new lighting standards

Page 1 of 2  

It looks like this guy, obama, is a dictator, not a president. What does he know about lighting standards? Is anyone else fed up with the government trying to take care of us and protect us by not letting us make any of our own decisions? Bob-tx
White House announces new lighting standards
By LIZ SIDOTI The Associated Press Monday, June 29, 2009 4:46 PM
WASHINGTON -- Aiming to keep the focus on climate change legislation, President Barack Obama put a plug in for administration efforts to make lamps and lighting equipment use less energy.
"I know light bulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7 percent of all the energy consumed in America is used to light our homes and businesses," the president said, standing alongside Energy Secretary Steven Chu at the White House.
Obama said the new efficiency standards he was announcing for lamps would result in substantial savings between 2012 and 2042, saving consumers up to $4 billion annually, conserving enough energy to power every U.S. home for 10 months, reducing emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars a year, and eliminating the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants.
The president also said he was speeding the delivery of $346 million in economic stimulus money to help improve energy efficiency in new and existing commercial buildings.
Republicans took issue with Obama's pitch.
"Conservation is only half the equation. Even as we use less energy, we need to produce more of our own," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "We have to admit there's a gap between the clean, renewable fuel we want and the reliable energy we need."
The White House added the event to the president's schedule at the last minute, just three days after the House narrowly approved the first energy legislation designed to curb global warming following furious lobbying by White House advisers and personal pressure by the president himself.
White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday that in phone calls to reluctant Democrats in endangered districts, Obama "affirmed his commitment to support the policy position that they were taking in helping to explain to their constituents and to the American public the great benefit of this bill."
The measure's fate is less certain in the Senate, where Democrats lack the 60 votes needed to block a certain filibuster.
Still, in an interview with a small group of reporters, Obama energy adviser Carol Browner said: "I am confident that comprehensive energy legislation will pass the Senate." But she repeatedly refused to say exactly when the White House expected the Senate to pass the measure, and she wouldn't speculate on whether Obama would have legislation sent to his desk by year's end.
The White House is working to keep energy in the spotlight even as Congress takes a break this week for the July 4 holiday. Obama has spent the past few days pressuring the Senate to follow the House while also seeking to show that the administration is making quick, clear progress on energy reform without legislation.
In February, the president directed the Energy Department to update its energy conservation standards for everyday household appliances such as dishwashers, lamps and microwave ovens. Laws on the books already required new efficiency standards for household and commercial appliances. But they have been backlogged in a tangle of missed deadlines, bureaucratic disputes and litigation.
The administration already had released new standards on commercial refrigeration. Lamps were next.
© 2009 The Associated Press
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob-tx wrote:

[...]
But the article doesn't say what the new standards ARE.
Perhaps the president is merely going to say "Let there be light..."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

I heard yesterday that the new energy bill will require your home be inspected by a government agency to check for energy efficiency before you can sell it.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Where did you "hear" that? More of the cr**p that the Reps put out with the sole aim of destroying Obama?
I'm an Independent, equally critical of all politicians, but this crowd of far-far-far Right Reps are truly desperate and destructive.
Watch out for "Swift Boat" type of rumors spread by a crowd that still thinks global warming is a hoax!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Higgs Boson wrote:

