AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congress acts to undo Bush's disastrous and costly environment-killing legislation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Congress acts to undo Bush's disastrous and costly environment-killing legislation

post #1 of 71
1/21/11 at 5:23pm
Thread Starter 
The new Republican-led House has a lot of cleaning up to do. How about starting with GWB's harebrained mandate to save the world from the threat of light bulbs, scheduled to take effect next year?

Good idea:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=248453
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #2 of 71
1/21/11 at 6:15pm
I can go to Tesco and buy an 8 pence 7 watt bulb that gives off the equivalent light of a 40 watt bulb at least. Spend about 10 pence (about 15 cents) and you can get a 11 watt bulb that gives off more light than a 60 watt bulb. The lights pleasant enough ( unlike the one's I used in the US, though I suspect that was because I bought ones with a high wattage that's unnecessarily bright) but you can use lampshades to warm it up even more. You can also use a marker pen ( sometimes having to rough up the surface slightly first a little) or paint them with the paint that used and sold in art stores for stained glass, (light yellow warms them up nicely). Americans could be saving a whole lot of energy with, but 90% are still incandescents. Incandescents here in the UK cost far more than these bulbs, blow all the friggin time and cost far more to power.

Banning incandescents completely may be a bit much and there are now hybrid ones that come on quickly. Incandescents are getting better than they were but they suck big time in comparison money wise, even with the improved ones. The mercury is definately a big problem though. I haven't tried led's or oleds but apparently they're even better.

How much of this is simply to attack Upton. I hear he's next on Sara's hit-list-

"Now this internal fight has exploded into a Tea Party battle royale.* FreedomWorks, run by veteran GOP lobbyist Dick Armey, has launched Down With Upton, a website attacking “Big Government Republican Fred Upton” for a record “full of votes for more regulation, more spending, and more taxes.” In an email announcing the campaign, FreedomWorks cited Glenn Beck’s warning that “light bulbs are just the beginning”:

Fred Upton, currently considered the front-runner for chairmanship of the critical House Energy and Commerce committee, is far out of step with the Tea Party movement, the GOP and the American people as a whole. You may have heard Glenn Beck talking about Fred Upton introducing a bill to ban incandescent light bulbs in favor of so-called “environmentally-friendly” alternatives. The truth is, Fred Upton has a Big Government record a mile long, and light bulbs are just the beginning."
~ http://climateprogress.org/2010/11/2...the-beginning/

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #3 of 71
1/21/11 at 7:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

The new Republican-led House has a lot of cleaning up to do. How about starting with GWB's harebrained mandate to save the world from the threat of light bulbs, scheduled to take effect next year?

The bill which would become Pub.L. 110-140 The Energy & Security Act of 2007 was introduced by Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) in January 2007 @

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-6

http://www.thefullwiki.org/Public_Law_110-140

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_...ty_Act_of_2007

110th Congress Pelosi was elected Speaker of the House and the Democrats held the majority of both the Senate and House. GWB signed the bill....so he takes the fall?....US Politics hasn't changed a bit....has it?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #4 of 71
1/21/11 at 7:16pm
I hate all fluorescent light bulbs. I really, really do. I refuse to use them. If they do end up being banned in this country, I will hoard them.
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
To save time, assume I know everything.
Reply
post #5 of 71
1/21/11 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I hate all fluorescent light bulbs. I really, really do. I refuse to use them. If they do end up being banned in this country, I will hoard them.

eBay?
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #6 of 71
1/22/11 at 5:39am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

GWB signed the bill....so he takes the fall?....

I was being sarcastic, but why not? The bill was obviously a darling of the hand-wringing eco-nuts, and Bush signed it without a whimper of dissent. Poor leadership from a man who was elected on his alleged advocacy of limited government, and then went on to expand it. IMO it's yet another symptom of what led to Rs getting booted from Congress in 2006 leading to the debacle that ensued but I digress...

Quote:
US Politics hasn't changed a bit....has it?

Not in the US, not anywhere, not for centuries
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #7 of 71
1/22/11 at 7:45am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

... Americans could be saving a whole lot of energy with, but 90% are still incandescents. Incandescents here in the UK cost far more than these bulbs, blow all the friggin time and cost far more to power.

You raised a good point Hands. It's certain that CFLs produce more light per unit energy but if the goal is environmental protection, or energy savings, their advantage over incandescent lamps is dubious at best.

Consider the components of a CFL: A glass tube and metal base are about all they have in common with an incandescent. What makes them different is the electronic ballast, which contain a bunch of electronic components that have their own cost to manufacture, distribute, and dispose of at their end of life. We already know about mercury but they also need a lot of plastics, copper and other metals, carbon film resistors, tantalum capacitors, inductors, rectifiers, etc. for their manufacture.



They weigh about three times as much as an incandescent. There is no question which one of these takes more energy to produce.

OK, so producing and disposing of them presents a larger environmental and energy cost, than incandescent lamps, but wait, aren't CFLs supposed to last longer, and they won't be thrown away as often? Well, that hasn't been my experience. Switching them on and off as frequently as one does a normal incandescent reduces their useful life, that's certain. The only question is how much, and that's more difficult to estimate. Some experts estimate this normal on-and-off cycling will reduce their life by as much as 85%. I've had some CFLs last as little as a year, while others are going on three years. One anecdote does not prove a thing but this life is no different from my experience with incandescents.

What happens when an incandescent lamp "burns out?" I put that in quotes since that's what we call it when an incandescent reaches its end-of-life. An incandescent fails "normally" when its filament breaks, and is rather undramatic since the failed component remains inside. Other than the user smashing them, not much else can fail.

A user can also break a CFL's glass tube, but must then address the cleanup of toxins - another story altogether. However, a CFL has many additional failure modes, limited to the number of components it contains (see the above picture). When a CFL fails it might simply fail to illuminate, it may overheat and discolor the base, the light may produce strange colors, it may emit smoke, sparks, and flames, or all the above. It's such a concern that Canada produced this safety alert that advises consumers dispose of their CFLs at the first sign of failure. Therefore some degree of premature disposal is certain, but again, we really can't determine the aggregate effect of such behaviour.

Then there's the light a CFL produces. It's subjective, but the color they produce is objectionable to some. Although they're better than a few years ago, all CFLs take a while to "warm up" so people might change decide to leave them on all the time. They consume less electricity so why not? Not switching them on and off all the time will help with extending their operating life, but has anyone considered the effect of using 7W all day long vs. 60W just occasionally? I doubt it.

Speaking of power CFLs don't have a unity power factor like incandescent lamps. What does that mean? The explanation gets technical but it means that watt for watt, a utility company must generate more for loads with a power factor of less than unity. Residential and most commercial users are billed for kilowatts, but the utility must always supply full voltage and current lest everyone be subject to a power reduction. If their aggregate load PF decreases, electric utilities are not only going to have to pass on their generation costs to the consumer, they'll have to pass on the cost of upgrading their equipment to handle the larger aggregate current demand.

(Large inductive loads - big motors and transformers - consume current out of phase with the voltage supplied. The phase difference is called power factor. If they're exactly in phase the power factor = 1 and the power consumed is exactly equal to the product of voltage and current. If the power factor < 1 then current lags voltage and the utility has to supply more current for the same power requirement. There you go, a whole semester of EE in one paragraph ).

A single CFL is an insignificant load, so its power factor isn't significant either. However, has anyone considered the effect of replacing hundreds of millions of unity PF incandescents with low PF CFLs? Probably not.

What about dimmers? I use energy-efficient electronic dimmers throughout my palatial estate. Some can be controlled remotely, some are programmable, they have memory for specific settings etc. They're great. Unfortunately none will work with CFLs. Nor will nearly every other dimmer, electronic like mine or simple ones. What will happen to all those dimmers once incandescents are no more? Scrap heap. What will happen to aggregate power consumption without the ability to use energy-reducing dimmers? No one knows.

Sure, there are "dimmable CFLs" but they're no panacea either. They operate by rapidly cycling the power to the lamp, which may reduce the life of its components. Also, none can be dimmed to anywhere near the degree an old incandescent can be. The dynamic range of light reduction is much less. Furthermore, I called the manufacturer of my electronic dimmers and asked if such "dimmable CFLs" are compatible with their products. They're not. Again, they're destined to the scrap heap. Environmentally friendly, not.

Lastly is the question of energy efficiency once installed and in use. Forget about the toxic materials, the cost of production, distribution, disposal, cleanup. Forget about the objectionable light quality or fire hazards. Forget about the purchase cost. Let's concentrate on the one remaining, inarguable point, that CFLs are far more energy efficient:

Why do we use light bulbs? For light, of course. When do we use them? When it's too dark, of course. Why is it dark? Because the sun went down, of course. What happens when the sun goes down...?

It gets cold.

What do we do about that? We burn fuel to stay warm. That hasn't changed since Prometheus. No matter what fuel you burn you need a certain number of BTUs of heat to maintain a habitable environment. The heat can come from a number of sources, some more efficient than others, but the amount of energy required to stay warm is a constant. When you're still awake and alert in your office or home, you have the lights on when it's dark out, and in the northern hemisphere, that's generally between October and April. One way or another, half the year you're burning fuel.

