Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Light Bulbs Too Expensive? Blame China

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
The Straight Story Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:28 AM
Original message
Light Bulbs Too Expensive? Blame China
Light Bulbs Too Expensive? Blame China

Most Americans probably don’t know what europium oxide is. But they surely know one of the consumer products it’s widely used in: compact fluorescent light bulbs.

They also may have noticed just how expensive these light bulbs have become, and the answer to why this is goes back to europium oxide, a rare earth element made available largely by China, which controls 95% of this market.

Compact fluorescent bulbs have shot up in price this year, by 37%, because China has cut back on production of europium oxide, along with other rare earth minerals. Chinese officials claim that the cutbacks are due to efforts to reduce pollution from the mining of such minerals, although it is more likely that the Chinese Communist Party is trying to manipulate the prices of key materials needed for all kinds of electronic and other consumer items.

The reduced availability of europium oxide also is impacting green technologies like wind turbines and electric motors, creating a “chilling effect” on the development of the alternative energy sector, Michael N. Silver, chairman and chief executive of American Elements, told The New York Times. Europium oxide is also used to produce plasma TVs.

http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Light_Bulbs_Too_Expensive__Blame_China_110920
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tridim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. It's interesting that fluorescent lights were dirt cheap until average people started using them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
2. I hope this spurs further development of affordable LEDs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skidmore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Why are LEDs so expensive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 11:51 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Making consumer light bulbs out of them is relatively new, and it takes a lot of LEDs
to make them bright enough. Prices should come down after the manufacturing process is improved and more manufacturers enter the market.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProdigalJunkMail Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
3. demand has nothing to do with it... n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 11:21 AM
Response to Original message
4. Blame Congress for being stupid enough to mandate use of material that has to be imported
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 12:00 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Congress did not mandate the use of fluorescent light bulbs.
They mandated that most screw-in light bulbs be at least 27% more efficient by 2014. According to Consumer Reports, fluorescents, LED, and many halogen bulbs meet the requirements.
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/home-improvement/lightbulbs/lightbulb-buying-advice/index.htm?EXTKEY=I15SPR0
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FarCenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Sep-20-11 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. LEDs are way more expensive and don't yet come in > 60 watt equivalents
And halogens are more expensive than incandescents, but have no greater life. There energy savings are marginally better than the 27%, and they are uneconomic on a lifecycle basis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 04:22 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC