 whizkid3Premium,MVM
join:2002-02-21
Queens, NY
kudos:9 | reply to patcat88
Re: Government says $50 light bulb is cheap and affordable said by patcat88:The WTO legal thing, is have import balance quotas. China must import a $ equivalent amount from the USA if it wants to not suffer "balancing" tariffs that tax all the chinese goods until they meet China's imports from USA $ amount. Sounds good to me. |
|
Zach 58Premium
join:2006-11-26
NW Minnesota | said by whizkid3:said by patcat88:The WTO legal thing, is have import balance quotas. China must import a $ equivalent amount from the USA if it wants to not suffer "balancing" tariffs that tax all the chinese goods until they meet China's imports from USA $ amount. Sounds good to me. Yea, sounds good to me too. There is, however, one little big problem....
How is this balanced with the US dependence on China in funding our 'buy now, pay later' spending plan? If ever there was a reason to not spend what you don't have, this would probably be it. |
|
 grobinetteSoutheast of disorderPremium,Mod
join:2001-01-27
Springfield, VA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon FiOS
Host:
Frontier Communica..
Home Improvement
Millenicom
| reply to Jack_in_VA
We do seem to have drifted into politics. I have found most of what is in this thread interesting so I don't really mind the discussion.
As long as you guys are civil with each other and more importantly, as long as I don't see any more comments like quote:
"as in GE's case the CEO is very close to Obama so draw your own conclusions on that."
or quote:
We need to bring back American child-labor so we can compete in the global marketplace.
- even if that was meant to be sarcastic - we should be okay.
|
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to whizkid3
»www.china.org.cn/english/feature···6014.htm canada has a much lower trade deficit with china, just a random link off google, page sounds interesting, usa version »www.china.org.cn/english/feature···6135.htm |
|
 Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | That is interesting and shows that the Canadian government has the well being of the country (Canada) in mind. The good Canadian quality of life is a result.
Much different here. Too many people making a lot of money importing the cheap Chinese products and even more the enormous amount of debt the Chinese have bought from the U.S. Government financing the Governments deficit spending for many, many years. We can't stop importing now. We use Chinese loans to finance buying their products thereby keeping the Chinese factories operating. Meanwhile we are sliding deeper and deeper in the hole.
There is one bright spot I saw on ABC World News "Made in America" series.
Companies Move Manufacturing Jobs Back to America
Hopefully this is a a trend that will continue and grow. |
|
sk1939Premium
join:2010-10-23
Washington, DC
kudos:9 Reviews:
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to nunya
Power is cheap. It costs me $13 to run a 60W bulb 6 hours a day over the course of a year. A led bulb would cost me $3 a year to run, so it would take me 5 years to break even price-wise for a $50 bulb.
By comparison, my computer costs me $91 to run a year. |
|
 dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:$50 Light Bulb Wins Government Affordability Prize
But only the U.S. Government (in this case, the Department of Energy) could view a $50 bulb as cheap. To be deemed the winner, a bulb had to be affordable. But LED alternatives already on the market and comparable to the L-Prize winner sell for less than half its price. $50 is cheap for a bulb when you're paying $2400 for a hammer and $1500 for a toilet seat. |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | But LED alternatives already on the market and comparable to the L-Prize winner sell for less than half its price. |
|
 Spork
join:2011-07-13
Methuen, MA | reply to Jack_in_VA
$50 is really expensive given a 40w LED is $7-9 and a 60w LED is $15-20. Those prices are just at the level where they make financial sense to purchase. I don't think I would go above $20 for a light bulb personally unless it was still around a 2-3 year ROI.
--
"Every once in a while, declare peace....it confuses the hell out of your enemies." |
|
| reply to Lurch77
said by Lurch77:Is there an American company building bulbs in America? Or is this as close as we are going to get right now? I'm happy to see it manufactured here.
There were american-owned light bulb factories in the South that closed shop or severely cut back since they couldnt afford the Federal ban on 100-watt incandescent bulbs starting this year, and lower watts over the next 2 years. they claimed they didnt have the money to retool to produce the new bulbs while still offering competitive prices versus overseas. If you want American manufacturing to return, you need to vote out Federal politicians that create legislation after legislation that hurts American manufacturing.
We live in a global marketplace. Buying American is great, but at what cost? Until the excessive burdens of over-regulation, market-distorting laws, and mandates and bans are repealed, things will never get better. until creating something in the states can produce a product of similar quality at a similar price as China, the Philippians, India, or Malaysia, we are only going to continue bleeding jobs overseas. And until Congress and the President stop passing laws to increase the costs of doing business in America, we are never going to be able to compete on a cost basis.
