Business

Gov‘t Backed ’Green’ Light Bulb Meant to be Affordable Costs $50

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award (the “L Prize”) for any manufacturer who could create a “green” but affordable LED light bulb, The Washington Post reports.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would encourage companies to find a way to make the expensive LED lights more “affordable for American families.” The administration was also careful to inject a “buy American” element into the prize deal – potions of the light had to be manufactured in the U.S.

The prize was awarded to Phillips, the bulb was developed and built, and it’s ready for market. It costs $50.

Wait. $50 dollars for a light bulb?

Govt Backed Green Light Bulb Meant to be Affordable Costs $50

Photo Source: The Washington Post

Unsurprisingly, several analysts say the Philips-manufactured bulb is way too expensive to appeal to a broad audience. Think about it: similar LEDs sell for half that price, as the Post points out.

“I don’t want to say it’s exorbitant, but if a customer is only looking at the price, they could come to that conclusion,” Brad Paulsen, merchant for the light-bulb category at Home Depot, the largest U.S. seller of light bulbs, told the Post, “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.”

But wasn’t the entire purpose of the “L Prize” to encourage and incentivize manufactures to build an affordable LED light? How does this make any sense?

“A Philips spokesman declined to talk in detail about the bulb or its price because the product has yet to be formally launched,” the Post reports, “It is expected to hit stores within weeks and is available online. But the spokesman said the L Prize bulb costs more because, as the contest required, it is even more energy-efficient, running on 10 watts instead of 12.5 watts. It is also brighter, renders colors better and lasts longer.”

But still, doesn’t that undo the point of the “affordability” guidelines set by the “L Prize”?

Manufacturers were “strong­ly encouraged to offer products at prices that prove cost-effective and attractive to buyers, and therefore more successful in the market.” The target retail price, including rebates from utilities, was to be $22 in the first year, $15 in the second year and $8 in the third year, the Post reports.

Govt Backed Green Light Bulb Meant to be Affordable Costs $50To put it plainly, Phillips comes nowhere near these numbers.

“This bulb is pretty amazing,” says VP of Merchandising Chris Weber, according to Market Watch. “It is really hard to believe that you can get the equivalent of 940 lumens of warm, ambient light from a bulb that only uses 10 watts.”

“Philips has done it and we can’t wait to get this bulb into the hands of our customers,” he adds.

But we just can’t get around the fact that $10 million was awarded to develop an “affordable” LED and Phillips came up with a $50 bulb.

“You keep using the word ‘affordable,’” Cato‘s Aaron Ross Powell writes, addressing the Obama administration, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

Comments (157)

1 2 3 4
  • Mikev5
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:26pm

    I use the Led bulbs but made in China at $15 to $20 a bulb but yes I use them in places that I will not use all the time WHY they are a weird color this mandate should be repealed.

    The chart on the bottom shows the regular bulbs at $1 dollar thats a Joke most can be had at 50 cents or less like 20 cents so that savings is a big JOKE.

    These green bulbs save NOTHING

    Report Post » Mikev5  
    • copatriots
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:48pm

      Oops……I got relegated to page 2. This is pretty cool and we just may need to know this skill.

      ———————————————————————————-

      This is actually the real green way to create light and it sure doesn’t cost $50.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHTD_RX3J2I

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:12pm

      Seriously…why isnt’ Steven Chu fired yet?

      Report Post »  
    • RJJinGadsden
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:46pm

      When taking photographs with the light of these bulbs, it causes a super yellow tinge. Really sucks.

      Report Post » RJJinGadsden  
    • StanO360
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:58pm

      We get fluorescents, strangely missing from Phillips calculations, for $1 each from Costco (with Edisons help). The ones for our kitchen recessed lighting are about $2 each and use 13w each (65w equivalent).

      Government . . . isn’t it grand!

      Report Post »  
    • Marci
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:12pm

      Another green payoff, no doubt. Interesting that another $10 million of OUR money was flushed down the toilet again. An award? They should get nothing even if they produced a $5 bulb. It’s OUR money that as usual the government is shoveling out to its allies.
      Let‘s take another look see at Phillips why don’t we?
      http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/23/light-bulb-giants-hope-u-n-will-guarantee-their-market-share/

      From that article:
      A partnership with the United Nations could certainly help advance that goal. With emerging economies adopting more advanced technologies, government-mandated footholds in developing nations would be a windfall for both companies.

