Light Bulb Ban
January 7th, 2011 at 3:06:37 AM
permalink
The US is due to start phasing out incandescent light bulbs in 2012, next year. They supposedly contribute to the scam called 'Global Warming'. What a load of crap. Who do they think they are, now telling us what kind of light bulbs to buy! I hate those damn curly-Q thingies, they give me a headache when I read under them. And they're soooo expensive! I have an old house, over 100 years (way over), and the very center of it is dark all the time because of no windows. I have a bulb burning 24/7 there, so somebody doesn't kill themselves on the way to the bathroom. I use incandescent bulbs that I buy for 20 cents each. I always write down the date a new one is screwed in, the one in there now has been there since May 2 of last year. 40 watts. 20 cents. Nice, mellow yellow light, easy on the eye. And they want to replace it with a bulb that, if I break it, I have to call a Hazmat team to come in because of the mercury. This is progress?
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 7th, 2011 at 4:28:27 AM
permalink
Yes. Think of all the lobbyists who benefit from this. Think of all the "lets be green, low-carbon footprint one-worlders" that benefit from this nonsense. Welcome to the land of the free.Quote: EvenBobThis is progress?
January 7th, 2011 at 4:58:30 AM
permalink
My main gripe with the things is that so far it is too hard to get one that is bright enough for certain places, and will also fit in the fixture. They seem to be working on that.
Anybody want to bet the deadline gets extended?
Anybody want to bet the deadline gets extended?
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 7th, 2011 at 5:42:46 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobI use incandescent bulbs that I buy for 20 cents each. I always write down the date a new one is screwed in, the one in there now has been there since May 2 of last year. 40 watts. 20 cents. Nice, mellow yellow light, easy on the eye.
Actually, unlike hybrid cars, fluorescent bulbs are more economical than incandescent ones. One bulb costs about a buck, lasts about nine to ten times longer, and burns 75% less electricity.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
January 7th, 2011 at 5:50:22 AM
permalink
I'm actually for it, agree with it, and NO, I'm not a wacko-greenie.
The new bulbs use so little energy, and last so long, they really are an improvement, curly-fries shape not with standing.
It'll save us a tremendous amount in terms of oil and powerplants on a large scale, this one little thing.
Except for one rack of track lighting, every bulb in my house (including a chandelier with 5 little-base screw-in bulbs) are CF's. I was even able to get the specialty chandelier bulbs at the dollar store. And my bill went down.
Next step: convert the Zoneline HVAC unit to a heat pump from resistance heating.
The new bulbs use so little energy, and last so long, they really are an improvement, curly-fries shape not with standing.
It'll save us a tremendous amount in terms of oil and powerplants on a large scale, this one little thing.
Except for one rack of track lighting, every bulb in my house (including a chandelier with 5 little-base screw-in bulbs) are CF's. I was even able to get the specialty chandelier bulbs at the dollar store. And my bill went down.
Next step: convert the Zoneline HVAC unit to a heat pump from resistance heating.
Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes - Henry David Thoreau. Like Dealers' uniforms - Dan.
January 7th, 2011 at 6:49:48 AM
permalink
I started buying fluorescents a few years ago. They're expensive, but worth it over time. One, the use less juice. Two, they last a lot longer. I appreciate the second feature more, because it means I don't have to get up on a stool and change bulbs as often.
But there are drawbacks, too. For instance, I couldn't put one on the ceiling by my closet door, because the door would ahve hit the bulp when opening. The old bulbs sat flush against the fixture and the new ones protrude far enough to get in the way. I wound up using a single 60w incandescent there.
Also they produce less waste heat than the old ones did. That's great when its warm, but not so good when it gets chilly. Of course this is to be expected, less energy and more efficiency means less energy lost as waste heat. And I'm not saying the old bulbs kept me warm, but that they added just enough heat to make fall more confrotable (did nothing for winter, though).
The biggest drawback, though, is color. Incandescent bulbs are uniformly a warm yellow color (often called warm white for some reason), while most fluorescents are white light. Human eyes are adapted to the warm yellow light of the sun, not the glare white of fluorescent lamps. To be sure you can get warm yellow fluorescents, and I do, but sometimes they're hard to find.
I've yetr to see LED light bulbs for home use. I have a LED flashlight I love. It's really bright and the batteries have lasted years and two prolonged blackouts.
But there are drawbacks, too. For instance, I couldn't put one on the ceiling by my closet door, because the door would ahve hit the bulp when opening. The old bulbs sat flush against the fixture and the new ones protrude far enough to get in the way. I wound up using a single 60w incandescent there.
Also they produce less waste heat than the old ones did. That's great when its warm, but not so good when it gets chilly. Of course this is to be expected, less energy and more efficiency means less energy lost as waste heat. And I'm not saying the old bulbs kept me warm, but that they added just enough heat to make fall more confrotable (did nothing for winter, though).
The biggest drawback, though, is color. Incandescent bulbs are uniformly a warm yellow color (often called warm white for some reason), while most fluorescents are white light. Human eyes are adapted to the warm yellow light of the sun, not the glare white of fluorescent lamps. To be sure you can get warm yellow fluorescents, and I do, but sometimes they're hard to find.
I've yetr to see LED light bulbs for home use. I have a LED flashlight I love. It's really bright and the batteries have lasted years and two prolonged blackouts.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 7th, 2011 at 9:16:53 AM
permalink
The new type of fluorescent bulbs will only be around for a few years, as LED technology improves enough, and low power bulbs will be LED driven in the near term. A diffusion mask will be used to create the more normal "glow" of a incandescent bulb. Using the 3500K bulbs also makes for a more natural light (though I like the bright white light in my bathroom... makes everything look sterile).
The heat issue is a factor in BC and Quebec where most electricity is produced by hydro or nuclear power... but heating is often natural gas or oil. The loss of heat from bulbs is replaced by more heating costs... and thus more CO2 into the atmosphere.
The heat issue is a factor in BC and Quebec where most electricity is produced by hydro or nuclear power... but heating is often natural gas or oil. The loss of heat from bulbs is replaced by more heating costs... and thus more CO2 into the atmosphere.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 7th, 2011 at 10:15:17 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitThe heat issue is a factor in BC and Quebec where most electricity is produced by hydro or nuclear power... but heating is often natural gas or oil. The loss of heat from bulbs is replaced by more heating costs... and thus more CO2 into the atmosphere.
I've read LED bulbs in traffic lights are a problem in colder areas, too. Apparently they don't generate enough heat to melt snow and ice obscuring the light, meaning they become useless in snowy conditions. They could fix that by adding a heater, which of course would consume large amounts of electricity. Electric heaters essentially are simple resistors that generate heat by impeding the flow of current. It would also increase the cost of the traffic light fixture.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 7th, 2011 at 10:18:22 AM
permalink
The problem is that the Federal government is getting involved in such a matter in the first place. Lightbulbs??
Our city just had to replace every street sign to conform with a mandate from Washington.
Next up: surprise visits from the Federal Toilet Paper Inspections Bureau, making sure we're not using too many sheets.
Our city just had to replace every street sign to conform with a mandate from Washington.
Next up: surprise visits from the Federal Toilet Paper Inspections Bureau, making sure we're not using too many sheets.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:24:47 AM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitThe new type of fluorescent bulbs will only be around for a few years, as LED technology improves enough, and low power bulbs will be LED driven in the near term. A diffusion mask will be used to create the more normal "glow" of a incandescent bulb. Using the 3500K bulbs also makes for a more natural light (though I like the bright white light in my bathroom... makes everything look sterile).
The heat issue is a factor in BC and Quebec where most electricity is produced by hydro or nuclear power... but heating is often natural gas or oil. The loss of heat from bulbs is replaced by more heating costs... and thus more CO2 into the atmosphere.
But an incandescent bulb as a heating device is horribly inefficient. The combination of a fluorescent bulb and a heating device that gave off as much light and heat as an equivalent incandescent bulb would consume much less power than the former incandescent bulb alone. Even if the replacement heat was generated by electricity.
