Activists Seek Repeal of Ban On Incandescent Bulbs 1049
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Daniel Sayani reports in New American that Senator Mike Enzi plans to introduce legislation to reverse the ban on incandescent light bulbs which is scheduled to go into effect January 1, 2014. 'CFLs are more expensive, many contain mercury which can be harmful even in the smallest amounts, and most are manufactured overseas in places like China,' says Enzi. 'If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace. Government doesn't need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use.' Faced with a phaseout, some consumers are stockpiling incandescent bulbs, although a poll by USA Today indicates most Americans support the US law that begins phasing out traditional light bulbs next year. Despite some consumer grumbling, they're satisfied with more efficient alternatives. 71% of US adults say they have replaced standard light bulbs in their home over the past few years with compact fluorescent lamps or LEDs and 84% say they are 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied' with CFLs and LEDs."
What about heatballs? (Score:2)
Will they forbid those, too?
Re: (Score:2)
Pointless fight (Score:4, Interesting)
Because LED lighting will own the market in a few years.
Light output is terrible for CFLs and LEDs (Score:2, Informative)
Don't get me wrong, I love LEDs. I think all equipment should be littered carelessly with LED indicators.
But I just can't stand either LED or CFL lighting. The light that either of these globes give off just isn't as nice and comforting as a good ol' incandescent globe. It's cold, harsh, and monochromatic.
I for one will be stockpiling incandescent globes if Australia ever legislates against them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Light output is terrible for CFLs and LEDs (Score:5, Informative)
http://gallery.me.com/dr2chase#100277/LEDSpectrum [me.com]
These are three different Luxeon Rebel LEDs, driven at 350mA, I believe the color temperatures are 3000K, 4000K, and 5000K. Still not as cheap as I would like, but coming down (cheaper than before) and the light is creeping up. Another good choice is Cree; I have 9 last-gen Cree neutral-whites (4000K, I think) in my kitchen under the cabinets, and they look good there, too. As long as I am blogwhoring (since I just went and took these pictures to give a proper reply for you, I think I am entitled), here:
http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2011/02/20/undercabinet-lights-basement-kitchen/ [wordpress.com] (used for the picture above, mixed spectrum)
http://dr2chase.wordpress.com/2008/10/19/more-undercabinet-lights/ [wordpress.com] (all neutral white, an earlier effort)
Note that these are "do not look at LED with remaining eye" grade lights.
Re: (Score:3)
CFL/LED come with different temperature ratings. As in color. Pick the right rating, and it gives warmer ("yellower") light, like what you're used to.
However as a person who was in exactly the same spot as you few years ago, here's the real cause of your problem: habit. Habit bends perception. Moving from incandescent to CFL was something I felt unnatural and unnecessary, like moving from CRT to LCD monitors back at the time.
But you need to move on. Especially because once you've used CFL for some time, you
Clean Power (Score:4, Informative)
I've found that unless you have nice clean power, CFLs don't last any longer than regular bulbs. Not everyone gets 60 Hz pure sine, 120V+-1% to their house. Older wiring, older part of town, etc. I rented an apartment that had me replacing CFLs once a month (until I realized it was the apartment and not a fluke and switched back). You still can't beat 4 bulbs for $.99.
Re:Clean Power (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, CFLs annoy me to no end - we replaced one light with a CFL bulb, and when we turn it on, it actually takes time to "warm up". After 5 minutes, it's nice and bright, but when we first turn it on, it's dim... like a streetlight that's just turning on. Annoying as hell.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
Ever tried replacing a 100W porch light with a CFL? May as well not bother turning it on in the winter, light won't make it out of the housing at -10C. Even when powered on all night, you'll be lucky to see the top of your door before dawn.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have an idea!
How about I buy the cheapest ass incandescent bulbs I can find and everybody leaves me the fuck alone.
Re: (Score:3)
So eloquent. I must have struck a nerve.
I can pay for an incinerator, but that doesn't mean I can use it on my property. Why? Pollution regulations, possible damage to other people's property, and being a general nuisance to my neighborhood. I can 50 gallons of gasoline, but that doesn't mean I can just dump it down a drain pipe. I can buy a car but that doesn't mean I can run people over with it.
