DOE awards Philips $10 million for creating a $50 “green” light bulb

posted at 6:00 pm on March 12, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Department of Energy competition: $10 million

Philips “affordable” “green” light bulb: $50

The opportunity to expose the DOE’s inefficiency yet again: Priceless.

The lights are on, but nobody is home at the Department of Energy, which recently awarded Philips $10 million as a part of a competition to spur companies to create an affordable “green” light bulb. Philips’ award-winning light bulb costs consumers $50. So affordable. Fox and Friends has the story:


In 2007, Congress passed a law — and President G.W. Bush signed it — that established energy efficiency standards that effectively made the incandescent light bulb obsolete. The infamous “light bulb ban” became a symbol of government overreach and the 2010 incoming House GOP majority made it a top priority to repeal it. While those fearless Republicans haven’t yet managed a complete repeal, they did at least recently push through a half-measure that prevents the administration from spending any money to enforce the standards. So, there’s that.

As this story illustrates, though, the DOE still finds plenty of creative ways to interfere in the marketplace. Under the guise of a “competition,” the Energy Department has effectively subsidized the creation of this undesirably expensive light bulb and wasted taxpayer dollars in the process. As Texas Republican Rep. Michael Burgess says in the video, “It just underscores the difficulty that we have in getting any kind of efficiency out of the Department of Energy, let alone energy efficiency.” Well said, sir.

Apparently, Philips offers a rebate for purchasers of the light bulb. Is the rebate for $49.21? Because incandescent bulbs are about $0.79 a bulb. These “green” bulbs better last about 63 times longer than incandescent bulbs to make their purchase “affordable.”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

**************** ITS NUTS ************************************

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Investments by Obama.

forest on March 12, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Still a lot cheaper than a Chevy Volt, or a half-billion dollars down the tubes with Solyndra.

This admin has the reverse-Midat touch, everything they get their hands on turns to excrement. This will be no different.

iurockhead on March 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Oops

Midat = Midas

iurockhead on March 12, 2012 at 6:06 PM

well, Philips did lose $1.5 Billion last year… gotta make that up somehow, right? ;-)

TheLoudTalker on March 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Remember when liberals used to be concerned about big business fleecing people with overexpensive items that no one could afford?

Now liberals are forcing businesses to do just that; and subsidizing the efforts to boot.

lorien1973 on March 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I’d like to know the names of the folks that picked the winner. For future prosecution reasons only mind you.

DanMan on March 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Invest We Much

forest on March 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Yeah, but isn’t there a $45 tax credit?

Kaffa on March 12, 2012 at 6:09 PM

Is this an initial production cost or the production cost at high volume? That may sound like a minor question but it’s actually quite important. No one seriously questions the long-term future of LED lighting. It wouldn’t be bad to interview an actual scientist.

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

There are quite a few dim bulbs in Washington,DC.

If this is the best the Department of Energy can come up with, perhaps we really need to look at having a Department of Energy at all.

To any rational thinking person, investments is just another Obama term for more and more of our money down a crony favoritism rat hole.

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

It may be nuts for the average consumer and without assistance from the local electric company, my extended family’s business wouldn’t have had the chance to experiment with this bulb, but according to them, it works, works well and lasts a looooong time. They’ve had one bulb in place for over two years, with no change in brightness, intensity or color range.

Now, that’s not to say that the business didn’t put up the majority of the cost of the investment in those bulbs, but it was part of that evaluation program to test the bulbs and their efficiency. The local electric company picked up a portion of the tab. The business is actually featured in the Phillips brochure on the subject.

Bottom line is I’d rather have incentives to compete to produce a better mousetrap (given that it seems we are doomed to an overreaching government) than outright slush fund payments to big campaign bundlers for businesses that were never going to be a competitive going concern.

All that being said, for the average household, it takes more than 5 years for the bulbs to pay for themselves and I can’t see ponying up $52 a bulb for that kind of return.

They’ll just have to do better and let the market decide.

totherightofthem on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

**************** ITS NUTS ************************************

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM

What are YOU complaining about? YOU can clean up mailing us Canadian light bulbs at a tidy profit!

Lanceman on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Lemme gues .. they’ll use the 10M to buy a whole buncha these bulbs so they can say the market’s just great ?
Hey, who’d put it past these guys ??

pambi on March 12, 2012 at 6:11 PM

Better check that price again. News is finally breaking regarding the inflation rate going up, and up and up. We may be paying $50 for a .79 cent light bulb if BO gets a second term.

chickasaw42 on March 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Well there’s a 2012 ad.

Rational Thought on March 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Too bad it’s not an elections year…

… this story could make for a fairly compelling campaign commercial against Obowma, his administration, and the need to cut back government.

What? Oh…

Seven Percent Solution on March 12, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Lanceman on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

All the light bulbs in Canada are made in China. /

In return, the Chinese get a new pipeline to the coast while we let our President play kick the can on Keystone.

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Isn’t this more or less what Gingrich would do?