      And government action will be required, Provoost and Goetzeler claim. “Market forces are not sufficient to achieve the rapid transformation needed in the lighting market to respond to the climate change challenge,” they write. “Instead, a multi-stakeholder global partnership is required to support countries as they embark upon efficient lighting transformation programmes.”

      “Global partnership” in this context means governments partnering with private companies to mandate or otherwise incentivize the products that those companies create.

      Isn’t that SPECIAL? They are the new G.E., G.M., Solyndra, what have you. Our money that was shoveled out to them is to advance the green and global agenda and MANDATES. I know you are all shocked.

      Report Post » Marci  
    • SpankDaMonkey
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:16pm

      .
      What ever happened to “If it ain’t Broke, don’t fix it”?…….

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • turkey13
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:52pm

      I bought a few until I found out they had mercury in them and I have my 4 Grandsons over and don‘t wan’t them exposed.Home Depot had a sale on before Christmas and I bought 4 cases for my whole family at $.33 each. These will probably be subsized by the Government for all folks on wel-fare. I read an article in a automotive magazine that when people on Gov. Assistance buy a used Chevy Volt and the battery goes out it will be replaced free after they pay $75.00 core charge.

      Report Post »  
    • udog53
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:54pm

      I installed the LED bulbs last June. Lowe’s had them on sale for $10. I have purchased 30 so far and have maybe another 10 to go in my small house. I have charted my electric usage for June 2011 and am comparing to all months thereafter. My bills are now an average of 32% lower with the 30 already installed. Unlike the CFL bulbs which are the ones that give off wierd color and contain mercury. These LED’s have good color and last 5-10 years depending on usage.
      Costco had them on sale for two for $17 but were sold out when I got there.
      I am like most conservatives. We are respectful of our resources and I personally like to save money.
      LED’s are getting a bad rap by the media.

      Report Post »  
    • mrfunn
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:06pm

      I live in a relatively small 2 bedroom home. Just did a count of the number of light bulbs we use. Just over 50.

      50 x $50.00 = $2500.00

      Report Post »  
    • JohnnyMidknight
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 6:19pm

      @ Mikev5

      Actually, you can keep the lights off with the $1 bulb and save $49 and the extra $3 to have light. So, the $1 bulbs are still more efficient on a per cost basis. The only difference is the amount of power needed. But with electric bills projected to inflate 200-300% with the regulations on coal burning, you may be better off with the $50 bulb. We already know that Obama plans to force us to go green by increasing the cost on coal and gas fuel options.

      Report Post » JohnnyMidknight  
    • thx1138v2
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 8:21pm

      Remember Obama’s “Under my plan energy prices wil necessarily skyrocket.”? In 10 years electricity prices could double several times.

      Don’t get me wrong, it sounds expensive to me also. I, however, live in that area of the country that got hammered by the heat dome last summer. One thing people don’t talk about when they talk about CFL or LED bulbs is heat. They operate with almost no heat at all. Using incandescent light bulbs adds a lot of heat to the inside of your house and if you use air conditioning, it costs money to run that air conditioner to move that heat outside.

      $50 still sounds like too much to me but there’s more to consider than just the bulbs. If it had a warranty where I could get money back if it didn’t last 10 years (kind of like auto batteries although the warranty is shorter) I might consider it.

      Now if I could buy a bulb that would last the rest of my life for $50 I would definitely go for it.

      Report Post »  
    • SoNick
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 9:30am

      Oh I get it, you guys are afraid of “progress” because you don’t want to be labeled “progressive”. All joking aside, this article is pure bull. For starters, the bulb featured in the photo is a Philips AmbientLED 12 watt, which costs 25$. There is a 50$ LED on the market right now, but it’s a floodlight and there are no incandescent floodlights that cost 50 cents, so the comparison doesn’t work. Secondly, the efficacy of a lightbulb is measured by the number of lumens it produces per watts used. Incandescent 60 watt bulb efficacy: 11. AmbientLED 12 watt (same power despite lower wattage) efficacy: 67. One lasts 1000 hours, the other 25 000 hours. LED is the future: it doesn’t have the mercury contained in CFLs, nor that weird neon-like glow. It is the future and we’re all going to benefit from this innovation. Stop fighting windmills please.

      Report Post »  
    • Ruler4You
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 11:26am

      What bald faced BS!

      If this doesn’t CONVINCE you, that as a person with a brain, YOU (we) are held in deep intellectual contempt by everyone who has a finger in this pie. From politicians who back this to the entire engineering and manufacturing line selling this garbage.

      Not ONLY are you told that a $50.00 light bulb “IS” a viable option for replacement use in your home, you are also subsidizing the manufacture of it on the front end. And $50.00 is a small price to pay for such ‘innovative’ energy conservation.

      This “IS” an insult to any one who has to earn a living. Of course, it’s a gold mine (should it be FORCED on us) for politicians (who are going to be insider trading on this) already on the public dole and for the “green” company executives who will undoubtedly be getting multi million dollar bonuses… just before they go bankrupt.

      Report Post » Ruler4You  
    • Grey Eagle
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 9:59pm

      I can’t afford a light bulb for that price. I have to buy food to put on the table.

      Report Post »  
  • lcallday
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:24pm

    And they named it the ‘Volt.’

    Report Post »  
  • mr166
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:23pm

    Yet another example of the ignorance coming out of our journalism shcools. They cannot even do 3rd grade math. 300KWH at 10cents/KWH is $30 for the LED. The incandescents would cost $180 for the power. BTW, average electric costs in the nation are 11 cents/KWH and where I live it costs about 25 cents/KWH. So the cost savings are a lot more than the article says.

    Report Post »  
    • sWampy
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:37pm

      Let’s see, it costs around $35 on average in the US, to run a 60watt light bulb 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, so for your math to be right, you have to run the bulb an average of 12.2 hours a day for the entire 10 years. How many bulbs in your house do you run that much. I’d say on average their number was a lot closer to reality than yours.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:40pm

      The point is that the government has no right to dictate what consumers can and can purchase when it comes to light bulbs. That’s the free market place given time those led bulbs could be made more cost efficent by being made to compete with other bulbs. This is an over-reach of government authority. And to defend that is to attack liberty

      Report Post »  
    • jacques.daspy
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:57pm

      Whut we need is more people to teach more Americans just how stupid they are. I’m fully vested in CFCs so hopefully, it wii be a couple of years before I have to invest in the new green bulb.

      Report Post »  
    • joebella
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 10:13pm

      MR166 is correct. The calculations in this article are wrong. In order for their numbers to be correct electricity would have to cost 1 cent per kilowatt hour. In reality, it’s more like 10 cents per kilowatt hour. That means the total energy cost for the regular bulbs would be $180 and the LED would cost $30. That means in total it would cost you $210 to buy and run a regular bulb for 30000 hours and only $80 for the LED. Pretty big cost savings.

      SWAMPY, not sure how you are getting $35 to run a bulb for a year. The calcs are pretty simple:

      60w * 24 * 365 = 525,600 Wh = 525.6 kWh * $.10/kWh = $52.56

      Report Post »  
    • SoNick
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 9:54am

      @smithclar3nc3
      using your logic, you could also say: “the Government has no right to dictate the amount of lead and mercury that is acceptable in fresh fish. Let everyone choose their fish and the market will eventually take care of those pesky poisonous substances”. yeah, right.

      Report Post »  
  • TeaPartyForRomney
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:19pm

    These billions to ‘green’ companies shows more of Obama’s radical thought process than anyone could understand. It shows they are willing to destroy America and our economy to pass an agenda, much like the firestorm trying to pass ObamaCare.

    This also shows why the ideology of Obama in college and showing who his mentors are is so important. Look at the new material on Derrick Bell, Obama, and the the left’s protectionism on this subject at: http://www.americanparchment.com/index.html

    Report Post »  
    • YAHSHUARULES
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:35pm

      This has nothing to do with the topic…BUT I JUST FOUND THIS OUT AND EVERYBODY NEEDS TO KNOW:
      The word “Dhimmetude” is found in the new health care bill;
      so what does it mean?

      Obama used it in the health care bill. It is used in the health care law.

