A ‘New’ Light Bulb Even Glenn Beck Could Like?
- Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:05am by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
We all know how Glenn has an entrenched hatred of compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs, favoring the classic Edison-inspired, non-toxic, government-banned incandescent bulb.
But in the latest example of fine American ingenuity, Cree has invented a new “no compromise” LED replacement bulb for a 60-watt incandescent.
While it’s still a bit funny looking, will the new interchangeable energy-saving bulb be enough to win over Beck?
via engadget:
That bulb is dimmable, and emits a “beautiful, warm, incandescent-like color of 2700 K,” while delivering more than 800 lumens and consuming less than 10 watts (meeting the Energy Star requirements for a 60-watt standard LED replacement bulb). Unfortunately, there’s one big catch — the bulb is still just a prototype, and Cree says it hasn’t yet decided how it will bring it to market, or how much it might cost.
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 679 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 636 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 523 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 360 Comments
Have You Seen the Giant ‘Sand Obama’ Sculpture in Charlotte? 312 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 136 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 184 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 146 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Scathing New Ad Capitalizes on Rep. Ryan‘s ’Fading Obama Posters’ Remark 124 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 136 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (288)
tarpon
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:08amYes but what does it cost?
A CA judge just ruled that wind farm energy at 8x the cost of normal electricity was too expensive and denied the wind farm getting state financing. And solar panel energy, you don’t want to know.
The scams that Obama’s WTF America is pushing are breathtaking.
Report Post »darlenekay
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:05amI think it is cute.
Report Post »The Noodle Fish
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 4:21pmagreed!
Report Post »emertz8413
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:04am@tired of idiots – I have a basement full of incandescent bulbs, I just can’t read or do anything I need lots of light for with those nasty swirly bulbs. Also, a few years ago some kid broke a thermometer on the playground and the school called the Hasmet Team – Good Grief, now I’m expected to have mercury in my light blubs, I think not!!!
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:14amPLUS they lied about how long the CFL bulbs last, making them MORE costly and harder to dispose of because of the mercury. (a kid in MA went to a middle school with a 1/2 pint of MERCURY a few months ago! Theyhad to evacuate the school and bring in the EPA! Real safe.)
Report Post »tweetybirdtwopointO
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:51pmEqualjustice –
Do you know how many cfl lights are needed to get about a 1/2 pint of MERCURY?????
do yourself a favor and get back under that rock!!
Report Post »ADNIL
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:00amWhat was the point? To use less energy to save money? It will take a lot of electricity before you come out even on the “savings” for the cost of one of these bulbs. And 60 watts is not that much light. I for one would not be able to justify the cost at this time. I save energy by simply turning off what lights I’m not using. DUH
Report Post »Loki
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:52pmThe problem is people keep thinking like its 1920…
Using an Edison bulb, you have one or two lamps in a room, or an over head lamp with four Edisons to light the room. Having these setups, you need 75-100 watt bulbs to get the desired light.
Now.. LED bulbs(Note, the Edison looking LED bulb is a move in the wrong direction) used all around the room instead of one or two locations, can light the room with lower “wattage” bulbs.
And most of the cost of these bulbs come from early use of bleeding edge LED technology and not the using of current market LEDs(current market LEDs do not produce the same lumen levels as the newer LEDs)
And dont look at some of this new tech as “green-tech” but as self sufficiency tech… the less we have to rely on large power companies, large nat-gas companies, the nanny state has less of a iron grip on us.
Report Post »foolsgold
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:00amHmmmm…..Professor Beck doesnt like the new lightbulbs — what other ‘modern’ changes does he object to?
Suntan cream? Global warming is a HOAX, y’know. Why on earth would you need sunscreen then….
Just saying…
Report Post »Wilma
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:50amNo one denies that our climate is changing. The debate is over the causes of the change. Is man or nature to blame?
Report Post »Quest4Truth
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:39amYou are STILL defending Government Mandates? Where would you like them to end?
You are STILL not calling Global Warming a “HOAX”?
At what point does your education permit you to know the difference between Perception and Deception?
As for me, as I watch the mounds of ice and snow blanketing our country from coast to coast, I would love to see a picture of Al Gore in his Speedo laying on two inches of ice while snuggling under about 20 inches of freezing, falling Global Warming.
Report Post »Any cartoonists out there?
foolsgold
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:21am@QUEST4TRUTH
Physics 101: The earth is a CLOSED ecosystem. If you change the climate in one area, it will change in another.
Newton said very simply: for each action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
We are messing up nature everywhere, cutting down rain forests, emitting pollutants into the air such that the balance of nature is being upset — hence the crazy crazy crazy weather now being experienced around the world. Floods, cyclones, snow in India, heatwaves in traditionally cold areas. Birds falling out of the sky. Fish dying by the millions. Its nuts.
Why do you far right wing fringe Tea Party’ers not see this? You ignore the laws of nature just to make a stupid political point because you hate O!
Oh, maybe its just because you didnt get to (a) college where Physics was taught….?