In terms of luminous energy efficiency incandescent lamps are pathetic. About 5% of the energy used to illuminate a room actually produces light. What about the other 95%? Where does it go? It produces heat. What will happen to that heat when you replace it with a CFL? It has to come from somewhere, else you'll be cold. So you'll burn more gas, oil, coal, or wood or use more electric heat if that's your only alternative. In the winter months, when we use more artificial light, the net energy savings will be zero.

Obviously the effect is the opposite in the summer. You have to get rid of waste heat with energy too. My point is, we use more artificial light in the winter than in the summer, and you use it longer. Has anyone thought about that? If anyone has, I can't find any references to such an analysis.

I don't want the nanny state mandating what kind of light bulbs I can or can't buy any more than I want it telling me what kind of toilet I can flush in my home. It's stupid to be wasteful, and I'm intelligent enough to determine what is and what isn't. I'm also confident enough in the intelligence of others to make their own decisions, and the ability of free men and free markets to invent better alternatives. CFLs aren't it.

There will be better alternatives. I believe LED lamps will be a viable alternative, and soon. They won't have toxic materials. They can be dimmable. They're way more efficient than CFLs. They're incredibly rugged and last practically forever. At the moment they're not bright enough and much too expensive, but like LCD displays, there's no reason they won't eventually be produced very cheaply. Comparing incandescent lamps to LEDs is like comparing CRT display tubes to flat-panel LCD displays. Eventually they'll be viable enough and we can forget about the old incandescent.

CFLs aren't the answer, and forcing everyone to use them is irresponsible. It's a classic case of governments all over the world doing something half-assed in reaction to a threat, Whether the "threat" is real or imagined, this cure is worse than the disease.

The incandescent ban is wasteful. Kill it.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #8 of 71
1/22/11 at 9:05am
Good God! In the spirit of both freedom and constitutionality repeal the ban.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #9 of 71
1/22/11 at 2:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

You raised a good point Hands. It's certain that CFLs produce more light per unit energy but if the goal is environmental protection, or energy savings, their advantage over incandescent lamps is dubious at best.

Consider the components of a CFL: A glass tube and metal base are about all they have in common with an incandescent. What makes them different is the electronic ballast, which contain a bunch of electronic components that have their own cost to manufacture, distribute, and dispose of at their end of life. We already know about mercury but they also need a lot of plastics, copper and other metals, carbon film resistors, tantalum capacitors, inductors, rectifiers, etc. for their manufacture.



They weigh about three times as much as an incandescent. There is no question which one of these takes more energy to produce.

OK, so producing and disposing of them presents a larger environmental and energy cost, than incandescent lamps, but wait, aren't CFLs supposed to last longer, and they won't be thrown away as often? Well, that hasn't been my experience. Switching them on and off as frequently as one does a normal incandescent reduces their useful life, that's certain. The only question is how much, and that's more difficult to estimate. Some experts estimate this normal on-and-off cycling will reduce their life by as much as 85%. I've had some CFLs last as little as a year, while others are going on three years. One anecdote does not prove a thing but this life is no different from my experience with incandescents.

What happens when an incandescent lamp "burns out?" I put that in quotes since that's what we call it when an incandescent reaches its end-of-life. An incandescent fails "normally" when its filament breaks, and is rather undramatic since the failed component remains inside. Other than the user smashing them, not much else can fail.

A user can also break a CFL's glass tube, but must then address the cleanup of toxins - another story altogether. However, a CFL has many additional failure modes, limited to the number of components it contains (see the above picture). When a CFL fails it might simply fail to illuminate, it may overheat and discolor the base, the light may produce strange colors, it may emit smoke, sparks, and flames, or all the above. It's such a concern that Canada produced this safety alert that advises consumers dispose of their CFLs at the first sign of failure. Therefore some degree of premature disposal is certain, but again, we really can't determine the aggregate effect of such behaviour.

Then there's the light a CFL produces. It's subjective, but the color they produce is objectionable to some. Although they're better than a few years ago, all CFLs take a while to "warm up" so people might change decide to leave them on all the time. They consume less electricity so why not? Not switching them on and off all the time will help with extending their operating life, but has anyone considered the effect of using 7W all day long vs. 60W just occasionally? I doubt it.

Speaking of power CFLs don't have a unity power factor like incandescent lamps. What does that mean? The explanation gets technical but it means that watt for watt, a utility company must generate more for loads with a power factor of less than unity. Residential and most commercial users are billed for kilowatts, but the utility must always supply full voltage and current lest everyone be subject to a power reduction. If their aggregate load PF decreases, electric utilities are not only going to have to pass on their generation costs to the consumer, they'll have to pass on the cost of upgrading their equipment to handle the larger aggregate current demand.

(Large inductive loads - big motors and transformers - consume current out of phase with the voltage supplied. The phase difference is called power factor. If they're exactly in phase the power factor = 1 and the power consumed is exactly equal to the product of voltage and current. If the power factor < 1 then current lags voltage and the utility has to supply more current for the same power requirement. There you go, a whole semester of EE in one paragraph ).

