That's nice. Please cite to me which specific power the U.S. Constitution granted to Congress the power to FINE the citizens for failure to buy a product. That power exists at the state level (and even there it's debatable). The power to fine citizens does not exist at the national level.
>>>So you think that a SMART and a Hummer should be taxed the same for the same odo reading?
No. I think the per-mile toll rate, just like the rate on Toll Roads/State Turnpikes, should be tied to how many tires a vehicle has. The Smart has 3 right? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Sparrow. I don't remember. In any case a car owner would pay a heck of lot less than a 6-wheel, 8-wheel, or 10-wheel truck driver. (They are the ones who really tear up the road.) I think that's fair for an *initial* setup of the system and adjustments can be made later to make it fairer.
>>>considering the car weight
The Prius hybrid is one of the heaviest sedans on the road (thanks to the added weight of the battery, DC/DC converters, and three motors). It's almost 4000 pounds. You really want to punish Prius owners by taxing them more than a 25mpg teeny-tiny Miata gets? I don't. I think it fairer they both pay the *same* amount since the wear/tear for both is essentially nothing.
>>>The Constitution does not give any right to break the system
Yes it does. First let's look at what these men, who wrote the Constitution, signed in 1776: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
And now the Constitution itself: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." One of those retained rights is the right to alter or abolish a government (i.e. revolt) as explained in the 1776 Declaration.
>>>Try going without car insurance for a while, and see how well that works out for you.
First-off, that's at the STATE level and states generally have more power than the U.S. does. Second, you don't have to buy car insurance. If you keep your car on your own property (example: farm), you never need to buy any insurance for it. It is only when you enter the state-owned roads that you must buy insurance, and get a drivers license, and so on.
And finally, nowhere in the Constitution has the U.S. been granted the power "to fine the citizens" for failure to buy the product. Individual states like Massachusetts have that power, but the U.S. does not. The idea that Congress could fine people sets-up a dangerous precedent, where people are punished for Not buying a hybrid car, or not buying a tankless water heater, or whatever.
>>>U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way? The latest absurdity to come out of my home state. (The first was yesterday [Congress Mulls Research Into a Vehicle Mileage Tax]) >>>
I like the Per-Mile Road Toll system, so long as it eliminates the current gasoline tax, and the money is earmarked for only road projects. I also believe it will be necessary as we transition to EVs or pluggable hybrids that don't burn any gasoline. They need to be assessed for their road usage somehow, and the per-mile toll system seems a logical step.
I don't think these systems should be GPS-enabled, but instead tied to the odometer which tracks miles but not location. Perhaps at your annual car inspection you would say, "My odometer claims I drove 20,000 miles," and hand-over around $180 to the state inspector after he verifies the claim. That seems like a good approach to me.
Anyway back to topic -
Although all U.S. government works are automatically public domain, State Legislatures have no such law. Apparently Oregon is one of those that does not make laws or documents public domain.
Yes I agree voting Oregon's General Attorney* is probably the best course to follow. The problem is that people so rarely get voted-out, its essentially a powerless threat. "Please drop this nonsense or we'll vote you out of office mister!" See? It just doesn't work. He won't get voted out and neither will most of the other bums. It's an ineffectual threat.
* * I'm English, not French. The adjective goes in *front* of the noun, not behind it.
Well it's standard legal procedure when reviewing laws to go back and discover the "original intent" of the men who authored the law. Let's see what the authors behind the Second Amendment said about it - "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)
.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed..... for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection."
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" and "nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - future founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787
And last but certainly not least:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," from the Constitution itself -AND- "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" from the 1776 Declaration of Independence
Aside -
I'm sorry if these pro-liberty, pro-revolutionary viewpoints are inconvenient for your pro-big-government view. I don't mean offense. I mean to educate.
I like the Per-Mile Road Toll system, so long as it eliminates the current gasoline tax, and the money is earmarked for only road projects. I also believe it will be necessary as we transition to EVs or pluggable hybrids that don't burn any gasoline. They need to be assessed for their road usage somehow, and the per-mile toll system seems a logical step.
