both in purchase, as well as environment impact) and just the remaining 50W in the heaters.

And when speaking about conversion electricity to radiation in general, incamdescenmts use to be 95% efficient. Only small fraction of it happens to be visible...

Heating with electricity is still very inefficient when geothermal, wood, district heating and others are available, and it is also very expensive. Maybe not in future if new technologies make electricity cheap and plentiful. It is better to use waste heat (district heat from electric power plant or from industrial sources) or free heat from the sun (wood, geothermal, ground-source) instead of inefficient and expensive electric heat. But it is true that manufacturing LED bulb takes more energy than incandescent and are usually bad quality and do not last long. Incandescents are also very suitable for hot places. Fluorescent lamps are generally not  much more inefficient than LEDs and sometimes better. You can also get them in many more colors and with better color rendering.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Medved on May 13, 2019, 01:35:40 PM
Heating with electricity is still very inefficient when geothermal, wood, district heating and others are available, and it is also very expensive. Maybe not in future if new technologies make electricity cheap and plentiful. It is better to use waste heat (district heat from electric power plant or from industrial sources) or free heat from the sun (wood, geothermal, ground-source) instead of inefficient and expensive electric heat.

That depends on the power needed, how far you are from the grid, etc.
Definitely wood is not free heat.
Sun require something thermally insulating, but transparent for short wave IR and visible and over large surface. So nothing cheap (both financially, as well as environment impact).
Any combustion becomes quite inefficient below few kW (the fuel needs some operating conditions and these becomes very hard to maintain at low power without associated energy losses mainly into exhaust/chimney), plus becomes quite problematic in the installation (combustion air intake and exhaust piping, fuel storage, heat redistribution from the burner,...).

If your house suffices with few 100'sW, then the electricity (100% efficient with resistive system, 300..600% efficient with some heat pump, depends on the temperature on the evaporator side) becomes the easiest option with even minimum impact (no fuel storage so more compact house, no incomplete combustion,...).
Of course, when the house insulation is worse so the power needed goes into kW range (when the efficiency becomes higher), the complexity of a combustion system pays off oncheaper fuel.

Industrial waste heat use is a thing of the past and remaining installation on a steep decline. Transporting heat is the most inefficient mode of energy transport, with high system operating cost (piping, insulation maintenance), but mainly unlike the 19th century era (when the industrial waste heat use was booming), the industrial sites generating waste heat are located as far as possible form residential areas (because such industries use to be rather strong polutants), plus the industry generates way less heat due to efficiency improvements in the technologies. Again, the industries still generating high amount of waste heat (electric power plants, communal waste disposal, iron production) tends to be the most polluting industries you usually do not want to be behind your back yard...


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: funkybulb on May 13, 2019, 05:50:31 PM
this greenie load of bull

what government what not controlled is phantom loads
like many things that DC operated have wall warts those consume power at all times even when not in use. then
you got every thing from radio to a stove to have a built in clocks that consume power. what is wrong with battery operated clock that tick over a year on AA battery.  second government is very slow at updating hpw building should be cooled  cooling  and heating is about 2/3 of energy use. Lighting only accounts 5 to 10
percent.  but Me living in south Texas half way into may
I have not turned on the A/c  out 14 bucks worth of power 138 KWH  used powered my refrigerator,  lights and cell phone.  I am even burning lights 24/7  such as 75 watt slimeline and 65 watf fluorescent .  if i really wanted to i can knock that power down  to few KWH from solar power up on future install.   you have choice
what to run in your home.  Satilite set top boxes is another rant.  use power all the time when you not watching it . it also screws up the AM radio around the house.  what happen to old stereo equipment that have hard On and Off Switch?  it is sad that my water bill is higher than my electric bill!.



Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: halofosfaatti on May 13, 2019, 09:33:41 PM
That depends on the power needed, how far you are from the grid, etc.
Definitely wood is not free heat.
Sun require something thermally insulating, but transparent for short wave IR and visible and over large surface. So nothing cheap (both financially, as well as environment impact).
Any combustion becomes quite inefficient below few kW (the fuel needs some operating conditions and these becomes very hard to maintain at low power without associated energy losses mainly into exhaust/chimney), plus becomes quite problematic in the installation (combustion air intake and exhaust piping, fuel storage, heat redistribution from the burner,...).

