dim and dimmer: house nixes funding for light bulb efficiency enforcement (again)
Texas Republican Michael Burgess has attached an amendment to the House Energy and water spending bill for the second year in a row that holds funds from the Department of Energy to implement new bulb efficiency standards. Why?
Burgess, an tireless crusader who opposes what he considers to be a blatant example of Big Brother doctrine, has cited the standard since it was enacted as part of the bipartisan energy independence and security law in 2007
One of his biggest complaints is that the standard prohibits the sale of traditional 100-watt, 60-watt, and 45-
Cheaper Watt incandescent lamps than newer, more efficient compact fluorescent (CFL)and light-LEDs (LED)bulbs.
The standards, he said, \"deprive consumers of their choices.
\"If new energy --
Efficient light bulbs save money and are better for the environment, we should believe that our voters will make their own choices about these bulbs, \"Wednesday, he had a brief debate in the House about his amendment.
\"Let the market decide.
\"In fact, the new standard does not prohibit incandescent lamps, they just ask it to be more effective, stipulating that by 2012, the energy consumption of new bulbs is 25-30% lower than that of traditional incandescent lamps, reducing by 65% by 2020.
So the traditional 100-
For example, watt bulbs have now been more efficient by 72-
Traditional 60-watt halogen incandescent lamp
43 watts more efficient-watt version.
Considering 130-year-old, Edison-
The generation of incandescent lamps in the Times is less than 10%. it\'s time to upgrade, isn\'t it?
Again, Burgess is wrong in cost.
Yes, it is cheaper to buy traditional incandescent lamps than to buy new, more effective halogen lamps, CFL or LED bulbs, although their retail prices have fallen sharply in recent years and are expected to continue to decline.
In any case, the cost of powering a traditional bulb makes it the most expensive option.
Committee on the protection of natural resources (NRDC)
Consumer Guide compared 50-cent, 100-
The price of Watt\'s traditional incandescent lamp is equivalent to $1. 50, 72-
Halogen incandescent lamps.
The group calculated that in one-
The life of each bulb is $12.
05 power traditional bulbs for 3 hours a day for a total cost of $12.
55, but it costs $8.
67 power the halogen lamp for the same period of time with a total cost of $10. 17. Over a six-
If the price of the bulb remains the same, consumers will save $14. 28.
This is not notable, but consumers still have the option to buy incandescent lamps to meet Burgess\'s complaints.
NRDC found that the savings were more obvious in terms of CFLs. A $3. 00, 23-
Equivalent to the traditional 100 watt CFL-
Watt incandescent lamps have a rated life of six years for three hours a day.
The cost of electricity for six years is $16.
It cost a total of $19. 62 --
$55 cheaper than traditional incandescent lamps.
Considering that lighting contributes up to 15% of home energy costs, the savings of replacing traditional bulbs with more efficient bulbs are added together.
According to 2011 AmericanS.
Data from the US Energy Information AdministrationS.
Families spend about $190 a year on lighting.
According to the national average electricity price in 2012, the relevant scientists Alliance (UCS)
Traditional 60-burn 10-
8 hours a day the light bulb costs so much.
Change these 10 traditional bulbs to 15
Watt fls will cut lighting costs to about $48 a year.
In a similar 7-
Meanwhile, watt LED bulbs will cut lighting costs to $22 a year. (
For more UCS tips on how to cut lighting costs, click here. )
Multiply these savings by 114.
8 million of the family, but the real money we are talking about now.
Nationwide, according to Catherine Hogan, deputy assistant minister for energy efficiency at the Department of Energy, the new light bulb standard can save consumers $6 billion a year by 2015. Replacing old-
Older incandescent lamps that are more efficient and longer
Lasting light bulbs not only protect consumers\' wallets, but also reduce carbon pollution that causes global warming.
UCS estimates that if families living in ordinary homes replace all bulbs, they can reduce carbon emissions by more than half a ton per year.
\"If every family in the country replaces a traditional incandescent lamp with energy --
Saving mode, we will reduce global warming pollution by more than 90 billion during the life of the bulb, \"UCS energy analyst and joint
Author of Cooler Smarter: practical steps for low levelCarbon Living.
\"This is equivalent to taking 6.
3 million of today\'s cars are off-road.
\"Burgess\'s amendment is more dramatic than any other one, because the United StatesS.
Whether the lighting manufacturer complies with the standard, the execution funds.
However, according to Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur, the amendment has helped foreign manufacturers who are still producing Edison --
Times incandescent lamp-and hurts U. S. firms.
\"Given that American manufacturers are committed to compliance with the law, whether enforced or not,\" she said in the house, \"the only benefit of this bad behavior is that
The Minda Knight is a foreign manufacturer allowed-
People who may feel that there is no similar obligation--
Importing bulbs that do not meet the requirements will not only damage US investmentS.
But the United States is at risk. S.
Manufacturing work related to manufacturing compliant bulbs.
\"There was no comment from other members of the house on the amendment, which passed a voice vote and therefore could not know exactly who approved it.
Given how stupid this amendment is, it is not surprising that members of the house like to do so.
Elliott Nekin is the director of news and commentary for the relevant league of scientists.