It's already the law in some places. For example:
"[San Francisco] Effective September 20, 1982, owners of residential property who wish to sell their property, must obtain a valid energy inspection, install certain energy (since 1991) and water conservation devices or materials and then obtain a certi?cate of compliance. All of this must occur prior to transfer of title of any residential buildings as speci? ed in the ordinance, and the seller must provide a copy of the compliance certi?cate to the buyer prior to title transfer."
The certificate of compliance includes such things as attic insulation (minimum of R19), weather-stripping, water heater insulation, low-flow showerheads, low-flush toilets, etc. http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dbi/Key_Information/19_ResidEnergyConsBk1107v5.pdf
As to national requirements, American Clean Energy and Security Act bill (the "Waxman-Markey Bill") did recently pass the House of Representatives (219-212). The original bill required new and existing homes and buildings to undergo an energy evaluation inspection at the time of transfer (sale).
The original bill was modified to apply only to new homes, exempting existing resale homes from its requirements.
There is no denying, however, that Waxman and Markey TRIED to get all homes included.
Maybe next year.
As to how the poster may have come by this information, he could have read the bill (which, evidently, 435 members of the House did not), specifically:
"`(3) VIOLATIONS- It shall be a violation of this section for an owner or builder of a building to knowingly occupy, permit occupancy of, or convey the building if the building is subject to the requirements of- (A) a State energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (c)(2)(B); (B) a local energy efficiency building code with respect to which a certification has been accepted by the Secretary under subsection (e)(6)(B); or (C) a national energy efficiency building code adopted under subsection (c)(1)(A)(i) or made applicable under paragraph (1) of this subsection, if the building was constructed out of compliance with such code. http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111ZXwk6S:e248424 :
Or, he could have read any of 108 news articles on the subject. http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&num 0&ncl=dnwTy6Xj3FigDsMwsgDu5eFdOsinM&cf=all
Specifically: "Waxman-Markey contains unpleasant surprises for Americans, including a provision which could prevent homeowners from selling their homes if they aren't retrofitted to meet federal "green" guidelines. But the House passed the 1,400-page bill before its members had an opportunity to read it, much less ponder its implications. Let's pray the Senate is more responsible."
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090704/COLUMNIST14/907040310/-1/NEWS32
Most of the attention to this bill is centered around the carbon-offset business involving cap-and-trade. One of the stealth provisions, however, in this 1,400-page document is a national building standard, at least in regard to energy efficiency.
Obviously, treehouses and Boy Scout tents will be a thing of the past.
Bottom line: The rumored provisions are NOT crap put out by the Republicans with a view toward discrediting Obama.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/dbi/Key_Information/19_ResidEnergyConsBk1107v5.pdf
http://news.google.com/news?ned=us&hl=en&num 0&ncl=dnwTy6Xj3FigDsMwsgDu5eFdOsinM&cf=all
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090704/COLUMNIST14/907040310/-1/NEWS32
The plumbers around here have a loaner toilet that meets all the government specs and after inspection, remove it and install one that works. I see a whole new underground industry of government required update rentals for people who wish to sell their property. A group comes in and installs all the water flow restricting devices and energy saving crap and comes back later to remove it all to reuse on the next house. People are going to figure out ways to get around all the nonsense then some bright bureaucrat will write a surprise inspection regulation and people will wind up getting killed by the machine gun toting enforcement drones when they refuse them entry into their homes. Living in a third world country will be fun by the time the Liberal wackos get done turning The U.S. into one. *snicker*
TDD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Daring Dufas wrote:

We have had three 1.6gpf toilets for 4 or 5 years, and they work fine. Some on the market now have even larger traps, so they may well work just as well -- or better -- with even less water.
Perce
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<I snip to what Daring Dufas wrote:>

And so how many gallons per flush are those mandated toilets that are so weak as to be rentals rented to be present for the inspection?
As much as I heard 1.6 gallon/flush toilets badmouthed 5-12 years ago, the best-flushing toilets I ever saw were 1.6 gallon/flush ones that came in after the earlier failing 1.6-GPF ones that appeared to me "to be made for showing insufficiency of 1.6 GPF toilets".
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

The toilet we have here at the grouchy old fart's lair must be one of the older low water usage variety. I have to be very careful and flush it after the first load of ready mix or it will clog up and overflow. Sometimes I'll have a three flusher. I've often been told I'm full of it but that's ridiculous. The old standard potties work well for me. I even carry my own drilled out shower head with me when I travel.
TDD
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP previopusly quoted material>
<SNIP what appears to me to be various energy efficiency mandates that some or many buildings have to meet in order ot be legally sold, with some of these mandates being municipal in scale>

It appears to me that this line is an overstatement detracting from your argument. Treehouses and Boy Scout tents appear to me to be put into use and to be used either when/where/how building codes have less applicability, or when/where there is cultural lack of enforcement of building codes that make such things illegal.
Furthermore, it appears to me that treehouses and tents rank very low worldwide for energy consumption for climate control. As a result, I expect that their exemptions, whether overtly legal or a matter of local culture, did well, continue to do well, and will do so in the foreseeable future and do so justifiably.