Regarding this story specifically, though, this is just another case in a long, storied history of government-subsidized failure. A case where the government bans something for no other reason than to show that they can (the incandescent light bulb) and then realizes that there are no comparable replacements. One bad law spurs them to create another, and another, and another to patch up their failures. Companies had been working on LED bulbs for 10 years before this ban, contest, and subsidy.
This whole thing reminds me of Solindra and the 3 or 4 other solar panel fiascos of this past year but on a much smaller scale. Instead of subsidizing an entire industry (solar panels) they subsidize one light bulb manufacturer which was chosen via corruption and back-room deals (the winner was declared before the major light bulb innovators had a chance to submit their designs).
This entire thing is the epitome of government: bad laws beget more bad laws, subsidies to prop up unprofitable markets or companies, and corruption. |
|
|
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | reply to Jack_in_VA
said by Jack_in_VA:But LED alternatives already on the market and comparable to the L-Prize winner sell for less than half its price. Another unanswered question by the government is why were these alternatives disqualified? The article says comparable and half the price. "Cheaper LEDs of comparable performance come from overseas." |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | Really? The American companies are locked out by the very evident bias and favoritism by our own government. I'm of the opinion that our own government agencies are the largest hindrance to our companies being able to compete. |
|
robbinPremium,MVM
join:2000-09-21
Leander, TX
kudos:1 | It's the last sentence in the article you linked. There is more information available regarding the competition on the Department of Energy's site if you trust a government web site. |
|
 Nick_LPremium
join:2003-01-22
Pittsburgh, PA | reply to Somnambul33t
said by Somnambul33t:Regarding this story specifically, though, this is just another case in a long, storied history of government-subsidized failure. A case where the government bans something for no other reason than to show that they can (the incandescent light bulb) and then realizes that there are no comparable replacements. Yes, that is why the big, bad government did it, because they could. Be careful, next they will take your lunch money, steal your girl friend and beat you up behind the dumpster after school.
Let's all try to get this straight, everyone. There is not, and never was, an outright ban on incandescent bulbs! The mandate is for minimum efficiencies per watt consumed OF ANY BULB. Lest anyone think this is a plot by any one particular party of said big, bad government, realize that this act was crafted during the PREVIOUS administration's time at the helm.
Finally for anyone who believes that it's just an out of touch government's pandering to a few whiners, or as someone suggested, some back door deals, or an attempt to harm State-side manufactures, please note that almost every industrialized nation, INCLUDING INDIA, THE EU, RUSSIA and even evil CHINA have enacted similar laws/regulations.
It's 2012 people. Join it, won't you? |
|
sk1939Premium
join:2010-10-23
Washington, DC
kudos:9 Reviews:
·T-Mobile US
| said by Nick_L:It's 2012 people. Join it, won't you?
There are quite a few people you will have to drag kicking and screaming. I for one think the minimum efficiency requirement for light bulbs is ludicrous given the amount of energy we waste on other things. |
|
 nunyaWho is John Galt?Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-23
O Fallon, MO
kudos:8
 ·Charter
 ·surpasshosting
 ·voip.ms
| reply to Nick_L
said by Nick_L:Yes, that is why the big, bad government did it, because they could. Be careful, next they will take your lunch money, steal your girl friend and beat you up behind the dumpster after school.
Let's all try to get this straight, everyone. There is not, and never was, an outright ban on incandescent bulbs! The mandate is for minimum efficiencies per watt consumed OF ANY BULB. Lest anyone think this is a plot by any one particular party of said big, bad government, realize that this act was crafted during the PREVIOUS administration's time at the helm.
Finally for anyone who believes that it's just an out of touch government's pandering to a few whiners, or as someone suggested, some back door deals, or an attempt to harm State-side manufactures, please note that almost every industrialized nation, INCLUDING INDIA, THE EU, RUSSIA and even evil CHINA have enacted similar laws/regulations.
It's 2012 people. Join it, won't you?
While I think people should be switching to LED (you'd be foolish not to), I don't think this is any place for a government mandate. I think that the LED manufacturers should do a better job of marketing their product and demonstrating the "real world" savings that people will get from the new bulbs.
Let's not mince words. This was a government "ban". Example: If the government wanted to "ban" pickup trucks, they would simply mandate that all vehicles must get over 35 MPG. Then they could say they didn't ban pickups, per se, but they may as well have.
I figure that the market would have naturally created the demand if approached properly. Once rate payers see that they could save real money with LED lamps despite the higher upfront cost, most would get on board.
I think that the manufacturers decided it would be a better bet to spend their money on lobbyists rather than salesmen and marketing. They are probably right, as we have the most crooked politicians of all time in office right now (D and R!).
Comparing the U.S. to India, China, E.U. countries, and Russia doesn't exactly hep your case. I certainly don't want to live in a country like any of those.
You are correct with your end point: it is 2012, people need to embrace the change and save a few bucks.