A single CFL is an insignificant load, so its power factor isn't significant either. However, has anyone considered the effect of replacing hundreds of millions of unity PF incandescents with low PF CFLs? Probably not.

What about dimmers? I use energy-efficient electronic dimmers throughout my palatial estate. Some can be controlled remotely, some are programmable, they have memory for specific settings etc. They're great. Unfortunately none will work with CFLs. Nor will nearly every other dimmer, electronic like mine or simple ones. What will happen to all those dimmers once incandescents are no more? Scrap heap. What will happen to aggregate power consumption without the ability to use energy-reducing dimmers? No one knows.

Sure, there are "dimmable CFLs" but they're no panacea either. They operate by rapidly cycling the power to the lamp, which may reduce the life of its components. Also, none can be dimmed to anywhere near the degree an old incandescent can be. The dynamic range of light reduction is much less. Furthermore, I called the manufacturer of my electronic dimmers and asked if such "dimmable CFLs" are compatible with their products. They're not. Again, they're destined to the scrap heap. Environmentally friendly, not.

Lastly is the question of energy efficiency once installed and in use. Forget about the toxic materials, the cost of production, distribution, disposal, cleanup. Forget about the objectionable light quality or fire hazards. Forget about the purchase cost. Let's concentrate on the one remaining, inarguable point, that CFLs are far more energy efficient:

Why do we use light bulbs? For light, of course. When do we use them? When it's too dark, of course. Why is it dark? Because the sun went down, of course. What happens when the sun goes down...?

It gets cold.

What do we do about that? We burn fuel to stay warm. That hasn't changed since Prometheus. No matter what fuel you burn you need a certain number of BTUs of heat to maintain a habitable environment. The heat can come from a number of sources, some more efficient than others, but the amount of energy required to stay warm is a constant. When you're still awake and alert in your office or home, you have the lights on when it's dark out, and in the northern hemisphere, that's generally between October and April. One way or another, half the year you're burning fuel.

In terms of luminous energy efficiency incandescent lamps are pathetic. About 5% of the energy used to illuminate a room actually produces light. What about the other 95%? Where does it go? It produces heat. What will happen to that heat when you replace it with a CFL? It has to come from somewhere, else you'll be cold. So you'll burn more gas, oil, coal, or wood or use more electric heat if that's your only alternative. In the winter months, when we use more artificial light, the net energy savings will be zero.

Obviously the effect is the opposite in the summer. You have to get rid of waste heat with energy too. My point is, we use more artificial light in the winter than in the summer, and you use it longer. Has anyone thought about that? If anyone has, I can't find any references to such an analysis.

I don't want the nanny state mandating what kind of light bulbs I can or can't buy any more than I want it telling me what kind of toilet I can flush in my home. It's stupid to be wasteful, and I'm intelligent enough to determine what is and what isn't. I'm also confident enough in the intelligence of others to make their own decisions, and the ability of free men and free markets to invent better alternatives. CFLs aren't it.

There will be better alternatives. I believe LED lamps will be a viable alternative, and soon. They won't have toxic materials. They can be dimmable. They're way more efficient than CFLs. They're incredibly rugged and last practically forever. At the moment they're not bright enough and much too expensive, but like LCD displays, there's no reason they won't eventually be produced very cheaply. Comparing incandescent lamps to LEDs is like comparing CRT display tubes to flat-panel LCD displays. Eventually they'll be viable enough and we can forget about the old incandescent.

CFLs aren't the answer, and forcing everyone to use them is irresponsible. It's a classic case of governments all over the world doing something half-assed in reaction to a threat, Whether the "threat" is real or imagined, this cure is worse than the disease.

The incandescent ban is wasteful. Kill it.

I must admit I thought you weren't actually bothered about the environmental implications of bulb use, more the political advantages such a discussion might produce, but your long and informed (however biased) post, demonstrates otherwise.

-All the following quotes came from Wikipedia-

If you're concerned about mercury (especially the effect it has on pregnant women) you might want to consider the positive effect cfl's have in the US. Coal power stations as you probably know give off lots of mercury and so the cfl's actually have a positive effect here because they mean much less coal is burned.

See here-

"In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimated that if all 270 million compact fluorescent lamps sold in 2007 were sent to landfill sites, that this would represent around 0.13 metric tons, or 0.1% of all U.S. emissions of mercury (around 104 metric tons that year).

In areas with coal-fired power stations, the use of CFLs saves on mercury emissions when compared to the use of incandescent bulbs. This is due to the reduced electrical power demand, reducing in turn the amount of mercury released by coal as it is burned.[49][50] In July 2008 the US EPA published a data sheet stating that the net system emission of mercury for CFL lighting was lower than for incandescent lighting of comparable lumen output. This was based on the average rate of mercury emission for US electricity production and average estimated escape of mercury from a CFL put into a landfill.[51] Coal-fired plants also emit other heavy metals, sulfur, and carbon dioxide."