If you want to do something stupid and it affects only you, great. I don't really care. However, energy is not o
Re: (Score:3)
>>you are a home owner, call your local utility (PG&E for me) and have them check the incoming power.
Hmm, that's a good tip. In our house, lights on certain circuits blow out a lot faster than others. In the bathroom/hallway/closet circuit, we've replaced 20 light bulbs in the past 9 months. Elsewhere in the house, we replaced some of the lights when we moved in, and haven't had trouble past that.
(The number would have been higher, but we eventually gave up on replacing the lights, and just deal w
Re: (Score:3)
You still can't beat 4 bulbs for $.99.
At least not as long as you don't turn them on.
Or is electricity free in your place?
CFLs are much good for heating (Score:3)
Incandescent bulbs are widely used for heating. For example in bread proofing boxs, small animal tanks and lava lamps.
What exactly are we supposed to use now?
Re: (Score:3)
A resistor? It is not a new technology, I have had a water warmer for 5 years, so resistors might have been in the market at least 10 years ago...
In fact, an incandescent bulb is just a resistor designed to give light, if you need warming better use the original thing (TM) and not waste any energy in unused photons...
Re: (Score:3)
Resistors don't come with a US style light bulb screw thread attachment. I could crack out the soldering iron and make one from an old bulb and a resistor, but who wants to lacerate themselves taking apart a glass bulb just to make a lava lamp dark?
Re:CFLs are much good for heating (Score:4, Insightful)
Incandescent bulbs are widely used for heating. For example in bread proofing boxs, small animal tanks and lava lamps.
Yeah, because they are fuggin inefficient at lighting.
What exactly are we supposed to use now?
Use something that is more efficient at heating. If your only tool is a light bulb...
Re:CFLs are much good for heating (Score:4, Insightful)
what do you mean more efficient at heating?
a 40W lamp in an enclosed, opaque space is exactly as efficient as a 40W heater in that same enclosed space.
I agree with them (Score:3)
Most energy efficient technologies are actually an economic net win. After an initial push the government doesn't need to be involved. I see the government involvement in this sort of thing as more a swift kick to the economy to push it out of a local minima, and that's how it should stay.
what's his gain? Lots (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sen. Enzi has interests in utilities and natural gas and coal mining. Can't imagine why he'd care if people used less energy-efficient lightbulbs.
Typical lefty sliming. OK, if that's fair, then let me point out the following: GE stands to make a massive pile of cash off of their sales of CFLs, and they lobbied the Obama admin on many "green" energy issues, they have a very cozy set of ties to the Democratic party and Obama and are the corporate parent of NBC and MSNBC who shill for the Obama admin. Does t
Re: (Score:3)
I agree with you about GE's benefiting from the ban. Of course, they already were selling light bulbs, so what switch to CFLs got them I'm not clear on. Perhaps they are cheaper to make but sell for more? I know that GE closed the last domestic incandescent light bulb factory [heartland.org], so presumably there is a labor cost savings to them.
As for your statements about GE's ties to the Obama administration and the Democratic party, I'll just note that the law banning CFLs is titled "The Energy Independence and Security [wikipedia.org]
Don't disagree (Score:2)
There's no reason to force people off of incandescents. If we can find more value in fluorescents we will. It does no good to save pennies a year on energy if we're paying dollars in quality of life. We'll all be using LED bulbs soon, anyway. Much easier to get the colors right there.
CFLs aren't 100% coverage yet (Score:3)
By that, I mean there are still places they don't cheaply fill in for incadescents. Like dimming or being able to come to full brightness quickly (for closets, bathrooms, etc). At least, those're the problems I've had with the bulbs I put in about 4 years ago when I bought my house.
CFLs aren't that great (Score:2)
I don't think I have had a CFL replace an incandescent bulb and last as long as the claim. Thankfully I get them at Costco who lets me trade them in for replacements.
Also, the light quality isn't that great.
Sure, they save some eletricity... but I'm not sure I am saving money.