If your house suffices with few 100'sW, then the electricity (100% efficient with resistive system, 300..600% efficient with some heat pump, depends on the temperature on the evaporator side) becomes the easiest option with even minimum impact (no fuel storage so more compact house, no incomplete combustion,...).
Of course, when the house insulation is worse so the power needed goes into kW range (when the efficiency becomes higher), the complexity of a combustion system pays off oncheaper fuel.

Industrial waste heat use is a thing of the past and remaining installation on a steep decline. Transporting heat is the most inefficient mode of energy transport, with high system operating cost (piping, insulation maintenance), but mainly unlike the 19th century era (when the industrial waste heat use was booming), the industrial sites generating waste heat are located as far as possible form residential areas (because such industries use to be rather strong polutants), plus the industry generates way less heat due to efficiency improvements in the technologies. Again, the industries still generating high amount of waste heat (electric power plants, communal waste disposal, iron production) tends to be the most polluting industries you usually do not want to be behind your back yard...

In here Wood heating consists of large heat reservoir (1000-2000 liters), some pipes and pumps and 30-40 kW wood/other fuel furnace, that is usually 90 % or more efficient and takes very little wood. Wood heating is really cheap here, sometimes over 10 times cheaper than electric if using own wood (if you do not count your own work). Even with paid wood the cost is about same as district heating. Heat is virtually always distributed by radiators or/ and floor pipe heating.

On my house we have ground-source heat pump (Not geothermal as previously mentioned, geothermal heat comes from Earth itself.), it uses some kW of electricity on cold days and produces much heat (COP is about 3), for free from ground-stored energy of the sun. Of course initial costs are higher. The groud circuit can of course also be used for dirt cheap cooling. Only about 100 W is needed for running pump and cooling radiator fan, with several kW cooling power.

District heating using heat from CHP/non CHP plant is also used widely here, some near industrial plants may also produce heat to these systems. Some district heating grids have also district cooling and in Helsinki this cooling system works with waste heat itself (absorption refrigeration)! So waste heat is used to even cool! Almost every industrial site here is connected to the grid at least for heating themselves. District heating is usually 2-4 times cheaper than electric. These CHP plant are also most common electric power plants here. These plants are usually biomass fired, but there is still some coal plants today.

Electric heating has very low initial costs, but very high energy costs, at least here.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: tolivac on May 18, 2019, 12:07:57 AM
Less,or NO intervention in the light industry,appliances and plumbing fixtures-Let CUSTOMERS make the choices -NOT govt.The regs should all be SCRAPPED and repealed!Let the MARKETPLACE decide on these issures.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Max. on May 18, 2019, 07:53:45 AM
YEAH, let's there be NO regulations, and let the MARKET be flooded with JUNK only, let COMPANIES form CARTELS to screw the CONSUMER ... oh wait...


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: rjluna2 on May 18, 2019, 05:26:52 PM
:D


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: lightinglover8902 on May 19, 2019, 08:51:53 AM
I think the government is BS on this crap with the efficiency regulations of light bulbs.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on May 19, 2019, 09:10:18 AM
Read this at States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/states-fight-trump-rollback-of-obama-lightbulb-rules/ar-AABgPan?ocid=spartandhp) and what do you think?

Many of the ridiculous policies of the previous administration need to be reversed. And another thorn, these silly fuel "cans" that you buy and must play with for 5 minutes to get the fuel to disburse is insane. Try holding up a five gallon jug and having to push the slide in and then up to get the fuel out.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on May 19, 2019, 09:11:17 AM
First, I'm not really surprised by the states that want to do this.

Secondly, the whole "environmental impact" argument I think is really pointless. Modern coal plants are very clean, and they aren't the only source of power these days.
Agreed 100%! The greenies want more money like they squandered in Solyndra.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on May 19, 2019, 09:13:57 AM
Still this is no ground for an incandescent ban.
If energy production from fossil fuels is the problem (as it is presented), it is this production, what should be taxed.
Yes, the electricity will become more expensive, so consumers will have an incentive to invest into reduction of its consumption. The thing is, naturally the main investment (because the money is limited) will go towards the direction yielding most real net savings, so bring the most reduction possible.
Strongly doubt the incandescents will be really the first thing on the list, because the savings there is really marginal.
My guess: Even when lighting eventually became on the top, the result will be mainly elimination of all the strong lighting installed just for fancy look (basically the things ), really using the lights when really needed and only after that incandescents would get replaced by e.g. LED or so.
But till then I guess the main focus will be the HVAC, hot water management and so on, the lighting will come only after that.

