The Democrats were finally able to get something passed in Congress, a new energy bill that mandates car gas mileage and bans the incandescent light bulb, and on Wednesday’s CBS "Early Show," co-host Julie Chen described it as, "Congress's historic move to get rid of gas guzzlers." Co-host Harry Smith began the "historic" theme at the top of the show:
Later this morning, the president will sign a new energy bill, that will radically change the way we drive, the fuel we burn, and the way we light our homes...This morning for the first time in 32 years we will have a new energy bill. The Energy Independence and Security Act.
No one objected to the idea that everyday light bulbs would be banned with this new legislation. Instead Smith joked holding up a light bulb: "So guess what, will we see the end of the incandescent light bulb? Remember, was it Uncle Fester who put it in and it lit up?"
In a later report by CBS Correspondent Bill Plante the bill is once again depicted as progress:
It's the first change in the mileage standards since bell bottoms and tie dye, 32 years ago. The bill requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Its sponsors claim that it will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year and reduce U.S. oil consumption by four million barrels a day over the next 22 years.
Plante also made mention of the fate of the light bulb: "New energy standards for buildings and appliances will mean that the old style incandescent light bulb will just about disappear by 2020." I didn’t realize that the light bulbs most people use today to light their homes were "old style."
Plante also discussed the compromise involved in the legislation:
Democrats didn't get everything they wanted, like a rollback of tax breaks for Big Oil...But neither did the president get all that he wanted...Democrats wanted more money for wind and solar power, and for conservation. Republicans would have preferred to have more oil, and gas, and coal production in the U.S.
Finally, at the end of Plante’s report, Chen suggested for the first time that the legislation "Sounds controversial."
Here is the full transcript:
7:00AM TEASER:
HARRY SMITH: Later this morning, the president will sign a new energy bill, that will radically change the way we drive, the fuel we burn, and the way we light our homes.
7:01AM TEASER:
SMITH: This morning for the first time in 32 years we will have a new energy bill. The Energy Independence and Security Act. So guess what, will we see the end of the incandescent light bulb? Remember, was it Uncle Fester who put it in and it lit up?
JULIE CHEN: I don't remember that episode, but I trust your knowledge. Dave Price says yes, so, we're going to go with yes.
SMITH: Dave Price says yes and who would know better?
CHEN: Watched too much TV as a kid, right?
7:02AM SEGMENT:
JULIE CHEN: But first, Congress's historic move to get rid of gas guzzlers. Here's CBS News Senior White House Correspondent, Bill Plante. Bill, good morning.
BILL PLANTE: Good morning, Julie. The bill that the president will sign today says that you're supposed to be able to drive a lot farther on a gallon of gas by the year 2020. But it calls for so much ethanol that the price of corn and food could skyrocket. It's the first change in the mileage standards since bell bottoms and tie dye, 32 years ago. The bill requires automakers to increase fuel efficiency to an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020. Its sponsors claim that it will save motorists $700 to $1,000 a year and reduce U.S. oil consumption by four million barrels a day over the next 22 years. It calls for a huge increase in the use of ethanol. From 6 billion gallons a year now to 36 billion by 2022. Most of that is supposed to come from sources other than corn. But there's still concern that ethanol production has already driven corn and food prices to new highs. New energy standards for building and appliances will mean that the old style incandescent light bulb will just about disappear by 2020. Democrats didn't get everything they wanted, like a rollback of tax breaks for Big Oil.
HARRY REID: By blocking tax incentives in renewable energy and standards to supply clean renewable electricity, Republicans missed a chance to grow our new clean energy industries and build new century jobs.
PLANTE: But neither did the president get all that he wanted.
DANA PERINO: While the president's alternative fuel standard and CAFÉ proposal would have gone farther and faster. We are pleased that Congress has worked together on a bipartisan way--
PLANTE: Democrats wanted more money for wind and solar power, and for conservation. Republicans would have preferred to have more oil, and gas, and coal production in the U.S. And no one is sure just whether this huge increase in ethanol will actually work, or how much it will cost. Julie.
JULIE CHEN: Sounds controversial. CBS's Bill Plante at the White House, thanks Bill.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
New Energy Bill
December 19, 2007 - 12:30 ET by merlin61And, what are they going to do if people can't
afford these new expensive lights? Are we going
to have "energy police" coming into homes checkingto see what kind of lighting we have?
Older people cannot always use these bulbs for
reading, and I am one of them. They are not
bright enough. What happens when we run out
of corn? When are they going to increase
oil production in our own country so we don't
depend on the middle east? I'm here in the midwest
freezing to death right now. Where's the
global warming? Idiots are in charge!!!!!
Pisst, got some light
December 19, 2007 - 13:54 ET by dscottPisst, got some light bulbs, how much ya offerin? Me and boys got a whole warehouse full of them.
I got pellet stoves too.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
2020? Won't we all be dead
December 19, 2007 - 12:33 ET by ckc12272020? Won't we all be dead from global warming by then? My favorite part is where they mandate that we must start using technology that doesn't even exist. Idiots.
Time to start stocking up on light bulbs. You'll make a fortune re-selling them in about 10 years.