I think the "appearance" issues such as harshness of the light and possible incompatibility with existing fixtures will be solved by the marketplace, given that there will already be a natural demand for the fluorescents as people become aware of the cost savings. I also personally like the extended life, as I have a couple of lighting fixtures in my house that are a major pain in the ass to replace the bulbs.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 7th, 2011 at 10:26:13 AM
permalink
Let's say for argument's sake that you have 10 sixty watt light bulbs incadescents going in your home at one time and that the efficiency of a light bulb is such that 90 percent of its output is heat. So, that's 540 watts of heat. A watt is a joule / second. Electricity costs about 8 cents/kwH. If you are running those light bulbs for a month to heat your home, you are using .54kw/hr x 24 x 30 = .54 x 720 = 388kWh x .08 = $31.1 per month on your hydro bill to heat your home.
Let's say that your furnace then is what is used to heat your home. Natural gas costs about 12.2 cents per m3 and has a content of 39 Megajoules or 10.8kWH. The furnace has an minimum effieciency of about 80 percent. So, when using natural gas, you are heating your home to the tune of 8.64kWH/m3
So, not burning 540 watts of heat by converting to CFLs will mean that you will need to add that heat from gas. To replace the effects of the light bulb, you will have to use up 388 / 8.64 = 45 m3 of natural gas each month. That 45 m3 will cost you $5.49/month.
So, from a cost perspective, it's much cheaper to heat your home using natural gas over light bulbs to the tune of about $25/month. And given that you would be replacing your light bulbs every month under this formula, you would spend anohter $6/month replacing light bulbs.
From an CO2 perspective, burning 45 m3 of natural gas / month will produce about 25kg of CO2 / month or 313kg of CO2 / annually.
Given that driving a 40mpg car 1,000 miles per month has an output of about 300kg of CO2 a month, using natural gas instead of lightbulbs is equivalent to driving an extra 100 miles/month.
It's a non-issue, even in hydro rich Kabec!
Let's say that your furnace then is what is used to heat your home. Natural gas costs about 12.2 cents per m3 and has a content of 39 Megajoules or 10.8kWH. The furnace has an minimum effieciency of about 80 percent. So, when using natural gas, you are heating your home to the tune of 8.64kWH/m3
So, not burning 540 watts of heat by converting to CFLs will mean that you will need to add that heat from gas. To replace the effects of the light bulb, you will have to use up 388 / 8.64 = 45 m3 of natural gas each month. That 45 m3 will cost you $5.49/month.
So, from a cost perspective, it's much cheaper to heat your home using natural gas over light bulbs to the tune of about $25/month. And given that you would be replacing your light bulbs every month under this formula, you would spend anohter $6/month replacing light bulbs.
From an CO2 perspective, burning 45 m3 of natural gas / month will produce about 25kg of CO2 / month or 313kg of CO2 / annually.
Given that driving a 40mpg car 1,000 miles per month has an output of about 300kg of CO2 a month, using natural gas instead of lightbulbs is equivalent to driving an extra 100 miles/month.
It's a non-issue, even in hydro rich Kabec!
-----
You want the truth! You can't handle the truth!
January 7th, 2011 at 10:36:39 AM
permalink
Quote: boymimboFrom an CO2 perspective, burning 45 m3 of natural gas / month will produce about 25kg of CO2 / month or 313kg of CO2 / annually.
Given that driving a 40mpg car 1,000 miles per month has an output of about 300kg of CO2 a month, using natural gas instead of lightbulbs is equivalent to driving an extra 100 miles/month.
It's a non-issue, even in hydro rich Kabec!
I think the CO2 issue is a red herring, in that I refuse to feel guilty about the various activities necessary to keep me alive releasing X quantity of CO2 into the atmosphere. We have a restaurant here in town that constantly blathers about its "zero carbon footprint". My ass! Do they cook their food? Does the restaurant staff inhale and exhale? Is the food they cook delivered by fairies, or teleportation?