Lighting accounts for 9% of home energy use. Obviously most people use gas, electric and oil say. By switching to cfl's your electricity bill on average will fall by 11%.

See here-

"Since lighting accounted for approximately 9% of household electricity usage in the United States in 2001, widespread use of CFLs could save as much as 7% of total US household usage.

A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12% discount to estimate the savings."

Note how here in the UK these cfl's cost practically nothing. 10-20 cents each in most places.
Here's European energy savings-

"In 2008, the European Union approved regulations progressively phasing out incandescent bulbs starting in 2009 and finishing at the end of 2012. By switching to energy saving bulbs, EU citizens will save almost 40 TW·h (almost the electricity consumption of 11 million European households), leading to a reduction of about 15 million metric tons of CO2 emissions per year."


Dimming cfl's exist and are improving. I'm sure for most people even now they would be just fine.

See here-

"Only some CF lamps are labeled for dimming control. Using regular CFLs with a dimmer is ineffective at dimming, can shorten bulb life and will void the warranty of certain manufacturers.[66] Dimmable CFLs are available.[67] There is a need for the dimmer switch used in conjunction with a dimmable CFL to be matched to its power consumption range, many dimmers installed for use with incandescent bulbs do not yield acceptable results below 40W, whereas CFL applications commonly draw power in the range 7-20W. The marketing and availability of dimmable CFLs has preceded that of suitable dimmers. The dimming range of CFLs is usually between 20% and 90%.[68] However, in many modern CFLs the dimmable range has been improved to be from 2% to 100%, more akin to regular lights. There are two types of dimmable CFL marketed: Regular dimmable CFLs, and "switch-dimmable" CFLs. The latter use a regular light switch, while the on-board electronics has a setting where the number of times the switch is turned on & off in quick succession sets a reduced light output mode. Dimmable CFLs are not a 100% replacement for incandescent fixtures that are dimmed for "mood scenes" such as wall sconces in a dining area. Below the 20% limit, the lamp remain at the approximate 20% level, in other cases it may flicker or the starter circuitry may stop and restart.[69] Above the 80% dim limit, the bulb will generally glow at 100% brightness. However, these issues have been addressed with the latest units and some CFLs may perform more like regular lamps. Dimmable CFLs have a higher purchase cost than standard CFLs due to the additional circuitry required for dimming. A further limitation is that multiple dimmable CFLs on the same dimmer switch may not appear to be at the same brightness level. Cold Cathode CFLs can be dimmed to low levels, making them popular replacements for incandescent bulbs on dimmer circuits."




New bulbs will be even better-

See here-

"The cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) is one of the newest forms of CFL. CCFLs use electrodes without a filament. The voltage of CCFLs is about 5 times higher than CFLs, and the current is about 10 times lower. CCFLs have a diameter of about 3 millimeters. CCFLs were initially used for document scanners and also for backlighting LCD displays, but they are now also manufactured for use as lamps. The efficacy (lumens per watt) is about half that of CFLs. Their advantages are that they are instant-on, like incandescents, they are compatible with timers, photocells, and dimmers, and they have a long life of approximately 50,000 hours. CCFLs are a convenient transition technology for those who are not comfortable with the short lag time associated with the initial lighting of CFLs. They are also an effective and efficient replacement for lighting that is turned on and off frequently with little extended use (e.g. a bathroom or closet)."





You have a point about energy saving when it's cold, but also remember that in the summer incandescents warm rooms up and hence more AC is needed. Typically too, electricity is more expensive than gas, wood stoves and oil. Europe's energy bill

Skin cancer and health-

See here-

"According to the European Commission Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) in 2008, the only property of compact fluorescent lamps that could pose an added health risk is the ultraviolet and blue light emitted by such devices. The worst that can happen is that this radiation could aggravate symptoms in people who already suffer rare skin conditions that make them exceptionally sensitive to light. They also stated that more research is needed to establish whether compact fluorescent lamps constitute any higher risk than incandescent lamps.
The UV radiation received from CFLs is too small to contribute to skin cancer and the use of double-envelope CFL lamps "largely or entirely" mitigates any other risks."

Bare in mind too because they use much less power, more people now have light instead of breathing in crap from kerosene lamps across much of the poorer parts of the globe.

See here-

"The cost effectiveness of battery-powered CFLs is enabling aid agencies to support initiatives to replace kerosene lamps, the fumes from which cause chronic lung disorders in typical homes and work places in third world countries."