You can't plan for anything
December 19, 2007 - 12:53 ET by RackieYou can't plan for anything 12 years out. No one knows for sure what the situation will be.Then there are the unintended consequences of your actions. So much is just plain out of our control. I was going to say the only I could count on was being 12 years older, but even that is not guaranteed. Buckle up, we're in for a helluva ride.
Time to start stocking up on
December 19, 2007 - 12:56 ET by RackieTime to start stocking up on light bulbs.
We're still doing the ammo thing too, aren't we?
that was exactly a month ago
December 19, 2007 - 13:02 ET by sarcasmoSee here.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
"We're still doing the ammo
December 19, 2007 - 13:38 ET by ckc1227"We're still doing the ammo thing too, aren't we?"
Don't know. Is there some legislation banning ammo? If there is, yeah, you probably should stock up on it too. But not for resale. Some things you keep for yourself.
In my case, I'd have to get a gun first.
Welcome to New Jersey
December 19, 2007 - 21:36 ET by JohnM"My favorite part is where they mandate that we must start using technology that doesn't even exist. Idiots."
New Jersey mandated that only "smart guns" can be sold legally, once the technology is available (not PROVEN, just "available"). Naturally, the state is funding the research at NJ Institute of Technology (NJIT), which also happens to support other anti-gun movements.
Idiots? I think they're out-manuvering us and we're not stopping them.
No Energy in the Energy Bill
December 19, 2007 - 12:40 ET by JayTeeThere's no Nuclear in the Energy bill, Is there Coal ? Is there ANWR ? Is there Oil related access to America's Oil in the Ground and off the Coast ?
It's a Global Warming, Environmental protection, GM/Ford/Chrysler Auto industry KILLER Bill.
Please subtract 5 % points from Congress's current Approval Rating, wait till 2012 and RePo any SUV in DC parked in the Congressional Parking lot......Replace all SUV's with Geo Metro or the Riding lawnmowers of your choice.
Don't Re-Elect anyone.
No nuclear power was my
December 19, 2007 - 13:02 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveNo nuclear power was my first thoughts too. Any energy bill that leaves out expansion of nuclear power generation is a sham. Nuclear energy is the only clean energy that has great economy of scale. Neither wind nor solar powers scale well at all...they both also require large and expensive batteries/storage and they are limited to generating energy under certain conditions. No wind...no power...even too much wind means no power. No sunlight...no power. They both require thousands of acres to supply the energy needs of even moderate sized towns. We need to get a petition started to have this bill repealed. I pray the president doesn't sign it (if he hasn't already).
And the CF bulbs introduce more mercury, lead, argon, krypton, flourine, neon, and more into the environment.
Congress just legislated stupidity toady.
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men." -H.W. Longfellow
We Need more Nuclear Power
December 20, 2007 - 07:04 ET by PopularTechFrance Generates 80% of it's Electricity from Nuclear Power (BBC)
Chernobyl - Chernobyl life 'back to normal' within a decade (Environmental Data Interactive, UK)
Chernobyl - Chernobyl Incident Had Fewer Long-Term Health Impacts Than Expected (Science Daily)
Chernobyl - Chernobyl toll may be less than feared (USA Today)
Chernobyl - Danger from radiation is exaggerated, say scientists (The Times, UK)
Chernobyl - No Detectable Health Risk Is Found Outside Chernobyl Vicinity (The New York Times)
Chernobyl - The Myths of Chernobyl (Australasian Radiation Protection Society)
Chernobyl - UN Report says 56 killed so far due to Chernobyl nuclear accident (CBC News)
Three Mile Island - No Apparent Increase In Cancer Deaths Among Three Mile Island Residents, Report University Of Pittsburgh Researchers (Science Daily)
Three Mile Island - No Significant Rise In Cancer Deaths In 3-Mile Island Residents Over 20 Years, According To Study (Science Daily)
Three Mile Island - Failure of Science or Spin? (Science Daily)
Could Nuclear Power By The Answer To Fresh Water? (Science Daily)
Former 'No Nukes' Protester: Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power (Wired)
Greenpeace is wrong - we must consider nuclear power (Patrick Moore, B.Sc. Forest Biology, Ph.D. Ecology)
Hot for Nukes (CNSNews)
Is Atomic Radiation as Dangerous as We Thought? (Spiegel Online, Germany)
Nuclear Energy: Expansion Across the Map (Hawaii Reporter)
Nuclear power will save the world, UN scientists claim (Daily Mail, UK)
Safe, Secure And Inexpensive Power From Newest Genearations Of Nuclear Reactors (Science Daily)
Sustainable Nuclear Energy Moves A Step Closer (Science Daily)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Going, going, gone
December 19, 2007 - 12:44 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsI just bought two six packs of GE Reveal 100 watt light bulbs on sale for (I think) $3.79 each at Home Depot last week. I will now stop back this week and pick up another ten six packs to keep stocked up.
What do you (and our esteemed legislators) think the new CAFE standards will do to car companies, like Ford with their year after year best seller the F-150 pick-up truck, not to mention contractors, farmers, and others who need a vehicle like that, which will be essentially banned?