MeatHeadinCA on March 12, 2012 at 6:14 PM

So,
Let’s see…I get solar panels from Solyndra that I use to charge my Volt so I can pick up “green” lightbulbs at the grocery store. Seems to me that the “green” means “more green” as in more money all around..

Yeah….riiiiighhhht….

ProfShadow on March 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Insanity.

portlandon on March 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

0.20 $/kWh * (60 W / 1000) * n hours + $0.79 = 0.20 $/kWh * (13W / 1000) * n hours + $50.00

Where n is the hours to break even.

n is 5403 hrs. 675 days of 8 hr usage to break even. Slightly less if if account for light bulb changes.

WashJeff on March 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

How appropriate. Philips bought the naming rights to the arena the Atlanta Hawks play in, and if there is one NBA franchise that would think a 50 dollar light bulb makes sense, it would be the Hawks.

radjah shelduck on March 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM

So,
Let’s see…I get solar panels from Solyndra that I use to charge my Volt so I can pick up “green” lightbulbs at the grocery store. Seems to me that the “green” means “more green” as in more money all around..
Yeah….riiiiighhhht….
ProfShadow on March 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Corporatism

MeatHeadinCA on March 12, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Soledad O’brien have anything to do with this?

chickasaw42 on March 12, 2012 at 6:18 PM

WashJeff on March 12, 2012 at 6:15 PM

Thanks. I was wondering that exact bit of information. Math.is.hard.

If $50 is “affordable”, how much did the losing entries cost?

Lost in Jersey on March 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Department of Energy Announces Philips Lighting North America as Winner of L Prize Competition
August 3, 2011 – 5:59pm
************************

Department of Energy Announces Philips Lighting North America as Winner of L Prize CompetitionPhilips Product Delivers on Department’s Challenge to Replace Common Light Bulb with Energy-Saving Lighting Alternative

Washington, D.C. – The U.S. Department of Energy today announced that Philips Lighting North America has won the 60-watt replacement bulb category of the Bright Tomorrow Lighting Prize (L Prize) competition. The Department of Energy’s L Prize challenged the lighting industry to develop high performance, energy-saving replacements for conventional light bulbs that will save American consumers and businesses money.

The winning Philips product excelled through rigorous short-term and long-term performance testing carried out by independent laboratories and field assessments conducted with utilities and other partners. The product also performed well through a series of stress tests, in which the product was subjected to extreme conditions such as high and low temperatures, humidity, vibration, high and low voltage, and various electrical waveform distortions.

The Philips L Prize winning product was also required to have a useful lifetime of more than 25,000 hours, compared with 1,000 to 3,000 hours for the products these highly efficient bulbs are intended to replace. The product uses solid-state lighting technology, which utilizes light-emitting diodes (LEDs) instead of electrical filaments, plasma, or gas, and has the potential to use far less energy than other lighting technologies.

As the winner, Philips will receive a $10 million cash prize as well as L Prize partner promotions and incentives. To date, 31 utilities and energy efficiency program partners stand ready to promote and develop markets for the winning product. The L Prize-winning 60-watt equivalent LED bulb from Philips could arrive in stores as soon as early 2012.(More….)
=======================================

http://energy.gov/articles/department-energy-announces-philips-lighting-north-america-winner-l-prize-competition

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:20 PM

A Winning Light Bulb With the Potential to Save the Nation Billions
August 4, 2011 – 3:09pm
************************
************************

This 10-watt alternative LED bulb (which glows white when turned on) could save the nation about 35 terawatt-hours of electricity or $3.9 billion in one year and avoid 20 million metric tons of carbon emissions if every 60-watt incandescent bulb in the U.S. was replaced with the L Prize winner. | Photo Courtesy of Philips Lighting North America

Thomas Edison would be amazed. The conventional light bulb has got some serious competition.

The 60-watt incandescent light bulb — an estimated 425 million of which are sold each year — has been technologically stunted for nearly a century. But an electrifying energy-saving alternative, which could arrive in stores as soon as early 2012, has emerged that could save the nation billions of dollars annually.(More..)
=================================================================

http://energy.gov/articles/winning-light-bulb-potential-save-nation-billions

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM

SHUT…IT..DOWN! Along with dept.(‘s) of; Labor, educt.,etc. Also, fire anybody who’s been at dept. of State for more than 5 years. Let these ‘crats taste the cold steel of a pink slip.

SMACKRUNNER on March 12, 2012 at 6:24 PM

“If they give you lined paper, write the other way.” — William Carlos Williams

scrubjay on March 12, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Here’s a tool you can use to see if it would make sense to buy the $50 LED lamp.

The quick math says yes, it might, provided you replace a regular 60W incandescent bulb with it.

However Philips, the maker of the $50 LED offers a nearly identical version at half the price (it’s burns 12.5W compared to the L-Prize winning 10W version.)

Using the tool to compare the two head-to-head, it’s a no-brainer. If you’re going to replace your 60W bulbs with an LED, the 12.5W version of the LED lamp is the better, more economical choice.

