Watts New With Lightbulbs And The Nanny State?

As the nation prepares for the departure of the 100 watt incandescent light bulb and children across the nation mourn the subsequent demise of the Easy Bake Oven (it uses a 100 watt bulb for the heat), the light bulb industry prepares to make a killing off unproven technology. In January 2012 the 100 watt bulb will be banned in the US and other incandescent bulbs will follow suit being eliminated by 2014.

The Compact Fluorescent Bulb (CFL) has been around for a while as a replacement for the incandescent bulbs but they come with their own problems. The bulb costs about 11 times more than the incandescent bulb and has a small amount of mercury vapor inside. The amount should not pose a problem if the bulbs are broken in a house as long as some safety precautions are observed but in quantity the bulbs present problems for the waste stream. The bulbs that were supposed to save the environment are an environmental problem.

Next out of the gate are Light Emitting Diode (LED) bulbs. These are available in flashlights and other smaller bulbs (like Christmas lights) and they provide a crisp sharp beam of light. The problem is that any bulb for home use requires a number of LEDs to be placed together to provide adequate lighting. LEDs are finally available in the 100 watt size but there are problems with these as well. The crowded LEDs increase the amount of heat generated and forces manufacturers to put a lot of LEDs together, something that is less efficient.

The other problem with the bulb is that it costs $50.00. Proponents of this so called “green” energy would have us believe that the cost is offset by how long the bulbs last but this is misleading. The bulbs themselves might be good for up to 10,000 hours of use and that would seem reasonable for the price. This would be about 5.75 years of bulb use assuming a use of 5 hours per day. Not bad but considering the incandescent costs about 50 cents a bulb one can get 100 bulbs for the same price. Electricity use might figure in a bit but not enough to offset the price.

Another thing to consider is that the actual life of LEDs will be much shorter because they are only good for about 2000 clicks to on. So one would have to turn lights on and leave them on or turn them on and off and shorten the life of the bulb. Not a very efficient way of saving energy and certainly much more costly for the consumer.

I have some of the CFLs at my house. I use them in areas where the lights stay on for a long period of time (like my outside door lights). Since they consume less electricity I get my money’s worth and if they break they are outside where the mercury vapor is not a concern (adequate ventilation and open space reduce the amount of mercury vapor to very low levels). The important thing here is that I took the decision to use them because I wanted them and not because I was forced to do otherwise. I think that everyone should have a choice in what bulb they use.

But starting in January we will lose choices and we will continue to lose them as the nanny state government forces us to comply with its green agenda by legislating behavior. Keep in mind that if it was so wonderful they would not have to force you to do it through the use of laws. If it was good then people would do it on their own. But government is trying to influence behavior and compel us to do what it wants regardless of what we think is in our best interest.

And their intrusion will cost us thousands of dollars in new bulbs and eventually new appliances that will be able to use the bulbs mandated by government.

The best way to combat this is to stock up on incandescent bulbs right now. They are inexpensive and people should be buying them by the hundreds. Buying enough each week to build a stockpile will ensure that you have all the bulbs you want and need long after the government bans them. It will allow you to continue using cheap bulbs until better technology comes along that can compete with the cheap bulbs we will soon lose.

Start buying the 100 watt bulbs now because they go away the soonest. Then work your way down until you have enough to last a lifetime…

Of course there would be nothing stopping the government from sending the storm troopers to confiscate incandescent bulbs. I would not put it past the government to do this.

We use to be free but now they tell us what kind of bulbs we are allowed to use. In my book, that makes it a dictatorship…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Big Dog


If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

9 Responses to “Watts New With Lightbulbs And The Nanny State?”

  1. Adam says:

    “…children across the nation mourn the subsequent demise of the Easy Bake Oven…”

    I heard somebody also complain about the Easy Bake Oven recently. They won’t need light bulbs to work. There are already models without a light bulb on the market and the Easy Bake brand is rolling out one soon. Our children will be fine…as far as this subject goes anyway.

    “Of course there would be nothing stopping the government from sending the storm troopers to confiscate incandescent bulbs. … In my book, that makes it a dictatorship…”

    Storm troopers? Dictatorships? Yes, just like the dictatorial government sent out the storm troopers to confiscate all the illegal lead hunting ammo they’ve banned over the years? Or the leaded gas? Or the asbestos insulation? Or the R12 refrigerants?