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
The CAFE standards don't ban
December 19, 2007 - 14:00 ET by BruzillaThe CAFE standards don't ban anything, and are calculated on an average based on a point system. Manufacturers earn points for every vehicle that meets or exceeds the standard, and loses points for those that don't. If the number of points lost exceeds the number of points earned, the manufacturer has to pay a slight penalty for each negative point.
For example, Ford earns points for every Focus they make, and lose points on every F-150. If the points lost on the F-150s exceed the points they earned on the Focuses, Ford pays a fine. Another interseting point would be the Ford Crown Victoria, which also does not meet CAFE requirements, is exempt from CAFE if the car is sold to the government as a police car, government sedan, etc. So Ford gets all of their profit and doesn't lose any CAFE points on those cars.
Don't worry too much about trucks mpg
December 19, 2007 - 14:22 ET by The Wicked ConservativeRemember the key word is AVERAGE mpg. You add a couple of stripped ultralights to the fleet to and BAM!!! You've made the average. It's all feel good legislation that matters for beans when I'm scraping all this damn global warming off my windshiel.
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill
Has anyone tried to run one
December 19, 2007 - 14:59 ET by dscottHas anyone tried to run one of those oxygen concentrators, you know the kind for the inhome oxygen therapy, to a carburetor? I wonder if that would up the mpg without hurting the engine?
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
You still have to have fuel
December 19, 2007 - 17:37 ET by Gary P JacksonYou still have to have fuel to burn. All more oxygen does is lean the system out and hurt performance. On the other hand, more oxygen, and more fuel mean more power. It's the principal behind supercharging/turbocharging. Supercharging forces more air into the manifold, which allows you to push more fuel, which makes big horsepower.
It's why, for example, a non-supercharged nitro burning A/Fuel Dragster can run 5.10 second 1/4 mile times @ 270mph, while a Top Fuel (supercharged nitro burner) can run 4.40's @ 335 mph.
you sure? My thought was to
December 19, 2007 - 20:34 ET by dscottyou sure? My thought was to increase the percentage of O2 to displace the N2. 75% of the heat lost in the engine is due to having to heat up the N2 in the air which doesn't do any work. It's the combustion of O2 and fuel that does all the work. So the net effect of increasing the O2 % should be reduction of fuel usage, you reduce the amount of fuel in response to the increase in power given.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
I'm not an engineer, and I
December 20, 2007 - 02:00 ET by Gary P JacksonI'm not an engineer, and I didn't get over to the Holiday Inn last night!
You are thinking right. An internal combustion engine is nothing more than an air pump. The name of the game is to get as much fuel and air as you can into the cylinder, then after the explosion, get the spent gases out as quick as possible.
It's why one of the first modifications a hot rodder will do is add duel exhaust. Yeah, it sounds better, but a less restrictive exhaust, will help with fuel mileage and add from 5 to 10 horsepower! Exchange the stock exhaust manifolds, and replace them with a set of custom headers, you get two benefits, besides better mileage yet, headers are designed to scavenge the exhaust from the combustion chamber, which makes for more efficiency, and adds even more horsepower.
On the intake side, every one in this forum needs to do this: K&N makes a lifetime air filter, that fits most cars. They also sell complete air induction systems. But a new air filter is what everyone needs.
The cool thing about K&N is their filters are warranted for 1 million miles. You never replace them, just clean them. And the payoff is more horsepower, and another bump in MPG. These filters are treated to catch the dust, but designed to let more air in. It is the one investment EVERYBODY should make. Even a lib can do the work, and this really does work well.
The other thing everyone needs to purchase and put in their glove boxes is a tire pressure gauge. Tires run too low cause a lot of problems: Blown tires, premature wear, and in the extreme, very ill handling.
The only thing you have wrong is this: If you use more air, and less fuel, you will see a lean condition, which can harm the engine, and in extreme cases, can burn holes in the pistons.
The way it works, your carburetor is designed to mix the proper amount of fuel and air into the intake manifold, where the fuel travels into the combustion chamber as a fine mist. And when the piston comes up, the timing is set to send electricity to the spark plug, which fires, causing an explosion, which in turn drives the piston back down.
In a fuel injected car, things work the same, just using different parts, and sensors that report to the computer, which can make modifications based on the conditions you are driving in. With a carb, you tune it for the conditions, but once it's set up, you are stuck with your tune, until you open the hood and pull out your screwdriver! Fuel injection is far superior, and most, with a few aftermarket hot rod computer chips, can be tuned from your lap top!
OK, as you see how an engine works.
You are wanting to displace fuel with oxygen. You end up lean, and depending on your tune up, you could mortally wound the engine.
Heat is a by product of the explosions going on in the cylinders, at that point, as long as your cooling system in up to par, all is good IF your carb/injector are set right.
Don't know how many cars you've tuned, but I can tell you, that I've had my ride tuned for a baseline figuring I was close. Instead, as I made a pass, it sounded like I was shooting ducks! Luckily, no damage. It was too lean!