Clearly one of the result would be people using less light and so less demand for fancy high cost lamps. And that is, what lobbyist were preventing: There would be less revenue in their production. The present direction was aimed to mainly boost the sales of the expensive "energy efficient products", so the makers will make more money. Nobody cared about the environment at all. Irony is, the net result is, the lighting business is taken over by production from countries with mainly cheap labor, pushing the domestic makers out of business at all (a company even with an "US" name I do not consider as "US" when they do not produce their things in the US).

The same is valid for car fuel efficiency and many other things. The governments are making legislation supposedly "enforcing conservation", but in reality with very marginal real effect.

We have enough oil, natural gas, and coal already found to last the country for 200+ years.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on May 19, 2019, 09:22:39 AM
this greenie load of bull

what government what not controlled is phantom loads
like many things that DC operated have wall warts those consume power at all times even when not in use. then
you got every thing from radio to a stove to have a built in clocks that consume power. what is wrong with battery operated clock that tick over a year on AA battery.  second government is very slow at updating hpw building should be cooled  cooling  and heating is about 2/3 of energy use. Lighting only accounts 5 to 10
percent.  but Me living in south Texas half way into may
I have not turned on the A/c  out 14 bucks worth of power 138 KWH  used powered my refrigerator,  lights and cell phone.  I am even burning lights 24/7  such as 75 watt slimeline and 65 watf fluorescent .  if i really wanted to i can knock that power down  to few KWH from solar power up on future install.   you have choice
what to run in your home.  Satilite set top boxes is another rant.  use power all the time when you not watching it . it also screws up the AM radio around the house.  what happen to old stereo equipment that have hard On and Off Switch?  it is sad that my water bill is higher than my electric bill!.


The environmentalists rant about creosote power poles but they pass on the arsenic preservative based green poles that are being installed. A creosote pole can last over fifty years and more and it outlasts the green poles 2-1. But cutting down trees required for the green poles every 25-30 years is perfectly alright with the greenie mindless and the arsenic that seeps into the ground is not as bad as the creosote?   




Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Lumex120 on May 19, 2019, 09:24:09 AM
Many of the ridiculous policies of the previous administration need to be reversed. And another thorn, these silly fuel "cans" that you buy and must play with for 5 minutes to get the fuel to disburse is insane. Try holding up a five gallon jug and having to push the slide in and then up to get the fuel out.
Oh yeah those new fuel cans are horrible. I have an old one that just has a cap you pop off and then the gas pours out really fast without "glugging".

Also, I too would like to see every single lighting restriction from the past 15 years or so be completely removed. I know it wouldn't cause mercury fixtures to be made again and all that, but it would at least make it legal to sell reproduction mercury vapor ballasts (something I'd like to do sometime).


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on May 19, 2019, 09:29:02 AM
Oh yeah those new fuel cans are horrible. I have an old one that just has a cap you pop off and then the gas pours out really fast without "glugging".

Also, I too would like to see every single lighting restriction from the past 15 years or so be completely removed. I know it wouldn't cause mercury fixtures to be made again and all that, but it would at least make it legal to sell reproduction mercury vapor ballasts (something I'd like to do sometime).


100% agreed. Look at some of the overseas (guess who) electrical crappola that is being imported to help sustain the 327 billion dollar trade deficit. UL was once required to be on any electrical apparatus sold in the USA. People pay for this junk and it last a few years at best and they must buy another or get smarter and NOT. Look at the money wasted if they had just bought a good ole USA made electrical fixture with the Underwriters Labs (UL) approval tag?


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on May 19, 2019, 09:44:51 AM
:D

Agreed! Remember when the US electrical apparatus were required to have the UL rating on it?


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Fluorescent05 on June 06, 2019, 06:21:48 PM
The less government intervention and regulation, the better..
I totally agree with that statement!!!


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: CEB1993 on June 06, 2019, 07:23:58 PM
This is such encouraging news!  I don't think incandescents can ever have a perfect replacement.  LED's are great for energy savings, automotive applications, and smart controls.  I don't think incandescents will ever fully disappear because of special applications such as appliance lights and heat lamps.  I'm all for what's going on with the repeal of the light bulb rules.  In general, I think the less government regulation, the better.  The regulation of light bulbs is micromanagement in my book, forcing consumers to buy more expensive products and taking away choices. 