I think trees should have been attacking each other for the last 100 million years, because each of them was contributing to the global oxygen poisoning problem. Fortunately, mammals came along to start sucking up that poisonous gas, then man showed up and cut down the worst offenders.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 7th, 2011 at 12:27:05 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboLet's say for argument's sake that you have 10 sixty watt light bulbs incadescents going in your home at one time and that the efficiency of a light bulb is such that 90 percent of its output is heat.
Well, I don't heat my home with light bulbs. What I meant is that the waste heat from incandescents made late autumn in Mex City a little bit elss chilly. Say I dind't have to put on a sweater indoors by evening, and now I do. that's all.
Mex City generally has mild weather, but it does grow cold at times in winter. Last week, for example, temps early in the morning and late in the evening were as low as 3 celsius (that's between 32 and 40 F). More commonly they're around 6 to 8 C, which is chilly as far as I'm concerned.
Still I don't heat my home, nor do I have the means to. I have an electric space heater in the bedroom that blows hot air and, I'm sure, gulps down electricity at prodigious rates. I turn it on for short intervals when I'm cold, also while I get dressed.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 7th, 2011 at 12:32:10 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobThe US is due to start phasing out incandescent light bulbs in 2012, next year. They supposedly contribute to the scam called 'Global Warming'. What a load of crap. Who do they think they are, now telling us what kind of light bulbs to buy! I hate those damn curly-Q thingies, they give me a headache when I read under them. And they're soooo expensive! I have an old house, over 100 years (way over), and the very center of it is dark all the time because of no windows. I have a bulb burning 24/7 there, so somebody doesn't kill themselves on the way to the bathroom. I use incandescent bulbs that I buy for 20 cents each. I always write down the date a new one is screwed in, the one in there now has been there since May 2 of last year. 40 watts. 20 cents. Nice, mellow yellow light, easy on the eye. And they want to replace it with a bulb that, if I break it, I have to call a Hazmat team to come in because of the mercury. This is progress?
EB I think you may have mistakenly thought this was part of an environmental bill. This was part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 signed into law by the ultra environmentalist president GW Bush. You may want to look up "Twenty in Ten" which was one of Bush's main points in his state of the union address the year before.
The fact is the power companies are championing the change to CFL's. The energy grid in the US is very old and more apt to suit the electrical needs of 1970 not 2010.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:49:54 PM
permalink
Bottom line is, most people don't know about the ban and once they find out, it will go away. They'll poke holes in it, gut it, and incandescents will be available for decades to come.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 7th, 2011 at 2:54:47 PM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobBottom line is, most people don't know about the ban and once they find out, it will go away. They'll poke holes in it, gut it, and incandescents will be available for decades to come.
A similar thing has happened in the UK. It was on the news for a day as people were apparently stockpiling the old bulbs. ?However it didnt go away. The next day old bulbs were not available to buy in stores and that was that. And I cant say I have noticed a whole lot of difference.
[This space is intentionally left blank]
January 7th, 2011 at 3:39:50 PM
permalink
If the government says you can't buy them, then manufacturers will stop making them. Leaded gasoline. Cyclamates. Non random VP machines.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:43:15 PM
permalink
The worst part is when they go out you cant just throw them away since they have Mercury or some other toxin in them.
January 7th, 2011 at 3:56:40 PM
permalink
MKL that is simply untrue. Incandescent bulbs are as efficient electric heaters as any other electric resistance heater. Any electric heater that you buy and plug-in is essentially a resistance heater. Dispite all the bull shit claims they are all the same and so is the light bulb. The only way you can get more heat per amount of electricity consumed is with a heat pump. Then you are gathering the heat from one place and utilizing it in another so heat pumps don't actually create the heat.
Be careful when you follow the masses, the M is sometimes silent.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:04:19 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321But an incandescent bulb as a heating device is horribly inefficient.
It is actually about as efficient as it gets. A 40W bulb emits about 1.9% of its input energy as visible light. Pretty much everything else (98.1%) is heat.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
January 7th, 2011 at 4:12:28 PM
permalink
I agree. If you could just eliminate all that visible light escaping and reflecting around, possibly getting outside your house, you'd have it about as good as a resistance heater is likely to get. It's a real nuisance when the potential "heat" for your house starts stimulating your retina rods. ;-)Quote: weaselmanIt is actually about as efficient as it gets. A 40W bulb emits about 1.9% of its input energy as visible light. Pretty much everything else (98.1%) is heat.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:12:43 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanIt is actually about as efficient as it gets. A 40W bulb emits about 1.9% of its input energy as visible light. Pretty much everything else (98.1%) is heat.
As a heat PRODUCER, perhaps, but not a heating DEVICE. Surrounding a radiant heat device (in this case, the tngsten filament) with a glass bulb that contains a vacuum means that much of the heat energy is used to heat the bulb. Granted, it then radiates heat from the bulb, but it is still inefficient. Plus, most bulbs in lighting fixtures are themselves surrounded by some kind of cover or sheath.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 7th, 2011 at 4:16:56 PM
permalink
mkl, you must be speaking in terms of the heat distribution in the house, not the efficiency of converting the energy to heat. Having a fan to move the warmth from the heater to the region of the occupants is helpful. Many resistance heaters do not have that feature and are really no more effective than the heat from the light bulbs, for the same power level.
January 7th, 2011 at 4:19:11 PM
permalink
Quote: slytherThe worst part is when they go out you cant just throw them away since they have Mercury or some other toxin in them.
All fluorescents, compact or not, contain mercury vapor. The current going through this gas makes it produce large amounts of ultraviolet light. A coating on the inside of the tube absorbs the UV and re-emits it as visible light.
The mercury content is small. You won't duffer any ill effects if you break one, for instance, but they should be disposed properly. As far as I know there are no widely available means for disposal save throwing them in the trash.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 7th, 2011 at 5:12:28 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321As a heat PRODUCER, perhaps, but not a heating DEVICE. Surrounding a radiant heat device (in this case, the tngsten filament) with a glass bulb that contains a vacuum means that much of the heat energy is used to heat the bulb. Granted, it then radiates heat from the bulb, but it is still inefficient. Plus, most bulbs in lighting fixtures are themselves surrounded by some kind of cover or sheath.
You know about energy conservation, right? If 40W of energy goes in (meaning "inside that cover or sheath"), and 1.9% of it escapes as light, then either 98.1% is getting out as heat, or the volume inside the cover becomes infinitely hot eventually. The cover around the bulb has the same effect as the bricks around a fireplace - it accumulates some (not a lot, definitely way less than those bricks) of the energy while the lamp is lit, and slowly (far faster than the bricks) gives it away after you turn the light off.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
January 7th, 2011 at 5:25:27 PM
permalink
Am I to understand that some on here are relying on light bulbs for heat? What do you do in the summer?
The incandescent bulb is very old technology and as a light source (which it is designed for) very inefficient.
This law is trying to keep the power grid up and running. Anyone remember the blackout a few years back?
The incandescent bulb is very old technology and as a light source (which it is designed for) very inefficient.
This law is trying to keep the power grid up and running. Anyone remember the blackout a few years back?
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:32:19 PM
permalink
Incandescents (100w) were the oven heat of kids' Easy Bake Oven(TM) at one time. You could cook your donut ... or something.
Sanitized for Your Protection
January 7th, 2011 at 5:56:15 PM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Am I to understand that some on here are relying on light bulbs for heat? What do you do in the summer?
I don't know about that, but restaurants often use 100W and higher incandescent bulbs to keep food warm.
Taco stands in Mexico, especially those in mobile markets (other story), use regular 125W spots to keep meat warm, and it works very well. Restaurants use ones that are tinted red and are supposed to emit more heat than light, sometimes they're marketed as infrared lamps.
But to repeat what I said, since that seems to have started this, in autumn in Mex City I sometiems miss the waste heat from incandescents. I need to wear a sweater indooors more often than before I switched to CFLs.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
January 7th, 2011 at 6:53:42 PM
permalink
Quote: NareedI don't know about that, but restaurants often use 100W and higher incandescent bulbs to keep food warm.
