Ron should be talking about this Light Bulb thing

[Rebel Resource]

Gotta love the gov't. Not to mention they just required that all car companies have a 35mpg avg by 2020. Way to pretty much force people to drive tiny cars, thanks a lot pricks.

Ever hear of Peak Oil talldude?

 

[Rebel Resource]

which is why George W. Bush and Hugo Chávez are more similar than they want their people to believe.

I wonder, if the other light bulbs are more efficient why is it that people is not buying them voluntarily and have to be forced by law to do it?

Because the long vision of a government that has to distribute energy across the nation is more urgent than the short-term vision of an individual that pays next to nothing for their energy usage?

 

[walt]

Where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to tell us we cannot use a certain type of light bulb?? This is insanity.

+1 - the ethanol part of the bill is even more destructive when you consider 14,000 gallons oof water are used to make each gallon of ethanol or something like that.

 

[erikm]

Economics and laziness are the main reasons I got rid of my incandescents. CFLs may take some time to warm up (though try recent ones) and be more expensive than a an equal number of incandescents but the CFLs should last 5 years or more. I've had a CFL (a design from Philips) that lasted over a decade from the late 80's to the late 90's.

Sure, you'll see incandescents in special purposes for a few years, but LEDs are catching up fast. New traffic lights here are all LED and I don't think it unlikely that CFLs will follow incandescents inside 25 years.

Cheers,
ErikM

 

[Aballistar]

Ever hear of Peak Oil talldude?

Doesn't matter, the market should regulate what type of fuel effeciences the cars have that they produce. If people don't want to pay a ton in gas for Ford F-350's, they'll lose money and quit making them. The government should not be in this business.

 

[trispear]

Sure, you'll see incandescents in special purposes for a few years, but LEDs are catching up fast. New traffic lights here are all LED and I don't think it unlikely that CFLs will follow incandescents inside 25 years.

Just as how some people don't like the light output by CFLs (I think they look good) -- I don't like the light output by LEDs. Currently, it's good for a flashlight, but I won't be replacing my CFLs any time soon.

I have to admite, LED lights drastically came down in price (still pricey) from last year and that is a good thing - but their lumen output is still poor. If they improve the light quality and lumen output without reducing the efficiency (many LEDs in 3 watt lightbulbs are overdriven and produce heat unlike normal LEDs) I'm all for it.

 

[Nash]

http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/...as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting

I don't support banning the bulb. CFLs are more efficient in the market -- they'll pay for themselves and many people buy them especially as the price comes down. The cheapest I have consistently seen them is at Costco -- much cheaper than places like Walmart. The more esoteric sizes and types Costco don't carry - I buy elsewhere. CFLs have also gotten better over time -- if you tried them only years ago - try them again.

But I can understand if some people don't like them -- let them buy the old type and pay more in electricity bills - it's their money.

Also, a ban is bad because incandescents are good in extreme temperature conditions where CFLs or even LEDs can't cope. Ovens for example. Refrigrators too (LEDs could cope there, but aren't economical enough in the inital $$/lumen compared to incandescent). Incandescent is the only reasonable way to go there.

CFL's are also loaded with mercury. They are a environmental threat, much more than traditional bulbs. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but it does mean that they certainly shouldn't be mandated as there will be unintended consequences if the ENTIRE country switched to them. As usual the politicians go forward with stupid legislation without fully thinking about the long term ramifications. As long as both are allowed on the market, the most sensible one will win out in the long term, or both will flourish depending on the needs of the people who use them.

 

[trispear]

CFL's are also loaded with mercury. They are a environmental threat, much more than traditional bulbs. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but it does mean that they certainly shouldn't be mandated as there will be unintended consequences if the ENTIRE country switched to them. As usual the politicians go forward with stupid legislation without fully thinking about the long term ramifications. As long as both are allowed on the market, the most sensible one will win out in the long term, or both will flourish depending on the needs of the people who use them.

There isn't that much mercuny in them - it's been greatly reduced over the years (regular fluorescent lights have mercury too).

Also, incandescents release more mercury into the air by having to be supplied with about 4 times more electricity. 50% of electricity in this country comes from coal. That coal releases mercury.

As a result, incandescents will release more mercury into the atmosphere than a CFL (plus CFLs could be properly disposed of, though I'm not always counting on it).

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/07/16/cflmercury/index.html

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/mercury-compact-fluorescent-cfl-bulbs.html

 

[noztnac]

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.j...7210108&grpId=3659174697241980&nav=Groupspace

Incandescent bulbs produce a better quality of light. My lamp, my money, my electric bill, my choice.
The government is waaaaaaaay out of line.

I also am not buying that it has anything to do with energy efficiency. I live in South Korea. When I want to use hot water I have to turn it on and wait about five minutes for the hot water heater to heat up. In the US I don't think anyone does this. If the government were really serious about saving energy they'd implement that strategy. But, guess what? I still wouldn't support it. Energy conservation is not a function of government. Protecting civil liberties is. So now they've suddenly decided it is ok to infringe on civil liberties that they are supposed to be protecting in order to force us to buy light bulbs that are more efficient. This is insanity. Ron Paul should be all over this one.

 

[wfd40]

I'm going to take a risky political stance and say that Americans should be able to use whatever type of light bulb that they think is best for them.

i actually think that using energy efficient light bulbs is a great friggin idea and SHOULD BE mandatory..

Considering there is no way in hell the corporations will work towards such a positive end.

----

And to be perfectly honest, this kind of reasoning makes me wonder what the heck a Paul presidency will do about 99% of media being owned by 4 multinationals??

Oh nothing??... ok, sounds great to me!



Wanna protect our civil libeties?? Dismantle/break up/dissolve the Media Industrial Complex.

 

[Paul4Prez]

Does anyone remember the movie Equilibrium?

There's going to be a big nostalgia market for real light bulbs someday...

 

[TSOL]

I have never heard of this but prefer daylight balanced Floros.

 

[noztnac]

This site is called "Ecolibertarian". They support the energy bill that bans incandescent light bulbs and mandates the fuel economy requirements of privately manufactured automobiles.

http://ecolibertarian.com/2007/12/20/507/#comment-2723

My response:


Why on earth do you have “Libertarian” on this site?

This energy bill is a complete infringement of our civil liberties. Manipulating energy consumption is NOT a function of government.

If I want to buy an inefficient car or an incandescent light bulb it is none of the government’s damn business!

You should rename this site ECOFASCIST!

 

[Mastiff]

If they force me to use CFL's, I'm leaving them on 24/7 just to spite them. Why people think "wasting" money on light is worse than wasting it on ipods or whatever is beyond me.

The car thing pisses me off even more because I really like 4x4's and big engines. Good economists work the foregone pleasure of driving fun vehicles into the equation, but eco-politicians assume it only has to do with getting from A to B. Nevermind that people are mostly driving around doing pointless things anyway, maybe we ought to regulate that too.

 

[evandi]

i actually think that using energy efficient light bulbs is a great friggin idea and SHOULD BE mandatory..

Considering there is no way in hell the corporations will work towards such a positive end.

----

And to be perfectly honest, this kind of reasoning makes me wonder what the heck a Paul presidency will do about 99% of media being owned by 4 multinationals??

Oh nothing??... ok, sounds great to me!



Wanna protect our civil libeties?? Dismantle/break up/dissolve the Media Industrial Complex.

No, its funny that you have it completely backwards. Corporations want you to be forced to buy their product. These new lightbulbs are more expensive right? This is called fascism. Enjoy.

Imagine all the effort and materials that are wasted building these new lightbulbs to replace what we already have. The lightbulbs are more expensive. This means that the power they save might not make economic sense at all, but since the government mandates it, these light bulb companies (big light bulb) get propped up by the government.

We have plenty of coal. Gas is not used for power in the US. When coal runs out we have nuclear. We are so safe that it is scandalous for things like this to even come up as a concern.

 

[wirenut]

CFL bulbs are nice but the one thing I hate about them is that they can not be dimmed with a dimmer switch. It's so stupid to ban these light bulbs. Our government shouldn't have any say in what type of bulbs we can use. Simple as that.

 

[charger]

My guess would be there was some kind of corporate lobby behind the light bulb ban.
We tried the CFL bulbs a couple of years ago and were not happy with them.
They actually burn out quicker than the standard bulbs and we didn't see a decrease in our electric bill.
They are much more expensive to purchase.
Just like my biggest pet pieve. The new spill proof gas cans.
I have never spilled so much gas in my life as I have spilled with these stupid cans.
I have looked everywhere for the old style gas cans and they are no longer availible. I'm sure some crook made a ton of money when they sold the spill proof gas can idea to our idiot government.
Just like this crooked light bulb mandate.
We have taken this type of abuse long enough. Electing Ron Paul is only the first step. We need to keep electing more of his kind to government at all levels and put the current crooks out into the street!

 

[bdmarti]

We have plenty of coal. Gas is not used for power in the US. When coal runs out we have nuclear. We are so safe that it is scandalous for things like this to even come up as a concern.

uhm...no. Sorry, you'd be wrong that this isn't a concern. It's a big concern, but not one that has any constitutional jurisdiction.

Sure, we have a lot of coal. At current rates of use, that'd last well over 100 years...some say even over 200 years. however, we aren't maintaining current rates. If we also continue to grow our energy use at current rates, we're down to something around a 50 year supply of coal.

Nuclear could help, but even if we had every ounce of Uranium in the world working in our power plants we'd be hard pressed to make up the shortfalls we'll see as oil and coal run short. There isn't enough uranium to make up the difference...and uranium isn't as portable and doesn't store as nice as oil and coal.

I don't really want the federal government involved with energy policy. The market will shift to alternate forms of energy as the ones we use become too expensive.

Besides that, if we do "conserve" then we run into Jevon's paradox. If we don't use up the oil and coal as fast as we can, then the price drops and others will try to use the very same resources at a now reduced price. We lose economically unless everyone in the world conserves at the same time.

bottom line...it is a concern...a big concern...but not one that the federal government can fix or should have any hand in

 

[evandi]

uhm...no. Sorry, you'd be wrong that this isn't a concern. It's a big concern, but not one that has any constitutional jurisdiction.

Sure, we have a lot of coal. At current rates of use, that'd last well over 100 years...some say even over 200 years. however, we aren't maintaining current rates. If we also continue to grow our energy use at current rates, we're down to something around a 50 year supply of coal.

Nuclear could help, but even if we had every ounce of Uranium in the world working in our power plants we'd be hard pressed to make up the shortfalls we'll see as oil and coal run short. There isn't enough uranium to make up the difference...and uranium isn't as portable and doesn't store as nice as oil and coal.

I don't really want the federal government involved with energy policy. The market will shift to alternate forms of energy as the ones we use become too expensive.

Besides that, if we do "conserve" then we run into Jevon's paradox. If we don't use up the oil and coal as fast as we can, then the price drops and others will try to use the very same resources at a now reduced price. We lose economically unless everyone in the world conserves at the same time.

bottom line...it is a concern...a big concern...but not one that the federal government can fix or should have any hand in

I wonder where you get your information. The majority of electric power in France is supplied by Nuclear and the only reason we don't have more nuclear here is because of 3 mile island (and chernobyl). Nuclear power plants were not shut down because of any other reason then fear.

 

[ShowMeLiberty]

I hate those damn curly-fry light bulbs.

I tried some a few months ago and they give me a headache because the light quality sucks. Plus, they don't fit in most of the light fixtures in my house - you can't put the cover back on because the curly-fry is too big.

The government really needs to stay out of environmental issues. Every time they get involved there are unintended consequences. Look up all the problems that have occurred since they started managing Yellowstone Park wildlife, for one example.