P.S. The default data in the tool applies for the 12.5W version of Philips 60-Watt incandescent light bulb replacement. You’re welcome to modify the data to best fit your situation.

ironman on March 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I wonder how many federal employees were put on to organize, oversee, evaluate, and judge this competition?

tommer74 on March 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

oops, the link.

scrubjay on March 12, 2012 at 6:27 PM

I wonder how many federal employees were put on to organize, oversee, evaluate, and judge this competition?

tommer74 on March 12, 2012 at 6:26 PM

None. The winner was decided based upon who donated the most money to the democrat party.

lorien1973 on March 12, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Secretary of Energy Chu does realize that the starship Enterprise was actually made of plywood and existed only on a sound stage, right?

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Conservatives and Libertarians have long pushed for “prizes” as a way of prodding industry to develop publicly desired technologies that are not yet profitable. An aesthetically pleasing, energy efficient lightbulb would indeed be useful, and in time the price will come down as the process for building them becomes more efficient – which is what always happens with new technology. Criticizing this development is silly.

GeorgeStanton on March 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

lorien1973 on March 12, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Aw, c’mon, that would be unethical, probably illegal…

Oh?

Yeah, you’re right. It is the Obama Administration.

Never mind. :-)

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

To keep track of the Loot,going out to various companies!

Recovery Act Recipient Data
****************************

A listing of all Recovery Act recipients and their allocations. Updated weekly.

http://energy.gov/downloads/recovery-act-recipient-data

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:31 PM

“$50 Light Bulb Wins Government Affordability Prize”
…almost as funny as OBOZO getting the Nobel Peace Prize – those lunatic-left socialist extremists do have a warped sense of humor (nearly as warped as their perverse socialist ideology)!

NB: Phillips is NOT an American company – it’s headquartered in the Netherlands and has most it’s business interests and employees OUTSIDE of the US. But then, the $10 MILLION in taxpayer money is probably the least single amount ever wasted by OBOZO’s DoE.

TeaPartyNation on March 12, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Love the cap title Tina…..”Dim” Just about says it all.

They say a light gets brightest just before it burns out.

Looks like the DOE is full of “bright” green lemmings.

Rovin on March 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

How long does a $50 light bulb last? Only until it gets stolen by the kids who’ll resell it for $7 out of their car trunk.

RBMN on March 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM

**************** ITS NUTS ************************************

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:03 PM
—————————————

What are YOU complaining about? YOU can clean up mailing us Canadian light bulbs at a tidy profit!

Lanceman on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Lanceman:But….but..you guys are gonna save $1 Billion Dollars,
just think of what that extra amount of cash will buy,
more….Social Justice….(I’m kidding)!:)

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:34 PM

I’ll buy these lightbulbs by saving money getting to work on a POGO STICK. Or perhaps I can buy the lightbulbs through savings created by selling the scrap metal parts from my Water Heater.

Varchild on March 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM

The Orteig Prize awarded to Charles Lindberg was private money from a private citizen.

As a Libertarian, I have no qualms at all about having as many private citizens or corporations or groups offering cash incentives for new technologies.

However, handing out “gubmint” money is an entirely different matter.

It is not their [gubmint] money to hand out. And the recent record of such handouts clearly shows that those have been almost entirely wasted dollars.

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:35 PM

In 2007, Congress passed a law — and President G.W. Bush signed it

Don’t you just love it?

In the dead of night.
For the life of me…. I never ever knew anyone was trying to do this until after they did it.
I came home from work one night, fired up the computer and read the light bulb had been banned. I thought it was The Onion.

10 years from now at the end of Obama’s second term, just before his 3rd 20 year term will begin, we will be a true, 3rd world country. The only question will be how many medals will he be wearing on his chest by then.
There cannot be any other outcome.

JellyToast on March 12, 2012 at 6:37 PM

What the heck is this made of?
I’ve bought white LED lights for less than that.

Count to 10 on March 12, 2012 at 6:39 PM

So I ponder,as I sip my tea,did Solyndra already have these
$50.00 dollar light bulbs pre-ordered for the factory!

And,is there any other orders waiting to br filled,like
re-placing the light-bulbs in every school,university,or
governmental building,say in Chicago!!

Just a thought!!

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

totherightofthem on March 12, 2012 at 6:10 PM

That is wonderful for your family’s business. Apparently, you feel that this bulb works so well that it would do great with just free market forces behind it. So, if the bulb is so wonderful, why does the gubmint need to put millions of our taxpayer (or borrowed Chinese) dollars into it in order to make it market feasible? Must be us ignorant and stubborn consumers.

NOMOBO on March 12, 2012 at 6:40 PM

In 2007, Congress passed a law — and President G.W. Bush signed it
Don’t you just love it?

In the dead of night.

JellyToast on March 12, 2012 at 6:37 PM

JellyToast:Yup,i seen that…..*Sigh*!:)

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM

This bulb lasts decades and produces more lumens with less energy than any equivalent wattage bulb to date. This bulb is affordable if you are somebody who actually has to pay an electric bill. It lasts DECADES, at least, and will pay easily pay itself within a few years.