You are on to something about cooling. But you don't want to cool the cylinders, they work better at temperature. What you DO want to do, as a racer, is cool the gasoline. Back in the day, people would make some little baskets to put on the intake manifold. These baskets would be filled with ice minutes before a run. NHRA got tired of mopping up water on the starting line, and banned this practice. So now most stock bodied racers have a "cool can". These are small round insulated ice chests, for the lack of a better term. Anyway, the gasoline from the fuel tank goes straight into the cooler , which is filled with ice, and covered. As the gas runs in through the top, the fuel line is coiled, so the fuel is evenly cooled. From there, it's straight to the carb/injector.
Cool air is dence air. The denser the air, the more fuel you can run, which makes more power. But, if you adjust the fuel/air ratio, you will have issues. Too lean and you can very well burn a hole in one or more pistons. Too rich, meaning more fuel in relation to the air, means the system is flooded. You may or may not get going. But some of the issues you will have, besides wasting gas, will be things like foulded spark plugs, and damaged catalitic converters.
You're looking to displace the nitrogen with more air. See above.
Now a really popular "cheap" way to make gobs of horsepower, is to inject nitrous oxide into the mix. Nitrous is so cold, you have to heat the bottle before you run! But, when mixed with the proper fuel/air mixture, pressing the button can give you anywhere from 50 to 500 extra horsepower! Again, the more nitrous, the more gas used.
Of course, Nitrous will bite you. Any mistuning and you've burned piston(s)! Pooled nitrous in the intake before you start the engine can cause an explosion that would make Colonel Paul Tibbets proud!
Sorry to be so long winded (guess I'm still fired up over this "energy bill")
The thing you need to remember is an engine is set up to run so much air and so much gas. If you can get more air coming in, you must add more gasoline.
And that's the whole argument on Ethonal. Ethanol doesn't have as much energy, in mass, as regular gasoline. Yes, Ethanol, has a higher octaine, and your engines loves that! More octaine means no engine knocks, and can mean more horse power. (if you ad more fuel)
But we're back to adding more air. And since the power isn't as dense, you actually need to run more fuel. Which, of course is the fallacy of all of this nonsense in the first place. Do the math, and you'll see a tank full won't go as far as a tank of gasoline will!
Memories
December 20, 2007 - 00:39 ET by stratmanI miss my Porsche 944 Turbo.
Killing them with kindness isn't working. Time to get scrappy with the Donkeys.
Do They Realize...
December 19, 2007 - 12:44 ET by Wildcatter1980that this will mean a greater impact on the environment than we currently have?
Compact fluorescent light bulbs contain mercury. Breakage will mean deadly mercury in your house.
More hybrid cars, trucks and SUVs will be on our roads. Such vehicles will have metals and chemicals in their batteries that currently are not there. These will require increases in mining (metals), transportation, manufacturing and disposal of "hazardous" materials that currently are much lower.
Just my $0.02
Compact Fluorescent Bulbs
December 19, 2007 - 15:19 ET by arbin82I sent this link to my family and friends. It is an article about the banning of incandescent bulbs. My favorite part is how the EPA referred a person to a company to clean up the mercury from a broken bulb...$2,000 later all clean. Not to mention that to "properly" recycle these bulbs I need to drive 80+ miles away...which in my 35 mpg car will use 4.57 gallons of gas @ $4.50 per gallon is more than $20. I am thinking there is going to be a lot of these making their way to the local landfills...
CAFE Standards Are...
December 19, 2007 - 12:54 ET by Wildcatter1980the chickenbleep way of raising taxes to disincentivize users of gasoline. Virtually all politicians consider it political suicide to not only mention, but indeed try to raise taxes on gasoline.
A meaningful "energy" bill would have raised taxes on imported oil and it's products while at the same easing restrictions on domestic exploration and production. Also, it would include easing, removing or barring obstructions to alternative energy sources such as nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind and solar.
Just my $0.02
Actually, incandescent bulbs
December 19, 2007 - 13:00 ET by lotrActually, incandescent bulbs are very much "old style," being based on a >120 year old technology. In warm climates (which includes most of CONUS during summertime) they are very wasteful of energy because they have the side effect of giving off a lot of heat (which is usually countered by air conditioning, which itself sucks a lot of juice). That said, however, I still prefer them at home because I happen to like "old style" -- anyone can attest that the lighting is a friendlier, warmer glow, and they don't make a buzzing sound either. Are they really going to do away with them? I only heard that they are changing car emission standards.
Old Light Bulbs
December 19, 2007 - 13:00 ET by indianaconservativeI thought I heard that this bill would eliminate the 100 watt light bulbs only. If that is the case, the manufacturers should repackage them as "Easy-Bake Oven Heating Elements".
There! That should keep them around a little longer.
I like the way you
December 19, 2007 - 13:05 ET by Mean Gene Dr. LoveI like the way you think.
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
"God is not dead, nor doth he sleep;
The wrong shall fail, the right prevail,
With peace on earth, good will to men." -H.W. Longfellow
Thanks
December 19, 2007 - 13:13 ET by indianaconservativeThanks. I also predict record sales of these "heating units".
Of course, that only happens
December 19, 2007 - 13:34 ET by lotrOf course, that only happens to be the most popular bulb....
Morons
December 19, 2007 - 13:07 ET by KillgraveFor one, I hate florescent light, it seriously hurts my eyes. It is a harsh, glaring light with a strobe effect. This really p*sses me off.