Safety of these bulbs is just as good now as incandescents when it comes to fires. They now have to be made with non fire causing plastics. If one of your bulbs has a fault, put it in an old jam jar or something and close the lid. These need to be disposed of at a recycling centre. Save them up until you need to make a trip to one, then just take them with you.




And a pause for thought-

Venezuela and Cuba have launched massive incandescent light bulbs replacement programs in order to save energy. In the case of Venezuela, the government was able to save 2000 MW of electricity in the first six months of the 2006 program called Mission Energy Revolution, which by 2007 replaced 20 million incandescent light bulbs with CFL from a total of an estimated 55 million light bulbs in the country. Cuba replaced all the 11 million light bulbs used in the island.[93] Also, Venezuela signed an agreement with Vietnam, one of the large producers of CFLs in the world, to establish a factory to supply the future demand and hand-outs of government light bulbs.[94]

The United States Department of Energy reports that sales of CFLs have dropped between 2007 and 2008, and estimated only 11% of suitable domestic light sockets use CFLs."
~ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

With american's buying less of them, I'd say ban them, otherwise the US is just scewing the environment needlessly even more.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #10 of 71
1/22/11 at 2:15pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
Excellent rebuttal, Finetunes. An addition: don't forget LED light bulbs are also a huge part of our future--they're mercury free, too!

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 71
1/22/11 at 2:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Excellent rebuttal, Finetunes. An addition: don't forget LED light bulbs are also a huge part of our future--they're mercury free, too!

You might want to check whether a nuclear reactor is acting up in your hemisphere.

LED's have a few elements in them that might be toxic in landfills, but absolutely better than incandescents and their mecury free like you say. They're not cheap though, I think about $20 each in the US.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #12 of 71
1/22/11 at 3:48pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
But they last a LONG time. Totally worth it.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #13 of 71
1/22/11 at 4:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But they last a LONG time. Totally worth it.

How long do they last?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #14 of 71
1/22/11 at 4:28pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
http://www.usa.lighting.philips.com/...sainsburys.wpd

Used in harsh freezer conditions, they last 10 years compared to 6 to 12 months for CFLs.

For normal usage, the estimated useful life is 35,000 to 50,000 hours at which point the lights are 70% as bright as they originally were in brand new condition. They can keep pushing on past that point if you don't mind the reduced intensity.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #15 of 71
1/22/11 at 5:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

But they last a LONG time. Totally worth it.

I don't know if they are totally worth it or not...

One web site that I found that has fairly good prices has a wide range of prices.

http://www.ledliquidatorsinc.com/

They go from $15 to 150 a bulb depending on the use. If you buy them in packs of 10 or more you get discounts. But it is not clear how they translate to a standard bulb. You have to really research. I think they are interesting, but to replace the bulbs in my home would take a lot of them and I already run CFL so the energy savings is not so high as compared to standard incandescent bulbs. The cost needs to come down to a more reasonable level before I jump on these, just like the CFL's did.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #16 of 71
1/22/11 at 5:40pm
Seriously though, can't we at least agree that banning things like incandescent light bulbs is just...ummm...a tiny little bit beyond the scope of constitutional authority of the Federal government?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #17 of 71
1/22/11 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Seriously though, can't we at least agree that banning things like incandescent light bulbs is just...ummm...a tiny little bit beyond the scope of constitutional authority of the Federal government?

If people weren't so retarded perhaps they wouldn't have to.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #18 of 71
1/22/11 at 5:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

If people weren't so retarded perhaps they wouldn't have to.

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Are you saying the because people are retarded they won't agree that banning things like incandescent light bulbs is beyond the scope of constitutional authority of the Federal government?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #19 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm not sure I'm following you here.

Are you saying the because people are retarded they won't agree that banning things like incandescent light bulbs is beyond the scope of constitutional authority of the Federal government?

No, it may be for all I know, but I doubt it is though.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #20 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

No

Then explain what you meant by:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon

If people weren't so retarded perhaps they wouldn't have to.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

it may be for all I know, but I doubt it is though.

Would you care to show us where the U.S. Federal government's constitutional authority to ban incandescent light bulbs comes from?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #21 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Then explain what you meant by:







Would you care to show us where the U.S. Federal government's constitutional authority to ban incandescent light bulbs comes from?

I don't know and I don't know if it is constitutional, but that's because that whole area is full of law talk and I'm not a law talk person.

Is banning drugs constitutional? Is banning prostitution or setting rules on emissions...i dont know, do you?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #22 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:24pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I don't know and I don't know if it is constitutional, but that's because that whole area is full of law talk and I'm not a law talk person.

Is banning drugs constitutional? Is banning prostitution or setting rules on emissions...i dont know, do you?

I'd say no to all of those. The US constitution is relatively easy to understand and decipher (though some will disagree and argue that only high minded priest in black dresses are capable of such mental wizardry.)

