It's not so much that they don't have their uses; if you're carrying 5 people on a regular basis or towing a trailer, or even *gasp* going offroad, then yes, they make sense. Using them to carry you and your latte 5 days a week does not.
Kudos on your choice of transportation; I wish other people would follow your example.
Should Congress legislate what types of cars we are allowed to buy?
They already do, through emissions requirements and fuel efficiency standards.
Should they dictate the temperature of our house?
Not physically possible. Now, if you want to talk about what temperature your thermostat is set at, that's a different story.
People that make "bad" decisions pay for them.
Except when those decisions affect other people. I can make the bad decision to drive 100 MPH the wrong way down the interstate, but I'm not the only one that gets killed when I run into a bus full of nuns and children.
I think it is very telling that you use the word FORCE to describe this particular gem of legislation. Is liberty is under assault more from the left or the right these days? Hard to say;)
Yes, because telling you what kind of lightbulb you can buy is the same as keeping you from getting on a plane because you have the wrong name. Nice try.
Once again, CFLs, even if they're not recycled, release less mercury into the environment than burning the additional fuel necessary to light an equivalent incandescent bulb. Give it a rest.
LEDs are farther along than you might think. Given the potential market (no incandescents, CFLs having issues) the industry is busting their asses trying to solve the challenges.
They have a choice. They can continue to be irrational dickholes (and try to learn to see in the dark), or they can get over it. Americans have a constitutional right to be dickholes; they don't have a constitutional right to the kind of lighting they like.
In addition to the technical reasons to choose one over the other, who the hell are you to impose your beliefs on what I should use to light my home?
Oh, look at that, there's no gun in my hand. Look, said non-gun is not held to your head. Use whatever the hell you want, if you want to be a dickhole about it.
CFLs are not a perfect technology. We've got at least five years to either improve the technology or develop something better. We can't keep going the way we are.
Guess what? I'm going to continue to use incandescents regardless of the law.
Until they all burn out and you can't purchase an incandescent replacement. The ban has the added benefit of keeping you from being contrary just because you want to.
Maybe traditional flourescents would work better for your HAM setup. Have you tried?
By the way, on a personal note, your elitism makes me sick.
Because if you're saving 50 cents at the expense of the greater economy, we all lose.
Poor people can now afford groceries.
Maybe we should worry about making them not poor, rather than wrecking the economy so we can keep them that way.
Because you don't like Wal-Mart's labor practices?
Yes.
You feel that I should pay for a grocery checker's health insurance via higher prices or the market isn't really free? What does that have to do with the free market?
We don't live in a free market, as anyone on either end of the political spectrum will tell you.
If I have to pay an extra dollar on my purchase so the underpaid drone checking me out can have health insurance, instead of relying on Medicaid/Medicare/uncompensated care, so be it. I'll end up paying for their health expenses through my taxes anyway, so why don't we get proactive about it and try to save some money through preventative care (or any other efficiency a health insurance plan can introduce.)
If you want change, then go invent something better that will work better and/or cheaper and have the same/better functionality as that which is currently used. There are reasons that people use what they use.
We have a better alternative right here without my need to invent something. The reasons people use what they use are frequently counter to the good of the whole.
You and all your greenie buddies that wish to force people can all get bent. You want change, then come up with a better alternative.
Again, we have already. You're an excellent example of someone being contrary just for its own sake, because you don't like being told what to do.
The market will drive a demand for CFLs that can be used in the applications you're describing. Relax.
And the mercury that those bulbs release into the environment is less than the amount released by generating the additional electricity required for an incandescent. You're still ahead of the game.
These bulbs can be recycled; it's just a matter of getting the word out and helping the infrastructure (for example, you could include recycling mailers in the packaging.)
Or the good ol' merkin could get the hell over himself and make the adjustment. We all have to make sacrifices. If the biggest problem in your life is that your lightbulb is a slightly different color, then you really don't have much to complain about.