Second, these morons are dancing in the streets about higher fuel efficiency, but what does that mean? It means auto makers will be making lighter cars with lighter armor and frames. Weight is a huge factor.
So guess what? More people are going to die in car crashes. Period.
These people are murderers. They do it so they can feel good about themselves, without any tangible improvement for the human condition.
Seriously, I hate these j*rkoffs. I hate them all.
impeach Bush and Congress
December 19, 2007 - 13:53 ET by wizardjrThey are now guilty of a deadly conspiracy to kill thousands of American citizens (and a few illegal invaders along the way) each and every year. This rises to High Crimes And Misdemeanors. The slaughter of innocent Americans on the highways will be another 'triumph' for the loonie left. After all, lefties need to reduce the population to save their dirt that they worship.
Republicans Beware
December 19, 2007 - 13:10 ET by planetrepublicanSorry to say this but the Dems out maneuvered Bush on this
one. The GREAT majority of people in this country have not heard about this and
will not hear about this until they go and buy new light bulbs. They will look
around for their incandescent bulbs and they will be told the store doesn’t
stock them anymore, no one does, that the government stopped the manufacture of
them…”try these new compact fluorescents” they will be told. Most folks HATE the fluorescent bulbs for the
numerous reasons outlined in these comments. They will call their congress people
roaring mad and will be told that Republican President Bush signed this law
into place.
This is the kind of sneaky environmental wacko laws that
will be put into place and how they will be put into place. If the Repubs are smart they will allow the
Dems to take the full fall on all this crap.
By the way, think this is bad? Wait until they put the Kyoto like laws into place and our economy
tanks. I don’t think any Dem would be stupid
enough to pull a Jimmie Carter and go on TV and tell the American that they
have to accept a lower standard of living because of global warming, do
you? They will try to let the Repubs
sign this into law and take the fall.
Republicans beware.
"...reduce U.S. oil
December 19, 2007 - 13:13 ET by alamojb"...reduce U.S. oil consumption by four million barrels a day over the next 22 years. "
I bet they are still not taking into account the huge population increase in the US if we continue to leave the border open. If you take into account first and second generation Mexican immigrants to the U.S. and their children, you find that the population of Mexico increased by 10X in a little more than a century.
Go ahead, leave that door open, and pretend that a population increase that dwarfs the "baby boom" is not already happening, and will continue to increase.
It is to un PC to talk about this, so few people do.
We are heading for a real energy crisis here.
First Bali, now this. If
December 19, 2007 - 13:20 ET by ArchConservativeFirst Bali, now this. If President Bush really wants a legacy, he needs to stiffen that spine.
You support the troops by supporting the mission! If you don't support the mission, have the guts to say you don't support the troops.
Idiot
December 19, 2007 - 13:21 ET by Killgrave"JULIE CHEN: Sounds controversial."
God, that is some cutting-edge analysis from a deep thinker.
Don Henley is a screaming liberal, but he has a great lyric about newsjournalists:
"I coulda been a actor, but I wound up here. I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear."
Argh! When they banned the
December 19, 2007 - 13:23 ET by MassConservArgh! When they banned the incandescent bulb in Australia I thought it was stupid, this is... ARGH!!!
Don't get me wrong, I use compact fluorescent bulbs anywhere I can just to save some money, but there are places where they don't work, or work well and I have to use an incandescent bulb.
I live in NE and flourescent lights don't work in cold areas, and places where they do work they don't get to full brightness fast enough.
Grrr... I suppose at least I've got 12 years to settle down and wait for a reasonable replacement. :-/
We will probably start
December 19, 2007 - 13:25 ET by alamojbWe will probably start seeing more LED (light emitting diode) usage.
You're probably right,
December 19, 2007 - 13:29 ET by MassConservYou're probably right, alamojb. I hope they can get rid of the blueish tint to the light they put off though.
Though I'm basing this on my experience with an LED flashlight I have.
The time of the LED has arrived
December 19, 2007 - 14:01 ET by dscotthttp://www.earthled.com/clseries.html
Whaaaaatttt!!!???
December 19, 2007 - 17:22 ET by planetrepublicanThe time of the LED has arrived? At $20 - $35 a bulb???!!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/2
December 20, 2007 - 11:33 ET by dscotthttp://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071219/sc_nm/congress_energy_bulbs_dc_2;_ylt=AmbSSW6nVhpYYeSBZ9byn6IE1vAI
The higher efficiency requirements under the new energy law kick in for the 100-watt bulb beginning in 2012, followed by the 75-watt bulb a year later and then 40- and 60-watt bulbs will be phased out in 2014.
Australia, Ireland and other countries are already getting rid of the incandescent bulb.
About two dozen categories of light bulbs are exempt from the U.S. law's efficiency requirements, including oven and refrigerator bulbs, candelabra lamps, plant lights, replacement traffic signal bulbs and the summer necessity -- the yellow bulb that doesn't attract insects.
You have another 5 years to use those 100 w incandescents, but for the life of me, I don't know why you would given the cost of electricity and short life of the bulb (750 - 1000 hrs) compared to the new LED lamps: http://www.earthled.com/clseries.html Even paying $50/lamp (50,000 hrs) using 5 watts to replace a 75 watt lamp is a no brainer, do the math.