Report Post »Soldiers_Son
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:23pm@FOOLSGOLD
What you fail to realize, as most people who buy into this whole “Global Warming” and “Climate Change” hoax is that that while the Earth’s climate is changing it is not as a direct result of humans. Climate change is a normal function of the earth, it is natural, and it has been doing without our contributions since it was created (or whatever your idea is of it’s beginning).
The Earth goes naturally through phases. It has Summer, Fall, Winter, Spring, night, day, ice ages, heat waves, storms, calm, and so on. This is a normal phase for the earth, just like how we had an Ice Age in the past and the earth was hotter in the Middle Ages than it has been at any time in our recent history. Seriously, did the people of the Middle Ages emit too much pollution into the air to cause the abnormally high temps? Did they drive around in non-green compliant chariots?
The idea that we are somehow changing the weather is stupid at best. There is no proof that any of the changes we are experiencing in weather are man made. But, there are thousands, if not millions, of years of history showing that the Earth changes climates on it’s own and with no help from humans. It is not rocket science to know that the climate changes, but it is some serious arrogance to think that we somehow made that climate change.
So, until you can produce some solid evidence that man is directly affecting that change, or we have at any time changed the weather on a consistent basis (not some fluke, abnormality, or single event) for good or bad, then I am just going to have to dismiss the idea. I will continue to keep an open mind about it, but up until now I have not seen a single shred of actual evidence to prove that man has ever, in our entire history, caused climate change (or Global Warming).
Now, I will agree with you on a very small level about emitting pollutants, and how that is bad, but I will counter that none of the materials we are emitting into the earth are foreign to the earth. The all came from the earth and the earth has dealt with them for millions of years before we found them and used them. While this is no excuse not to not take the necessary steps to reduce, or nullify, the impact of our actions, it means that the earth has built in filters and ways to deal with such things… even if that process takes longer than we will be around. As for cutting down trees, well they are a renewable resource and the only thing we are guilty of is not replanting what we use. Otherwise, there is no problem with us cutting down trees to use, even in rainforests, that is what they are there for.
Report Post »copatriots
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:49pmBRAVO Soldiers_Son! Couldn’t have said it better myself! People like foolsgold take a propaganda-based physics class and think they become an expert on the planet and it’s history. Wake up, fools, and realize the elitists just want to make money off of your ignorance by instituting a global tax. Yes, they spend tax money so wisely as it is. We should give them even more to waste. (cynicism heavy)
And, by the way, thank your father for serving, Soldiers_Son!
Report Post »Sooty3250
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 5:54pmFoolsgold Wrote “Physics 101: The earth is a CLOSED ecosystem. If you change the climate in one area, it will change in another. ”
“Oh, maybe its just because you didnt get to (a) college where Physics was taught….?”
Not sure where you learned your information, but clearly, it is not based on science. In a closed loop system, there is no unknown varibles. Yet, you cannot state with certainty, how many BTU;s of heat, our sun will emit today, tommorow, next year, or decade,,,,,, You cannot state with certainty, how many BTU;s of heat, will be released, from an underwater volcano, located in the Artic Ocean, heating the water, thinning the ice. You cannot state with certainty how many BTU;s of heat willl be released when an above ground volcano erupts. You can state, nor predict, the albedo change in the ice/snow of the northern/southern polar regions due to increased ash/soot from volcanos, forest fires which all have a dramatic effect on temperature.
Seeing geologically, areas of the earth, Mountain tops with seashell fossils, Deserts with fossilized ferns, salt basins in the middle of the US, it seems obvious to me,,, that the earth changes, has changed, will continue to change, before man, and after man. For man to think he can change the earth, in any significant, long term manner, is the height of arrogance.
Report Post »DJR
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:56amI bought LED Christmas lights and hated them. I returned them for the traditional lights. I hope these are better.
Report Post »Tiredofidiots
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:55amPersonally I have been buying incandescent bulbs for months now and storing them so when the day comes that you can’t find them on the store shelves I will still have my replacements.
Report Post »mrpips
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:52amLED bulbs are an actual evolution. I couldn’t care less about the energy saving garbage, what I like about them is that they last forever and don’t flicker like CFLs. They are also extremely safe containing no hazardous materials. The technology still isn’t ready for main stream, and they still are pricey (although quality ones could last for decades), but I welcome their development.
Report Post »Chasvs391
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:49amI’ve got the Cree Dimmable Spotlights in my kitchen and entry way. Love them truly! 60 Watts equivalent beautiful light from 12 watts power and dimmable! They aren’t cheap, but look like normal lights and will last for ever! Best of all, the Government isn’t telling me I need to buy them! I’m doing it myself because of the energy COST savings and eventual break even on expenses.
Report Post »LARR
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:48amMan – everytime I go to Home Depot I buy several pack of the now banned bulbs. I hope this doesn’t make me regret the couple hundred that are now stored in my garage for future use!! 3-way, 60, 75 100W…I got em all!!!!
Report Post »victoriavitelli
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:36amLarr…..you don’t have them all…..I do! HAHAHAHA The check out people at Home Depot look at me funny every time I’m there! BUY EM UP……….I figure, I’ll at least have a stash that will last a while till I decide if and when I want to buy other bulbs…….never cfls……..but maybe leds…..i haven‘t done enough research cuz i’m busy buying edisons!