If you use it for 8 hours a day, it will pay itself off in under 2 years, according to WashJeff’s calculation. From that point on you are spending $0.00 cents for new lightbulbs, and 85% less on energy.

Informed people who realize the value of capital investments and can calculate long term cost differences (definately not democrats) wouldn’t even consider buying an incandescent in this era.

Daikokuco on March 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Conservatives and Libertarians have long pushed for “prizes” as a way of prodding industry to develop publicly desired technologies that are not yet profitable. An aesthetically pleasing, energy efficient lightbulb would indeed be useful, and in time the price will come down as the process for building them becomes more efficient – which is what always happens with new technology. Criticizing this development is silly.

GeorgeStanton on March 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

The awarding of prizes is only efficient if the conditions are worthwhile. I could see handing out a few hundred thousand for demonstrating an efficient light bulb that could feasibly be made cost effective. For 10 million, I want to see proof that it was cheaper to make than an incandescent.

Count to 10 on March 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Blame it on poor lighting?

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Edison Lives!

This was on Rush last week. He did a quick interview/infommercial of Larry Birnbaum, who has started this company. His grandfather was a friend of Edison’s and a GE distributor.

Legal Incandescent Bulbs are Here

Here’s the site:

http://newcandescent.com/

INC on March 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Conservatives and Libertarians have long pushed for “prizes” as a way of prodding industry to develop publicly desired technologies that are not yet profitable. An aesthetically pleasing, energy efficient lightbulb would indeed be useful, and in time the price will come down as the process for building them becomes more efficient – which is what always happens with new technology. Criticizing this development is silly.

GeorgeStanton on March 12, 2012 at 6:30 PM

It’s more than silly. For decades American technological innovation has been driven by massive R&D investments in science at the federal level, especially through government investment in research universities and military programs such as DARPA.

To suggest that these investments represent interference in ‘free markets’ is inane. There’s no reason to attack and undermine this country’s R&D strategy- it’s one of the few real advantages that the US has left over its competitors abroad. At a time when China is doubling down on its R&D investments, the US cannot seriously do the exact opposite and expect to remain competitive. Can you imagine the outcome if China had made larger investments in the fledgling internet, enabling its tech industry to establish a position of leadership over the West?

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

No problem, if it has a lifetime warranty and no questions asked guarantee.

DDay on March 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Blub, blub.

Steve Z on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

If all of these LED lights were going to be produced within our borders with American employees in several states…then there would be a larger gain overall…for us, who laid out the cash…or as Obama would say “Made the investment.”

But, Phillips, a Dutch company, has actually closed plants in the US and has been growing plants in other countries. Add to that the Chinese propensity for not adhering to intellectual property rights (actually any sort of Right) and the Chinese will be mass producing these babies and flood the global market faster and a lot cheaper than we could possibly do, long before we can even tool up for production.

Their gain. Our loss.

Not a good definition of investment in my book.

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

No problem, if it has a lifetime warranty and no questions asked guarantee.

DDay on March 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Yes, and if you drop it, the cost of a new one will be pro-rated by date purchased/bulb life span.

And is it harmless when broken or do you have to call in the EPA and the guys with Hazmat suits?

INC on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

This bulb lasts decades and produces more lumens with less energy than any equivalent wattage bulb to date. This bulb is affordable if you are somebody who actually has to pay an electric bill. It lasts DECADES, at least, and will pay easily pay itself within a few years.

If you use it for 8 hours a day, it will pay itself off in under 2 years, according to WashJeff’s calculation. From that point on you are spending $0.00 cents for new lightbulbs, and 85% less on energy.

Informed people who realize the value of capital investments and can calculate long term cost differences (definately not democrats) wouldn’t even consider buying an incandescent in this era.

Daikokuco on March 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM

How many light fixtures do you have that can go a decade without being accidentally broken?

Count to 10 on March 12, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Edison Lives!

This was on Rush last week. He did a quick interview/infommercial of Larry Birnbaum, who has started this company. His grandfather was a friend of Edison’s and a GE distributor.

Legal Incandescent Bulbs are Here

Here’s the site:

http://newcandescent.com/

INC on March 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

It’s great to see this type of product actually manufactured in the USA. Do you know if it’s competitive with LED? Check out the technology and economics behind LED lighting. Hopefully the US can drive innovation, establish IP protection, and manufacture these products as well.

There’s an excellent reason LEDs have taken on the aura of inevitability: LEDs are semiconductors, and like all solid-state technology, they are getting better and cheaper on a predictable curve. In 1999, a researcher named Roland Haitz, then heading up semiconductor R&D at Hewlett-Packard, coauthored a paper that became the lighting industry’s manifesto. By charting the historical prices of LEDs and projecting forward, Haitz estimated that the amount of light they produced would increase by a factor of 20 per decade, while the cost would correspondingly drop by a factor of 10.

Haitz’s law has proven remarkably accurate. But the lighting industry still has major hurdles to clear before LEDs gain acceptance by consumers.

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/08/ff_lightbulbs/all/1

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Who’s getting paid?