--
...because I care. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2
1 edit | reply to mityfowl
said by mityfowl:One broken bulb and you loose for a lifetime with that math.
Bulbs get broken.
Give me 2 bulbs for a test.
Let's figure you can get incandescent bulbs for free and the LED bulb costs you $50.
Figure you have 20 bulbs in your house. You are using 960 more watts per hour with the incandescent. I will go with the Ameren UE Missouri rate of $0.1059/kWh. I need to get 472.144 kWh out of the 20 LED bulbs without breaking one in order to break even. That is 491 hours of use. Figure you are using the bulbs an average of 4 hours per day... That means you have to go 122 days without breaking a bulb. If you can manage to break only 3 bulbs a year, you come out ahead with the LED bulbs.
I know kids can change the equation, but we have not broken a single bulb since we moved into our house 3 years ago, and we have a lot more than 20 bulbs.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
Spork
join:2011-07-13
Methuen, MA | said by marigolds:said by mityfowl:One broken bulb and you loose for a lifetime with that math.
Bulbs get broken.
Give me 2 bulbs for a test.
Let's figure you can get incandescent bulbs for free and the LED bulb costs you $50. Figure you have 20 bulbs in your house. You are using 960 more watts per hour with the incandescent. I will go with the Ameren UE Missouri rate of $0.1059/kWh. I need to get 472.144 kWh out of the 20 LED bulbs without breaking one in order to break even. That is 491 hours of use. Figure you are using the bulbs an average of 4 hours per day... That means you have to go 122 days without breaking a bulb. If you can manage to break only 3 bulbs a year, you come out ahead with the LED bulbs. I know kids can change the equation, but we have not broken a single bulb since we moved into our house 3 years ago, and we have a lot more than 20 bulbs. You can drop an LED bulb and break the len. it will still work just fine. Those are just protective covers. I've been running 10% incandescent, 30% CFL, and 60% LED's at our house for about 2 years now. Zero bulb failures of any kind. We also didn't pay more then $14.97 for any of the bulbs in the house.
--
"Every once in a while, declare peace....it confuses the hell out of your enemies." |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to sk1939
said by sk1939:said by Nick_L:It's 2012 people. Join it, won't you?
There are quite a few people you will have to drag kicking and screaming. I for one think the minimum efficiency requirement for light bulbs is ludicrous given the amount of energy we waste on other things. Exactly, the amount of energy "saved" is a drop in the bucket to the energy we waste on other things and the waste is increasing and continuing at a rate that the light bulb mandate won't even make a measurable impact except for costing consumers more. |
|
Jack_in_VAPremium
join:2007-11-26
Mathews, VA
kudos:1 | reply to nunya
said by nunya:said by Nick_L:Yes, that is why the big, bad government did it, because they could. Be careful, next they will take your lunch money, steal your girl friend and beat you up behind the dumpster after school.
Let's all try to get this straight, everyone. There is not, and never was, an outright ban on incandescent bulbs! The mandate is for minimum efficiencies per watt consumed OF ANY BULB. Lest anyone think this is a plot by any one particular party of said big, bad government, realize that this act was crafted during the PREVIOUS administration's time at the helm.
Finally for anyone who believes that it's just an out of touch government's pandering to a few whiners, or as someone suggested, some back door deals, or an attempt to harm State-side manufactures, please note that almost every industrialized nation, INCLUDING INDIA, THE EU, RUSSIA and even evil CHINA have enacted similar laws/regulations.
It's 2012 people. Join it, won't you?
While I think people should be switching to LED (you'd be foolish not to), I don't think this is any place for a government mandate. I think that the LED manufacturers should do a better job of marketing their product and demonstrating the "real world" savings that people will get from the new bulbs. Let's not mince words. This was a government "ban". Example: If the government wanted to "ban" pickup trucks, they would simply mandate that all vehicles must get over 35 MPG. Then they could say they didn't ban pickups, per se, but they may as well have. I figure that the market would have naturally created the demand if approached properly. Once rate payers see that they could save real money with LED lamps despite the higher upfront cost, most would get on board. I think that the manufacturers decided it would be a better bet to spend their money on lobbyists rather than salesmen and marketing. They are probably right, as we have the most crooked politicians of all time in office right now (D and R!). Comparing the U.S. to India, China, E.U. countries, and Russia doesn't exactly hep your case. I certainly don't want to live in a country like any of those. You are correct with your end point: it is 2012, people need to embrace the change and save a few bucks. Well said nunya.
Yes it's 2012 people will embrace change when "THEY" determine the change is beneficial to them. Not before. Personally I see no benefit in the capital expenditure required for LED bulbs at their cost and performance now in 2012. The amount of savings for me is not even a consideration as I don't light my house like a department store. |
|