I don't think these systems should be GPS-enabled, but instead tied to the odometer which tracks miles but not location. Perhaps at your annual car inspection you would say, "My odometer claims I drove 20,000 miles," and hand-over around $180 to the state inspector after he verifies the claim. That seems like a good approach to me.
Even if I bought your explanation, the book was produced by Oregon taxpayers so it the copyright holder is *them* not the AG who is just an employee of the taxpayer. QED the book should be freely-copyable by the people who paid the bill (Oregonians).
The 100 or so dollars I wasted on CFLs *far* exceeds the few pennies saved. The same is likely to be true of most homeowners, since a lot of the fixturing is enclosed or otherwise inappropriate for CFL usage.
Huh. That subject line just popped-up automatically in Firefox. That's kinda scary. ----- Anyway normally I'd say "fire the employee" but since there's no way for the citizens to fire Oregon's General Attorney, the only other option is to exercise the Founders' Constitutionally protected right to revolt. (amendment two)
As the founder of the Democractic Party observed: "When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When the government functionaries fear the people, then there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
You're wrong. The 100 or so dollars I wasted on CFLs *far* exceeds the amount of money saved. The same is likely to be true of most homeowners, since a lot of the fixturing is enclosed or otherwise inappropriate for CFL usage.
Since you seem soooooo certain the CFLs are fantastic, I want you to install CFLs in my upside-down and enclosed kitchen/bathroom fixtures, with appropriate styling (i.e. none of that swirl stuff). If the bulbs survive more than a year I will pay the bill for the bulbs, plus one hundred dollars. If even one dies, then you get to keep the bill for yourself.
What's that? You're not willing to accept the challenge? That's what I thought. It's easy to TALK big but when it involves wasting your OWN money suddenly you're not so sure. You have doubts about CFLs ability to pass the test.
Well there's no doubt in my mind. I already know they will fail. That's why I switched to incandescents.
>>>70% of 60 incandescent is [42 voltamps] versus the [30-36 voltamps] required from my 60W equivalent CFLs
Fixed that for you. You were comparing apples and oranges. At the end of the day it's the voltamps that matter, because that's what the electric company sees, and they must burn extra coal in order to rebalance the line. So really the CFL is only 19% more efficient which is shaving just a few pennies off your monthly bill. For the amount of hassles CFLs cause, it's not worth it IMHO.
Can I use a CFL in my oven? No. Refrigerator? No. Enclosed fixtures? No.
Wrong. They don't burn-out in right-side-up fixtures, or free-standing lamps. Only in the upside-down ones and for good reason - "CFL bulbs also burn out quicker if they're in a hot environment such as inside a light fixture," says Noah Horowitz, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council: "If you put it in an enclosed fixture, maybe it will last 3,000 or 5,000 hours, not 10,000."
The 60-watt-equivalent bulb hanging upside-down in my kitchen is sometimes so dim, it looks like a brown dwarf star. It takes 4-5 minutes to finally reach full brightness. And no that's not just an aberration. The other Philips bulbs follow the same cycle.
Take a 15 watt CFL with 0.5 PF which burns 30 volt-amps. Take a 30 watt traditional incandescent bulb. They both burn the same amount of coal in the factory.
>>>have you checked your home's electrical system to make sure it's in tolerances? I did so and found some miswiring in my(really old) house.
My house is less than 20 years old. Besides do you really expect the average person to do that??? Why should they? Why not just let them keep using the incandescent bulbs which are not sensitive to such factors? Why lay this huge burden on average citizens to spend hundreds of dollars rewiring and/or refixturing their homes to use CFLs? I can't think of a good reason. (And "no" saving a tiny 25 cents per month is not a good reason.)