KOOLAID2 on March 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

so, we can’t stop the light bulb ban but we are going to repeal obowmao-care. Yeah right. I suggest stocking up on your 2nd amendment supplies now.

screwauger on March 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

It’s more than silly. For decades American technological innovation has been driven by massive R&D investments in science at the federal level, especially through government investment in research universities and military programs such as DARPA.

To suggest that these investments represent interference in ‘free markets’ is inane. There’s no reason to attack and undermine this country’s R&D strategy- it’s one of the few real advantages that the US has left over its competitors abroad. At a time when China is doubling down on its R&D investments, the US cannot seriously do the exact opposite and expect to remain competitive. Can you imagine the outcome if China had made larger investments in the fledgling internet, enabling its tech industry to establish a position of leadership over the West?

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

All government sponsored R&D represents lost opportunity for the same resources to be directed toward research that is not politically motivated. For all we know, we could be far and away more advanced without the interference.

Count to 10 on March 12, 2012 at 6:56 PM

How in the world can an LED be that expensive?
I bought a string of them a hear ago for five bucks (marked down from ten — it was after Christmas).

Count to 10 on March 12, 2012 at 6:58 PM

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:46 PM

There’s a big difference from American technological innovation and $50 light bulbs or $40k Chevy Volts,(both certain failures), and much of government sponsored R&D has never been cost effective. I would bet private investment on R&D has produced far better results.

Rovin on March 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

If all of these LED lights were going to be produced within our borders with American employees in several states…then there would be a larger gain overall…for us, who laid out the cash…or as Obama would say “Made the investment.”

But, Phillips, a Dutch company, has actually closed plants in the US and has been growing plants in other countries. Add to that the Chinese propensity for not adhering to intellectual property rights (actually any sort of Right) and the Chinese will be mass producing these babies and flood the global market faster and a lot cheaper than we could possibly do, long before we can even tool up for production.

Their gain. Our loss.

Not a good definition of investment in my book.

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

I agree that it’s less than ideal to see a Dutch company win, especially given their preference for offshore manufacturing. However, the policy to promote competitive R&D isn’t an invention of Obama, but long-standing US investment policy in commercial research and investment.

If you’re basic premise about the protection of IP is right, then all is lost. The US simply has to start seriously enforcing our IP abroad, starting with film and software where billions are practically given away to the Chinese. The US has given China a free ride for far too long.

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

It’s all part of the Obama master plan to reward foreign-owned companies. Philips is Dutch.

bw222 on March 12, 2012 at 7:03 PM

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

They’re called rough service incandescents.

NYPost:

The Newcandescent is different and slips through a loophole in the law that allows for the manufacture of “rough purpose” incandescent bulbs that could survive, for example, the rattling of a subway train or construction equipment.

I assume they’re made like (or similar) the bulb you buy for your garage door opener light so that it can withstand the vibrations.

INC on March 12, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Doug Powers did the math:
The DoE estimated a savings of $3.9 billion in a single year? For the sake of argument, let’s assume all 114 million (or so) in the US households have eight “old school” bulbs in them. If we were to replace them all with the L Prize winner at $50 a bulb, that’s $400 per household. The cost to all households would be almost $46 billion just to buy the new bulbs. And we might as well add to the expense the $10 million in prize money taxpayers are on the hook for in order to pay a company to create light bulbs people either can’t afford or won’t want.

Steven Chu: Math is hard.

Hill60 on March 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

This is from his interview with Rush:

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/09/legal_incandescent_bulbs_are_here

…when they changed the energy laws, in it they left one of the categorizes open which was called rough service category. And what they did was they changed all of the old specifications concerning how the lamp was constructed and they came out with a whole new guideline, how to manufacture the lamps, which we took up. We bought the old equipment that the major manufacturers were getting rid of, GE and Philips and all those people, and we started manufacturing with their sanction. We met all of the guidelines, and they gave us permission to manufacture the lamps here….

What they banned was general service light bulbs. That’s the type of light bulb that you would use in your house, that you would buy in maybe a convenience store, big box retailer, hardware store. That’s what they banned. What they left open, the category is called rough service, which is a hardier version of the original general service.

INC on March 12, 2012 at 7:07 PM

so, we can’t stop the light bulb ban but we are going to repeal obowmao-care. Yeah right. I suggest stocking up on your 2nd amendment supplies now.

screwauger on March 12, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Didn’t you folks already do that? Didn’t y’all go into a gun-buying panic the first time President Obama was elected –causing an ammo shortage in the process– because it was so obvious that he’d be coming after your guns?

Well, now that he’s done absolutely nothing in his first term to threaten your precious firearms, guess it’s time to load up again, because in a second term there would be no stopping him!

Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM

There’s a big difference from American technological innovation and $50 light bulbs or $40k Chevy Volts,(both certain failures)

Rovin on March 12, 2012 at 7:00 PM

Do you understand that the cost of solid state LED lighting is expected to fall dramatically- it’s no different than the cost of most early stage technological products.

As for the Volt, if oil prices hit $160 then sales just might surprise you. And don’t forget about the Nissan Leaf- technology isn’t good or bad simply based on where it’s designed. Long before the bail out, the idiots running the old GM bragged about betting the farm on fuel cells, an even more unrealistic product for the average consumer.