      Dhimmitude — Type it into Google and start reading. It’s on page 107 of the healthcare bill. I looked this up on Google and yep, it exists.. It is a REAL word.

      Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-Muslim populations conquered through jihad. It is the TAXING of non-Muslims in exchange for tolerating their presence AND as a coercive means of converting conquered remnants to Islam.

      OBAMA CARE ALLOWS DHIMMITUDE and SHARIA MUSLIM DIKTAK in the USA!. MUSLIMS are specifically EXEMPT from the government mandate to purchase insurance, and also from the penalty tax for being uninsured. Islam considers insurance to be “gambling”, “risk-taking”, and “usury” and is thus banned. Muslims are specifically granted exemption based on this.

      How convenient. So CHRISTIANS, will have crippling IRS liens placed against all of assets, including real estate, cattle, and even accounts receivables, and will face hard prison time for refusing to buy insurance or pay the penalty tax. Louis Farrakhan will have no such penalty and will have 100% of his health needs paid for by the de facto government insurance.

      snopes.com: Health Insurance Exemptions
      http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/exemptions.asp
      TE

      Report Post » YAHSHUARULES  
    • YAHSHUARULES
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 3:03pm

      I want to add a couple of points to this I said it was off topic…BUT if you bother to read the last paragraph on the link I provided to SNOPES which is as Pro-Obama as you can get they CAN NOT say its not true. The article is called MIXED. They are claiming that who knows what may happen by the time this is implemented in 2014 and what changes my come. Reminds me of Nancy Pelosi who said “We have to pass the bill (Obama Care) to see what is in it. Also while I am on this subject everyone knew that there was going to be a shortage of doctors as alot were just going to give up their practice rather then be forced into this system where beaurucrats made decisions about patients not doctors. So the Obama administration has been allowing an influx of Muslim imigrants doctors to replace those! Think about that. Just another benefit of Obama Care no one but Obama and his ilk could have anticipated. Read between the lines. Do your own research. There is plenty out there to prove the current occupant of the White House is no friend of the constitution, or people of The Book. I for one am eagerly awaiting the full vetting of him by Breitbart.com

      Report Post » YAHSHUARULES  
  • RodT82721
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:15pm

    So is anyone surprised that the two , (not one) Nobel prize winners developed a replacement for the $0.50 incandescent bulb (that was/is destroying the planet) came up with a replacement that cost ONLY 600 time more, after a $10 million tax payer prize rewarded?
    Another great idea to save the planet!

    To sweeten their act they pass a law the everyone will be required to buy their ‘fix’! So now the prize winner will be raking in the dough from the hapless American home owner.
    How many light bulbs come one each evening? Multiply by $50 and you get some idea of what our Congress has costs us.
    This our government in action. 536 fixers in your pocket book.

    Report Post »  
    • 2theADDLED
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:30pm

      $50.00 Light Bulb
      Components = $1.00
      Union Labor = $49.00

      Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:30pm

      Rail (free)… Tar ($15.00)… Feathers (free)… Party (BYO)!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • joebella
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 12:27am

      The total cost of ownership for this $50 light bulb that you seem to be really offended by is $80. That is $50 for the bulb and $30 for the electricity to run it for 30,000 hours.

      You are right that the bulb it replaces only costs 50 cents, but that is not the whole story. It costs 50 cents but typically only lasts 1000 hours. So you would have to buy 30 light bulbs to replace that 1 $50 dollar lightbulb. But even so.. that is still only $15 dollars vs. $50. You have to consider the cost of the energy to actually use the light bulb. Over the lifespan of the LED bulb, it will use 300kWh of electricity which costs approx $30 at current prices. The incandescent bulb will use 1800kWh of electricity which costs $180. So you tell me, which would you rather have, a bulb that will cost you $195 over its lifetime or $80?

      Report Post »  
    • RedDawn2012
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 7:34am

      Albanians prior to the dissolution of the USSR were allowed only one light bulb per residence and could only use it for several hours per day. Perhaps this is what our Great Leader has in store for us … one $50 bulb to replace the 50 $1 bulbs we currently use. The bulb companies will still be doing well, but somehow I think we commoners may be losing something here.