Report Post »Mo Better
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:46amI drank the kool-aid on the m-e-r-c-u-r-y CFL bulbs and bought them for every light fixture in the house… before I learned they contained mercury. I have since removed them all and stored them in a ziplock bag (saving them for re-installation the day before the Federal lightbulb inspector arrives). I have since purchased a case of Edisons and will continue to stockpile them just in case MAObama get re-elected and bans Edisons, LEDs and/or anything not manufactured by his GE buddies.
Report Post »EqualJustice
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:17amI probably have MORE than both of you! hahahaha
Report Post »Pat Alexander
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:37amThese cost between $25 & $35 EACH…
Not gonna happen here.
Here is a 40 watt at Lowes $34.98
http://www.lowes.com/pd_136807-371-62180_0__?productId=3294946&Ntt=led+bulb&pl=1¤tURL=%2Fpl__0__s%3FNtt%3Dled%2Bbulb
Report Post »PartyofKNOW
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:47amI like how in the speck for the bulb it says “CONTAINS NO MERCURY”. That‘s what GE’s hoping for…lol…the populus to dislike Mercury poisoning so much that they’ll pay $35 for a 40 watt bulb.
P.S.- Don’t buy ANYTHING from GE!
Report Post »foolsgold
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:03am@PARTYOFKNOW
You may want to check the jet engine of the next flight you board…probably made by GE.
Like the light bubs, if I were you, I would deplane immediately!!! Who wants to fly on a commie-powered plane!!!
Just saying…
Report Post »KbJockey
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 5:45pmI recently replaced 8 T-10 10 watt halogen track light lamps with 10 4 watt LED lamps. I got the LED lamps at 2 for $20 at Sam’s Club. Total cost excluding sales tax $100. They are rated to last 50,000 hours. The halogen lamps burn out at a rate averaging 6 months and cost from $3 to $5 each. If you figure 8 X 10 watt = 80 watts and 8 X 4 watt = 32 watts the money saved on electricity and buying halogens every six months I just might save some money. Let‘s see let’s assume a cost of $5.00 per Kilowatt hour. 50,000 hours X 32 watts = 1,600 kilowatt hours X $5.00/kwh = $8000. 50,000 X 80 watts = 4000 kilowatt hours X $5.00/kwh = $20,000. It looks like I will save $12,000 plus the cost of replacing halogens over the 50,000 hour lifetime of the LEDs. Assuming of course all of the LEDs actually last the full 50,000 hours which in real life is highly unlikely. That being said I think I will still save money with the LEDs.
Report Post »Dougral
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:37amThese bulbs will cost around $50. That’s a lot for a 60 watt replacement. I don‘t use 60’s in too many places either because they are too dim. This isn’t a product I will be buying any time soon.
Report Post »balrog
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:32amlots of parts and technology in that bulb…$20??..great idea if we can afford…count the bulbs in your house / see how many u would need ..edison bulbs can be as cheap as 4/$1…
Report Post »Quest4Truth
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:08amAfter you count the lightbulbs in your house, start counting the lightbulbs in your community, then your city, your state, then the other 49 states. If you are not too exhausted, (and still have enough light to keep doing the math), start estimating the lightbulbs in the towering office buildings in the night skyline, including all airports and traffic signals. Then start on the cruise ships, the military ships, the trains and all underground installations.
Report Post »Are you exhausted yet? If not, try calculating the cost per personal use, which you pay for yourself, vs the cost to taxpayers to fund all the rest of them.
Now, factor in that after 130 years of Mr. Edison’s invention of the incandescant bulbs, we can still buy them for as little as 4 for $1.00…a bit more for the 3 in 1 wattage types. The last I heard, Mr. Edison’s ORIGINAL light bulb is STILL BURNING.
So, should we call this green technology Progress? Eventual Bankruptcy? or The greenest of all Environmental lifestyles, Cave Dwelling?
sWampy
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:52amWhat really gets me is the wakos don’t want to make us replace bulbs that we burn all the time, they want us to replace them all. I have bulbs in my attic I may burn 10 minutes a year. They want me to replace these .25 cent bulbs that cost almost nothing in energy to make with bulbs that cost $20 and require 200x as much energy to make as the old Edison bulb.
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:12amDon’t forget to factor in the 10:1 replacement ratio of Edison vs. CFL. The fact that the original bulb is still burning doesn’t make up for the fact that the other trillion blew out after 750hrs. BTW, the original still burns because it is DC powered and running at far lower than rated voltage.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:59am@Balrog
I’m all for letting the market decide, and am 100% against mandates by government.
I would like to point out that good ideas generally start expensive and plummet in price once people figure out it’s a good idea. CFL’s (so-so idea) started really expensive, now you can buy them for two pieces of bubble gum and belly button lint and on average they last 5-7 years where on average your incandescent will last 6 months to a year (I know I know, there are exceptions). LED’s will be expensive at first, but consider that they generally have a 100,000 continuous hour burn lifespan, which is 11 years-ish if the bulb were on constantly, 27/7/365. In normal use, which does not see lights on 24/7/365, well, there’s a fair chance that you can will it to your kids, who will will it to your grandchildren and it will still be viable. So the up front cost may be more (but, as mentioned, will plummet once people figure out the math), but the durability is enormous. Add in that LED’s can be precisely tuned to any level of light color/warmth, and you won’t be able to tell a difference “light wise” between a future LED and your regular incandescent now. Throw in that they use even less energy than a CFL, and it seems like a big ol’ Win to me.