Just on the lamp cost alone, 50 - 75 watt bulbs cost almost the same as 1 - 5 watt LED with the equivalent hours of life expectancy. Then comes the 70 watt savings per lamp over those 50k hrs! That's 3,500 kwhr (70w x 50k hrs / 1000w/kwhr) savings per lamp or $350 (3500 kwhr x $0.10/kwhr) over the rated life. It does not make financial sense to put an incandescent light bulb in a lamp, it's just plain wasteful. Like the CFL, the cost will drop as more people buy them.
They do share two bugaboos with the CFL in using the LED, it can't be used on dimmer circuits yet, nor on those photocell controlled fixtures. But no mercury issues.
Quite frankly, the legislation was a waste of time and effort, the market place is already providing the answer. If they are so hot to save the planet, they would do better to expend the same efforts of their salesmenship to selling the LED lamps. It would be cheaper for the utilties to give rebates to buy the LEDs than to build more power planets given the massive efficiency gain from their use. In fact, Al Gore if you are listening, it would be far more effective to use your carbon credit scam to subsidize or rebate the LED lamp purchases instead of planting trees. But saving the planet is not what Dems want anyway, actions speak louder than words.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
It would have happened anyway
December 19, 2007 - 13:42 ET by taylorkThese gas mileage increases are meaningless anyway. Are you going to tell me that, given the price of gas, that manufactures wouldn't be producing high mileage vehicles in 12 years anyway? This is a do nothing bill written by a do nothing Congress. Further more, what if we can get 10mpg out of filling our tanks with water? Will we not be able to buy these cars?
Democrats didn't get
December 19, 2007 - 13:59 ET by Jack BauerI'm not a tax expert -- and I don't even play one on TV, but
Don't Democrat supporting BIG HOLLYWOOD and BIG TV, get huge tax breaks and cost breaks on their productions.
For instance, producing movies and TV shows in Canada. Basing themselves in tax shelters, like the Isle of Man.
Manufacturers are eating
December 19, 2007 - 14:12 ET by jpm100Manufacturers are eating the costs of Hybrids in a big way or putting them on expensive vehicles which have a large profit margin to help absorb the cost. They will have to pass on the real costs at this kind of scale.
People will have two choices, pay through the nose for a Hybrid (which Harry can easily afford) and the rest of us can drive Geo Metros.
The Liberal Rich always seem to love to create rules for the most of us while permitting an elite class to do as they please. As far as I'm concerned Smith is another Gore elitist who is more than happy to make the rest of us suffer.
hybrid Gulfstream jet?
December 20, 2007 - 14:34 ET by wizardjrIs there a hybrid Gulfstream jet? When I win the lottery I want to be green as I flit around the world like the Goracle.
This bill is an outrageous
December 19, 2007 - 15:31 ET by bigtimerThis bill is an outrageous farce.
There is zilch for any kind of real energy production....nada.
Pathetic.
We should be self-dependent in this country on coal, nuclear, oil, and new refineries and less restrictions as everything has to be enviro friendly anyway.
Historic all-right....a big fat nothing.
Drill Often....Drill Everywhere!
Once again form trumps substance-Pathetic.
December 19, 2007 - 16:54 ET by ThalpyBigtimer's views get to the bottom of it-pathetic. How much of the yearly farm subsidies are allocated to ethanol production? Michelle Malkin's articles have examined the true costs of ethanol production, for example, and it isn't just the increased price of corn, but the availability of it as well that should concern us. We should be using everything we can (safely) to become energy independent. Ethanol should be produced by using something other that corn- sugars, grasses, etc.
Bigtimer's admonition to drill and drill everywhere brings to mind the old Democrat slogan that we should "Vote and vote often." The Democrats have voted and voted often and the modestly talented Pelosi and Reid are shining examples of their votes.
Thalpy...
December 19, 2007 - 17:07 ET by Clear thinkerWhen I first moved South I was told something quite often (not anymore thankfully), and with Christmas cheer in my heart, I just gotta say "You ain't from around here are ya?"
Rush Limbaugh stated that of the top 5 Republicans running for the presidency, only one was a true conservative. http://www.fred08.com/
Ya think?
December 20, 2007 - 10:14 ET by ThalpyYa think?
I run a corn burning
December 20, 2007 - 11:13 ET by amberI run a corn burning stove. It costs me about $5 a month in electricity and I am in MN. I fill up my fuel oil tank once or twice a season at $600 each fill. If I was not running a corn stove I would fill it up 6 times. I pay nothing for the corn and I do not even grow it. I tried to pay the farmer who supplies it to me, but he said he makes more from the subsidies so he doesn't need me to pay...... Hu? Well, as a taxpayer, I suppose I do pay, but thank you to all of you who are supplying me with free heat in MN. Sorry, I tried to pay so you would not have to. We really need to get rid of the farm subsidies. We are no longer subsidizing so farmers grow food (I don't think we ever were), but now we are subsidizing fuel production and paying through the butt at the pump for it too.