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Speaking of energy!!

Newt Gingrich speaking at the Gulf Coast Energy Summit in Biloxi, MS

Submitted 7 hours ago from instagr.am
http://www.breakingnews.com/
=============================

http://instagr.am/p/IFASnCzAuu/

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I’d guess that at the behest of a lobbyist, a congressional aide slipped the rough service exception into the light bulb bill (which I’m sure most of Congress never read).

INC on March 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

As for the Volt, if oil prices hit $160 then sales just might surprise you.

Obama’s literally banking on it.

Rovin on March 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Doug Powers did the math:
The DoE estimated a savings of $3.9 billion in a single year? For the sake of argument, let’s assume all 114 million (or so) in the US households have eight “old school” bulbs in them. If we were to replace them all with the L Prize winner at $50 a bulb, that’s $400 per household.

That’s near the pinnacle of ignorance in technology reporting. Look up the Haitz Law.

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 7:14 PM

This is a good deal actually
The rebate is to bring the price down to $22.

But at $50 two years to repay the cost of a bulb used 8 hours a day is not that bad anyway.

This bulb is considerably more efficient than any other production LED bulb I am aware of though there are others coming to market by 2013 that will be some with Daylight color I prefer.

It would be great for a bulb that is very or even quite difficult to reach or one in a home with disabled people that could not change it easily.

Now was the price necessary or advisable. NO. HELL NO. Like I said other companies will have it soon and they did not even try for the prize. It gets LED’s more efficient than Florescent bulbs about 30% more efficient. Thus in the bulbs lifetime it will be more efficient even than a Florescent bulb.

By the way The Blaze did not connect to this bulb in their article this bulb is not for sale yet even on line as far as I could find.

Steveangell on March 12, 2012 at 7:16 PM

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Blame it on poor lighting?

coldwarrior on March 12, 2012 at 6:45 PM

coldwarrior:Lol yup,ooh dats good,I’m sticking with that one!:)

canopfor on March 12, 2012 at 7:17 PM

As for the Volt, if oil prices hit $160 then sales just might surprise you.

Obama’s literally banking on it.

Rovin on March 12, 2012 at 7:13 PM

It’s hard to believe this right wing fantasy is so prevalent. Is Bob Lutz a liberal and a liar?

Let me reiterate:

1) The Volt was largely my idea, and I was its undeniable champion. Work on it was started in 2006. Obama was elected in 2008.

2) No Volt in service has ever shown as much as a wisp of smoke. Not in normal service, and not in crashes. The three Volt battery fires all occurred under extremely destructive experimental conditions. Two of the fires were induced in batteries not mounted in in cars.

3) Those who know me will vouch for my credentials as a conservative and vocal global warming skeptic. I spent 11 years as a Marine attack aviator trained and ready to take out Communists during the Cold War.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/boblutz/2012/03/12/the-chevy-volt-bill-oreilly-and-the-postmans-butt/?partner=yahootix

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

So if this 50$ lightbulb won for affordability and “greenness” does that make the other new bulbs (CFL, LED) not green? or not affordable?

Are we still subsidizing CFL bulbs and maybe their manufacturing cost is actually more than 50$ a bulb?

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

It is not the Volt per sae that people object to.

It is the Government highly subsidizing something that is not at all ready for prime time. We all know we are not there on batteries because Lithium is a rare metal and not abundant in the USA besides which there is no green source of power to recharge these batteries so your Volt actually burns coal or Natural Gas very inefficiently. If we really cared to solve the problem cars would use CNG. We have hade the technology for decades and we have plenty of Natural Gas.

Now the normal Hybirds are fine they do save gas but should use CNG as well.

Steveangell on March 12, 2012 at 7:24 PM

These “green” bulbs better last about 63 times longer than incandescent bulbs to make their purchase “affordable.”

I would guess that will now be included on the package. Too good to check!

PattyJ on March 12, 2012 at 7:26 PM

No problem, if it has a lifetime warranty and no questions asked guarantee.

DDay on March 12, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Yes, and if you drop it, the cost of a new one will be pro-rated by date purchased/bulb life span.

And is it harmless when broken or do you have to call in the EPA and the guys with Hazmat suits?

INC on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Oops, forgot to read the fine print.

DDay on March 12, 2012 at 7:30 PM

So if this 50$ lightbulb won for affordability and “greenness” does that make the other new bulbs (CFL, LED) not green? or not affordable?

Are we still subsidizing CFL bulbs and maybe their manufacturing cost is actually more than 50$ a bulb?

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 12, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Usually the Power Company provides a discount on at least one or two brands of CFL’s at Home Depot or Lowes or whatever. So that bulb is artificially lower in price. As will be with this bulb that gets 960 lumens per Watt vs 625 for current LED efficient LED or 750 for CFL. By 2013 most LED’s will be this efficient most likely. CFL’s are not really improving any more.

Simple answer when you see this bulb it is a good deal better than any CFL in efficiency and dimming.