And since I see it that way, I’m quite confident that the market can decide on its own all without the help of government. Good ideas do not need propping up by government, only bad ones.
Report Post »leo346
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:30amIf they work and save energy and are not poison and are built here in th USA it would be a lot better than the bulbs the goverment is pushing right now thats poisonous and not even bulit here,
Report Post »awizard
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:28amGreat idea, ‘will have to see cost, life span, and such … ‘Won’t go anywhere til GE gets a cut though.
Report Post »Sledgehammer
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:27amWas just on their web site, no mention on where they’re made. This tech is da bomb! the only thing to make it better is where it’s made!
Report Post »YaDarnTootin
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:21amI want my old light bulbs, my old dumb car that uses gas but is safer, to use salt when and if I choose, and I want Progressives to Leave my country and Constitution alone. Get outta here. You are too stupid to live here.
Report Post »GeauxAlready
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:21amBetter learn to render fat for your oil lamps……………………….
Report Post »The American
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:32amYou got that right, we have regressed about 50 years! So why is it they call themselves “progressive”?
Report Post »constitutionaldirective
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:16amLED techno ROCKS.. It has taken years but it IS getting there and in some cases IS “there”.. And as pointed out does NOT have Mercury in them.. BUT STILL….. wouldn’t the freemarket be a better way to institute common sense, than to have an over-reaching fed shoving those poisonous lamps down our throats? I you think Mercury is OK, just look at the fed’s own recommendations on eating fish!
Report Post »Quest4Truth
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:49amYou guys have th right idea. Let the free market decide which bulbs to use, and manufacture them in the USA, without Gov’t subsidies! The LEDs have a brighter future, but still have a long way to go. The Mercury bulbs would not see the light of day without massive subsidies and mandates.
Report Post »streetrodder
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:15amWhere are they going to make this light bulb? (US i hope)
Report Post »welloddyfriggindah
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:25amI would hope too. And as long as the production line isn’t manned by $50/hr union employees they should cost under $100 each.
Report Post »sunsetsabunch
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:49amHey Streetrodder….
Got LED’s in your streetrod yet ??
Report Post »Kalidor835
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:17pmFunny you should mention people using them in their cars as some car companies have been making higher end tail-lights using LEDs for a few years now.
Report Post »Moment of Clarity
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:15amBrilliant!
Report Post »ruffnex
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 2:06pmBOBODU…How disgusting!
Report Post »Metalist
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:11amLet the free market decide.
Report Post »betterthantv
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:26amAmen
Report Post »Wilma
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:54amI welcome a cheaper, longer lasting bulb that delivers a bright light instantly, and is not a danger to the environment. I will pay extra for it. Let the free market decide!
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:07amWilma…..You’ll pay extra for a cheaper bulb? CFLs have microscopic amounts of mercury in them. Mercury is an element…naturally occurring in the soil. Your mom used to stick a glass tube full of enough mercury to create 10,000 CFLs in your mouth when you were sick. When you got a cut, she sterilized it with “MercuriChrome”. I wouldn’t drink mercury any more than I would let my kids eat lead paint chips, but in a CFL, it is not the demon you make it out to be. We deride the product because it was marketed with a global warming theme. These things really have gotten quite good. There are better reasons (posted above) than environmental whacko reasons to use them.
Report Post »bobodu
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:45pmBeck won’t need to worry about light bulbs much longer now that God is blinding him.
DisillusionedDaily
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:08pmThe EPA condemned the incadesant bulbs yes, but not because they were harmful to the environment or used too much energy. They were made in Cleveland by union workers and did not sell for enough to have comfortable profit margin. GE wanted to sell more of the flourescent bulbs because they have much higher margins. These bulbs, however, are not manufactured in the US. They are made in China. Once more the Obama administration has “helped” the US economy by ending the jobs of approximately 3,600 American workers and sending the jobs to China. When is this country going to wake up and realize that Obama is out to ruin our economy?
Report Post »conservativeme
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:10amAnything is better than the CFL – I love LED’s !!!
Report Post »Fantastic Four
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:45pmReally why bother, the Communist in Chief will just give the TECH to china so they can make it for nothing. He can take his cut and to hell with jobs in AMERICA
Report Post »CanadianForGod
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:30pmLED’S are not safe. On Christmas lights they warn pregnant women not to touch without gloves.
Report Post »citygirl56
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:10amIf you can make a light that does not dim the room and is affordable, I’m in. Also, I hope you don’t need a haz-mat team to clean up if it breaks.
Report Post »Mister President
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:15amWhen they say ‘dimmable’ that means it’s compatible with light switches and lamps that have the dimming capability. The bulb itself doesn‘t dim or ’dim the room’.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:08amWhat was wrong with the old, non poison filled bulbs?