The heat, I need it in the winter (Score:4, Insightful)
here in the north the heat from the bulb is more than welcome.
bans are excessive and unnecessary. (Score:2)
There are far better ways to promote specific technologies than to ban others. I know that many people will prefer the older tech, and forcing consumers is not a constitutional or even sensible way to achieve energy use goals. My mother is a water color artist, and is concerned with the ban because cfl and led lighting does not provide a natural reference for color like incandescents do. While she does penny pinch and has every light in her house as a cfl, she would like to use an incandescent while pain
Efficiency not technology (Score:5, Insightful)
And as this 2007 Slashdot story points out:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/07/02/26/1916211/GE-Announces-Advancement-in-Incandescent-Technology
Governments should mandate efficiency standards, not technology. I'm a bit on the free-market side myself, let the best bulb win, but not with absolutely no ground rules for that fight. If government were to truly stand back and let the market decide everything, cost would almost always win out and we'd have a proliferation of coal power plants and inefficient gas cars lacking almost every kind of pollution control system.
Government's role is to set the standard, in this case, so many lumen per watt, or however they want to word it, and then let the industry innovate the best technology to meet that goal.
Re: (Score:2)
That is in fact what the US government did; it's just that the standards are set to the point that incandescents can't meet it. So we're stuck with shitty fluorescents and shitty LEDs (they're shitty for the same reason, the phosphors). I know Phillips was working on HIR capsules within a regular bulb envelope, but I haven't seen one for sale which meets the requirements (some are which do not).
The GE "advancement" was abandoned [cleanbreak.ca], though likel
Re: (Score:3)
Philips has bulbs that meet the 2012 standard on the market now, and has for several years now. I got mine at Home Depot.
Re: (Score:3)
State Governments should mandate efficiency standards, not technology.
Fixed that for you (insofar as it applies to the USA). It shouldn't be a Federal issue.
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be a Federal issue.
I completely disagree. Standards are a very important part of trade, and can easily serve as a trade barrier. Since this would directly affect interstate commerce, it is clearly a federal competence.
Re:Efficiency not technology (Score:4, Informative)
They did mandate efficiency, not technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs#Federal_legislation [wikipedia.org]
In December 2007, many of these state efforts became moot when the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light[8] be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.
Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions (historically, less than 40 Watts or more than 150 Watts). Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, and plant lights.
By 2020, a second tier of restrictions would become effective, which requires all general-purpose bulbs to produce at least 45 lumens per watt (similar to current CFLs). Exemptions from the Act include reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.[29]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, just have a mechanical switch (one that disconnects the power from the device, not just sends a signal to some processor) on the front panel of the device. I am too lazy to pull the plugs of the devices, but a mechanical switch on the front panel would be welcome. TVs usually have it, but other devices that have remote controls usually do not have the switch. Old devices are usually better in tis regard. When I turn off my tube radio, it is completely off. So is my R2R tape deck.
I have an old server (S
I despise agreeing with Enzi (Score:2)
Enzi's an idiot, and his reasoning specious. ("Oh, no, Chinee right burbs!") But I agree with his goal.
Banning incandescents is unhelpful and unnecessary. There are places where they're the only solution. Not many, but a few.
As people install CFLs, demand for incandescents will fall, because they last for a years. (Except in those situations I mentioned in the past paragraph.) It would be nice to push people to do that just once, and finally get them over the "the color wash is slightly different from
Re: (Score:2)
Banned in the UK already (Score:4, Interesting)
I stockpiled a load of 100W ones. The new bulbs have lots of advantages - cheaper to run, so ideal to leave on as a security light, last longer, etc, but although I've replaced about 75% of the lights in my house with CFLs, I absolutely had to stockpile the old ones. The reason? It's simple. CFLs give me a headache. I can't sit underneath one for more than about 10 minutes without getting a headache, so it's fine to have one in the bedroom or bathroom, and it's not too bad in the kitchen, but I'm in the lounge or my office I need a regular incandescent light. It's not a problem for everybody, but sufficient numbers of people are similarly affected that I think it's outrageous the government can legislate such stupid big brother dictats.
