Author Topic: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules  (Read 1617 times)
rjluna2
Sr. Member
****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 290
View Gallery

Robert


GoL
States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « on: May 13, 2019, 05:27:45 AM » Author: rjluna2
Read this at States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules and what do you think?
Logged

Pretty, please no more Chinese failure.

Lumex120
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1450
View Gallery

105555521242365640724 UCM30tBQDUECOV6VeG5W87Vg zfarmadillo
Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #1 on: May 13, 2019, 05:39:11 AM » Author: Lumex120
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.
Logged

Any machine is a smoke machine if you operate it wrong enough.

halofosfaatti
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 23
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #2 on: May 13, 2019, 05:46:33 AM » Author: halofosfaatti
It says incandescent bulbs are 30% efficient. (Better than LED.) Sure they are not.
Logged

Too many things are secret. Only open information can really preserve old technology.

I like fluorescent and other conventional lighting and old electronic equipment. Today's things are not made to last.

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4256
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #3 on: May 13, 2019, 06:22:38 AM » Author: Medved
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.
Logged

No more selfballasted c***

HomeBrewLamps
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 1468
View Gallery


SodiumVapor 105843202020668111118 UCpGClK_9OH8N4QkD1fp-jNw majorpayne1226
Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #4 on: May 13, 2019, 06:30:02 AM » Author: HomeBrewLamps
The less government intervention and regulation, the better..
Logged

~Owen

Mercury Vapor LampHigh Pressure Sodium Scavenger, Urban Explorer, Lighting Enthusiast and Creator of homebrewlamps Cool High Pressure SodiumMercury Vapor Lamp

halofosfaatti
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 23
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #5 on: May 13, 2019, 06:36:23 AM » Author: halofosfaatti
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%.
Logged

Too many things are secret. Only open information can really preserve old technology.

I like fluorescent and other conventional lighting and old electronic equipment. Today's things are not made to last.

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4256
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #6 on: May 13, 2019, 07:17:33 AM » Author: Medved
...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.
Logged

No more selfballasted c***

halofosfaatti
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 23
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #7 on: May 13, 2019, 07:27:51 AM » Author: halofosfaatti
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.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 07:45:23 AM by halofosfaatti » Logged

Too many things are secret. Only open information can really preserve old technology.

I like fluorescent and other conventional lighting and old electronic equipment. Today's things are not made to last.

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4256
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #8 on: May 13, 2019, 08:05:25 AM » Author: Medved
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...
Logged

No more selfballasted c***

halofosfaatti
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 23
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #9 on: May 13, 2019, 08:16:08 AM » Author: halofosfaatti
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.
« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 08:24:38 AM by halofosfaatti » Logged

Too many things are secret. Only open information can really preserve old technology.

I like fluorescent and other conventional lighting and old electronic equipment. Today's things are not made to last.

Medved
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 4256
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #10 on: May 13, 2019, 01:35:40 PM » Author: Medved
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...
Logged

No more selfballasted c***

funkybulb
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 645
View Gallery


Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #11 on: May 13, 2019, 05:50:31 PM » Author: funkybulb
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!.

« Last Edit: May 13, 2019, 05:58:21 PM by funkybulb » Logged

No LED gadgets, spins too slowly.  Gotta  love preheat and MV. let the lights keep my meter spinning.

halofosfaatti
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 23
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #12 on: May 13, 2019, 09:33:41 PM » Author: halofosfaatti
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.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2019, 02:38:18 AM by halofosfaatti » Logged

Too many things are secret. Only open information can really preserve old technology.

I like fluorescent and other conventional lighting and old electronic equipment. Today's things are not made to last.

tolivac
Hero Member
*****
Offline

Posts: 528
View Gallery

Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #13 on: May 18, 2019, 12:07:57 AM » Author: tolivac
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.
Logged
Max.
Newbie
*
Offline

Posts: 49
View Gallery


Re: States fight Trump rollback of Obama lightbulb rules « Reply #14 on: May 18, 2019, 07:53:45 AM » Author: Max.
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...
Logged
Print 
© 2005-2019 Lighting-Gallery.net | Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines