A blog about News.
|
Going Dow, Dow, Down! Study: Intelligent people less likely to believe in God Torah scroll dedication MTV awards host calls Bush a 'retard' LPGA demands its players speak English Should a 9-year-old with a fast fastball be banned from pitching? Way too much beach volleyball Who is Michael Phelps dating? Whites no longer U.S. majority in 2042 Are the Chinese cheating? June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 January 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
The light bulb may go out
The government may soon tell us what kind of light bulb we can use.
Under a bill that California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine, D-Los Angeles, plans to introduce, the electricity-wasting incandescent bulb would be banned and replaced by energy efficient compact flourescents. I like the flourescents bulbs and have been using them to replace incandescent bulbs in my home. I like it that that was my idea. I'm not sure I like it as much when it's a government requirement. I'm thinking the price might go up. Levine notes that incandescent light bulbs haven't changed much in 125 years. The alternative uses 1/4 the amount of electricity as the old ones. Are you cool with the government changing our light bulbs? Anything else, you'd like the government to help us out with? Posted by Steve E. Swenson 23 comments from 12 users
1
posted by
robbwillis
on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Good thing Lloyd Levine is not banning Humvees and forcing everyone to drive a Prius. He'd get a visit from the Terminator.
posted by
Griffon64
on Jan 31, 2007 at 12:35 PM
Sure, why not? I don't like incandescent light bulbs anyway. Flourescent bulbs use less power, and that's fine by me. I was OK when CFC's got booted, too. Why continue using outdated technology that is needlessly wasteful ( or harmful even ) when newer alternatives are available?
posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I like fluorescent bulbs. I'm torn over whether to support this because I really don't like government getting in to this level of management. That said, it is time we all switched over and frankly I don't see that happening without government stepping in. The problem is that we'd have to make sure that there are lamps and fixtures available to accommodate the bulbs. Also, many old fixtures and lamps won't be able to make the switch and would end up in scrap heaps. If they would introduce the bill with a five year window and still allow some of the incandescents that fit in non-standard bases, I'd go along.posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 31, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I've got three incandescents in the house--a three-way reading lamp, and one each in the refrigerator and oven. The florescents are quite often four for a dollar--I've already stocked up.
posted by
anonymous
on Jan 31, 2007 at 01:13 PM
I was one of the first to buy compact fluorescents when they were still $10 each. I'm not so sure that legislation is even necessary, however. Compact fluorescents seem to be catching on fast enough on their own. posted by
mattloch
on Jan 31, 2007 at 01:19 PM
They should just tax incandescents, like they do with gas (to pay for roads), bottles and cans (CRV), pesticides (to pay for poison control), and computer monitors (to pay for disposal). Or just give florescents out for free, to encourage use.
posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 02:38 PM
Mattloch, I thought about the disincentive tax. My concern there would be if that drove up the price (artificially) of fluorescents. Another way to go about it would be to ban the sale of regular base light fixtures and their use in new construction. There isn't a current standard for fluorescent bulbs though, so unless everyone adopted a 4 pin design or something, it would make that impossible as well.
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 31, 2007 at 02:44 PM
Not if they used the tax to make florescents free, Tom. Whatever it would cost the State, they'd more than make it up with energy and pollution savings....
posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 03:07 PM
Well, Mattloch, if you want to be a liberal about it and talk about true cost vs. balance books.... :)If that was the plan, I'd support it. That way, people can still choose the other bulbs for legacy fixtures as well. posted by
ProgressivePete2
on Jan 31, 2007 at 03:10 PM
Question about florescent bulbs. Since the wattage rating on the florescent bulbs don't mean the bulb has the same brightness, can you put higher rated bulbs in a lower rated fixture and not have problems? (ie a 100w bulb in a 60w fixture)
posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 03:13 PM
Sure can, Pete. As long as actual usage is below the rating, you're set.
posted by
mattloch
on Jan 31, 2007 at 03:22 PM
You sure about that Tom? This isn't a time to worry about (or even consider) watts v. amps? I know that florescents work at low wattages because they need transformers for the high amps it takes to fire those suckers up. You sure you aren't going to be melting the wiring up?
posted by
motopoet
on Jan 31, 2007 at 04:46 PM
I don't mind flourescents, but it takes a 75 watt fl. to put out the same light as a 60 watt inc. Also, there is a big defference in the type of light it puts out. Fl. light is a much "whiter" shade and that seems to bug some people. My reading lamp in bed has been fl. for 15 years and I generally replace burnt out inc. with fl. I wish somebody would tell me when fl. bulbs go on sale 4 for a dollar! I usually pay a few bucks apiece for them! They also last much longer and the vibration from a bulb in a cieling fan doesnt affect them! But I STILL don't like the idea of the government telling me what type of anything to use!
posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 05:03 PM
Nope, Matt. If I'm reading Pete correctly, he's asking if a 100w equivalent bulb can go in a 60 watt fixture. A 100 watt equivalent uses about 30 watts or so. They all run on the same voltage, so if the wattage is lower, the amperage is lower as well (volts x amps = watts)Motopoet, What you're looking at is the wattage equivalent listed on the bulb. The actual wattage is mush lower. That said, you do need to overshoot because fluorescents are rated by how much light they put out when they are on. The flash off and on 60 times per second in tune with the household electrical. This is also why fluorescents bother some people and not others. People's brains process the world at different rates per second. Some are slower, some are faster. I've never been tested myself, but I'm guessing I process pretty slowly, because all of the flickering stuff in the world like computer monitors, tv screens and fluorescent lights don't bother me at all. posted by
randomfactor
on Jan 31, 2007 at 05:15 PM
Which *IS* an argument against florescent lights in the workshop. The flicker can make saw blades appear not to be turning. posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 05:36 PM
Yeah, but the sound is a pretty good tip off. :)
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 31, 2007 at 06:38 PM
Fluorine gas (the stuff in a fluorescent light bulb) is a Wicked Oxidizer. It's really nasty stuff. If you don't believe me, check it out for yourself. Just think about the polution that would be created by the old bulbs being broken and thrown away. This Politician must not be very smart.................................. ...... and Steve, it's FLUO, not FLOU....................... ;-) posted by
TomW
on Jan 31, 2007 at 07:21 PM
Tony, how does the fluorine inside compare with the reduced emissions from energy production, reduced manufacture and waste costs because of their longer lives? I don't know if anyone has studied these impacts.
posted by
tonyh
on Jan 31, 2007 at 07:36 PM
Fluorine Gas is nasty stuff. If you figure the all incandescent light bulbs have a vacuum, and replacing them with fluorescent bulbs will contain Fluorine Gas, how much (by volume) fluorine gas will be released into the atmosphere? What kind of nasty stuff is caused by oxidizers now? Ine for sure is Acid Rain..............Think about this one for a minute. Before law is passed, don't you think that someone should do the math? I'm not even a Chemist, just a Mechanical Engineer, with an Electronice background. I think that we need to get some smart people involved before we let some Politicians go off half-cocked.... posted by
NancyII
on Jan 31, 2007 at 08:18 PM
Mark..they're selling fluorescent bulbs all over town right now for a dollar apiece. I bought about 8 of them at WM a few weeks ago and saw then at Rite Aid 4 in a pack for 4 bucks The ones I'm using are equivilant to 60 watters and I'm happy with them. I even got a flourescent flood light for the back yard. Like RF..I have a 3 way in my lv rm lamp but one by one I'll replace all of them. (edit) it just occured to me that you might be talking about the desk lamp tube typr. Right now their pushing the coil standard base bulbs. posted by
motopoet
on Jan 31, 2007 at 10:43 PM
I guess that explains most of it. I never, for any reason, go to 99 cent stores and Wal-Mart is just for emergencies. I guess I'll have to have Bev look for them!
posted by
anonymous
on Jan 31, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Young's Market (Brundage Ln) had them at 2 for a buck.
posted by
trl1717
on Feb 1, 2007 at 01:53 PM
You can get them online for a million different uses also. Two great things about them: 1. Not nearly as expensive anymore- on par with incandescent for cost if you buy them on sale. AND, they last for what seems like forever. We have yet to ever change one of these and our lights are on a lot. 2. Our energy costs were through the roof. We changed ALL of our recessed lights, all of our lamps and put in fluorescents. Yes, there was some initial cost involved, but really not that bad. In the first month, we ran an experiment. We compared our electricity bill with the previous month. It was the same season and there were no other variables in our energy use. Our electricity bill was down by 30%. The new bulbs were paid for in one month. And we are using so much less energy each month that when we look at the old monthly records compared to this year's records- it's amazing how much money we are saving each month. We're using the extra money to take the kids to Disney. And, as mentioned, I haven't had to replace a single one in over a year and supposedly they can last for years. So, my replacement costs are non-existent now and will be low eventually. 3. ok- a third I just came up with- if everyone was using these and there was that much LESS stress on the grid, it follows that there would likely be fewer of the beloved California power blackouts!
1
Our readers recommend: |