Human nature is to do what's best for yourself and possibly your family. Using the jar of pickles analogy and assuming a rational market and a hands-off government, the cost of buying that imported jar of pickles is pretty much $3, while the cost of the non-imported is still $3.50. You could argue that buying the $3 pickles will lead to job losses, which will lead to more people on social welfare, which will lead to higher taxes and possibly higher crime, but from the point of view of the consumer in a rational world and who doesn't work in a pickle factory or as a cucumber farmer the true price of the pickles really doesn't change.
That's the problem, it DOES change, only not in an immediately perceptible way. The entire society pays for the bad choice, whether the purchaser realizes it or not. That 50 cents isn't the problem in and of itself, it's the poor choice that far too many people make. It comes down to "Cheaper IS NOT ALWAYS Better", and people are remarkably thick when it comes to that sort of critical thinking.
When you take a longer view, it's still not clear that CFL bulbs are any cheaper. They're more efficient, but they still have to be replaced eventually.
CFLs have (ON AVERAGE, your sample size is too small to be relevant) a lifespan of 8000 to 10,000 hours, compared to an incandescent's 1000. Did that CFL cost ten times what the incandescent did? If not, you've already saved money even before turning the bloody thing on.
Then there's the backend costs. CFLs are much more expensive to dispose properly, which may or may not balance out the cost required to clean up the higher pollution caused by incandescents' use of more energy (assuming a fossil fuel energy service, rather than wind, hydro, or nuclear).
Generating the energy that would be saved by a CFL causes more mercury to be released into the environment than is contained in a CFL. You're polluting less by using the CFL. Someone posted some good links in another post: Clicky Oh, and CFLs can be recycled; it's just a matter of access to the facility. This releases no toxins whatsoever.
Your approach has merit, if it weren't for one fatal flaw: You'll never get the tax passed on a national level. Passing a new tax is political suicide for lots of congresscritters. Even if, say, a miracle happened and you were able to get it passed, the consumer would scream bloody murder when the cost of so much stuff went up.
Not to mention it introduces yet another bureaucracy into the US government. From a practical point of view, banning incandescents is far more concrete and effective, if less than ideal.
Prediction: based on past threads, people will read this ALTERNATE SOLUTION as global warming denial, or the claim that government should do nothing.
I don't see it that way. You're taking a different approach to a common problem. We all need to use less energy; that's a given. I just don't think what you suggest is realistic, no matter how much more effective it might be.
I think I'm missing something. Why would it be better for someone to buy the $3.50 pickles instead? That sounds like a reasonable decision to me.
Because the store has cut so many corners to save that 50 cents that it does 75 cents worth of damage to the economy. Someone might have lost their job because the store demanded a price that was below the manufacturer's cost, so in order to cut costs, they laid people off and made the rest work harder. This decreases spending power, which hurts the economy in general. (Not to mention the costs to support that person who doesn't have a job anymore.) Spend the goddam 50 cents.
So if you're OK with people, en masse, electing (or not) the representatives that will allow, or restrict, their ability to purchase the lightbulbs of their choice, then why don't you trust people, individually, to just simply purchase the lightbulbs of their choice?
Because they'll buy the cheaper one, regardless of anything else. I'd like to think that people elect politicians on more than just what lightbulbs they're able to buy. However, if they don't like the fact that their rep took away their choice to buy the incandescent bulbs, they can elect someone who will work to give it back.
This article is a perfect example: price of energy goes up, people will buy things that use less energy, such as CFLs instead of incandescent lightbulbs.
No, they won't. They'll buy whatever is cheapest. People don't think. They make snap judgments without thinking things through. They make bad choices, even when they profess to be against the problems that choice will make. $3 gas only hurt SUV sales, it didn't keep people from buying them.
How are you calculating energy usage here? I'm willing to consider that the total cost may in fact be higher than generally accepted when you factor in the toxicity of the materials involved, but I'd still like to see the math on that.
So what? If they are that much better, most people will be using them anyway. A few stragglers will be insignificant.