Report Post »Lion420
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:16amGood point…here’s a better question: What’s wrong with improvement? The cfl bulbs are an obvious danger…are these?
Report Post »Ruler4You
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:19amThe government is trying to start a new “economy” base by forcing people to move into the “green” economy. We have had a steel economy and a technology based economy a service economy and now government wats a green economy. The only way to do that outside the bounds of free market rules is force.
Report Post »Big Bob
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:20amI agree and it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal government to dictate what we can and can’t buy that is the antithesis of liberty.
Report Post »TXPilot
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:27amId just like to have a lightbulb to put in my porchlight that would actually work when the weather is cold outside….kinda like it is right now…..brrrrrrr!!!
Report Post »PartyofKNOW
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:28amCome on Gonzo, a little Mercury in the drinking water never hurt anybody!
Report Post »Old Vermonter
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:30amBig Bob,
Report Post »Do you remember the toilet law? Congress didn’t pass any legislation forcing us to have 1.6 gallon toilets, a second flood bureaucrat did.
And when asked on “60 Minutes” if he had one of the new toilets, he said “No, I rent”.
historyguy48
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:32amThere are LED bulbs currently on the market. They are very expensive. The one I installed over my kitchen sink is supposed to last 10 years. It hasn’t burned out yet, six months.
Report Post »It works, but at close to 100 times the cost of a standard 60 watt bulb.
Gonzo
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:34amLion420, let the market decide what light bulbs get sold. These new ones may not be dangerous but, neither were incandescent light bulbs. Consumers are smart enough to figure out what is best for their needs.
Report Post »NickDeringer
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:35amI have some LED bubs now, but they don’t put out the light that these will. I suspect these will be much more useful and the only way they can hurt you is if you actually eat one of them.
Report Post »PartyofKNOW
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:38amLION420– The two good things about these lights are 1) not made by GE, therefore, no reason for Gov’t to force us to buy them. 2) LED Technology is very similar to the incandescent bulb, but but the diode is more efficient. It’s actually the (somewhat intelligent choice that gov’t put in most traffic lights- They last a lot longer, as individual LED’s burn out, remainder (of many) continue to work. BUT- in an snow or ice storm, there is NO heat to keep light clear of snow which can cover light and it cannot be seen-OOPS! DRAWBACK: I cannot imagine a consumer version will be much less expensive that pretty high price for other uses.
Report Post »grandmaof5
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:40amIkea is going to only stock the “mercury” bulbs in their stores in the near future. I suggest that they should have to dispose of all used bulbs if that is the only choice they are going to give the public. Eric Holder, leave our incandescent bulbs alone and get out of my house, it’s none of your business.
Report Post »smithclar3nc3
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:45amHere’s a better question. whats wrong with giving people the choice of all three? More to the point what constitutional power gives the Federal government the right to tell citizen they can‘t use a product that’s safe and demand they use one full of poison.
Report Post »technoid
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:50amSound nice but like soloar panels and transistors how much polution is emitted making the Led’s? Look how the land was poisoned in silicon valley.
Report Post »ArdenDulou
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:55amguys, stop embracing the 20th century just because. LEDs don’t have mercury. save you a ton of money over its life (which is much longer than a CCFL), and is an advancement on the Edison bulb. LEDs are everywhere, so if you want hate this because of enviromental reasons you better start hating all electronics.
Good grief. Some new things are good!
JayCee
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:57amWill they be made in USA?
http://www.usstuff.com/lightinc.htm
Report Post »My Sacred Honor
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:58amGonzo
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:34am
Lion420, let the market decide what light bulbs get sold. These new ones may not be dangerous but, neither were incandescent light bulbs. Consumers are smart enough to figure out what is best for their needs.
…Except those 20% who are more than happy to be led by the nose of course…lol.
Report Post »I totally disagree with government banning an item based on its energy use, and TOTALLY disagree with them then forcing us to buy something that is VERY hazzardous. But then again, the far left eco-terrorist‘s’ philosophy IS “Kill a person, save a tree!” Or disenfranchise farmers to save a fish…or disenfranchise loggers to save an owl…et cetera, ad nausium.
My Sacred Honor
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:07amAnd oh…forgot. Yes, I am all for new products that are allowed….did I just say “allowed”???
Report Post »Anyway…. new products that enter the open market that give more choices to consumers. ESPECIALLY if it is a vast improvement over the other choices. Pricey? Yes. But then, how many bulbs do you suppose you’ll buy over the next ten years…incandescent, I mean.
You can look on any light bulb box an it will give you its expected life. Just do some simple math.
(1 LED light) X (price) for “x” amount of hours projected life vs. (x incandescent bulbs needed for same time frame) X (total price)
Sooner rather than later that 1 bulb will be cheaper in the long run to buy.
And a lot less hastle.
Ser Scot
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:39amGonzo,
Do you have a problem with lower electric bills?