Then there's the fact that they're sold massively below cost to get them adopted. Here, you can often find them for less than 10p per bulb at retail, and nobody is yet really worrying about the environmental costs of disposal because people aren't really throwing them away in any numbers yet. This will be a major problem in a few years though.
Finally, the usual arguments that the old bulbs are less energy efficient is pretty much redundant. As I mostly use light bulbs during the winter evenings and for a short period on winter mornings, I'll have my heating on anyway. Who cares if 90W of the 100W bulb is emitted as heat - it's making my house warmer. There's even a company in Germany trying to get round the ban by selling "heating globes" that happen to emit light and happen to look exactly like an old lightbulb.
Just reclassify it as a heating device (Score:2)
Afterall, it's quit energy efficient to do that particular job.
Someone actually start importing it as heat ball.
if left alone (Score:2)
Statalism and environment (Score:2)
In the winter the old incandescent lamp has an efficiency nearing 100% because you use its heat too.
Why should anybody tell me to use CFL, harder to manufacture and dispose of and in this case less efficient?
A state wants to preserve environment? Then just factor in the environmental impact of stuff, and add it as tax or whatever. If using something hurts the environment make us pay in advance for the damage. It's a big paradigm shift, but the alternative of half assed measures or fake measures like carbon
Re: (Score:3)
It is not only about protecting little furry things. I smell they are more interesting in the energy savings, as in keeping the price of energy low (or at least affordable). And you may say "Let's build more nuclears" or whatever, but energy supply is very inelastic (if you start building a nuclear central today, even without the NIMBY pressure, you'll spend some years before the first watt gets into the grid). So they are trying to ease things in the demand side.
BTW, other posts well before yours state tha
Expensive? (Score:2)
From the summary:
CFLs are more expensive
Really? Around here (Tucson, AZ USA) CFLs at Home Depot are less than a dollar each in four-packs (It was something like $3.60/4 bulbs.). I'm not sure if they're more expensive than incandescents (as I've not priced incandescents in years), but they're certainly inexpensive enough that any price difference is trivial.
All of mine have lasted for years, give off less heat (less AC needed in the summer), and produce satisfactory light for reading and everyday indoor tasks. I don't do indoor p
Flicker & 'bad light' from CFL (Score:2)
I'm a TV & Film editor by trade, so I easily notice sub-second motion and flicker. The flicker and the "bad color" of CFLs bugs the hell out of me. I can immediately notice when a room is lit by CFLs vs. good old incandescents.
I'm all for doing what we can to reduce power consumption, but for me CFLs are not a viable option. I have a hard time working around them. I haven't tried LED light bulbs yet due to them being relatively new on the market... maybe that will be a way to go, but I don't think t
Very happy with LED but not so much with CFLs (Score:3)
My first CFLs lasted about three years before giving up. Before then they progressively lose their strength and take time to get whatever brightness level they max out at. They are hard to find light that looks "right" as coated bulbs can do little to compensate. They also are horrid in out door situations (low life mainly) and any where vibration can get to them, think garages either in or near the openers.
So far my three LED lights are just awesome. Good light dispersion and instant on. I have not tried any where the bulb is mounted horizontal, I have a few fixtures in the ceiling like that, but they do work well in my ceiling fan light fixtures and in bathrooms where the lights are pointed down. Haven't found a replacement for the globe lights that frequent bathrooms, I might end up ditching the fixtures.
Incandescent bulbs still have better variety in spectrum but outside of that I can think of only a few specialized uses their secondary effect; heat; warrants keeping them. OK, cost is their major benefit - at least up front cost.
I am all for keeping them on the death list as I hope it kicks LEDs makers into high gear. We can hope that Wal Mart decides to get behind LED lights like they did for CFLs, they seemed almost responsible for their overnight abundance and price drop. Having made such a big push on those bulbs I hope to see the repeat.
The best product doesn't always win. (Score:3)
CFLs are not a panacea (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides the higher cost, the mercury content and being made in China (which is probably true of most incandescent bulbs today too), there are other drawbacks.
