Illogical. First, it's more like $5 or even less. Second, the savings is not per minute of use, but per year of use (on or off). If the bulb is going to last 10-20 years, saving $4-$5 is pennies/year and not worth my time to even consider. But then you know what your time is worth.
But then I don't think this is really about money. I think it's about a bunch of anti-government reactionaries digging in their heels where they can. Fox news viewers, for sure.
No, it's about a bunch of pro-government statists and CNN viewers wanting to use armed thugs to forcibly impose their values on everyone around them down to the last toilet, shower head, and light bulb. (For the record I do not have cable TV and have never watched Fox News.)
Nobody is forcing anyone to replace their crapper. As long as it doesn't split and parts are available there is nothing the governmant can or will do to force you to do anything.
Same with your incandescent lights. As long as your lights don't burn out, and/or your supply of incandescent bulbs holds out, nobody is forcing you to change over to any alternate light style.
No violence is being threatened.
Time to rethink your position. The color of LED today is every bit as good as the incans. Not like the sickly green of the old CFL.
Why use 1000 watts if you can get the same lighting for 100 watts. The savings will be enough to go out for a decent dinner and a couple of drinks.
It may not be a big deal if you are talking table lamps, but if you are talking ceiling lights or outdoor, instead of changing bulbs every 1200 hours, change them every 15,000 hours.
You are free to do what you want, but I don't see where you have any advantage over LED in 2014.
Then how do you know anything about CNN?
For the record, CNN is little more than a tabloid, but at least it's "facts" are less distorted and one-sided than the "fair and balanced" BMN.
| Illogical. First, it's more like $5 or even less. Second, the savings is | not per minute of use, but per year of use (on or off). If the bulb is | going to last 10-20 years, saving $4-$5 is pennies/year and not worth my | time to even consider. But then you know what your time is worth. | | But then I don't think this is really about money. I think it's about a | bunch of anti-government reactionaries digging in their heels where they | can. Fox news viewers, for sure.
How did a choice of lightbulbs escalate into a culture war? :) There are pros and cons to all the options. Incandescent is cheaper but costs more to run. CFLs cost a bit less to run but are slow to light up, are not suited to frequent on/off and contain mercury.
It's worth remembering that LED use is fairly recent. For a number of years CFLs had been pushed hard as the ecological solution. Yet they're not well suited to many common uses, the light is ugly and they contain mercury, for which there's considered to be no safe level of exposure in children. The illogic of classifying CFLs as "environmentally friendly" is breathtaking. Yet CFL use has been no less than a craze for many years, with most of the public, including people who should have known better, jumping on that particular bandwagon.
Now the latest thing is LEDs. They have selling points but they haven't been around long enough to be time- tested. Probably they'll improve with time. Maybe they'll last as long as claimed. Maybe they won't. Isn't there some logic in both preferences -- incandescent and LED? Dogmatism is the only clearly illogical position, because dogma values certainty over fact.
Where I live it's actually illegal to put an incandescent fixture in a closet due to the fire risk from the heat generated. It's supposed to be a fluorescent fixture. I don't know offhand whether CFLs and/or LEDs satisfy the code. Unfortunately, I don't have any closets so luxuriously big that they'd benefit from having a light fixture. :)
Of course not. Rational people will follow your dictates to the letter, without question or hesitation. Thank you for your benevolent and infinite wisdom.
In my opinion, LED are way better.
Because of government thugs.
You did read that didn't you?
Wasting your breath.
Hoard incandescents. It's nuts.
| > But we're not going to make those changes. The | > only change that can be enforced is business | > regulation: forcing toilet companies to make smaller | > toilets. | | Every act of government is an act of violence. Here you are basically | stating that you believe the best approach to designing toilets is to | have a cadre of armed goons force your values ("smaller toilets") on | others under threat of violence.
You didn't fully read what I wrote. I don't think most of the small toilets work properly. I'm dubious of their value. And no one is forcing you to do anything under threat of violence. What I was trying to point out is that forcing companies to make low-flow toilets was one of the few options to deal with water shortage. It's just about the only approach that *does not* force people to do anything. You can keep your old toilet. You can flush your new toilet twice. You can put a custom tank on your toilet. None of that is illegal. The only illegal thing is to sell high-flow toilets.