>>>The 15 watt CFL with.5PF PEAKS at 30VA..... not that it USES 30 watts
Doesn't matter. Reactive power still requires burning more coal to rebalance the line. The 30 volt-amp CFL, or a 30 watt incandescent bulb, it makes no difference. They are burning the same amount of coal at the factory.
YOU FIRST. Show me the data that a CFL can handle all of the various roles (including enclosed fixtures, refrigerators, and ovens) that incandescent bulbs have handled every day for the last ~100 years. If you want to demand that all EU and U.S. citizens switch-over to this new technology, then it's incumbent upon you to prove they are up to the task.
So far none have done that.
And yet they've already made it mandatory, by law, to adopt them. That's bass-backwards.
I hate environmentalists. I'm an environmentalist, so I guess you could say I hate myself.;-) The reason I hate them is because it's impossible to reason with them. They refuse to think. Take CFLs. I have never succeeded in convincing my Green colleagues that it's a bad idea, even when I carted-in the dozens of dead CFLs in my possession. Why? Because they BELIEVE WITH ALL THEIR FAITH in the beauty of the CFL. Faith trumpets logic.
You can not reason with people like that. It's frustrating.
How about we just forget the whole damn idea? Seriously. Converting my lighting from traditional incandenscents only saves me between 25 and 50 cents per month. Big deal. But the money I've thrown-away on CFLs that die quick deaths is around $100. This is just adding an unnecessary aggravation for people, and wasting their wealth.
We should be focusing on the REAL costs of owning a home - like reducing heat and air conditioning usage. For example mandating homes be built to PassivHaus standards could save owners $100 a month. Real money not just pennies.
Yeah well I don't like how you dismissed MY observations as if I'm some kind of retard. It's insulting. I've tried multiple CFLs from different brands, all of which died early deaths, and I wasted about a hundred dollars of my cash. That's bullshit. If I had known that was going to happen, I would have stayed with the cheap 25 cent bulbs. .
>>>maybe the correct solution is to try to figure out what's different?
No the correct solution is to stick with the technology that works (incandescents), because I can't afford to keep throwing-away hundreds of dollars on CFLs after the incandescents are banned in 2012. Since you seem so confident that CFLs are good, come here to my house - install some CFLs in my upside-down and enclosed kitchen/bathroom fixtures. If they survive more than a year (which they should given CFL lifespans of 10,000 hours), then I'll give you one hundred dollars.
If they don't survive, then the bill will be yours. What's that?
Oh you don't want to accept the challenge. You're not as confident now.
>>>he power company puts PF correction in far sooner than the power plant,
It doesn't matter. The point is that a 15 watt CFL is actually using 30 volt-amps, so it's only saving half as much energy as a 60 volt-amp traditional bulb (and no energy savings versus GE's new advanced technology incandescents).
>>>In 6 years the only CFL to die on me was from being dropped.
I've had 6 bulbs die in just this past year. Three of them were cheap Lights of America bulbs, but the other 3 were Philips which is a reputable company. They died because of being used in upside-down kitchen fixtures. I opened the bulbs, and found that the electronics had been cooked (caps bulged and the internal electrolyte oozed out).
>>>If the stairs are too dim, put in a brighter bulb
Well I had a 40 watt bulb there. In order to get a bulb that equals that same brightness after initial turnon, I'd have to get a 120-watt-equivalent. So in terms of power we're talking about 40 volt-amps versus 60 volts-amps. Where's the energy savings?
I have wasted so much money on CFLs it's ridiculous. Instead of helping the environment, I'm filling it with dead bulbs that stopped working prematurely.
This is a flawed technology... as flawed as those old videorecords.
Slashdot Mirror
That's nice. Please cite to me which specific power the U.S. Constitution granted to Congress the power to FINE the citizens for failure to buy a product. That power exists at the state level (and even there it's debatable). The power to fine citizens does not exist at the national level.
>>>So you think that a SMART and a Hummer should be taxed the same for the same odo reading?