At least one poster has cited reliability. There's fine print on most CFLs warning of reduced life if placed in an enclosed fixture. There are no such limitations on incandescent bulbs.
I've had a half dozen go bad during the past few years. None were in an enclosed fixture. I don't recall ever going through that many incandescent bulbs. One made a snap-crackle-pop noise when it went out and it's base was too hot to touch, raising concerns of the fire safety of these products.
The power factor of CFLs is about 0.44 leading. The power company must supply the vars for this free. They can only charge us for watts and can't charge for reactive power. Incandescent bulbs have a power factor of nearly unity.
There are still some performance issues. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Using Incandescents means *more* mercury release. (Score:5, Insightful)
I see the CFL = Mercury thing all the time and frankly it's avoiding the fact that the power savings from replacing an Incandescent with a CFL mean you take less power, burn less coal and release less mercury into the air.
Here's the math:
Take a 100w bulb and replace it with a 17W CFL - average lifetime of a CFL is about 10,000 hours. So that 83w power difference over 10,000 hours is 3 gigajoules. Coal power content is about 33 megajoules per kilogram - so that works out to about 90kilograms of coal over the lifetime of the bulb. Mercury content varies but about 10 parts/million is a reasonable average - so that pile of coal will contain about 900 miligrams of mercury. CFL's contain about 5milligrams (although there are 'eco friendly' bulbs that contain less than a milligram.
Now, there are other factors, firstly the fuel cycle of power plants isn't 100% so the amount of coal will be higher, on the other hand, in the US only about 50% of the electrical power comes from coal.
Regardless - Incandescents are *worse* in terms of mercury pollution, and anyone telling you otherwise is either misinformed or lying.
Re: (Score:3)
Uh, they mean the mercury *inside* the CFL itself. Not the mercury used in manufacturing it or power it.
Drop a bunch of CFLs on the floor, and you could end up with beads of mercury rolling around. Makes for a fun time cleaning it up.
Drop a bunch of incandescent bulbs on the floor, and you only have to worry about the glass.
Now, not all CFLs have mercury inside, nor do all of them have the same amounts.
But when people talk about mercury, that's what they mean.
Re: (Score:3)
Sixteen percent are unsatisfied (Score:3)
These ban's are indicative of a problem (Score:3)
If 71% of the people are buying them already, why do we need a ban on the old product? CFL bulbs won in the market, with the exception of some specific cases where CFLs are not an option. So the ban is unnecessary.
small is as small does (Score:3)
many contain mercury which can be harmful even in the smallest amounts
Wow, so a single atom of mercury can harm me, huh? That's the official smallest amount.
Well, if it's philosopher's mercury I guess it could start a cascade of phlogiston releases in my precious boldly pneuma.
Free market vs externalities. (Score:3)
The free market is the best method of deciding things, but it can't do the job by itself.
Externalities can skew things, and a public good, such as the environment, that everyone is free to pollute to the detriment of all without paying individually.
Representing the public good is properly the role of the government.
CFL and LED lamps don't work well everywhere.. (Score:4, Interesting)
I live in the Midwest so outdoor lights in the Winter present a problem. My work-around for the outdoor light by our back door is to just turn it on in the Fall and leave it on. So far so good. My front outdoor lights are the candelabra base bulbs shaped like a flame. I haven't seen anything suitable as a replacement for those so I bought a case of them and hope the supply outlasts me or that the technology improves.
We have a number of recessed lights in our home office, kitchen, hallways and bathroom. I've tried a number of different flood lamp shaped CFLs and have had uniformly bad luck with very slow start-up times. Particularly in hallways and the bathroom it's unacceptable. I've experimented with some LED flood lamps in the back hallway leading to the garage and they start OK with about a second of delay versus a minute or two for the CFLs, but they produce harsh bluish light that is not acceptable in an actual living area. Sooo... I've stocked up on incandescent flood lamps, too.
I definitely like the idea of more efficient lighting, especially in the Summer when the extra heat is even less desirable, but it's got to be affordable and look good. We seem to have a way to go on both counts. I would prefer to let the market decide rather than have non-technical legislators shove this down our throats, but why should this be different than other legislation?