Taco stands in Mexico, especially those in mobile markets (other story), use regular 125W spots to keep meat warm, and it works very well. Restaurants use ones that are tinted red and are supposed to emit more heat than light, sometimes they're marketed as infrared lamps.
Those types of warming lights and appliance bulbs are exempt by that law.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 7th, 2011 at 7:55:29 PM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Am I to understand that some on here are relying on light bulbs for heat? What do you do in the summer?
The incandescent bulb is very old technology and as a light source (which it is designed for) very inefficient.
Nope, the thing is that light bulbs do add to the heat in a house when they are on. You're mixing cause and effect.
Course, putting a sweater on is a far better course of action.
"Then you can admire the real gambler, who has neither eaten, slept, thought nor lived, he has so smarted under the scourge of his martingale, so suffered on the rack of his desire for a coup at trente-et-quarante" - Honore de Balzac, 1829
January 7th, 2011 at 11:33:38 PM
permalink
Quote: boymimboFrom a cost perspective, it's much cheaper to heat your home using natural gas over light bulbs
This could be An Onion headline.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:44:39 PM
permalink
Quote: thecesspitNope, the thing is that light bulbs do add to the heat in a house when they are on.
For a hundred years chicken farmers have used light bulbs to keep baby chicks alive and to fake sunlight to laying hens.
"It's not called gambling if the math is on your side."
January 8th, 2011 at 12:28:30 AM
permalink
Quote: EvenBobFor a hundred years chicken farmers have used light bulbs to keep baby chicks alive and to fake sunlight to laying hens.
I must say chicken is rather tasty. It's the Tuna of the land.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 10th, 2011 at 9:39:09 AM
permalink
Quote: NareedAll fluorescents, compact or not, contain mercury vapor. The current going through this gas makes it produce large amounts of ultraviolet light. A coating on the inside of the tube absorbs the UV and re-emits it as visible light.
The mercury content is small. You won't duffer any ill effects if you break one, for instance, but they should be disposed properly. As far as I know there are no widely available means for disposal save throwing them in the trash.
Up here in Seattle area we aren't allowed to put them in the trash. Although I now see there are drop-off locations available: http://rentonwa.gov/living/default.aspx?id=1900
January 10th, 2011 at 10:09:02 AM
permalink
As was noted earlier in this thread, LED lighting is the future. The light is whiter, and there is no mercury to deal with. LEDs also consume 20% of the electricity of an incandescent bulb and last for 10 years or more. This becomes a no brainer, as you end up ahead money over the life of the bulb. I have followed the LED lighting industry for 8 years now, as a local company (CREE) is a leader in new technology in this space. I used to day trade the stock, so I learned a lot about the technology and the company.
The biggest hurdle right now is limited offerings, and they are costly. I have a LED bulb in my living room floor lamp, since I use that light 16 hours a day. I think I paid $34 for it. I doubt I will save anything over the 10 years, even with the 20% usage factored in. Starting price was too high.
The conspiracy theory bone in my body also feels the lighting companies will try and hold back LEDs as they have a vested interest and likely stock piles of CFLs they need to dump on the public first. So even though the technology is ready, it will be stalled for a while.
Raleigh has converted a couple of parking garages to all LED lighting, and downtown street lights are now LED. They showed the project would pay for itself after year 3, in reduced electricity usage, and reduced maintenance costs associated with changing bulbs over 10 years. There are a few other cities that have also joined this program.
The biggest hurdle right now is limited offerings, and they are costly. I have a LED bulb in my living room floor lamp, since I use that light 16 hours a day. I think I paid $34 for it. I doubt I will save anything over the 10 years, even with the 20% usage factored in. Starting price was too high.
The conspiracy theory bone in my body also feels the lighting companies will try and hold back LEDs as they have a vested interest and likely stock piles of CFLs they need to dump on the public first. So even though the technology is ready, it will be stalled for a while.
Raleigh has converted a couple of parking garages to all LED lighting, and downtown street lights are now LED. They showed the project would pay for itself after year 3, in reduced electricity usage, and reduced maintenance costs associated with changing bulbs over 10 years. There are a few other cities that have also joined this program.