I drive a diesel. I really wish they would bring back all of the diesel cars. VW used to make a 5 person one that got 50 mpg without any compromise in safety.
I am going to buy up a ton of bulbs. I will also scrounge old homes and remodels for pre-ban shower heads.
Enenies to the left of me, enemies to the right of me
December 19, 2007 - 15:45 ET by pocomocoAs a sidelight to today’s bill signing, after signing it, Bush stood up, turned around, then smil\ing shook the hands of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.
In doing so, I see that Bush is adhering to Sun-tzu’s, (Chinese general & military strategist(~400 BC) caution who said: Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
But that's just the point.
December 19, 2007 - 16:15 ET by sublight68But that's just the point. Once a market develops for higher mpg vehicles, the manufacturers will respond. Until then, government interference will only hamper the natural market-driven reaction.
Edit: this was meant as a reply to taylork.
Energy Bill
December 19, 2007 - 16:28 ET by Mulligan22Part of this boondogle bill is the ethanol component. More of our tax dollars will go to subsidize corn for ethanol. This makes corn more expensive and everything thats uses corn goes up as well. From beef to cosmetics we'll be paying more. We're getting hit on both sides of this mess. Plus ethanol is a poor fuel choice. It has only 3/4 the BTU's of gasoline so you get lousy mileage by comparison. You can't pipeline the stuff, it has to be trucked. Last I read it takes something on the order of 1 gallon of fuel to make 1.25 gallon of ethanol. Do they really think we're this stupid not to know this?
Thanks for the summary - I
December 19, 2007 - 21:46 ET by JohnMThanks for the summary - I remember hearing that ethanol was a poor fuel, and that the cost/benefit ratio was negative, but I didn't have the details.
I second what was stated above: "Idiots."
The Truth about Ethanol = Worse than Gasoline
December 20, 2007 - 06:47 ET by PopularTechGive me a break - Oil Prices (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Myth: Corn Ethanol is Great (Video) (5min) (John Stossel, 20/20)
Ethanol And Biodiesel From Crops Not Worth The Energy (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Brazil - The Myth of Brazil’s Ethanol Success (Energy Tribune)
Ethanol - Brazil - Brazil Ethanol Boom Belied by Diseased Lungs Among Cane Workers (Bloomberg)
Ethanol - Cattle Fed Byproducts Of Ethanol Production Harbor Dangerous E. Coli Bacteria (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Ethanol E85 fuel loses cost-benefit test to diesel (USA Today)
Ethanol - Ethanol Fuel From Corn Faulted As "Unsustainable Subsidized Food Burning" In Analysis By Cornell Scientist (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Ethanol: Myths and Realities (BusinessWeek)
"Ethanol can't travel in pipelines along with gasoline, because it picks
up excess water and impurities. Also, ethanol contains less energy than
gas. That means drivers have to make more frequent trips to the pump."
Ethanol - Ethanol Production Threatens Plains States With Water Scarcity (Environmental News Service)
Ethanol - Ethanol Vehicles Pose Significant Risk To Health, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Fuel Comparison Chart (Community Fuels)
Diesel = 130,000 BTUs, Gasoline = 125,000 BTUs, Ethanol (E85) = 80,000 BTUs
Ethanol - Fuel Gauge Report: E85 BTU Adjusted Price (AAA)
Ethanol - Fuel Ethanol Cannot Alleviate U.S. Dependence On Petroleum (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Increase In Ethanol Production From Corn Could Significantly Harm Water Quality (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Production Consumes Six Units Of Energy To Produce Just One (Science Daily)
Ethanol - Study: Ethanol Won't Solve Energy Problems (USAToday)
Ethanol - Test results: E85 vs. gasoline (Consumer Reports)
Ethanol - The Environmental Costs of Ethanol (National Center For Policy Abalysis)
Ethanol - The Ethanol Myth (Consumer Reports)
"E85, which is 85 percent ethanol, provides fewer miles per gallon, costs more, and is hard to find outside the Midwest."
Ethanol - The Ethanol Subsidy is Worse Than You Can Imagine (Slate Magazine)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
it also lowers a vehicle's
December 20, 2007 - 11:14 ET by amberit also lowers a vehicle's fuel economy.
Economic Impact
December 19, 2007 - 16:28 ET by George2107Just once, I would love to see a real economic impact on the voters of the legislation this Congress has passed. From new very expensive light bulbs, to higher food and energy prices for ethanol derived fuel to higher costing cars and trucks, both in terms of dollars and in terms of lives when smaller, lighter cars are placed on the road the voters are going to suffer unintended impacts similar to the impact of the AMT on those the Congress now says they didn't intend to hit with higher taxes. If Pelosi and Reid are so happy with this legislation, they should bet their pension plans on the "benefit" this legislation will generate. If a real programatic impact analysis of this legislation were performed, I suspect that energy usage on the whole will go up or some activities will have to be curtailed.
Republican Cowards?
December 19, 2007 - 21:58 ET by planetrepublicanAnd remember that this is just the start. If a Dem gets into the White House, Congress will start enacting Kyoto-style laws. The economy will sputter out as prices will sky rocket along with taxes. The perfect storm for a Democrat Congress and President; unless the Republicans screw it up by going along with this BS (like Bush did today). They could kick the Dem butt back under the rocks where they belong if they just keep some cojones.
pr... Bingo! I just
December 19, 2007 - 22:02 ET by bigtimerpr...