I like what you said elsewhere about (IIRC) Texas penal code allowing use of deadly force to defend property. But I think that exaggerating negative effect of proposed upcoming laws calls into question credibility of opponents of proposed upcoming laws.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They are going to make CFLs look more attractive, probably by outlawing or taxing the hell out of incandescents
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

I've been using pretty much all CFLs for several years, and they are fine. The only time you will notice a difference is if you have more than one type of light source in a single room, so just make sure that in any given room it's all or nothing. Any yes, they do save a noticeable amount of power, as well as having a much longer life span than incandescents.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Pete C. wrote:

They are posted on the energystar.gov site, but I don't recall the specifics.

Non-compliant bubs will gradually become unavailable, starting with 100-Watt ones and then progressing to lower-wattage ones. Specialty bulbs, including 3-ways and those for appliances will be exempt.
The regs. are "technology neutral." I.e., they do not specify any particular kind of lighting.

I've been using CFLs for years -- mostly Sylvania -- and they do not last as long as is claimed, they take a noticeable time to achieve full brightness, and some of them emit a distinct "fried electronics" smell when they finally quit.
I've bought a few LED bulbs but of course haven't used them long enough to comment on their longevity. 3.5 to 5 Watts consumption for the equivalent of a 50-Watt bulb; i.e., considerably more efficient than CFLs. The light is bluer than that of CFLs or incandescents -- closer to daylight; some people don't like them, but they are fine for me.
Perce
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just wait till they try to regulate how many galons of water a toilet flush can be.... oh, nevermind. That's already happened.
I can see an instance or two where BHO may have stepped outside the constitutionally assigned powers.
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Stormin Mormon wrote:

Outhouses are more "green".
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 30, 7:54 am, "Stormin Mormon"

And happening again. Next year the new flush standard is going down from 1.5gpf to 1gpf. You think there was a lot of complaints about the Al Gore toilet in the past, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:15:34 -0700 (PDT), against all advice,

My toilets were installed in 1977.
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSCCCCCCH!
--

Don\'t worry about people stealing an idea. If it\'s original, you will
have to ram it down their throats.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually my summer electric bill is HALF of what it was years ago because of things like this. Basically because of "Energy Star".
I don't know if Energy Star *required* A/C, refrigerator, and freezer manufacturers to make their units more energy efficient or if it just required labeling? (Then consumers could pick the best models?)
But I got a new A/C unit, new refrigerator, and new freezer and this cut my summer time use of electricity in half because these use less electricity to operate. PLUS the A/C has a bit more BTU's than the old! And it was less expensive ta boot!
So I LIKE this type of stuff myself.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I like it too. I just don't want to be dictated to. The new cap and trade bill is a killer.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The issue with this is the same as with more gas efficient cars, and anything else where there the current technology remains less expensive to produce. There is no incentive for manufactures to develop improvements or for consumers to buy the more expensive alternatives that are available. We have to continue investing in the future and since we won't do it on our own, legislative moves are about the only alternatives.
As others have stated, I'm happy with the CFLs I've installed. I use to keep a pack of 60w in my nightstand because the dang light would always burn out when I was dog tired and just wanted to get to bed - not go hunting for a new bulb. I haven't had to replace it since putting in the CFL a couple years ago.
wrote:

I like it too. I just don't want to be dictated to. The new cap and trade bill is a killer.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.