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #23 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'd say yes to all of those. The US constitution is relatively easy to understand and decipher (though some will disagree and argue that only high minded priest in black dresses are capable of such mental wizardry.)

So if setting rules on emissions is constitutional, why wouldn't it be constitutional to set rules on bulbs that pollute?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #24 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

So if setting rules on emissions is constitutional, why wouldn't it be constitutional to set rules on bulbs that pollute?

I'm sorry. I must have misread your post. I meant that I don't think it is constitutional.

Anyway...back to this "retarded" thing. What people are "retarded?" How many (what percentage)? And in what way are they "retarded?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #25 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

I'm sorry. I must have misread your post. I meant that I don't think it is constitutional.

Anyway...back to this "retarded" thing. What people are "retarded?" How many (what percentage)? And in what way are they "retarded?"


I guess in an ideal world we wouldn't need laws, but we all know the consequences of letting money be the driving force without restraint.

We're all a bit retarded. The worlds passing us by every second and 99.9999% of it means nothing to us, that's why we need pro's to check what works and what doesn't or we'll end up sick and impoverished.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #26 of 71
1/22/11 at 6:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I guess in an ideal world we wouldn't need laws, but we all know the consequences of letting money be the driving force without restraint.

We're all a bit retarded. The worlds passing us by every second and 99.9999% of it means nothing to us, that's why we need pro's to check what works and what doesn't or we'll end up sick and impoverished.

You seem to be evading the question. Who is "retarded" and by what criteria or measure? And What actions are warranted, in your opinion, because of this alleged "retardation?"

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #27 of 71
1/22/11 at 8:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You seem to be evading the question. Who is "retarded" and by what criteria or measure? And What actions are warranted, in your opinion, because of this alleged "retardation?"

His point is if people were not "retarded" and basically saw things his way and saw the need for using CFL and LED lights like he does then the government would not have to step in and force them to do it. Unless I read his post wrong. \

I love however that all people are retarded and we need someone to tell us how to act right. As if those "pro's" somehow know better than us sheep... Blind assertions sound strong, but there is nothing behind them Hands. Present the facts and let those make your argument for you. YOu do this occasionally and I can respect that. Posts like the last few here flow past me and others and have no impact.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #28 of 71
1/22/11 at 8:37pm
  • BR
  • Justified Arrogance
When the people driving the runaway train are the same that don't believe in the tight curve up ahead, we've got problems. Thankfully, those who deny that we can damage the environment we live in no longer have complete control. Some of us are frantically trying to hit the brakes, running up the aisles trying to reach the front and see what the hell has happened to the engineer. Unfortunately, there are large groups of people who insist on intentionally sticking out their legs to trip us or flat out ganging together to block the cabin exits completely.

We can stop a lot of the damage we are doing to our environment by heavily investing in new, cleaner technologies while at the same time significantly reducing how much energy we use. Ditching incandescent light bulbs is no different from ditching leaded gasoline or aerosols that contain CFCs.

So let's not leave the decisions up to the toddler-like "MEH, I DON'T WANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNA" crew who don't understand the world around them and refuse to eat their vegetables.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #29 of 71
1/22/11 at 8:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

When the people driving the runaway train are the same that don't believe in the tight curve up ahead, we've got problems.

Indeed. And you just described the current administration perfectly.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

We can stop a lot of the damage we are doing to our environment by heavily investing in new, cleaner technologies while at the same time significantly reducing how much energy we use. Ditching incandescent light bulbs is no different from ditching leaded gasoline or aerosols that contain CFCs.

Hyperbole Alert! Hyperbole Alert! Hyperbole Alert! Danger Will Robinson!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #30 of 71
1/24/11 at 8:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I hate all fluorescent light bulbs. I really, really do. I refuse to use them. If they do end up being banned in this country, I will hoard them.

The new lightbulbs, confusing but enlightening
Quote:
"There's a tremendous amount of development," said Brian Fortenbery, an energy efficiency lighting expert with the Electric Power Research Institute, a national nonprofit. "It's not a one-technology game, by any stretch."

Driving the change is a provision in the Energy Independence and Security Act that Congress passed in 2007, during the George W. Bush administration.

It set energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, which will begin to phase in come Jan. 1, 2012.

A wide misconception is that the law "bans" incandescents and "mandates" CFLs.

It's more of a required tune-up, supporters say. The act requires new bulbs to put out the same light with 30 percent less energy.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #31 of 71
1/24/11 at 8:39am
Quote:
A wide misconception is that the law "bans" incandescents and "mandates" CFLs.

