100 Watt Light Bulbs Are Available


100 Watt Light Bulbs

Turns out you still can buy 100 Watt light bulbs despite the dicktatoral policies of our leerless feeders in Washington. Google.
Sponsoring Ad:



In our house I want light so we have all LED lights.

For chicks or such I want heat and light and 100 Watt lights are sufficient in a brooder. They are lower energy, longer life and safer than the 250 Watt lights or heating pads.

If fascists like the neo-ecovists and Bush politicians don’t want to use 100 Watt bulbs then they should not buy them and install them. They have no business telling the rest of us what to do. There are valid, energy efficient uses of 100 Watt bulbs.

Goobermint has a bad tendency to outlaw things it doesn’t understand to attempt political correctness. Bureaucratic creep. In both senses of the word.

Outdoors: 30°F/21°F Partially Sunny
Tiny Cottage: 67°F/59°F

Daily Spark: A Dicktator is a combination of a potato.

Sponsoring Advertisements:


About Walter Jeffries

Tinker, Tailor…

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to 100 Watt Light Bulbs Are Available

  1. Ann Duncan says:

    So, where can one buy these LED lights?

  2. Belseth says:

    I do understand. I’ve been using them as a heat source since my teens. It’s a nice soft heat for drying things and excellent for young animals. They aren’t actually banned but they’ve required better efficiency in the bulbs which are on the way. The problem is less efficient means less heat since heat is seen as energy waste. The ceramic heaters work well but they are ridiculously expensive compared to light bulbs. It’s a no win issue since too many people were refusing to switch so the government forced their hands. You’d think saving money would be incentive enough. The market forces should have been enough but people resist change. Also it’s tough to convince people they’ll save more in the long run with compacts or LEDs. They should still be allowed for sale in feed stores and such where they are a special application. Sure some will go out of their way to buy them at feed stores but most won’t go to the trouble so both sides would win. Once high efficiency incandescents are readily available ironically it should be a non issue. If the costs are similar and the light quality is the same most would buy the high efficiency so there would be no need of a ban. Part of the reason for the ban was to force the hands of the light bulb makers who would have dragged their feet on developing them until they had no choice. In the end I think the makers are more of the issue than the government. They tend to accept change kicking and screaming.

    • Servius says:

      “You’d think saving money would be incentive enough. The market forces should have been enough but people resist change. Also it’s tough to convince people they’ll save more in the long run with compacts or LEDs.”

      Perhaps people know this but since money today is preferable to money tomorrow they would rather spend less on their light bulbs.

      • Hmm… So that should be their freedom. Fortunately it is. Turns out you can still buy 100W incandescent bulbs and will continue to be able to buy 40W, 60W and 75W bulbs too. There are loopholes in the law. It was all a big political show pieces without real meaning. Just a wasting of money so they could look like they were doing something and get votes from the neo-greenies.

    • Patrick says:

      Some respectfully contrarian thoughts on your post:

      It’s a no win issue since too many people were refusing to switch so the government forced their hands. You’d think saving money would be incentive enough. The market forces should have been enough but people resist change.

      The free market is a rational thing. People are pretty good at weighing value as they see fit. If something is exposed to the market and does not sell wildly, it is not because the consumer is flawed, but because the value in the eyes of the consumer is not appropriate for them.

      Once high efficiency incandescents are readily available ironically it should be a non issue. If the costs are similar and the light quality is the same most would buy the high efficiency so there would be no need of a ban.

      This is a perfect description of an efficient and rational free market. If the HE bulbs work the way people want, at a lower overall cost, then the “bad” bulbs will naturally expire (Sodium Vapor driveway lights, anyone?).

      Part of the reason for the ban was to force the hands of the light bulb makers who would have dragged their feet on developing them until they had no choice. In the end I think the makers are more of the issue than the government. They tend to accept change kicking and screaming.

      Assuming this is true (see below), then the bulb makers were acting rationally in the stream of free market commerce. Government bans distort that commerce in obtuse ways. Consider this: the bulb makers were developing HE bulbs to meet demand to a market that desired the value. That development had to fit within the market framework – live or die based on value, compared to non-HE bulbs. Now that there are no non-HE bulbs, the incentive to develop HE technology is no longer value based. There will be no serious competition from a lower-end technology. So the “value” proposition changes. Costs of HE bulbs will probably go up, or perhaps even the technology will be delayed.

      About bulb makers dragging their feet: read about a little bit and what you will find is that the “big” makers did not fight this ban. Contrary to your (understandable) assumption, they actually wanted it. They hired lobbyists to put it in place.

      The reason is quite simple: the new technologies are covered by patent, which are developed and controlled by the big firms. Many incandescent bulbs today are manufactured by small firms who can do so because the technology is free from serious intellectual property encumbrance. The “plain old bulb” can be made for so little money that they come in multi-packs at the dollar stores. It is hard to compete with that. Margins are too small for the big firms, so they tried to create more value in newer offerings (“daytime” bulbs, etc.) but they were not enough. So rather than compete with the little bulb makers, or enhance offering to beat them – they hired lobbyists who told Washington DC to ban them.

      All those dollar store bulbs are going to be gone. Guess what only choice is left to buy?

      The big firms control the new technology. They control who makes it. They license (make money) the technology to anyone who uses it. All profits now go to them, in no small part because they used well-intentioned “green” considerations as an economic weapon.

      Respectfully submitted for your consideration.

  3. Peter says:

    To me, it’s a lot like what went on with regulatory changes that brought in low- and dual-flush toilets. “What??? You mean you want me to save energy/water/etc?? BAH! And Humbug!” Frankly, I wonder how much money the major manufacturers would have put into research on stuff like this, on their own volition, had not some of these regs come down over the past 30 years or so. It is a fascinating set of philosophical arguments to be sure.

  4. Christine says:

    Happy New Year to you and yours!! So, the first good news of the year is that we can use a loophole to purchase incandescent bulbs – kudos to you for that info – so…are you going to share the details? Where and how do I find incandescent bulbs? Thanks!

  5. Patrick says:

    A cold LED bulb in an upside down metal pail just doesn’t do it.

    I am sick of having things banned because of someone else’s politics. Change should be a choice. If it’s forced, it’s not “change”, it’s “compliance under threat of law”.

    I bought 20+ indoor LED lights last month to fill out new fixtures in a new renovation and have been happy with them. But they don’t heat cold birds. The LED lights I put in were done because the quality and cost met or surpassed the value of using incandescent. For those in business, we call this “the value proposition”. Current LED bulbs – with rebates and energy savings factored in – provided value better than the old tech. My decision was rational based on our individual situation and needs.

    This should be enough to make “change” happen. Not every person will be in the same position. What made sense for me might not make sense for you. Or my birds.

    People would still buy these bulbs if they were on the shelf at Home Depot, provided it was a rational value for them. By forcing the change, the government has denied rational decision-making in favor of a belief system. I call that religion and would prefer to find my own.

  6. Charles says:

    Just heard a thing on the CBC about the inefficiencies of CFL disposal, and how they’re all ending up in landfills… along with their mercury! So green…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This Blog will give regular Commentators DoFollow Status. Implemented from IT Blögg