Report Post »TonyDarrington
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:46amThe benefit to CFLs and LEDs that I see is their longevity. If you switch to mostly CFL, lightbulb changing becomes a rare event. Not to sound like an infomercial but… My house has many lights that are left on constantly. Lightbulb duty was an almost daily event. Do YOU play the “I will wait until there is only 1 bulb left in the ceiling fan before I get out the ladder” game? I put CFLs in the vaulted ceiling fan, and have not touched them in 2 years. The slight dip in the electric bill helps offset the cost eventually. This is a much better reason to switch than all of that ‘green’ bs.
Report Post »My Sacred Honor
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:52am@TonyDarrington
Report Post »Oh good point about the reduced power bill. Forgot to put that into my hap-hazard equation.
Thanks!
Wilma
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:01amI have begun using the term “mercury bulbs” instead of “CFL” because it sends the message that they are hazardous to people and the environment.
Most people are not aware they contain mercury and cannot go into the regular trash. Consider what will happen when they end up in dump sites and the mercury is flushed into our water system.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:09amLED’s are the future, they get cheaper and brighter every day. If we would just leave the damn companies alone, in 5 years are so when the technology has progressed to the point where it makes since, we will all switch without being forced to.
Report Post »patchouli42
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:15am90% of the energy consumed in the standard lightbulb is emitted as heat and not light. It is very wasteful but was of great service to us for decades.
It’s all hype to worry about the mercury in the CFL. Your amalgam tooth fillings have more mercury in them.
I look forward to seeing the LED lightbulb in action.
Report Post »pax_fratrem
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:33amI can tell you all this … Ihave replaced two (2) of my Kitchen lights (35w Halogens – GU10 sockets) with Equivalent LED’s. The halogen lamps are $3 while the LED replacement is $30. That’s right: $30. Maybe I’ll buy a couple of Coal Oil Huricane lamps and some candles for supplemental lighting. These don’t use any power at all.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:47amLED‘s aren’t poison filled. LED’s are quite economical, can give you any type of color/warmth you want, and last for freakin’ ever. These aren‘t CFL’s, they’re actually a good thing.
Report Post »watchtheotherhand
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:51amIt didn’t fit the model “we are destroying the planet” and therefore didn’t further the cap and tax cause. So to sell the public on the supposed “fact” that we are killing our planet they have to start controlling what we do, eat, and buy. After all they’re just looking out for us. Oh sure they would gain unimaginable wealth from cap and tax in the process but we all have to make sacrifices if we are going to “save” the planet !!!!
Report Post »momsense
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:52amOur rabidly anti-human EPA is counting on the cfl bulbs to kill humans with it’s toxicity. After all, in their scheme of things humans are the cause of the earth’s airheaded projection of our current problems. Just look at their track record of anti-human inspired actions–destroying the logging industry in the Northwest, restricting water in the Valley( and therefore the food supply). mandating that people in MD who have invested millions in their homes abandon them in favor of destructive beetles in the cliffs, and of course the theft of private land under emminent domain to restrict the use of that land for oil and other minerals, ultimately allowing seniors and others to either freeze of starve to death. We need to get rid of or severely restrict the power of the EPA. and supporting liberal airheaded judges . While not building death camps, it seems that by stealth regulation and restriction the target of their moronic theories are the most helpless in our society.
Report Post »Thomas Parker
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:03amI‘d like to know if the CF bulbs are any more or less dangerous than the regular fluorescent tubes we’ve been using for years.
Report Post »Susan
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:08amIncandescent bulbs are still needed. In the winter when temps drop really low, people use incandescent bulbs to heat dog houses preventing their pets from receiving frost bite. I’ve never understood why none of the dog lovers have stepped up to speak for their pets. Maybe someone should point this out to Betty White????
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:18am@Susan
FWIW, if they do really ban normal light bulbs, you can buy ceramic “bulbs” that act as heaters, that run in the same wattage range as normal light bulbs. I use one for my bearded dragon (lizard). I suspect you’d have to look at a pet supply store to find them. They’re quite durable.
Report Post »912er
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:45am@Jaycee That seems to be the point everyone is missing. Its about closing factories here in the US and “spreading the wealth” to the poor countries of the world where the CFL’s are being made.
Report Post »keepthefaith
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 10:57amWe built our house 6 years ago and haven’t had to replace our light bulbs yet. They are all incandescent light bulbs. I don’t appreciate the government telling me I have to spend a lot more money to poison my family on a light bulb that gives out crappy light. Unconstitutional? I should say so. I know the Founding Fathers would be appauled.
Report Post »Kalidor835
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:00amOne thing that people seem to be missing is that LEDs aren’t actually a new technology. LEDs have been used for decades as the small power indicator lights on such items as walkmans, computers, coffee makers, TVs, stereos, etc. What is new is that they can now make larger ones that produce more light. I have a couple LED flashlights and I must say that the light they produce is superior to the old style incandescent flashlights. If these are made in the US and can be sold at the same price point that current incandescents are I will gladly switch to them. As others have said the current LED lights are just too damned expensive on a fixed income.
Report Post »EP46
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:00amNothing was wrong…just we closed all the light bulb plants in the U.S. and all the new ones come from China. Read this…..these EPA rules are NOW IN PLACE and it takes you 8 HOURS to clean up a broken bulb.
http://envirothink.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/epa-expands-on-clean-up-rules-for-broken-cfl/
Report Post »walkwithme1966
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:01amI hate the new bulbs – not using them – they don’t put out enough light! http://wp.me/pYLB7-yW
Report Post »tommee
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:22am“What was wrong with the old, non poison filled bulbs?”… nothing!
