Study: New light bulb standards opposed by Bachmann actually save money

But Bachmann’s bill, and another introduced by Texas Republican Joe Barton, are geared more toward curbing what Bachmann has called the “explosive growth” in federal regulations.

“President Bachmann will allow you to buy any light bulb you want in the United States of America,” she said after announcing her presidential bid.

You can also learn about all our free newsletter options.

Comments (11)

  1. Submitted by Paul Brandon on 07/08/2011 - 08:23 pm.

    Something about not being the brightest bulb in the lamp.

  2. Submitted by steve anderson on 07/09/2011 - 09:09 am.

    Great but if our energy policy is going to focus on using less yet we are pushing for more electric products i.e. cars we should be also focusing on more electric plants. I for one do not really care of these new bulbs. I tried several of them and find their life expectancy to the same or shorter. They cost more and the light they give off tend to bother my eyes. How about letting us choose which kind of bulb we like best and the loser will just go out of business.

  3. Submitted by David Suckow on 07/09/2011 - 10:16 am.

    The new light bulbs may save a little money in the long run as far as lasting longer. But the big sink is the hazards of the bulbs when they break. you almost have to call out the bio-hazard recovery team to clean up after breaking one. read the warning measage label. I believe Texas and one of the Carolina’s has voted them out. and i read Congress is now thinking about changing it also.

  4. Submitted by Gerald Greupner on 07/09/2011 - 11:33 am.

    I suspect she will prefer her bulbs to be dim. Maybe akin to just a couple candles just like in the old days.

  5. Submitted by steve lewis on 07/09/2011 - 12:36 pm.

    let the market decide what kind of light bulb the public wants. get congress out of the business of determining the type of light bulb the public can buy. as long as the light bulb meets UL standards, that’s the threshhold for market entry, period. beyond the UL standard, let the people decide. by the way, leave the snarky bachman comments to yourself because she’s attempting to get congress out of the light bulb business. get the tin horns in congress and (especially, the czar wasted tax dollars) the executive branch out of the light bulb business. if you don’t like anyone buying incandescants, your next words should be “nothing to declare.”

  6. Submitted by will lynott on 07/09/2011 - 06:39 pm.

    Ignorance is bliss, and MB is nothing if not ignorant. This has never been about saving money. It’s been about reducing carbon emissions and slowing global warming. Let the market decide? Jesus wept. The market brought us global warming, the ozone holes, lead in the environment, acid rain, mercury in fish, and rivers that catch fire. In every case, it took government intervention to stop a major threat to human health and welfare. The market depends on human reaction to stimuli, and will always go for the cheapest alternative, until people realize they’re cutting their own throats–at which time, it’s too late.

    But I can see I’m wasting my time….

  7. Submitted by Sheryl christina on 07/09/2011 - 07:20 pm.

    The new litebulbs do not give off the same amount of lite, they don’t last as long as they say they do and they are ugly and dangerous. Anyone try them outside in the winter yet? Very dim. Speaking of dim; that word does not refer to Michelle Bachman, but it does suit someone named Dayton. I can name call too…it’s easy.

  8. Submitted by N. Krevans on 07/11/2011 - 11:42 am.

    Most commenters above decrying the new standards are complaining about compact fluorescent bulb performance. The standards are for INCANDESCENT bulbs and merely require them to use less energy per watt.

    I already use some of the more efficient incandescents. They are more expensive, but they are still incandescent–same quality of light, same instant on-off, same ability to work with dimmer switches.

    The legislation does NOT ban incandescents. Far from it, it puts them back in play as a reasonable choice for those of us who prefer long-lasting, efficient bulbs and were glumly switching over to CFs even though we didn’t like the quality of the lighting.

    Like CFs, the newer incandescents can’t simply be tossed in the trash. You have to recycle them. So there is an upfront cost (higher price) and a back-end cost (more careful disposal) but a huge payoff in lower electricity bills and less time on the ladder putting in new bulbs.

  9. Submitted by Dan Hintz on 07/12/2011 - 12:42 pm.

    Reading some of these comments, you begin to understand how someone like Michelle Bachmann actually has support.

    Anyone who claims that the bulbs don’t last as long as old bulbs is either lying about having tried them, or is somehow incapable of operating lights. I realize that facts aren’t particularly important to Bachmann and her supporters, but the bulbs have been objectively tested and do last significantly longer. In my case, I replaced all my bulbs about four years ago, and have changed just one bulb since that time. I expect that anyone who actually has switched to CFL bulbs will have had a similar experience.

    As far as not giving off the same amount of light – if you buy an equivalent bulb, the light will be the same. Again, this may be a foreign concept to some, but the amount of light given off by the bulb is something that can be objectively measured.

    And can we stop with the lies about the bio-hazard in cleaning up broken CFL bulbs? Here is the EPA guideline:

    http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html

    The guideline states, in part:

    “These steps are precautions and reflect best practices for cleaning up a broken CFL. If you are unable to follow them fully, don’t be alarmed. CFLs contain a very small amount of mercury — less than 1/100th of the amount in a mercury thermometer.”

    David (#3) your belief is incorrect. Texas and “one of the Carolinas” have not voted them out. Those states are simply trying to circumvent the ban on incandecsant bulbs. No one is going to vote them out because businesses are saving millions of dollars on energy costs with CFLs and are not interested in cutting their profits to accomodate the lies of people like Michelle Bachmann.

    The only argument with any merit is the appearance of the CFL bulbs. Anyone who has actually looked at CFL bulbs in recent years knows the technology has come a long way. There are soft light bulbs, covered bulbs (that look just like old bulbs) dimmer bulbs, outdoor bulbs – essentially all of the complaints about the original CFL bulbs have been addressed. The prices have also dropped significantly. Take a trip to Menards and find out for yourself rather than basing your opinion on a bulb you saw 10 years ago.

  10. Submitted by will lynott on 07/12/2011 - 12:44 pm.

    The people who complain about new and more environmentally friendly ways of producing and using electricity would have hounded Henry Ford out of town. Nothing is perfect on the first try. Sheesh…

  11. Submitted by howard rechtmann on 09/24/2011 - 08:10 pm.

    we will never by these bulbs, they cause migraines and have disposal issues. This is a free county last time I look the government should stay out of the light bulb business. CFLS make migraines worse or induce them. Nerologists have long held this. The government should continue to allow the manufacture of incandecent bulbs. this is not a communist country.

Leave a Reply