Because consumers are stupid (Score:2, Insightful)
Because consumers are stupid - that's why.
Re:Because consumers are stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
And politicians are smart?
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, but it's the manufacturer's fault too. Most people complain about CFLs giving out too little light, and it's true. A 20W CFL DOES NOT replace a 100W lightbulb. It can, given ideal conditions, but usually it doesn't.
So people are frustrated and go and get a 100W lightbulb for their front porch... which stays on all night.
That's why they're trying to ban incandescents.
I, for one, wouldn't ban them. I'd just tax them real high and make CFLs more attractive. That way you can have your incandescents for
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
We ban lead paint but get rid of a product that is non-toxic when broken for one that is (due to the mercury content in the CFL).
Re: (Score:3)
And your using incandescent bulbs increases energy consumption, which drives up the cost of electricity for everyone else.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I have previously made this exact comment, for the exact reasons, and others tried to explain to me how to compensate for it....like I needed that. The point is, if we really believe that the market place should decide, then let it.
There ARE (and always will be) applications were an old fashioned light bulb works best. Easy Bake® ovens come to mind. Now, they are being forced to redesign them, which will make them more expensive of course. For once, they need to think of the children ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a couple sockets where I *cannot* use CFLs (they're not supposed to be used on sockets with dimmers). I use 40W incandescents with them. Everywhere else it's 15W fluorescents.
-uso.
Re: (Score:3)
The Easy Bake® oven depended on the fact that old incandescent bulbs are SO inefficient that the waste heat they generate can cook a small cake. I have no sympathy for those who whine about being forced to quit wasting so much energy when the fix is simply a minor inconvenience.
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree. Most of the lights I have at home are CFLs, but there are a few places in the house where I want the lights to be at full brightness when I flip the switch or where I *want* the combination of heat and light of the edisons.
Re: (Score:2)
sounds like you probably have a 40 watt grow light you could press into service.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is another example of whackos in government run amok. Why not let consumers decide what to buy and for what purpose?
Actually, its another example of politicians (and their monied backers) distorting the truth for political gain. Incandescent bulbs are not being banned.
The law requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310-2600 lumens of light be 30% more energy efficient than circa 2007 incandescent bulbs by 2014. Incandescents are fine if they are more efficient and even back in 2009 plenty of improved incandescents [nytimes.com] were available. I'm sure even cheaper bulbs are now on store shelves.
During the winter I leave a small 40 watt bulb on in my well house to prevent the pipes from freezing...it gives out enough heat and it's perfect for that application. Now I will have to get a space heater causing me to burn even more electricity even when turned on the lowest setting.
Well, you are using a
Re: (Score:3)
It's not perfect for that at all: incandescents fail regularly.
If you're not trolling, get a small heater (eg pipe tape) on a thermostat instead.
Don't wilfully confuse *lighting* with *heating*.
Rgds
Damon
Re:Special situations (Score:5, Insightful)
Tragedy of the commons [wikipedia.org]
Externality [slashdot.org]
Social Cost [wikipedia.org]
This is why the government is justified to step in. Free market capitalism does not work when the above forces are in play. You as a consumer deciding on a product based upon your own rational self-interest (one of the fundamentals of capitalism) will most likely pick a product whose use will have negative consequences for others - others that did not enter into any contract with you.
Oblig car analogy: Your choice to drive a gas-guzzling SUV affects the quality of the air I breathe. I had no choice in your purchase therefore I should not have to bear the external cost (my air quality) of your decision.
Re:Special situations (Score:5, Insightful)
This is another example of whackos in government run amok. Why not let consumers decide what to buy and for what purpose? During the winter I leave a small 40 watt bulb on in my well house to prevent the pipes from freezing...it gives out enough heat and it's perfect for that application. Now I will have to get a space heater causing me to burn even more electricity even when turned on the lowest setting.
This is absolutely idiotic...for government to ban a specific appliance. Almost as idiotic as banning people from owning and smoking a plant!
You know that the problem is not the government being idiotic, it's YOU.