No. I think the per-mile toll rate, just like the rate on Toll Roads/State Turnpikes, should be tied to how many tires a vehicle has. The Smart has 3 right? Or maybe I'm thinking of the Sparrow. I don't remember. In any case a car owner would pay a heck of lot less than a 6-wheel, 8-wheel, or 10-wheel truck driver. (They are the ones who really tear up the road.) I think that's fair for an *initial* setup of the system and adjustments can be made later to make it fairer.
>>>considering the car weight
The Prius hybrid is one of the heaviest sedans on the road (thanks to the added weight of the battery, DC/DC converters, and three motors). It's almost 4000 pounds. You really want to punish Prius owners by taxing them more than a 25mpg teeny-tiny Miata gets? I don't. I think it fairer they both pay the *same* amount since the wear/tear for both is essentially nothing.
"Monica IS a great disco stick licker. Heh heh Heh. Oh yeah this is one fine day to be nude." - Bill Clinton - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1P-GR4uJZw
>>>The Constitution does not give any right to break the system
Yes it does. First let's look at what these men, who wrote the Constitution, signed in 1776: "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness"
And now the Constitution itself: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." One of those retained rights is the right to alter or abolish a government (i.e. revolt) as explained in the 1776 Declaration.
>>>Try going without car insurance for a while, and see how well that works out for you.
First-off, that's at the STATE level and states generally have more power than the U.S. does. Second, you don't have to buy car insurance. If you keep your car on your own property (example: farm), you never need to buy any insurance for it. It is only when you enter the state-owned roads that you must buy insurance, and get a drivers license, and so on.
And finally, nowhere in the Constitution has the U.S. been granted the power "to fine the citizens" for failure to buy the product. Individual states like Massachusetts have that power, but the U.S. does not. The idea that Congress could fine people sets-up a dangerous precedent, where people are punished for Not buying a hybrid car, or not buying a tankless water heater, or whatever.
I would have stolen the report. If my taxpayer dollars are paying for it, I'm going to look at it. (And make copies.)
>>>U.S. government works are automatically public domain. Shouldn't state government materials be the same way? The latest absurdity to come out of my home state. (The first was yesterday [Congress Mulls Research Into a Vehicle Mileage Tax])
>>>
I like the Per-Mile Road Toll system, so long as it eliminates the current gasoline tax, and the money is earmarked for only road projects. I also believe it will be necessary as we transition to EVs or pluggable hybrids that don't burn any gasoline. They need to be assessed for their road usage somehow, and the per-mile toll system seems a logical step.
I don't think these systems should be GPS-enabled, but instead tied to the odometer which tracks miles but not location. Perhaps at your annual car inspection you would say, "My odometer claims I drove 20,000 miles," and hand-over around $180 to the state inspector after he verifies the claim. That seems like a good approach to me.
Anyway back to topic -
Although all U.S. government works are automatically public domain, State Legislatures have no such law. Apparently Oregon is one of those that does not make laws or documents public domain.
P.S.
Yes I agree voting Oregon's General Attorney* is probably the best course to follow. The problem is that people so rarely get voted-out, its essentially a powerless threat. "Please drop this nonsense or we'll vote you out of office mister!" See? It just doesn't work. He won't get voted out and neither will most of the other bums. It's an ineffectual threat.
*
* I'm English, not French. The adjective goes in *front* of the noun, not behind it.
Well it's standard legal procedure when reviewing laws to go back and discover the "original intent" of the men who authored the law. Let's see what the authors behind the Second Amendment said about it - "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823)
.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed..... for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. " ---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
During the Massachusetts ratifying convention William Symmes warned that the new government at some point "shall be too firmly fixed in the saddle to be overthrown by anything but a general insurrection."
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?" and "nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." - Patrick Henry
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" - future founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787
And last but certainly not least:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," from the Constitution itself -AND- "Whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" from the 1776 Declaration of Independence
Aside -
I'm sorry if these pro-liberty, pro-revolutionary viewpoints are inconvenient for your pro-big-government view. I don't mean offense. I mean to educate.
