The Pink Flamingo is so very proud of SC Republican Bill Sandifer! Bill was elected to the State House when I was county chair in Oconee County. He took Lindsey’s place after Lindsey was elected to Congress. Once again, that was a good day’s work. Bill is going after the idiotic light bulb ban. (The Pink Flamingo will not tell you how long I have known Bill. Let’s just say his mother was on of my high school science teachers!)
Thanks to Bill Sandifer, SOMEONE is finally doing something about these blasted light bulbs. If he has his way, the rest of us will be making Smokey and the Bandit style runs to SC for bootleg light bulbs!
“...ANDERSON — State Rep. Bill Sandifer is taking on a federal law that will make 100-watt incandescent light bulbs unavailable by January.
Sandifer, an Oconee Republican, is trying to attract manufacturers that would be willing to make the Thomas Edison-style bulbs in South Carolina.
He said that by making the bulbs entirely in the state, federal commerce laws that cover trade from state to state would not apply and South Carolina residents would be free to buy incandescent bulbs even after the federal laws become effective.
“I do think that if this bill passes and becomes law, than I think that the feds will have to recognize that there is a very real problem with the federal law,” Sandifer said. “I don’t see it as symbolic. The real intent is to allow citizens of our state to have the availability of a product, in this case the product is an incandescent light bulb, that they have indicated a huge desire to have.”
The federal law, part of an energy independence bill approved in 2007, sets standards of efficiency so high that incandescent bulbs cannot qualify. The brightest and most energy-hungry incandescent bulbs, the 100-watt or brighter varieties, will be unavailable in January. Lower wattages will be pushed out of the U.S. market by the beginning of 2014.
An illustration of the inefficiency of the old bulbs is the Easy Bake Oven, which has cooked cakes with a 100-watt light bulb since 1963. More than 70 percent of the energy used by the old bulbs becomes heat, not light, allowing the bulbs to be used to cook food in small portions.
New Easy Bake Ovens will stop using bulbs in the fall and will have a heating element instead, according to manufacturer Hasbro. IKEA announced in January that it was the first major retailer to have ceased stocking incandescent bulbs.
The last major U.S. factory that made incandescent bulbs, a GE plant in Virginia, moved its lightbulb operation to China in September.
Sandifer said he is not aware of any incandescent bulb manufacturer in South Carolina or any that has yet expressed interest in coming to the state.
But Sandifer is not swayed by the federal laws or the trends against the old bulbs.
“What we have gotten to is a situation where the feds are saying we cannot use incandescent bulbs but the alternative is not there either,” he said. “The CFLs (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) were supposed to be the answer. What people have found is, number one, they’re more expensive than incandescent bulbs. The quality of light is not good and the hue of the light is bad. The last problem I have found is that they do not fit into many of the fixtures we have in our homes and businesses.”…”
What part of stupid don’t the Feds understand?
In Europe the ban is a disaster:
“...Such legislation imposes substantial costs on both consumers and the economy, but hides them so that legislators avoid blame. It often has perverse consequences; in the case of CAFE standards consumers switched to sport-utility vehicles, less fuel-efficient than comparable saloons but outside the scope of the initial law. The long-term cost of those standards arguably included a significant contribution to the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler.
Such policy goals can better be met by explicit taxes, which are not fully dead-weights on the economy, but fund government and substitute for other taxes. They also impose clear costs on oil consumption or carbon emission, allowing consumers to make their own purchase decisions with those costs taken into account.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs’ up-front cost, while higher than that of incandescent bulbs, is now low enough that if the claimed energy savings were real and inconveniences modest, rational consumers would switch.
However, CFLBs emit considerably less light than is claimed, and a substantial percentage burn out before their expected lifespan, somewhat offsetting the net cost saving from installing them. Moreover, consumers are heavily inconvenienced in their disposal, since they contain toxic mercury, which is illegal to discard in ordinary trash.
Had governments enforced truthfulness in claims of CFLBs’ efficiency and lifespan, and provided convenient disposal mechanisms, many consumers would have switched voluntarily. Then the additional energy usage by the holdouts would have been modest and declining.
Forcing consumers to switch imposes arbitrary costs, especially on those who for health or other reasons want to remain with incandescent bulbs. It also violates market principles of consumer freedom of choice. …”
The Pink Flamingo rarely agrees with Powerline, but this is one thing that I agree with them about. Those now energy efficient light bulbs are a disaster. They need to be banned.
They are a disaster.
Did you know they only go to 70 watts – to save power. All that needs to be done is add three additional lamps and you are using more power than you were before.
They don’t fit my new light fixtures.
THIS is what is required if you break one of the blasted things:
From the Heritage Foundation:
Then there are the low-flow toilets and a little back-up in San Fran
“...Skimping on toilet water has resulted in more sludge backing up inside the sewer pipes, said Tyrone Jue, spokesman for the city Public Utilities Commission. That has created a rotten-egg stench near AT&T Park and elsewhere, especially during the dry summer months.
The city has already spent $100 million over the past five years to upgrade its sewer system and sewage plants, in part to combat the odor problem.
Now officials are stocking up on a $14 million, three-year supply of highly concentrated sodium hypochlorite – better known as bleach – to act as an odor eater and to disinfect the city’s treated water before it’s dumped into the bay. It will also be used to sanitize drinking water.
That translates into 8.5 million pounds of bleach either being poured down city drains or into the drinking water supply every year.
Not everybody thinks it’s a good idea.
A Don’t Bleach Our Bay alert has just gone out from eco-blogger Adam Lowry who argues the city would be much better off using a disinfectant like hydrogen peroxide – or better yet, a solution that would naturally break down the bacteria.
As for whether the supposedly environmentally friendly, low-flow toilets are worth the trouble? Well, according to Jue, they have helped trim San Francisco’s annual water consumption by about 20 million gallons….”