Always borrow money from a pessimist; They don't expect to get paid back !
Be yourself and speak your thoughts. Those who matter won't mind, and those that mind, don't matter!
January 19th, 2011 at 7:01:45 AM
permalink
The WSJ has an interesting article on these things in California today. Is it always going to be true that the environmentalists just are never going to be able to deliver on claims they make? This article says 2012 for the phase out, but that 2014 is the designated year for when the old bulbs "won't be available in stores". I am willing to take bets on whether the latter gets extended or not, my bet being that the deadline does get extended.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 19th, 2011 at 7:18:17 AM
permalink
LED lights are just a further step up in cost from fluorescent lamps. A much bigger step that might not matter much for corporate use (where you pay $150 to the workers, their managers, office staff and other critters of the company contracted with changing the bulb and $0.30 for the bulb itself), but would stop it dead in its tracks for home use.
I don't particularly like the way this shift is being done, but it's long overdue, it should have been done 30-35 years ago. An abrupt ban instead of a gradual shift is just the price for delaying it for so long.
And for all the few percent of people who benefit from lighting, most of US actually spends more power on air conditioning than heating - and they waste extra power removing heat from their light bulbs as well.
I don't particularly like the way this shift is being done, but it's long overdue, it should have been done 30-35 years ago. An abrupt ban instead of a gradual shift is just the price for delaying it for so long.
And for all the few percent of people who benefit from lighting, most of US actually spends more power on air conditioning than heating - and they waste extra power removing heat from their light bulbs as well.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
January 19th, 2011 at 9:59:34 AM
permalink
Quote: odiousgambitThe WSJ has an interesting article on these things in California today. Is it always going to be true that the environmentalists just are never going to be able to deliver on claims they make? This article says 2012 for the phase out, but that 2014 is the designated year for when the old bulbs "won't be available in stores". I am willing to take bets on whether the latter gets extended or not, my bet being that the deadline does get extended.
Ummm Odious you do know this bill was in response to GW Bush's call for energy independence not coming from those dang environmentalists. So if you don't like it you can blame that tree hugger GW who signed it into effect and touted it as a great thing. So if claims are not being met they are the claims of the last administration. Sometimes reality isn't convenient.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 19th, 2011 at 10:19:42 AM
permalink
Quote: Wavy70Ummm Odious you do know this bill was in response to GW Bush's call
as a matter of fact I have a lot of beefs against W , mostly that he was a big spender, but he could do some bad things in the name of political expediency, not sure where the bulb thing stands with that.
Am I generally against environmental issues? No, I am an outdoorsman for one thing. But I can't put Environmentalists on a pedestal either.
the next time Dame Fortune toys with your heart, your soul and your wallet, raise your glass and praise her thus: “Thanks for nothing, you cold-hearted, evil, damnable, nefarious, low-life, malicious monster from Hell!” She is, after all, stone deaf. ... Arnold Snyder
January 19th, 2011 at 10:22:02 AM
permalink
Most environmentalists do not like the CF bulbs due to the mercury. The fact is our power grid is struggling to keep up was the reason for this bill.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
January 25th, 2011 at 5:36:46 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanActually, unlike hybrid cars, fluorescent bulbs are more economical than incandescent ones. One bulb costs about a buck, lasts about nine to ten times longer, and burns 75% less electricity.
"fluorescent bulbs are more economical than incandescent ones. One bulb costs about a buck, lasts about nine to ten times longer, and burns 75% less electricity" >>> Thats fine BUT STILL, should it not be MY CHOICE which bulbs I want to buy? I read something else in terms of people stocking up on bulbs. The government (supposedly) will DEMAND the makers of lamps to change the style so you can NOT use the older bulbs.
Ken
January 25th, 2011 at 6:30:20 PM
permalink
Quote: mrjjjThats fine BUT STILL, should it not be MY CHOICE which bulbs I want to buy?