It’s like asking the question… What’s wrong with the horse and buggy?… nothing!.
Like all new technology, lights, cars, renewable energy, etc, there is a growing period before the bugs can be worked out. If visionary people did not go out on a limb to develop the new stuff – in spite of the common close minded negativity that lives in the past – we’d still be living in the stone age.
Report Post »slwolfgram
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:27amThey are going to outlaw the old bulbs this year I think. Neil Cavuto talked with a man a couple of weeks ago and he was telling the horrific details about how to dispose of these new bulbs. Can take up to eight hours??? Wish it only took eight hoirs to get rid of Obama and all his czars that are causing all this crap.
Report Post »ablisterin
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:35amWill these be made by union workers in China or India?
Report Post »silentwatcher
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:42ammaybe that will bring down the cost of oil/gas and end the economic crisis.
Report Post »titan
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:49amaround 20 years ago i was watching a program on tv about new inventions. they showed this inventor that came up with a new light bulb and it was amazing. it looked just like a regular screw in bulb and he turned on the switch and it came on working great. he then unscrewed it set it on the table and had the guy that was interviewing him break the bulb to show that there was no filiment in it. it had a small rod coming up from the bottom was all and had 2 types of inert gases in it. when electricity was applied it it would excit the gases. the inventor said the gases would not harm humans or the enviroment. he then said that the life of the bulb would roughly be at least 10 times longer than a regular bulb and use 60% less energy. he said when he gets the backing it should be out in a year or two. never happened! i think ge or gte or sylvaina bought him out. you can’t sell very many bulbs if there are not burning out. he did say that the only reasons to replace them would be because of a leak or breaking them. when i read this story it reminded me of the tv inventor show. i wonder if the company that has the patent will ever bring it out.
Report Post »BlueStrat
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 11:51amI and many thousands of others build our own vacuum tube amplifiers (guitar amps in my case). One of the essential pieces of equipment one needs when firing up a fresh build for safety reasons is a “safe-start” current limiter which consists of an incandescent bulb, a plug/power cord, and a switch. It costs under $15 if you have to buy everything.
It‘s used as a safety measure to prevent damage or injury in case something isn’t right. CFLs won’t work as they are completely different electrical animals. There *are* alternate ways to accomplish this, but they are many times more expensive & complicated. I’m now seeing posts by newcomers to building these amplifiers where they admit to not using any safety device at all because of these problems. I wonder how many deaths by electrocution will result from this? However many deaths and injuries occur, I’m sure the government views them as “acceptable levels of collateral damage in pursuit of a ‘green economy’ “. Instead of “let them eat cake”, it appears the government in this case is saying “let them ride the lightning”.
I’m waiting to start hearing of Border Patrol agents risking their lives and possibly being killed while intercepting illegal aliens smuggling in incandescent bulbs like they do drugs.
This whole idea of pushing “green energy” by intentionally making conventional energy costs skyrocket demonstrates a callus disregard for the inevitable deaths of poorer people that will occur as a result. No surprise, really. People are simply livestock to Progressives. To Progressives, it’s not like any people that matter (themselves) will be harmed.
Report Post »Bruce_Almty
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:19pmI’m glad we now use the Green energy efficient light bulbs; and more good news—GE just closed its last remaining light bulb manufacturing plant in the US. What a polluting, eye-sore it was. Now, not one single light bulb is produced in the US anymore. Hiphiphorray for Green Energy
Report Post »watchmany2k
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:22pmInteresting, I have the E1 on this at my site !
If you want to know all about the LED lighting available today.
Look for my article: LED-101
They last 100,000 hours !
My store is opening soon and i hope to have VERY low prices, you can even MAKE them yourself !
http://www.watchman2012.com
anOpinion
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:32pmYou can get LED bulbs now, they a pretty good. Fact is, the government should keeps its nose out things, and stop trying to pick winners and losers.
The free market will naturally get rid of existing bulbs over the next 10 years or so, and not by CFLs, and possibly not even LED bulbs. When better products come along the old ones die out, unless you don’t have a free market, in which case nothing better ever comes along.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:46pmLED bulbs are available .. but VERY expensive .. why do they keep giving us a choice between danger to our health and danger to our finances?
Report Post »Libel
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:46pmIncandescent bulbs use up more energy; which means using them costs you more (since you are all overly worried about your pocket books and all) and have to be replaced more often than the florescent bulbs (which again saves you money).
Report Post »CatB
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 12:50pmWhen they “build a better lightbulb” .. people will buy it .. but let the people choose .. do not FORCE people and tell them what they can and can’t buy …
Report Post »Loki
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:32pmWhat is wrong with the old Edison bulb?
Report Post »Tungsten is getting harder to get, most nations that have the largest supply are tin horn dictators in central africa.
Switching to LED bulbs reduce energy use(more energy used for light, less going to heat), our nation has the basic material to make LEDs. silicon, and you can have lighting that can have fall back battery power when the electricty fails.