LEDs and CFLs are not a perfect solution to environmentally friendly lighting solutions.  The incandescent light bulb is a relatively simple device that is easy to manufacture and does not contain any harmful materials.  CFLs contain mercury and require much more energy to manufacture, so it seems like the environment still takes a hit with them.  I never liked the idea of mercury-filled lights in my house that could break and endanger me or my surroundings.  LEDs are much better than CFLs in terms of light quality and the lack of toxic materials.  However, LEDs are ultimately harming large lighting companies due to their extremely long life ratings.  Consumers aren't buying as many replacement LED lamps and thus lighting companies are losing money.  The "big three" has recently sold off the less lucrative lighting divisions.  GE has sold their lighting division to Tungsram, Sylvania has been partnered with Ledvance, and Philips has changed the name of the lighting division to Signify.  It's turbulent yet exciting times in the lighting industry these days, and I hope manufacturing will begin moving out of China and back to the USA. 

Being from South Carolina, a solid "red" state, I'm sure we will see the benefits of this repeal in a few stores here soon.  I'm excited about the chance to see good old fashioned incandescents showing up again at my usual shopping spots!


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: tolivac on June 08, 2019, 12:57:59 AM
The actual life of LED lamps is still unknown-haven't been out there long enough to judge.The LED bulbs I have purchased-GE,Sylvania-have been JUNK and some have failed within a few days of installation---One Sylvania bulb made a loud BRRRRR____AAAP!!!BLOP!!then the smoke came out never to light again.Now,some Kichner lamps I bought a few years ago from LOWERS are still working just fine.Lowes no longer sell those bulbs--Whats up here???With the quality of many LED and even CFL lamps out there I would much rather have a Quality US made incandescent bulb anyday-at least you knew how long they would last-were cheap to replace and no hazardous materials in them.Those would light for at least several months before silently going out.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Fluorescent05 on June 08, 2019, 08:52:57 AM
Does this include the magnetic ballast ban?


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: lightinglover8902 on June 08, 2019, 09:38:39 AM
Look, all I know is that the liberal Democrats, is more focused on climate change... And banning lamps, ballasts, and fixtures such as incandescents, HIDs and fluorescents and banning all fossil fuels is not gonna solve for climate change... You cannot stop climate change. And establishing a Green New Deal (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's plan) is also NOT gonna solve for climate change either..... Most of our power is generated by coal, natural gas and fossil fuels. But a small portion of it is solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. And banning fossil fuels is gonna lose TONS of jobs, and factories....

Plus, fixtures, and lamps are made from factories, including LED fixtures and bulbs are also made from factories....

This is why that I'm starting to go to ReStores to get every fixture, gear, and bulbs. Because if the next president is a liberal democrat, like Beto O'Rourke, or Elizabeth Warren, they'll start banning stuff....



Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: FGS on June 08, 2019, 07:25:01 PM
Look, all I know is that the liberal Democrats, is more focused on climate change... And banning lamps, ballasts, and fixtures such as incandescents, HIDs and fluorescents and banning all fossil fuels is not gonna solve for climate change... You cannot stop climate change. And establishing a Green New Deal (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's plan) is also NOT gonna solve for climate change either..... Most of our power is generated by coal, natural gas and fossil fuels. But a small portion of it is solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. And banning fossil fuels is gonna lose TONS of jobs, and factories....

How is banning fossil fuels gonna cause job losses? Do solar, wind, and other green energy sources build, wire, and maintain themselves? Do those sources appear out of thin air without any factories and such? Is the beloved “clean” fossil fuels infinite and will never ever run out for centuries?

Banning them won’t mean job losses. Green energy sources will need to be build, wired up to utilities, and maintained/repaired as needed. For that, they’ll need people. Not to mention old fossil fuel sources needing to be decommissioned, dismantled, and site cleaned up so people can get parks and such in place.

For hardware for green energy sources we’d need factories to build them, hence the need for people. Not to mention transport to ship those parts to where they’re needed. Truckers are needed.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas are finite and they’ll run out sooner or later. The bigger the green energy source slice of the pie of all energy sources and the smaller the fossil fuel energy sources the better. The time fossil fuel will run out would be pushed up into the future, instead of 2030s, it’s possible it’ll be 2080s if not beyond.

Sun, wind, and so on are nearly infinite. We don’t need to worry about running out of them.