What makes you think it should? There are lots of laws, protecting buyers from their own bad choices ... You can't buy a car without safety belts, no lead-based paint or mercury thermometers in the stores, no cars, that make one mile per gallon, etc. Why should light bulbs be different?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
January 25th, 2011 at 6:33:34 PM
permalink
Quote: weaselmanWhat makes you think it should? There are lots of laws, protecting buyers from their own bad choices ... You can't buy a car without safety belts, no lead-based paint or mercury thermometers in the stores, no cars, that make one mile per gallon, etc. Why should light bulbs be different?
Let me take a wild guess....Liberal?
Ken
January 25th, 2011 at 6:41:05 PM
permalink
Quote: mrjjjLet me take a wild guess....Liberal?
Nope. Never was one. I consider myself a libertarian, and (almost) always vote Republican for the lack of a better choice.
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
January 25th, 2011 at 6:43:58 PM
permalink
Quote: mrjjjLet me take a wild guess....Liberal?
Ken
That's a really dumb thing to say, or to suggest.
The reason for bans on things like cars that get 1 MPG, lead-based paint, etc. is that many actions have costs that are inflicted on others, not just on those who perform those actions. If you buy and use a light bulb that uses three times as much electricity as a fluorescent, then you are depleting a collective resource--the electricity grid, and the fuels consumed to generate that electricity. You may want to burn trash in your back yard, and you may feel you have the "right" to, but other people will have to breathe the smoke you produce. And so forth.
The idea that an individual needs to show collective responsibility is neither "liberal", nor "socialist", nor anything else. It's much more basic than that: it's a fundamental rule of decent human society. The "rugged individual" is and always was a fantasy; we all depend on one another. So we have to consider that our actions have consequences not just for ourselves, but for the other persons around us as well.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 25th, 2011 at 6:46:49 PM
permalink
(Hey, its the guy who loves to argue). "That's a really dumb thing to say, or to suggest" >>> Nope, I dont agree. Most (not all) liberals are in love with HUGE government control in peoples lives.
Ken
Ken
January 25th, 2011 at 6:54:21 PM
permalink
Quote: mrjjj(Hey, its the guy who loves to argue). "That's a really dumb thing to say, or to suggest" >>> Nope, I dont agree. Most (not all) liberals are in love with HUGE government control in peoples lives.
Ken
Unsupportable assertion.
The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one. The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.---George Bernard Shaw
January 25th, 2011 at 6:56:00 PM
permalink
Quote:
Nope, I dont agree. Most (not all) liberals are in love with HUGE government control in peoples lives.
This is not "huge". I don't quite agree with MKL's points about depleting collective resources (resource's goal in life is to be depleted, and people depleting it, are paying their price. This is how free economiy is supposed to work).
But some people just need to be protected from themselves. If you want to buy a gas guzzler because you love big cars, that's your choice, and it can be defended. Throwing money away on a light bulb or risking your kid's health with your choice of paint with the only purpose of demonstrating how "free" you are ... not so much.
Conservatism (or libertarianism) is one thing, "natural selection" is still quite another.
Besides, another point of my earlier comment was to point out, that there are lots of more important and noticeable aspects of your life, that already are regulated. Asbestos would make your house a lot cheaper to build and maintain for example, but it is illegal. Why waste your energy on an issue, that is (1) so insignificant, and (2) where complying with regulation is actually a sensible thing to do (a thing that you really should do anyway)? Out of principle? But still, why not pick something more defendable for the same principle? Gun control, anyone?
"When two people always agree one of them is unnecessary"
January 25th, 2011 at 6:56:18 PM
permalink
Quote: mkl654321Unsupportable assertion.
Wrong answer coolbreeze. Its the truth.
Government, government......give me, give me !!!! (Cradle to grave......ROFL)
Ken
January 25th, 2011 at 7:29:13 PM
permalink
Quote: mrjjjNope, I dont agree. Most (not all) liberals are in love with HUGE government control in peoples lives.
Ken
You may want to read over W Bush's Homeland Security Act. If you want to accuse anyone of asserting more control you may want to lump the conservatives in there too.
I have a bewitched egg that I use to play VP with and I have net over 900k with it.