There are dozens of potential choices for you to warm your well house, many of which would be MORE efficient than your lightbulb. Just getting a space heater is an example of you being imprudent and rushing to conclusions instead of learning about your options.
The easiest I'd recommend would be a simple grow light, as they ARE exempted from the ban, or if you wish, a rough-service lamp. You may also wish to consider a pipe warming electrical cord. They even make them with temperature sensors so they shut off when it's warm enough that you don't need to worry about freezing.
But no, instead of looking at your options, you'd rather rant and rave at the government. That is why the Free Market fails. People ARE stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you actually lived in a cold weather climate? What you propose is nonsense, because there are low spots in the piping. You would have to actually blow the lines clear.
This is exactly why the government _shouldn't_ be involved. People/politicians seem to think they know much more than they do.
For reference, 40W for a month is on the order of a gallon of gas a month. Insignificant? No. Significant compared to a typical 1st world country lifestyle? Not if you do any sort of air travel.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good! (Score:5, Informative)
Except the Fed does NOT dictate the type of bulb you use. Congress passed a bipartisan law to require that bulbs be more efficient. Any incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency guidelines are fine. G.E. promised a more efficient incandescent bulb but decided against it.
Re: (Score:3)
Well in the north, they're 100% efficient. They give light, and radiate heat. I've actually seen my energy costs go up by about 10% when I switched to them. I've since switched back to plain old incandescent bulbs, and tossed all the CFL's I had.
This isn't counting the CFL's I didn't used in my reading lamps and so on. I gave them a shot, I really did. I got tired of the flicker and migraines the bloody things gave me.
Re: (Score:3)
Well in the north, they're 100% efficient. They give light, and radiate heat. I've actually seen my energy costs go up by about 10% when I switched to them.
Pure bullshit. Unless by "north" you mean "the arctic circle" in which case you might have a point. Even there, though, electricity is a shitty way to provide heat, and dumping it into your ceiling is wasteful unless you have 99% perfect insulation.
This isn't counting the CFL's I didn't used in my reading lamps and so on. I gave them a shot, I really did. I got tired of the flicker and migraines the bloody things gave me.
Sure. And some people "get" headaches from WiFi signals. Do a double-blind experiment, or point to one that shows the effect, and then we'll talk.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
'If left alone, the best bulb will win its rightful standing in the marketplace. Government doesn't need to be in the business of telling people what light bulb they have to use.'
I agree with this provided the government responsibly institutes a massive carbon tax (with corresponding cuts in other taxes) so as to level the "free-market's" playing field so that it achieves environmental responsibility. When your electricity starts costing 5 times as much, you can make whatever choice of light bulb you want.
I
Re:Good! (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the entire US Constitution is exactly about limits on what the Federal government can legislate. The document first takes everything away, the hands out various powers to parts of the government.
Every other power that isn't listed is supposed to be handled by the States.
As we can see, that idea didn't last very long. I think it hardly made it to 100 years.
Re:Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Every other power that isn't listed is supposed to be handled by the States.
As we can see, that idea didn't last very long. I think it hardly made it to 100 years.
Barely made it 100 years? If you want to go with your somewhat narrow interpretation it didnt even make it 17 years*! Jefferson was well aware that there was no provision in the constitution allowing the federal government to acquire territory, but he went right ahead with the Louisiana purchase anyway. So it seems even the founding fathers couldn't hew to the constitution to the degree you desire even a mere couple of decades after they wrote it. Oops.
* There are probably even earlier examples, but the Lousiana purchase is very blatant and should suffice to make the point.
OT: What's with the bad formatting in Firefox? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree, and it's why we're (strictly speaking) not a full blown democracy (so that's the first point I disagree with... by your standard, 80% of the white people could demand slavery be re-instituted by repealing amendments - obviously they wouldn't, but by your reasoning it would be OK if they did).
Secondly, the constitution of the U.S. gives a specific list of the responsibilities of the federal government... and leaves EVERYTHING else to the states.
Yes, it's true that we already are not following the
The Constitution is all about limiting legislation (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't limit what government can legislate, except for the pretty specific clauses ensuring specific kinds of fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, freedom from arbitrary incarceration, and several other specific limitations on the government's scope of power. In other respects, it's allowed to be a government and legislate whatever its democratically elected legislators vote to legislate.