I like the Per-Mile Road Toll system, so long as it eliminates the current gasoline tax, and the money is earmarked for only road projects. I also believe it will be necessary as we transition to EVs or pluggable hybrids that don't burn any gasoline. They need to be assessed for their road usage somehow, and the per-mile toll system seems a logical step.
I don't think these systems should be GPS-enabled, but instead tied to the odometer which tracks miles but not location. Perhaps at your annual car inspection you would say, "My odometer claims I drove 20,000 miles," and hand-over around $180 to the state inspector after he verifies the claim. That seems like a good approach to me.
Even if I bought your explanation, the book was produced by Oregon taxpayers so it the copyright holder is *them* not the AG who is just an employee of the taxpayer. QED the book should be freely-copyable by the people who paid the bill (Oregonians).
Thank you.
The 100 or so dollars I wasted on CFLs *far* exceeds the few pennies saved. The same is likely to be true of most homeowners, since a lot of the fixturing is enclosed or otherwise inappropriate for CFL usage.
Huh. That subject line just popped-up automatically in Firefox. That's kinda scary. ----- Anyway normally I'd say "fire the employee" but since there's no way for the citizens to fire Oregon's General Attorney, the only other option is to exercise the Founders' Constitutionally protected right to revolt. (amendment two)
As the founder of the Democractic Party observed: "When the people fear government, there is tyranny. When the government functionaries fear the people, then there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
You're wrong. The 100 or so dollars I wasted on CFLs *far* exceeds the amount of money saved. The same is likely to be true of most homeowners, since a lot of the fixturing is enclosed or otherwise inappropriate for CFL usage.
CHALLENGE:
Since you seem soooooo certain the CFLs are fantastic, I want you to install CFLs in my upside-down and enclosed kitchen/bathroom fixtures, with appropriate styling (i.e. none of that swirl stuff). If the bulbs survive more than a year I will pay the bill for the bulbs, plus one hundred dollars. If even one dies, then you get to keep the bill for yourself.
What's that? You're not willing to accept the challenge? That's what I thought. It's easy to TALK big but when it involves wasting your OWN money suddenly you're not so sure. You have doubts about CFLs ability to pass the test.
Well there's no doubt in my mind.
I already know they will fail.
That's why I switched to incandescents.
>>>70% of 60 incandescent is [42 voltamps] versus the [30-36 voltamps] required from my 60W equivalent CFLs
Fixed that for you. You were comparing apples and oranges. At the end of the day it's the voltamps that matter, because that's what the electric company sees, and they must burn extra coal in order to rebalance the line. So really the CFL is only 19% more efficient which is shaving just a few pennies off your monthly bill. For the amount of hassles CFLs cause, it's not worth it IMHO.
Can I use a CFL in my oven? No.
Refrigerator? No.
Enclosed fixtures? No.
Wrong. They don't burn-out in right-side-up fixtures, or free-standing lamps. Only in the upside-down ones and for good reason - "CFL bulbs also burn out quicker if they're in a hot environment such as inside a light fixture," says Noah Horowitz, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council: "If you put it in an enclosed fixture, maybe it will last 3,000 or 5,000 hours, not 10,000."
THAT'S FROM THIS ARTICLE which reiterates all the things I've been saying (but most of ye refuse to hear): http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/2008/02/29/cfl-problems-coming-to-light-good-news-for-leds/
The 60-watt-equivalent bulb hanging upside-down in my kitchen is sometimes so dim, it looks like a brown dwarf star. It takes 4-5 minutes to finally reach full brightness. And no that's not just an aberration. The other Philips bulbs follow the same cycle.
Take a 15 watt CFL with 0.5 PF which burns 30 volt-amps.
Take a 30 watt traditional incandescent bulb.
They both burn the same amount of coal in the factory.
>>>have you checked your home's electrical system to make sure it's in tolerances? I did so and found some miswiring in my(really old) house.