Steveangell on March 12, 2012 at 7:32 PM

And is it harmless when broken or do you have to call in the EPA and the guys with Hazmat suits?

INC on March 12, 2012 at 6:51 PM

This is just as safe as other electronic toys and flashlights. It is not a CFL. It contains no toxic chemicals. At least they are not required sometimes China cheats and puts toxic stuff in all kinds of products but that is the only way these bulbs could be dangerous. They are way safer than the incandescent bulbs they replace that get way hotter and dangerous when broken.

Steveangell on March 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Doug Powers did the math:
The DoE estimated a savings of $3.9 billion in a single year? For the sake of argument, let’s assume all 114 million (or so) in the US households have eight “old school” bulbs in them. If we were to replace them all with the L Prize winner at $50 a bulb, that’s $400 per household. The cost to all households would be almost $46 billion just to buy the new bulbs. And we might as well add to the expense the $10 million in prize money taxpayers are on the hook for in order to pay a company to create light bulbs people either can’t afford or won’t want.

Steven Chu: Math is hard.

Hill60 on March 12, 2012 at 7:05 PM

How about if we do the math for a real world scenario for this simple engineer instead of some hypothetical that someone dreamed up.
I have roughly 100 light bulbs of various types and power throughout my house (not just 8). So at $50 per bulb, I’m looking at an initial investment of $5000.
Now I have very few lights that are on for 8 hours a day, in fact many go unused for days or even weeks at a time, so I’ll use my electric bill instead. My total electric bill is about $100 a month average, but that is my total which, besides ligh bulbs, also includes my oven, stove, furnaces, air conditioners, washer & dryer, dishwasher, garbage disposal, electric heaters (on occasion), garage door opener, computers, stereos, TVs, computer and cable network equipment, hair dryers, curling iron, waterbed heater, yard tools (weed eater, etc), power tools, vacuum cleaners, carpet shampooer,…. Did I miss anything?
So let’s say (just guessing) light bulbs account for 1/3 of my total bill – that’s about $33 / month. If these new bulbs use 1/6 the electricity then I can save about $28 / month. So $5000 / $28 (per month) / 12 (months per year) = my payback time is almost 15 years – NOT 2 years.
So, tell me all you enlightened ones – is that a good deal?
I think I’ll stick with my cheap bulbs thank you.

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

And BTW – I have incandescent bulbs in my house still working and never replaced that were installed when the house was built 11 years – and some of these are bulbs that do get used almost every day.

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM

For the newcandescent (rough service) bulbs, they are $2.88 each, with the following shipping chart:

12 bulbs (minimum order) $ 12.24
13-24 bulbs $ 13.05
25-36 bulbs $ 13.66
37-48 bulbs $ 14.77
49 plus Free Shipping

So they are much more expensive than the old incandescent ones. But generally cheaper than CFLs

Bravo for him for finding and using the loophole.

kerncon on March 12, 2012 at 7:45 PM

Informed people who realize the value of capital investments and can calculate long term cost differences (definately not democrats) wouldn’t even consider buying an incandescent in this era.

Daikokuco on March 12, 2012 at 6:44 PM

What if $50 is more than you can afford? I have 2 bulbs in my room. I have a 3 bedroom house, so that’s six bulbs. There’s 4 in the kitchen, 3 in the dining room 5 in the living room, one in the garage, one on the front porch, and one on tha back porch.

That’s 21 bulbs. So I have to spend $1,050 on light bulbs? How am I supposed to pay for my contraception?

itsspideyman on March 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Newcandescent light bulbs. The bulbs are classified as “rough duty” bulbs – which is all I buy, anyway – and last longer (it seems to me) than regulars.
Any wattage, too, from 5watts to 1000watts.
http://newcandescent.com/index.html

Solaratov on March 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

Sorry. I didn’t see the other posts about Newcandescent.

Solaratov on March 12, 2012 at 7:49 PM

That’s 21 bulbs. So I have to spend $1,050 on light bulbs? How am I supposed to pay for my contraception?

itsspideyman on March 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

You won’t be paying for contraception if the libs get their way – it’ll be FREE….. //

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Apparently, Philips offers a rebate for purchasers of the light bulb. Is the rebate for $49.21? Because incandescent bulbs are about $0.79 a bulb. These “green” bulbs better last about 63 times longer than incandescent bulbs to make their purchase “affordable.”

I’m just going to throw something out there: a lot of Americans prefer a less expensive good of lower quality, simply because they do not have the cash to buy longer-lasting products. It is NOT financial innumeracy; it’s common sense.

There are approximately twenty light bulbs in my house. At $50 a bulb, a person moving in here would have to spend $1,000 just on lights. Not light fixtures, not lamps, not furniture, but lights. What would young parents, just starting out, do? Call up their own parents for a loan when a light burns out?

Who the heck CARES how long it lasts when you have to pay that much up front? If the government made us all buy those tank-like Mercedes that chug along for three decades, a lot of people would still be up the creek without a paddle, because they don’t have $50k right now to buy a vehicle, even if it would still be running in 2040.