You are very much mistaken. The US Constitution defines what the federal government *may* legislate and then specifically states that everything else is left to the states to legislate. The first ten amendments then go on to explicitly forbid legislation, federal and state, in certain areas.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure the constitution doesn't limit what government can legislate, except for the pretty specific clauses ensuring specific kinds of fundamental individual freedoms such as freedom of speech, association, freedom from arbitrary incarceration, and several other specific limitations on the government's scope of power.
In other respects, it's allowed to be a government and legislate whatever its democratically elected legislators vote to legislate.
Try reading the Constitution before taking wild guesses what it does and doesn't say. They are called "enumerated powers" and are found in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me object in a slightly different way - Congress has no fucking business setting standards for the efficiency of light bulbs. Nope, it's not there in the good ole Constitution. Can't find it anywhere. They should butt out of such things!
Let them first stop wasting billions of dollars a year on the war on drugs and then we can worry about piddly little things like light bulbs.
Re: (Score:3)
Ya, screw billions on the war on drugs (yet another waste of putting pot smokers in jail), and focus on screwing Americans for billions.
The EPA states CFL's average 4 milligrams of mercury. [google.com]
In 2007, Walmart sold 350,000,000 [walmartstores.com] CFL bulbs.
That's 1.54 tons of mercury that cannot be sequestered at common points such as power generation facilities.
The EPA considers anything over 0.002 milligrams per liter of water to be hazardous. If use the EPA guidelin
Re:Good! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not the same thing-- and in fact the rule has spurred the creation of several brands of incandescents that *do* meet the new efficiency standards. I have four of them from Philips in a set of ceiling lights on a dimmer switch. It is, in fact, an example of a well-written government rule that dictates what we want (more efficient sources of light) without mandating specific technologies or manufacturers, letting the market sort out how best to get there.
I'm certainly not enough of a constitutional scholar to argue whether or not congress is allowed to regulate these things-- but assuming they are, they did it the right way.
Re: (Score:3)
Halogen is a blackbody spectrum at 3000K. Ordinary incandescent is normally around 2700K. However, if you dim either bulb, you not only reduce the brightness, but the color temperature. So stick a dimmer on your lamp and use a higher-o
Re: (Score:3)
The only CFLs I've had that didn't outlast the old ones were the micro CFLs (and LEDs) that all failed due to the cheapest rectifier ever made choking on the line noise from the ceiling fan they were mounted on, the standard sized CFLs are all holding up fine in the other ceiling fans. In all other cases, my CFLs have significantly outlast the incandecent bulbs. In fact, other that the ceiling fans, I haven't replaced a single CFL since I moved into my house 7 years ago.
My bulbs are used in bathrooms with h
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, they claim the color wheels in DLP projectors move too fast to perceive too, but look at any DLP forum for the 'rainbows' complaints. Like most things, perception varies from person to person, and about 5-10% of the population are driven nuts by it, myself included (same goes for AC LED bulbs/strings and those PWM-dimmed automotive tail lights).
Re: (Score:2)
That's their angle!!!
No more lightbulbs going on over your head when you get an idea!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Only if you pay for all the unpriced externalities in your examples.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd like the freedom to make bad decisions, please.
Your right to make bad decisions ends where you start screwing up my climate.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a handful of manufacturers out there (among them Philips), and the bulbs are way more efficient than incandescents in terms of lumens per watt. But a big problem with them is that they're just not that bright yet, The brightest ones you can buy are not quite as bright as a 60W incandescent.
Re: (Score:3)
If you can see the 100khz flicker I bet you could get that $1 million woo-woo prize James Randi is giving out.
Here is another light you can have and replace constantly.
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-72-Watt-EcoVantage-Light-Natural/dp/B001FA07UC [amazon.com]
Something you and the rest of the drooling morons on that webpage probably don't know is that there is no ban on incandescents. Only on low efficiency lighting. So you can keep enjoying those that I linked far into the future.