My house is less than 20 years old. Besides do you really expect the average person to do that??? Why should they? Why not just let them keep using the incandescent bulbs which are not sensitive to such factors? Why lay this huge burden on average citizens to spend hundreds of dollars rewiring and/or refixturing their homes to use CFLs? I can't think of a good reason. (And "no" saving a tiny 25 cents per month is not a good reason.)
>>>The 15 watt CFL with .5PF PEAKS at 30VA..... not that it USES 30 watts
Doesn't matter. Reactive power still requires burning more coal to rebalance the line. The 30 volt-amp CFL, or a 30 watt incandescent bulb, it makes no difference. They are burning the same amount of coal at the factory.
YOU FIRST. Show me the data that a CFL can handle all of the various roles (including enclosed fixtures, refrigerators, and ovens) that incandescent bulbs have handled every day for the last ~100 years. If you want to demand that all EU and U.S. citizens switch-over to this new technology, then it's incumbent upon you to prove they are up to the task.
So far none have done that.
And yet they've already made it mandatory, by law, to adopt them. That's bass-backwards.
P.S.
I hate environmentalists. I'm an environmentalist, so I guess you could say I hate myself. ;-) The reason I hate them is because it's impossible to reason with them. They refuse to think. Take CFLs. I have never succeeded in convincing my Green colleagues that it's a bad idea, even when I carted-in the dozens of dead CFLs in my possession. Why? Because they BELIEVE WITH ALL THEIR FAITH in the beauty of the CFL. Faith trumpets logic.
You can not reason with people like that. It's frustrating.
How about we just forget the whole damn idea? Seriously. Converting my lighting from traditional incandenscents only saves me between 25 and 50 cents per month. Big deal. But the money I've thrown-away on CFLs that die quick deaths is around $100. This is just adding an unnecessary aggravation for people, and wasting their wealth.
We should be focusing on the REAL costs of owning a home - like reducing heat and air conditioning usage. For example mandating homes be built to PassivHaus standards could save owners $100 a month. Real money not just pennies.
Yeah well I don't like how you dismissed MY observations as if I'm some kind of retard. It's insulting. I've tried multiple CFLs from different brands, all of which died early deaths, and I wasted about a hundred dollars of my cash. That's bullshit. If I had known that was going to happen, I would have stayed with the cheap 25 cent bulbs.
.
>>>maybe the correct solution is to try to figure out what's different?
No the correct solution is to stick with the technology that works (incandescents), because I can't afford to keep throwing-away hundreds of dollars on CFLs after the incandescents are banned in 2012. Since you seem so confident that CFLs are good, come here to my house - install some CFLs in my upside-down and enclosed kitchen/bathroom fixtures. If they survive more than a year (which they should given CFL lifespans of 10,000 hours), then I'll give you one hundred dollars.
If they don't survive, then the bill will be yours. What's that?
Oh you don't want to accept the challenge. You're not as confident now.
>>>he power company puts PF correction in far sooner than the power plant,
It doesn't matter. The point is that a 15 watt CFL is actually using 30 volt-amps, so it's only saving half as much energy as a 60 volt-amp traditional bulb (and no energy savings versus GE's new advanced technology incandescents).
>>>In 6 years the only CFL to die on me was from being dropped.
I've had 6 bulbs die in just this past year. Three of them were cheap Lights of America bulbs, but the other 3 were Philips which is a reputable company. They died because of being used in upside-down kitchen fixtures. I opened the bulbs, and found that the electronics had been cooked (caps bulged and the internal electrolyte oozed out).
>>>If the stairs are too dim, put in a brighter bulb
Well I had a 40 watt bulb there. In order to get a bulb that equals that same brightness after initial turnon, I'd have to get a 120-watt-equivalent. So in terms of power we're talking about 40 volt-amps versus 60 volts-amps. Where's the energy savings?
I have wasted so much money on CFLs it's ridiculous.
Instead of helping the environment, I'm filling it
with dead bulbs that stopped working prematurely.
This is a flawed technology... as flawed as those old videorecords.