    I mean, who is the government to decide who can and can’t get lung cancer from asbestos? What about leaded gasoline? I mean, it worked better right so why should we have to stop using it? Damn the nanny state taking away my R12. It may have created holes in the ozone layer making the Earth hotter but it blew colder in the car so I want that back.

    There are a bunch of examples of changes the government has brought down for one reason or another and none of them were done by dictatorships and none involved storm troopers.

    As the article points out the problem is simply trying to replace current light bulbs with similar replacements. Over time lighting systems and elements will change to meet new technology and we won’t simply be putting LED and CF bulbs into traditional sockets.

    • Big Dog says:

      Obviously saying that nothing could stop them from doing it is not the same as saying it has been done. They did however, confiscate gold during the Great Depression so don’t try to tell me the government does not do that or will not do it.

      And please, tell me what harm incandescent lights cause that compares to lead or asbestos (which by the way was authorized by the government for use in the first place). Same with R-12, tell me how it compares to using a lightbulb. And please, show me proof that it caused a problem with the Ozone layer. Since the so called hole gets bigger and smaller depending on the time of year (and Ozone is created when O2 is superheated) can you show how it is anything more than a natural occurrance?

      Please, show me how these bulbs have caused problems. Please show me why we should have to spend a lot of money to switch out appliances or fixtures to comply with this. Please tell me what right government has to tell me what kind of bulb to use. Please Adam, I am dying for you to show me the health concerns that these incandescent bulbs have caused to people. You compared it to health concerns raised in asbestos and lead so please, what health problems do they cause? NONE. The CFLs though have mercury in them so this is ANOTHER thing government has done to cause health problems (like asbestos).

      You say the government took away these things but the government approved them in the first place. While we can debate each item according to its harm you would be hard pressed to show me how an incandescent light harms anything. It does not hurt people. Government is not concerned about who gets lung cancer. If it was it would ban smoking. It is not concerned about our health or it would not give us CFLs which are mroe dangerous than what we have. It is concerned with control. And I have no doubt that this is also a scheme to help some of them make money.

      Can you show me where lead ammo is illegal? I know they would like to do that but have not as yet. But I can show you where they confiscated legally owned guns after katrina. Do not tell me the government will not confiscate because we have seen them do it. Dismiss as you wish but there is no reason to rid us of the incandescent bulb but this issue is like everything else you tree huggers do. Force us to comply with something for our own good when there is nothing better available. We can wait while technology cathces up.

      That is moronic thinking and you all demonstrate it time and again.

    • Big Dog says:

      The article shows that California has banned stores from restocking with 100 watt bulbs (to keep people from stocking up) so government is keeping people from buying a legal product. What would stop government from passing laws that would issue tickets to people who use the old bulbs? They could write a ticket if you have them in outside lights or if the police come to your house (or any other spy working for the gubmint like the postal workers). They try to regulate behavior all the time. Trans fats, sugars, salt, all kinds of things that gubmint bans and fines for use of.

      I know you are unable to comprehend tyranny but gubmint is oppressive and stifles freedom. Ours is no different.

      • Ogre says:

        California is especially bad — they already have regulation so that the government can measure how much electricity your house is using. The government can, right now, determine that you’re using “too much” electricity. And with the recent court rulings, police can now enter those very same houses to look for illegal light bulbs.

        Freedom? Not in this country.

        • Blake says:

          They try to enter my house without a legal warrant, they WILL be met with resistance.

          • Ogre says:

            Once again, Blake, I completely respect your position here. But I hope you understand — the courts have ruled that if you resist the government entering your house without a warrant, the government IS allowed to kill you (and believe me, they will have no qualms about doing it, either).

    • Big Dog says:

      And I am aware that the EB oven uses a heating element now. It has for a while. The point is that the bulb can have good uses and is not a bad thing. Hell, 100 watt bulbs are used to keep areas warm so they will not freeze and cause damage.

      But for the 16 million kids with EB ovens, they will have to trade in the ones that use bulbs (or hoarde them).

      • Blake says:

        Let’s see- the regular bulb costs $.80, the fluorescent one costs about $5.00, and the newer LED light costs about $30.- $50.00.
        Gee- I think I will horde the cheap ones and warm the planet, because, after all, these bulbs are so dangerous- (no, wait- it is the fluorescent ones you need a Hazmat team for)- I think I will just stick to what is simple, and inexpensive.
        They can have my Incandescent Bulbs when they unscrew them from my global- destroying outlets!

  2. Big Dog says:

    Yep, this is all about the environment and doing things to help mankind. No special favors or friends involved.

    Oh, wait…