I rather live in a clean earth not a smoggy one. I want to leave this world cleaner than when I was born into. I’m sure many of you want the same. Leaving a clean world for our descendants not a ruined one. ;)

This is not liberal/conservative nor is it political. It’s called being caring for the one and only home Earth.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: lightinglover8902 on June 08, 2019, 08:17:15 PM
How is banning fossil fuels gonna cause job losses? Do solar, wind, and other green energy sources build, wire, and maintain themselves? Do those sources appear out of thin air without any factories and such? Is the beloved “clean” fossil fuels infinite and will never ever run out for centuries?

Banning them won’t mean job losses. Green energy sources will need to be build, wired up to utilities, and maintained/repaired as needed. For that, they’ll need people. Not to mention old fossil fuel sources needing to be decommissioned, dismantled, and site cleaned up so people can get parks and such in place.

For hardware for green energy sources we’d need factories to build them, hence the need for people. Not to mention transport to ship those parts to where they’re needed. Truckers are needed.

Fossil fuels like coal, oil, and gas are finite and they’ll run out sooner or later. The bigger the green energy source slice of the pie of all energy sources and the smaller the fossil fuel energy sources the better. The time fossil fuel will run out would be pushed up into the future, instead of 2030s, it’s possible it’ll be 2080s if not beyond.

Sun, wind, and so on are nearly infinite. We don’t need to worry about running out of them.

I rather live in a clean earth not a smoggy one. I want to leave this world cleaner than when I was born into. I’m sure many of you want the same. Leaving a clean world for our descendants not a ruined one. ;)

This is not liberal/conservative nor is it political. It’s called being caring for the one and only home Earth.

This might sound a bit off topic but..........

The main disadvantages of solar, wind, and hydroelectric power often sometimes "quit working". Sure it will never run out, but will often sometimes stop working. For solar, if its a cloudy day or a stormy day it will work a bit, but not a whole lot IF theres strong sunshine in place. Also another disadvantage is that the solar cells will be worned by the UV rays of the sunlight (unless if its a high performance solar panel). For wind power, the disadvantages is when theres no wind, and it won't move the turbine. However, hydroelectric power is a possibility, because of the "moving" water trough the generators, thus creating electricity...

Sorry if this got off topic......


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: FGS on June 09, 2019, 04:45:49 AM
This might sound a bit off topic but..........

The main disadvantages of solar, wind, and hydroelectric power often sometimes "quit working". Sure it will never run out, but will often sometimes stop working. For solar, if its a cloudy day or a stormy day it will work a bit, but not a whole lot IF theres strong sunshine in place. Also another disadvantage is that the solar cells will be worned by the UV rays of the sunlight (unless if its a high performance solar panel). For wind power, the disadvantages is when theres no wind, and it won't move the turbine. However, hydroelectric power is a possibility, because of the "moving" water trough the generators, thus creating electricity...

Sorry if this got off topic......

There are energy storage methods for times they’re not generated like nights and calm days. Battery banks for one. I think Tesla (the car brand) has one in California somewhere. I dunno if the tech is in use or it’s still in experiment stages, giant flywheels, molten salts, compressed air into the ground, and so on. Some of the ideas might seems too crazy right now but they have said the same for electric lighting back in 1800s. Ditto for powered flights.

You don’t put solar panels and wind turbines in one spot. You spread them out all over the country. All those unused roofs of houses, warehouses, and so on. Wind turbines mebbe they can be placed on the medians of major highways or whatever.

Panels being degraded by the sun? It’s where maintenance/repair come into play. Parts wear down. That’s way of life. More jobs for people anyway to keep making/recycling panels. No different from replacing furnace linings for fossil fuel power sources. Except mebbe cleaner as you’re outside in fresh air and not inside some hot furnace messing with parts (bricks mebbe for liners) full of carcinogenic chemicals in the air.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Patrick on June 09, 2019, 01:04:15 PM
I'm interested in finding out what we are likely to expect in 2020.  The article indicates this would be a rollback of "Obama-era standards."  That's important in that the general service lamp standards in effect today are "Bush-era."  Although Congress has relaxed enforcement of the "Bush-era" rules in the past, that action was largely symbolic and did not change the law.  There are still two provisions that are set to take effect on January 1, 2020.  One is the 45 lm/w requirement for all General Service Lamps.  There was some controversy regarding this provision in the past.  Apparently the Department of Energy allowed this 45 lm/w "backstop" requirement to be triggered as a result of their inaction.  My understanding was that there was still some question regarding the enforcement of this backstop requirement alone should the DOE not pass a specific rule in response.  NEMA as well as manufacturers preferred lamp-specific standards to be set rather than an across the board rather than a 45 lm/w for all lamps classified as GSLs.  Another key matter that the article touched on was the expansion of the definition of a GSL, which took place at the end of Obama's second term.  This would extend it to include 3-Way, rough service/vibration resistant, reflector lamps, and certain decorative shapes.  If included, these would also be subject to the 45 lm/w requirement, or whatever standards are enacted.