Regulations like low-flow toilets happen because most people will not or can not voluntarily conserve water. It's really the same idea as a traffic light. Traffic lights are not there to force you or me to stop a lot. Their purpose is to regulate traffic for everyone's sake. Why? Because in general we're not mature or considerate enough for society to survive without rules. Maybe you go to great lengths to conserve water, taking 4 minute showers and never watering your lawn, but most people simply won't be so responsible voluntarily. Likewise, you might always let the other car go first at an intersection, but most of us are not that way, so we need traffic lights. So I guess we need governement because we're not all as mature and generous as you apparently are. Perhaps you could try to be patient with the rest of us. :)
however, you can rest now that the funding bill is passed as it included langauge to extend incandescent light bulb availability with a gradually increasing requirement for efficiency until around 2020.
songbird
I agree with Clare here.
Incandescent bulbs are being phased out only because CFL's and LED's can provide exactly the same lighting at a fraction of the cost, and more importantly, at a fraction of the coal that has to be burned to generate the electricity needed to power the bulbs.
Be aware that only the standard base incandescent bulbs are being replaced. You will still be able to buy incandescent bulbs for all other applications, like your car, your appliances (like the microwave oven, fridge and stove) and for specialty bulbs such as UV bulbs for sterilizing equipment.
But, if you choose to stockpile incandescent bulbs, no one is going to confiscate your stockpile of incandescent bulbs to force you to use CFL's or LED's.
I recently purchased 8 candelabra based LED bulbs for the chandelier in my front lobby and found the light they produce to be particularily attractive. The chandelier actually looks more elegant with LED bulbs in it than it did with the 40 watt equivalent CFL's I was using before.
So, if you want to stick to incandescents, go for it. I expect there were people stocking up on typewriter ribbons when computer word processing applications first came out, and I hope those people prefer using a typewriter over a word processor as much as I prefer using a word processor over a type writer. To each his own.
Hi Trader_4,
A quick quote from Newt:
"There were 12 government shutdowns while Democrat Tip O'neill was Speaker. Why is media so one sided in its ignorance of history?"
? Newt Gingrich (@newtgingrich) September 30, 2013
An article on the subject from the National Review:
Here is American Pravda's run down on all of them:
I dearly hope you are correct about the courts. The totalitarian activists on the SC almost have a majority and that could easily change. In the lower courts, I see the totalitarian activists throwing out the EXPRESSED WILL OF THE PEOPLE with all their gay right decisions. And the SC refused to hear the first appeal of that tyranny. So, I hope you are correct, but I fear for the country anyway.
You made a lot of excellent points in your letter.
-T
1+
Oh, right. I'm going to defy the government even if it costs me an additional hundred bucks a month. I'll show them thugs!
Did you ever hear of a Bi-Polar Bear? :)
You sure sound naive. try buying 100 watt light bulbs, driving without a seat belt, driving while talking on your cell phone, buying a 3.5 GPF toilet, and driving without license plates. When the guys with guns show up, tell em to go away and leave you alone. That you just posted on Usenet that no violence is threatened, and they should just go away.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus
Yep, complete with mood swings.
What astounds me is that as government controls every aspect of our lives, people continue to defend and minimize and deny the control. Such well trained subjects, they are.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus
Are you saying that your constitutional guarantee that every American citizen may bear arms isn't working? Aren't your guns supposed to guarantee that the citizenry will never be subject to an oppressive government?
There is a difference between fighting against excessive government control and punching one's own self in the face. The reason for eliminating incandescent bulbs isn't because they cost consumers more to operate. Your government doesn't care about that. It's because incandescent lighting is very inefficient and requires that more coal or natural gas be burned in order to power those inefficient incandescent bulbs. Your government is not trying to exercise control over you as much as they are trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. To interpret that as a government exercising control over it's citizenry for no other reason except to prove that it can is one step away from lying. It is willfully ignoring their obvious and real motivation in favour of whatever interpretation suits your position better.
The [LDS] twelfth Article of Faith says: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. . . .
And more quotes:
Are you really preaching what you preach in your sig?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.