      Report Post » RedDawn2012  
    • michael48
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 10:36am

      well if you use food stamps you can buy this junk for free and YOU and I have to pay for it…just another , lobbyist, gov. gumba SCAM…

      Report Post »  
    • 2theADDLED
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 11:31am

      @ joebella
      Market reality if you use less the price of service fee will rise they must make up the difference somewhere.

      Report Post »  
    • joebella
      Posted on March 10, 2012 at 2:58pm

      @2THEADDLED Can you name me a market where if demand goes down, the prices go up? I don’t mean to be snarky, because you do have somewhat of a point. THe price of electricity rarely ever actually drops significantly like the price of gas, but I’d argue that this is more because of the tendency of gas to being hyper-inflated than anything about the electricity market itself. Because of economic expansion, population growth, and increase in applications, demand for electricity rarely ever drops drastically, but we can certainly flatten the curve of cost increases with conservation. I can’t think of a situation where using 1/6 the electricity for the same amount of light is a bad thing. Can you?

      Report Post »  
    • 2theADDLED
      Posted on March 11, 2012 at 7:15pm

      @ joebella

      Any market that has employee‘s to pay and doesn’t want bankruptcy will have to adjust prices for sales loss. Much like the Government they will always adjust to meet the output but never cut expenses.

      Report Post »  
  • Ghandi was a Republican
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:14pm

    People will go back to whale oil for lamps.. How environmental is that?

    Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • sWampy
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:25pm

      That is the direction they seem to want, they want everyone living within walking distance of stores, and not owning cars, seems whale oil lamps can’t be far behind, of course they don’t want you using whale oil, they want you extracting methane from your poop collected in glass jars.

      Report Post »  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:46pm

      Yes– We will be blessed with State issued mattresses above the factories we work in. For the good of the State.. We will work for the good of the collective (if we work at all). In our free time we will work our underground economy (Capitalism) in the hopes of breaking the chains..

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:08pm

      How history is taught now-a-days: Listen children to “us” & not to your parents or grandparents. Here is the “real-truth”…Edison was the “ole-lamp-lighter” and that is the main reason why you are doing your homework by candle-light & whale-oil lamps(the useful-idiots don’t know this). Edison was the first “nasty-meaner-than-cat-litter-Oil-Man“ and he first introduced the Kerosene Lamp and we had to ”shut-him-down” Johnny, I know that your parents go-out-to-their TURNIP garden & pull up a turnip & raise their fists to the sky and always repeat the same ole“ line ”I will never go hungry again”. Well we will tell your parents what they can & cannot do and “tough” that they cannot afford a $50 light-bulb that will save the planet. It is propaganda that there are “crystal-chandeliers” in the whitehouse & we eat $100 a # ground-beef hamburgers. Johnny…EAT YOUR TURNIPS & SHUT-UP.

      Report Post »  
  • South Philly Boy
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:12pm

    SOME BODY NEEDS TO GO TO JAIL FOR ROBBING THE PEOPLE OF the USA

    Report Post » South Philly Boy  
    • Ghandi was a Republican
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:16pm

      Indeed.. Chu owes the American taxpayer $10 million dollars, plus damages. plus whatever money he scammed under the pretense of “pay”.

      Report Post » Ghandi was a Republican  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:09pm

    This is one more example of government cronie capitalism; in the hands of private investors the development price would drop exponentially over a couple of years and people most likely would buy it if it is shown to be a good investment for their money.

    That is the main things: good quality, good price, people see a need for it.

    With the fed’s all you get is junk and graft.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Micmac
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:00pm

      This isn’t crony capitalism, this is a typical utopian directive.

      NoBama 2012

      Report Post »  
  • USAF_Vet
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:07pm

    Okay you math wizards out there… let’s recap: The new LED light bulb lasts 30-times longer than an incandescent bulb, but it costs $50.00. If we say that the incandescent bulb costs $1.00, by my humble calculations, that means the cost of a “bulb” to illuminate a space would be far less using existing incandescent technology. Oh yeah, and an LED light source is linear, which means it projects light in only one major direction, like a laser pointer. It doesn’t illuminate a space as well as an incandescent (which provides light in a 360° fashion.)

    Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:40pm

      But we have to save the planet Vet! One dirty rotten incandescent at a time.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • StanO360
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:03pm

      Plus, fluorescents are cheap now anyways. Incandescents aren’t even $1, probably half that. But with our electric company subsidizing fluorescents, they’re cheaper still. There is no comparison to fluorescent bulbs to LED. Their time will come, just not now.