I disagree. For most people, 'cheaper initial cost' = 'better'. People don't want to hear about environmental impact, or cost/savings over time. CFLs will be more expensive than their incandescent equivalents for some time to come (since the inkys have had decades of economy of scale to drive the cost down.) People will buy what's cheaper until they're forced to make a different choice.
Kennedy has stayed in office for so long because the Massachusetts voters have allowed him to. We like Teddy, despite his flaws. He still thunders away at the Senate on a regular basis, and he's usually on the same side as me.
Points for creativity there, but introducing that much complexity is IMHO a serious drawback to acceptance. The LED stuff is getting better all the time; it won't be long before they're comparable to at least CFLs as far as light quality goes. (One idea is to produce a "single" LED that actually has three diodes on it, red green and blue, to approximate the incandescent color quality.)
Your experience is atypical. I can only guess that you're focused on price only, and have made your purchases accordingly (meaning you're probably getting the bulbs that are made as cheaply as possible, and therefore have a lower build quality.) I haven't had a CFL die on me yet in my house, and I've been replacing burnt-out incandescents with them for a couple years now. Maybe you've got dirty power?
The LED 'bulbs' actually have a finite life. They don't "burn out", but they do dim over time. Currently the useful life is put at 35,000 hours (at which point the bulb is putting out 70% of its initial brightness), vs 8,000 to 10,000 hours for CFLs and 1,000 for incandescents.
CFLs are not a perfect technology, yes. There are lower-mercury lights on the market, but people don't buy them due to the additional expense and non-tangible benefit. LEDs are certainly the way things are looking to go; the State House Christmas tree is lit with LEDs this year. (We sourced them for those.)
Who says I'm liberal? True, I have some liberal opinions, but I also believe that there should be accountability in government and that the government needs to stay the hell out of my private affairs, IMHO both conservative views.
Anyway, to illustrate my point, why don't you go into the downtown of any urban center and try to convince people to save energy. I bet you anything one in five of them calls you names. These are the people I'm talking about.
No, what's impeding people from making sound decisions that are good for themselves and for society is that most people are about as smart as a box of hammers. The government isn't forcing people to make bad decisions. People are perfectly capable of making bad decisions on their own without government interference.
You could flip the argument around, however. By allowing people to make bad decisions, the government is complicit in the process and is partially responsible for the consequences.
Honestly, I don't remember the brand. GE, maybe. Got them at Home Depot a while ago, I think. (Either that or IKEA.)
The fact that I can't remember (and I usually have a good memory for that sort of thing) means that I haven't had to buy in a while. I've been replacing the incandescents with CFLs as the inkys burn out.
One thing you might try, though. If you hate the light when you first turn it on, give it a few minutes. These bulbs get brighter as they warm up. I also have noticed how dim they are when you first start them up, but they warm up quickly.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not so much that they don't have their uses; if you're carrying 5 people on a regular basis or towing a trailer, or even *gasp* going offroad, then yes, they make sense. Using them to carry you and your latte 5 days a week does not.
Kudos on your choice of transportation; I wish other people would follow your example.
Once again, CFLs, even if they're not recycled, release less mercury into the environment than burning the additional fuel necessary to light an equivalent incandescent bulb. Give it a rest.
LEDs are farther along than you might think. Given the potential market (no incandescents, CFLs having issues) the industry is busting their asses trying to solve the challenges.
They have a choice. They can continue to be irrational dickholes (and try to learn to see in the dark), or they can get over it. Americans have a constitutional right to be dickholes; they don't have a constitutional right to the kind of lighting they like.
CFLs are not a perfect technology. We've got at least five years to either improve the technology or develop something better. We can't keep going the way we are.Until they all burn out and you can't purchase an incandescent replacement. The ban has the added benefit of keeping you from being contrary just because you want to.
Maybe traditional flourescents would work better for your HAM setup. Have you tried?I don't care what you think.