It's more of a required tune-up, supporters say. The act requires new bulbs to put out the same light with 30 percent less energy.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #32 of 71
1/24/11 at 9:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #33 of 71
1/24/11 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

The new lightbulbs, confusing but enlightening


I guess 30% is better than nothing. Probably it's a more sensible way of doing things. The new law has spurred new and more efficient designs to come out already, something that wouldn't be happening anyway near the same degree if the law hadn't passed.

Market compiant people like MJ1970 and Tea Party people need this as a wake-up call!

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #34 of 71
1/24/11 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

The new law has spurred new and more efficient designs to come out already, something that wouldn't be happening anyway near the same degree if the law hadn't passed.

How do you know? Why does it matter?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #35 of 71
1/24/11 at 11:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How do you know? Why does it matter?

I know because I've read about the spurt of innovation in the incandescent range since this was passed. Don't have the links right now, but goo it yourself to see with your own stne cold bare eyeballs.

I guess it matters if your concerned with pregnant mothers children or are you of the opinion only the cells matter?

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #36 of 71
1/24/11 at 11:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I know because I've read about the spurt of innovation in the incandescent range since this was passed.

Perhaps, but you are claiming that this innovation would not have happened without the law. How do you possibly have any way of knowing that?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I guess it matters if your concerned with pregnant mothers children or are you of the opinion only the cells matter?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #37 of 71
1/24/11 at 11:57am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

Market compiant people like MJ1970 and Tea Party people need this as a wake-up call!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

How do you know? Why does it matter?

Car and truck manufacturers have been migrating to LEDs for a number of years. I think it's Lexus who now offers LED headlights, of course they're not cheap. Neither are aircraft - Airbus seems to have been installing LED cabin lights recently. I believe Embraer's new executive jets use them too. They're driven by market forces that seek to minimize labor-intensive maintenance, as well as a desire to eliminate every conceivable ounce. Lighter airplanes carry more revenue passengers and freight, and over a longer range.

Except for an overall fuel efficiency mandate, they weren't required to abandon the incandescent. LEDs simply became viable enough. The market works.

Incandescent traffic signal lights are also being replaced by LEDs. That's another market seeking to minimize maintenance costs passed on to the taxpayer.

LEDs aren't yet viable enough for the consumer market though. This impending ban therefore amounts to a de facto CFL mandate, a product offering dubious environmental benefits that the market clearly doesn't want.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #38 of 71
1/24/11 at 12:01pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hands Sandon View Post

I know because I've read about the spurt of innovation in the incandescent range since this was passed. Don't have the links right now, but goo it yourself to see with your own stne cold bare eyeballs.

I guess it matters if your concerned with pregnant mothers children or are you of the opinion only the cells matter?

Perhaps you're thinking of GE's high efficiency incandescents. It sounded promising. Unfortunately they abandoned the project: http://www.environmentalleader.com/2...descent-bulbs/:

Quote:
GE competitor Philips is in high gear to develop efficient light bulbs but is faced with the problem that politicians wants incandescent bulbs phased out faster than the industry can deliver alternatives.

This is the essence of the problem.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #39 of 71
1/24/11 at 12:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Car and truck manufacturers have been migrating to LEDs for a number of years. I think it's Lexus who now offers LED headlights, of course they're not cheap. Neither are aircraft - Airbus seems to have been installing LED cabin lights recently. I believe Embraer's new executive jets use them too. They're driven by market forces that seek to minimize labor-intensive maintenance, as well as a desire to eliminate every conceivable ounce. Lighter airplanes carry more revenue passengers and freight, and over a longer range.

Except for an overall fuel efficiency mandate, they weren't required to abandon the incandescent. LEDs simply became viable enough. The market works.

Incandescent traffic signal lights are also being replaced by LEDs. That's another market seeking to minimize maintenance costs passed on to the taxpayer.

LEDs aren't yet viable enough for the consumer market though. This impending ban therefore amounts to a de facto CFL mandate, a product offering dubious environmental benefits that the market clearly doesn't want.


This shows why this should act as a wake-up call. Markets innovate and use this newer tech because it makes sense, consumers on the other hand are stuck in there old fashioned ignorant piles of --it, at least a lot of them. There's far more innovation than just GE ( from your next post).

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
post #40 of 71
1/24/11 at 12:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Perhaps, but you are claiming that this innovation would not have happened without the law. How do you possibly have any way of knowing that?





The Tories here in the UK are making it much, much, much, much , much, much, much, much, much harder for people to sue big companies. The likes of Ron Paul say "we dont need these eco laws, people can just sue instead" well thats dumb for a multitude of reasons, but its especially dumb given individuals dont have the wads of money and the influence the polluters have. Christ, and people like him PLAY the Jesus card...sick...literally.

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply

"If your enemies cannot find a flaw in your reasoning, they will find it in your reputation".

~ William Hazlitt

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Congress acts to undo Bush's disastrous and costly environment-killing legislation