Roxeanne de Luca on March 12, 2012 at 7:55 PM

Didn’t you folks already do that? Didn’t y’all go into a gun-buying panic the first time President Obama was elected –causing an ammo shortage in the process– because it was so obvious that he’d be coming after your guns?
 
Well, now that he’s done absolutely nothing in his first term to threaten your precious firearms, guess it’s time to load up again, because in a second term there would be no stopping him!
 
Drew Lowell on March 12, 2012 at 7:08 PM

 
It’s weird that you can cite it and yet still be unclear on what stopped him the first time.

rogerb on March 12, 2012 at 7:55 PM

I think I’ll stick with my cheap bulbs thank you.

dentarthurdent on March 12, 2012 at 7:37 PM

Over time perhaps you would save but that is not the way anyone would do it.

First of all for bulbs you almost never use ignore them.

That leaves the Kitchen, Living Areas and such.

Just replace one fixture at a time as bulbs burn out. But if you move take the bulbs with you.

You will save money over time it is that simple.

But you will most likely not pay $50 for the bulb as you will probably buy it at Sams Club or WallMart or somewhere where it will be cheaper. Oft times these rebates are not mail in they are to the Retailer so they bulb could well be $22 on the shelf.

Steveangell on March 12, 2012 at 7:59 PM

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 7:18 PM

It is not the Volt per sae that people object to.

It is the Government highly subsidizing something that is not at all ready for prime time.

Why isn’t it ready for prime time? Did the experts at Car & Driver and every major reviewer fabricate their coverage? Do you actually believe the stories about likely battery fires? Read the Lutz article.

When you’re exposed only to stories of failure, you miss out on the bigger picture. Materials science and engineering (core to battery tech) is undergoing a renaissance driven by the emergence of low cost computational power. Do you know that a US company has already found a way to double the power density of lithium batteries which will drastically reduce their cost- while other US R&D will enable an electric car to drive 500 miles?

http://www.polyplus.com/

The pace of technological advancement across many areas of engineering and research, driven by advances in low-cost computational power, in our current era is very, very hard to overestimate. It’s our biggest advantage over China and Germany.

If we really cared to solve the problem cars would use CNG. We have hade the technology for decades and we have plenty of Natural Gas.

I agree that CNG has many strengths, but the difficulty of building out the infrastructure nation-wide is a huge hurdle. Also, CNG filling stations in population centers are major security threats and hard to harden against terrorist attack. CNG is more realistic for highway freight (easier to build infrastructure along freeways). In my mind, the real advantage of the Volt is that it will eventually be powered by natural gas electricity generation, which is undoubtedly the US energy of the future, as you also point out.

bayam on March 12, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Well, now that he’s done absolutely nothing in his first term to threaten your precious firearms, guess it’s time to load up again, because in a second term there would be no stopping him!

I think there are 200+ DEAD Mexican citizens who would argue the point that “he’s done nothing”.

Those ATF field agents decided to VIOLATE the sovereignty of another nation on their own. NO ONE in Washington knew anything.

They were just too busy “working under the radar”.

More Kool Aid, Drew?

GarandFan on March 12, 2012 at 8:02 PM

And those pofolks in Kalifornia are soon (if not already) paying $1/kWhr for their electricity. Go Jerry Go.
Now, if this $50 light bulb is anything like the new and improved CFL’s I’ve bought lately is any indication, we’re in deep crap. I have yet to see one of those spagetti gizmos outlive a common incandescent bulb. The electonics in the base gets as hot as the the ‘obsolete resistive element units’ … and when they go they need to be treated like hazardous nuclear waste.
Can’t use them to keep plants warm at night. What was the reason for this? Stimulate the economy? Oh right, the Chinese economy. How stupid of me.

Missilengr on March 12, 2012 at 8:06 PM

That’s 21 bulbs. So I have to spend $1,050 on light bulbs? How am I supposed to pay for my contraception?

itsspideyman on March 12, 2012 at 7:47 PM

I’ve got more than triple that (including the exterior).

Guess I’ll have to pick up some extra “lead” to protect my property. We’ll also now have to carefully package and take our bulbs with us when we move…..and every broken bulb will be a $50 hit.

Light bulb theft will necesarily skyrocket of course….what’s next for you libtards….$100 rolls of toilet paper?

Tim_CA on March 12, 2012 at 8:10 PM

“It’s hard to believe this right wing fantasy is so prevalent. Is Bob Lutz a liberal and a liar?

Let me reiterate:


2) No Volt in service has ever shown as much as a wisp of smoke. Not in normal service, and not in crashes. The three Volt battery fires all occurred under extremely destructive experimental conditions. Two of the fires were induced in batteries not mounted in in cars.”

We’ll just call it a Chevy “FOOM” instead of a Volt and leave it at that.

What classifies as extremely destructive? Cause I’d like you to guarantee that the next time I get into a car accident it will not be classified as extremely destructive?

Sorry…Once a Car is capable of blowing up….regardless of what conditions it took….Not going to find many buyers.

Varchild on March 12, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Comment pages: 1 2