If I have to pay an extra dollar on my purchase so the underpaid drone checking me out can have health insurance, instead of relying on Medicaid/Medicare/uncompensated care, so be it. I'll end up paying for their health expenses through my taxes anyway, so why don't we get proactive about it and try to save some money through preventative care (or any other efficiency a health insurance plan can introduce.)
Good $deity, you're a troll.
The market will drive a demand for CFLs that can be used in the applications you're describing. Relax.
And the mercury that those bulbs release into the environment is less than the amount released by generating the additional electricity required for an incandescent. You're still ahead of the game.
These bulbs can be recycled; it's just a matter of getting the word out and helping the infrastructure (for example, you could include recycling mailers in the packaging.)
Or the good ol' merkin could get the hell over himself and make the adjustment. We all have to make sacrifices. If the biggest problem in your life is that your lightbulb is a slightly different color, then you really don't have much to complain about.
I have never had to replace a CFL in my house. Some of them have been there for 4 years.
Are you factoring in the energy you're saving when you talk about the cost of the CFL?
Thanks for the links. I had an attack of the lazies.
Not to mention it introduces yet another bureaucracy into the US government. From a practical point of view, banning incandescents is far more concrete and effective, if less than ideal. I don't see it that way. You're taking a different approach to a common problem. We all need to use less energy; that's a given. I just don't think what you suggest is realistic, no matter how much more effective it might be.
How are you calculating energy usage here? I'm willing to consider that the total cost may in fact be higher than generally accepted when you factor in the toxicity of the materials involved, but I'd still like to see the math on that.
Kennedy has stayed in office for so long because the Massachusetts voters have allowed him to. We like Teddy, despite his flaws. He still thunders away at the Senate on a regular basis, and he's usually on the same side as me.
Points for creativity there, but introducing that much complexity is IMHO a serious drawback to acceptance. The LED stuff is getting better all the time; it won't be long before they're comparable to at least CFLs as far as light quality goes. (One idea is to produce a "single" LED that actually has three diodes on it, red green and blue, to approximate the incandescent color quality.)
Your experience is atypical. I can only guess that you're focused on price only, and have made your purchases accordingly (meaning you're probably getting the bulbs that are made as cheaply as possible, and therefore have a lower build quality.) I haven't had a CFL die on me yet in my house, and I've been replacing burnt-out incandescents with them for a couple years now. Maybe you've got dirty power?
The LED 'bulbs' actually have a finite life. They don't "burn out", but they do dim over time. Currently the useful life is put at 35,000 hours (at which point the bulb is putting out 70% of its initial brightness), vs 8,000 to 10,000 hours for CFLs and 1,000 for incandescents.
CFLs are not a perfect technology, yes. There are lower-mercury lights on the market, but people don't buy them due to the additional expense and non-tangible benefit. LEDs are certainly the way things are looking to go; the State House Christmas tree is lit with LEDs this year. (We sourced them for those.)
Who says I'm liberal? True, I have some liberal opinions, but I also believe that there should be accountability in government and that the government needs to stay the hell out of my private affairs, IMHO both conservative views.
Anyway, to illustrate my point, why don't you go into the downtown of any urban center and try to convince people to save energy. I bet you anything one in five of them calls you names. These are the people I'm talking about.
No, what's impeding people from making sound decisions that are good for themselves and for society is that most people are about as smart as a box of hammers. The government isn't forcing people to make bad decisions. People are perfectly capable of making bad decisions on their own without government interference.
You could flip the argument around, however. By allowing people to make bad decisions, the government is complicit in the process and is partially responsible for the consequences.
Honestly, I don't remember the brand. GE, maybe. Got them at Home Depot a while ago, I think. (Either that or IKEA.)
The fact that I can't remember (and I usually have a good memory for that sort of thing) means that I haven't had to buy in a while. I've been replacing the incandescents with CFLs as the inkys burn out.
One thing you might try, though. If you hate the light when you first turn it on, give it a few minutes. These bulbs get brighter as they warm up. I also have noticed how dim they are when you first start them up, but they warm up quickly.