Bingo!
I just hope and pray repub's... real republicans are listening.
This is horrible. What an
December 19, 2007 - 18:01 ET by zfThis is horrible. What an intrusive heavy-handed paternalistic bill this is.
I'm sick of them telling me they're going to "save me money." That should be my choice! You see it's socialists not capitalists who think of everything in terms of money. Maybe I'm willing to pay the extra cost of using an "inefficent" incandescent bulb because I happen to like them more. Maybe I don't want a dim, hard on my eyes, mercury filled bulb in my home. Maybe I like the look and quality of an incandescent bulb. What's next, closing down fancy restaurants and forcing people to eat at home or McDonald's because it'll "save them money?" That should be my choice, dammnit, of whether I'm willing to pay more for something I like better, not some bureaucrat!
And how about that money these bulbs will save us poor benighted incapable of making our own decision peasants? Won't we just use more energy and keep them on longer because they're cheaper to use? And how about the cash we have to fork over when one of them breaks and spills mercury that has to be cleaned up professionally? Oh, and how about those who live in states where they are required to be dropped of at disposal sites, isn't that an extra use of time and gas? And I suppose we'll have to fork over the tax money to build and maintain these sites and areas? Not to mention those CFL bulbs are more upfront expensive to begin with. And who says incandescent bulbs are impossible to make more efficient anyway? Politicians, apparently.
And more enviromental regulations will be so grand, because gosh darn it, regulation has worked so well in the past! Give me a break.
This bill is nothing more than brute Orwellian force and everyone involved in getting it passed should be ashamed.
zf.... You said it
December 19, 2007 - 18:08 ET by bigtimerzf....
You said it all...
I feel the same about all this pathetic phony B.S. and the President and his words after the signing made me angrier.
When he ran he was for making ourselves right here dependent on oil and such from our own country..my oh my how he has changed...which is one other major issue that has saddened me with him ...the borders are the other.
He has had numerous chances to change both over the years.
All involved are pathetic indeed.
This tears it. I've always
December 19, 2007 - 18:05 ET by Gary P JacksonThis tears it. I've always supported Bush. I even rationalized his amnesty push, but this bill is absolutely idiotic.
Not a single drop of new energy has been added! Not one.
Ethanol is a JOKE. It's a great race fuel, but has less energy by mass than gasoline, which means you have to burn more, to do the same work. In other words, less MPG. And, since the cost per gallon is on par with gasoline, this will equal to higher prices at the pump. And then we got to think about studies that say emissions from ethanol burning cars are more harmful than straight dinosaur juice.
And this WILL be the death knell for the American auto industry. It may impact the entire industry world wide . You can't just wave a magic wand and have better fuel mileage! And, American don't want to drive little POS cars like they do in Europe.
Now there is technology out there, in it's infant stage. Direct injection, which is basically using diesel technology on gasoline burning engines (directly injecting fuel into the cylinder) is very promising, as it not only means better performance, more MPG, and less emissions, it doesn't require anything exotic to get the job done. But there are still driveabilty issues, which will get ironed out, but when?
Hydrogen is out there, but isn't ready for prime time.
If there was a way to constitutionally impeach every single member of Congress who voted for this pig, it wouldn't be harsh enough.
What's our Nation's real problem? It ain't global warming! Our biggest problem is we are held hostage by countries that wish us harm. We are funding our own assassins!
But instead of mainlining the fuel we need, and fuel we have on our own shores, we are hitching our wagons to this pipe dream of unproven technologies.
I always call people who want to see the President impeached idiots, but if there ever was a reason to do it, this so called "energy bill" would be it! (OK, now I'm a full fledged member of the moonbat fringe!)
Gary P... (OK, now I'm a
December 19, 2007 - 18:13 ET by bigtimerGary P...
(OK, now I'm a full fledged member of the moonbat fringe!)
Do not feel alone whatsoever....nothing in a long while has been more maddening...
Imagine the criticism
December 19, 2007 - 19:11 ET by ziplinedownthat bush would have to put up with if he didnt sign the bill. Ive supported bush because he did the very thing he was criticized in the media for: he stuck to his principals even when he knew the crowd would hiss in disaproval.
He failed to do so here. Its sad, but this leftist spin on everything has affected the president here.
They say it will save us money, we can already do that, go buy a Geo metro, actually thats probably what we will all be driving in 2020.
Also we must wonder how "average" is actually defined.... what if more people want to buy the less economic cars? will we limit the number of SUV's sold? Maybe fuel efficient cars will become extremely cheap so companies can bring down their averages.
Thomas edison iss rolling in his grave
Dimmers? No can do with CFL
December 20, 2007 - 01:09 ET by metroxDon't forget that you cannot use Dimmers with CFL bulbs.
We use dimmers all over the place, most incandescent bulbs in the house here are more than 15 years old because we never 'max' them out (plus they are all 130v).
Guess what, you cannot use Dimmers with CFLs, doesn't work!