Why use technology that is 100+ years old when something cost effective….
Note when reducing you energy usage you are reduce your energy bill, and can spend that money of something else.
ikenny
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:42pmThey were made in the U.S.A. of course!
Report Post »TheGreyPiper
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:47pmBigbob, I have to disagree to a certain degree. There are plenty of things which the government tells us we can’t buy, and it is mostly a good thing: certain kinds of drugs, cars made in Russia, children’s clothes which are not flame-retardant, etc.
I am far from an advocate of nanny government, but I do believe government has a positive role — it just tends to get carried away sometimes. I agree it should get out of the light bulb business.
Report Post »NeoFan
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:51pmJust unionize the creation of the old bulbs and the industry will go away just like the steel industry, textiles, cars, etc.
Report Post »CyberJocky
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 1:54pmIt’s PRETZEL LOGIC revisited.
Lib think;
1) Incadescent Bulbs – Old (Bad)
2) CFL – New (Good)
The fact that they will poision our environment, that’s just Neo-Con hate speech.
I say just cause it old doesn‘t make it bad and just cause it’s new doesn’t make it good. Let’s all try using the muscle between our ears for once, whaddaya say?
Report Post »GUT_CHECK
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 2:09pmi tried Cree l.e.d. bulbs about three years ago.
Report Post »they were a complete waste of money. COMPLETE
Mister_Bill
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 2:42pmThat bulb would not spread the wealth good enough for Obama.
Report Post »MJustice
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 3:28pmQuestion: What’s wrong with the good, old fashion light bulb?
Answer: Someone in the government didn’t own or have major stock in the companies that produced them.
Personally I think those responsible should be brought up on criminal charges. Liberals want to whine about endangering the environment…..Uhhh…what about these new light bulbs? Sorry, but when you should be calling out a Hazmat team just because you break one, the fact that we are being forced to buy them boarders on criminally insane! It almost seems like they have a bet between themselves wagering on just how much BS they can get away with before our heads spin off from the insanity!!!!
Report Post »The Noodle Fish
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 4:20pmExcuse me? The old light bulbs burn out after 2 weeks. The cost of constantly replacing them gets quite expensive after awhile, and they’re major electricity wasters, increasing the cost of your electricity bills. This new bulb seems like genius. I wish the patent office wasn’t so picky about its applicants when they actually have good ideas that might topple the ones that paid them a lot of money.
Report Post »Bamaman
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 4:54pmSince we’ve been mandated to buy them by the government, the CFL bulbs should be declared unconstitutional.
Report Post »ozz
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 5:40pmNothing is wrong with them.
Report Post »VegasGuy
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 6:04pmIn my own experience the compact fluorescent (CFL) light bulbs and their LED cousins last two years at the most. They are not any better than the old incandescents.
Report Post »Cosmic Ray
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 6:50pm“What was wrong with the old, non poison filled bulbs?”
They don’t save energy for the developing nations.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 7:27pmCall me old fashioned, but I got an email recently about a CFL that had literally “burned out”. The email contained a dramatic story about how the bulb burned out in a flash of glory with smoke, an odd smell and a small tongue of flame. I checked Snopes on the email and they showed the email along with the picture and said it was “false”. Their article went on to say that CFLs can emit smoke and may show burn marks around the base. If that was intended to be reassuring – it was far from it. However, I am glad that I found out about it because at least now I know. We have all adults in our household, but I can’t imagine what a child or teen would think if they went into their room, turned on the light and had a stream of smoke and an odd smell coming from the light fixture.
I don’t care for Snopes, quite truthfully, so I did some additional reserch and found this article from the Star Ledger.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/homegarden/81994142.html
I think it’s really important to be aware that CFLs do this. One more reason to have incandesent bulbs. As for saving money, well, if you have to call a hazmat team if a bulb breaks, where is the savings in that?
Report Post »Rancher2
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 9:20pmHow long are we going to allow these lemmings in Washington to corrupt this country. Are any of you thinking about joining http://www.GOOOH.com and once again get an actual representative body of we the people ?
Report Post »ozz
Posted on February 3, 2011 at 2:34am@Libel You must not be an American because you don’t get it. It is not about which is best it is about the FREEDOM to chose. You know, the principle America was founded on. FREEDOM!!
Report Post »**smacks ju across da head with a wet tuna**
The Monster
Posted on February 2, 2011 at 8:48amLEDs have been used for signal lights by railroads for years now. Even though the lights themselves are very expensive, it made economic sense to use them because the cost of sending crews out to replace bulbs is higher than the cost of the LEDs, (and they last so long it will be decades before most of them will require replacement). Also, the new light design uses four pizza-slice-shaped components, so that if one fails entirely, the other three continue to work (forming a pac-man shape) until the bad component can be replaced. Finally, the cost to the railroad in a lawsuit if someone is killed because the light failed is so high that it dwarfs all other considerations — they purchased long-term reliability at a high price because it was worth it TO THEM. The rest of us benefit because the manufacturers have already tooled up, and prices will come down as they amortize the cost of their plants.
Report Post »