In short, if all of the pending standards are reverted, we will continue to be subject to the rules in place today in 2020 and beyond.  If all of the pending standards go into effect, the majority of the most common incandescent and halogen lamps still available will go by the wayside, though some specialty lamps such as appliance lamps, heat lamps, colored lamps, very low/high wattage lamps should remain.  It sounds like the matter of the Obama expansion is still unsettled.  At one time there was uncertainly over the backstop as well as the January 1, 2020 date, and I don't know how settled either of those are at this point.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: ace100w120v on June 09, 2019, 09:20:44 PM
They are actually going to reverse this? I'm a little surprised.  I'm not against it, but I think most likely LED, etc is here to stay.  Look at how CFLs were rendered obsolete on their own.  With that said, not much beats the 90 CRI light of incandescent.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on June 10, 2019, 06:24:24 AM
This might sound a bit off topic but..........

The main disadvantages of solar, wind, and hydroelectric power often sometimes "quit working". Sure it will never run out, but will often sometimes stop working. For solar, if its a cloudy day or a stormy day it will work a bit, but not a whole lot IF theres strong sunshine in place. Also another disadvantage is that the solar cells will be worned by the UV rays of the sunlight (unless if its a high performance solar panel). For wind power, the disadvantages is when theres no wind, and it won't move the turbine. However, hydroelectric power is a possibility, because of the "moving" water trough the generators, thus creating electricity...

Sorry if this got off topic......

Are you on old TP&L, Texas Electric Service, or DP&L lines?


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: lightinglover8902 on June 10, 2019, 06:40:48 AM
Are you on old TP&L, Texas Electric Service, or DP&L lines?

How should I know??


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: GE101R on June 10, 2019, 11:17:21 PM
How should I know??

Predecessors of CenterPoint Energy. Never mind.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Silverliner on June 20, 2019, 04:20:20 AM
Obama era light bulb rules actually refer to types of bulbs such as reflector, decorative, 3 way etc which was passed on Obama's last day in office. The general service incandescent law was passed by Bush.


I'm interested in finding out what we are likely to expect in 2020.  The article indicates this would be a rollback of "Obama-era standards."  That's important in that the general service lamp standards in effect today are "Bush-era."  Although Congress has relaxed enforcement of the "Bush-era" rules in the past, that action was largely symbolic and did not change the law.  There are still two provisions that are set to take effect on January 1, 2020.  One is the 45 lm/w requirement for all General Service Lamps.  There was some controversy regarding this provision in the past.  Apparently the Department of Energy allowed this 45 lm/w "backstop" requirement to be triggered as a result of their inaction.  My understanding was that there was still some question regarding the enforcement of this backstop requirement alone should the DOE not pass a specific rule in response.  NEMA as well as manufacturers preferred lamp-specific standards to be set rather than an across the board rather than a 45 lm/w for all lamps classified as GSLs.  Another key matter that the article touched on was the expansion of the definition of a GSL, which took place at the end of Obama's second term.  This would extend it to include 3-Way, rough service/vibration resistant, reflector lamps, and certain decorative shapes.  If included, these would also be subject to the 45 lm/w requirement, or whatever standards are enacted.

In short, if all of the pending standards are reverted, we will continue to be subject to the rules in place today in 2020 and beyond.  If all of the pending standards go into effect, the majority of the most common incandescent and halogen lamps still available will go by the wayside, though some specialty lamps such as appliance lamps, heat lamps, colored lamps, very low/high wattage lamps should remain.  It sounds like the matter of the Obama expansion is still unsettled.  At one time there was uncertainly over the backstop as well as the January 1, 2020 date, and I don't know how settled either of those are at this point.


Title: Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules
Post by: Silverliner on June 20, 2019, 04:21:28 AM
Wasn't Centerpoint Energy once known as Houston Lighting and Power? I think TL&P and other utilities mentioned are now in Oncor Energy's area.

Predecessors of CenterPoint Energy. Never mind.