      Report Post »  
    • scuba13
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:18pm

      I have have all the incandesant light bulbs I will ever need. Don’t need mercury filled bulbs or leds.

      Report Post » scuba13  
    • 2theADDLED
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 4:29pm

      @ USAF_Vet
      How many LED lights does it take to illuminate the same square footage as a Incandescent ?
      Everything you do you would have to wear a headlamp making you look like a dork or a miner.

      Report Post »  
  • Tigress1
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:06pm

    Let’s say you are an average person with an averages sized home of 3 bedrooms 2 baths, a kitchen, an entryway, and a den, and maybe a dining room and you put one of these bulbs in each room.That comes to $450 for the whole house! Wow! Some people buy bulbs at the dollar store for $1 a piece (even though these are junky bulbs and have been known to fry ceiling fans) for a total of $9 – a difference of $441. I could think of a whole lot of other things I’d rather spend $441 on than stupid light bulbs!

    Report Post » Tigress1  
  • Mojoron
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:05pm

    These bulbs is the reason why green jobs won’t work. First of all if you buy a cheap chinese 60 bulb that is NOT frosted, it will put out five times the light than does a frosted bulb. The LED and fluorescent bulbs not only cost more, they use nickel and mercury in the manufacturing process. Ideally, the larger the filament in the bulb the longer it lasts. If you purchase a 220 volt bulb that is rated at 100 watts output and use one in your lamp, it will use 50 watts of power but only have half the light output, but the bulb will last forever since the filament is not as small as the 110 model. I have used 220v bulbs for some time in areas that don’t need a lot of light and so far I have one that I have never replaced in three years and is used every day. Bulb science is not brain surgery. They can be manufactured now using conventional technology and still save money in the long run.

    Report Post » Mojoron  
  • Truth and Justice
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:04pm

    Lets see at $50 per bulb times the 70 or so bulbs in my house that equals – - – - – -WTF!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • I_am_a_53percenter
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:21pm

      I have bins of Edison light bulbs in my basement. Been stocking up for a while now. Hopefully I will never have to buy another light bulb again!

      Report Post » I_am_a_53percenter  
    • pavnvet
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 4:21pm

      Yep, never thought I would see the day you would have to take out a second mortgage to buy light bulbs.

      Another thought. If you were charged to go build the Chevy model of an item and you designed and built a Cadillac model, shouldn’t you have to repay the money? I mean, if you were an individual charged by your boss to build the chevy model and it resulted in this boondoggle, wouldn’t you get fired? I am so tired of hearing BS, excuses and outright lies from these idiots. There is no accountability and the reason is simple when it comes to government: when everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge.

      Report Post » pavnvet  
  • Teabunny
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:03pm

    …the $50 light bulb? and we are still behind the UK technologically! University of Sheffield Revolutionize The Electron Microscope http://www.euroasiasemiconductor.com/article/74926-University-of-Sheffield-Revolutionize-The-Electron-Microscope.php (looks like Champagin-Urbana Illinois has some catching up to do!) (out technology development is lacking…we are a “Lazy T” nation, behind Sheffield! ) so much for my down-state Camp us!

    Report Post » Teabunny  
  • aChameleon
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:02pm

    Green energy can’t “make it” without some kind of prize involved. Until it can, we better just stick to what works, and has worked for years and years. Re-inventing the wheel, making it square, isn’t helping anybody or anything.

    Report Post » aChameleon  
    • Anonymous T. Irrelevant
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 2:00pm

      If the Eco-freaks would just be patient and let innovation come naturally, this wouldn’t happen. One of our problems is that we have a generation of immediate gratifiers, who are trying to rush our future into reality. They will do anything, and everything they can to be “the ones” to do it. After all, they were the ones we were waiting for.

      Report Post » Anonymous T. Irrelevant  
  • IMCHRISTIAN
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:58am

    I am saving up for a tank of gas. I guess the light blub will have to wait.

    Report Post »  
  • Mateytwo Barreett
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:55am

    C’mon! It’sonly $50.00. Look at the “bright ”side no hazmat call if one breaks, You’re at lest $1500 to the good on evry one that does break..Not to mention the bragging rights you’ll have. Like a few years ago when I overheard a couple women bragplaaing to each other how musc it cost to heat and cool their McMansions. I suggest that Immelt and GE buy the first couple million, to get the price glidepath going, They can use the rebate thry’re getting frommthe fed for buying all the Volts! In the end it won’t cost them anything.

    Report Post » Mateytwo Barreett  
  • hi
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:49am

    I like regular bulbs and stand the poisonous ones because of the light they emit. I hope we can bring back the old ones. I started hoarding them, but since they were going out of business, the quality is bad and not worth hoarding.

    Report Post » hi  
  • sWampy
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:48am

    One has to question how much of the $50 cost is energy to build these things? Sure in some locations where bulbs are going to be on 24/7/365 for 10 years a $50 bulb that eventually saves $70 in energy might make sense. But most bulbs don’t burn those ours. That 25 cent bulb in your closet that is on for 2 minutes a day max, costs 5 cents in energy to produce would have to be used for a long, long time to make it worse for the environment than the $50 bulb that uses even $2 worth of energy to produce, and you can bet your first born that it takes way, way more than that.

    Report Post »  
  • RightUnite
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:48am

    Yay!! Lets all hurry up and stock up on Phillips lightbulbs!! Oh c’mon!! You don’t really need all that food now, do you??

    Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:27pm

      That is what the pink slime is for. Although, my guess is that junk will be over-priced as well.

      Report Post »  
    • copatriots
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 12:28pm

      Hey….maybe the $50 light bulbs will make the pink slime look more appetizing.

      Report Post »  
  • Gonzo
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:45am

    “This is a Cadillac product, and that’s why you have a premium on it.” Sorry pal, there are some things I will pay for to have the Cadillac…lightbulbs ain’t one of them.

    Report Post » Gonzo  
    • T-2
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:58am

      i wonder if this light will burn vampires

      Report Post »  
    • Insolent
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 8:59pm

      @T-2
      “i wonder if this light will burn vampires”

      This is the most important question. If it won’t burn Vampires……useless.

      Report Post » Insolent  
  • MBA
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:43am

    Any politician who voted for the crap should be voted out of office. Then demantle the EPA. The $50 light bulbs are a worse disposal hazard than the old incandescent bulbs. Let‘s see how the democratic n a z i’s will handle this.

    Report Post »  
    • AmazingGrace8
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 1:21pm

      Bush,Jr. opened the “this-crappy-new-light-bulb-sheds-continual-light-on-our-losing-our-liberties-one-flick-of-the-switch-at-a-time” and this one is on him & his administration….and some of these people that voted for this are still in office! Terms limits!

      Report Post »  
  • COFemale
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:41am

    It is affordable for the leftist elite. They would spend that kind of money to save pennies. They have no business sense and Phillips knows this. The left can be so easily duped by others claiming “green”. Didn‘t we just find out in the past few years that Energy Star isn’t Energy saving compliant? Leftist are so gullible and dumber than a box of rocks.

    Sorry, I wont be buying a $50.00 light bulb. I am barely making it in Obama’s wonderful business sense policies now. $50.00 will buy food. I can eat in the dark.

    Hey I got a great idea. When a rich person buys one of these bulbs, Phillips has to donate two to two poor people making less than $20,000 net a year. Let me be the first recipient.

    Report Post » COFemale  
  • ChildofJesus
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:39am

    Rush was right yesterday green energy doesn’t exist but the left is pushing the fantasy

    Report Post »  
  • HorseCrazy
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:38am

    failure! I hate all of the new mandated light bulbs. I am hoarding my stash of the regular light bulbs. the new ones burn out so quickly give off odd light and in general are awful. I cannot imagine paying 50$ for a new government light bulb what a failure and a joke

    Report Post »  
    • 2theADDLED
      Posted on March 9, 2012 at 4:56pm

      What if they mandate that before you can sell you must retrofit business’s and other properties to meet code ?

      Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on March 9, 2012 at 11:35am

    Dear Hollywood: We will be inspecting your Homes and places of Business… to make sure you have these… since you have so much Money and want to spend it upon Liberal Causes!

    Report Post » lukerw  
1 2 3 4

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love