Congress may flip switch on CFLs

[HeyBub]

"While we must continue to work to improve energy efficiency and reduce our energy consumption, the misguided ban on incandescent light bulbs needs to be repealed..."

Not only that, but some in Congress - and quite a few citizens - are convinced: "It's emblematic of everything that's wrong in the relationship between Washington and the voters. There was no conversation; there was no back-and-forth. The voters woke up one morning, and they said you can't buy incandescent light bulbs..."

So, what are the chances? We won't know 'til the process gets a bit farther down the road.

[LSMFT]

They SHOULD be banned. Short circuit lighting is 18th century.

[Tegger]

"HeyBub" wrote in news:UNqdnXo8BopNsGPRnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

You mean we may once again be able to buy incandescents for a quarter apiece?

[Jeff Thies]

Unless you don't count halogen or less than 40W or more than 150W.

And how could George W Bush have signed such legislation, he must have been thinking.

This is great! Let's get some lead back in the gas too. And let's get some more pro consumption legislation going. We need to use more energy and water! There's plenty of both for the time being and Jesus will just make more later. That's what the Moonies believe, you can read it all in the Washington Times. Go Moonies! I think Sarah Palin is down with this too. Hey Bub, good enough for you too?

Jeff

>

[hallerb]

yep lets drop all rules and laws personal responsiblity is enough....

policies like that helped to crash our economy.

just look at the housing market

[Jim Yanik]

Smitty Two wrote in news: [e-mail]:

you're "a bit" LATE in making that observation. CFLs have been discussed here for quite awhile now.

It's also a bit late to reverse the law,as the last US incandescent lightbulb maker has moved production (and it's jobs)out of the country. They will not be returning regardless of what the lawmakers do.

[mkirsch1]

It is, if the playing field is level.

Problem is, the same people who repeal the ban on incandescent light bulbs are the same people who pass laws to limit electricity prices.

[HeyBub]

Are you as certain about that as you are that I post many, many off-topic posts?

I counted those for you, let me count the ones involving CFLs.

There have been ((at least) 76 messages involving CFLs on this newsgroup since Sept 1st.

You've been busted again.

[David Nebenzahl]

On 12/7/2010 5:25 AM LSMFT spake thus:

Surprise, surprise: the complainant (Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan) is a Repugnican. Who woulda guessed?

Now, I was going to further guess that he was a Tea Party type, but it gets even funnier: the Tea Party has apparently accused Rep. Upton of being--get this--"pro-Big Government when it comes to Energy policy" (ooooh, notice them Scary Caps!):

Meaning, I guess, that he merely wants to ban them Communist/Socialist twirly bulbs, not string up the vendors of same by their toenails.

Sheesh. This is the kind of stuff only Tom Tomorrow seems to be able to come up with.

[krw]

Crap. I was planning on retiring on my stash of incandescent bulbs.

[krw]

The law has fulfilled its purpose so they can allow incandescents again.

[trader4]

Yeah, just look at FNMA, and Freddie Mac. Both were quasi government agencies under the supervision of Congress. Just months before they collapsed and investors lost everything, Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, who's committee has oversight said that while there were some problems, they were going to be just fine. According to Standard and Poors, the final cost to taxpayers for those two gems could reach $685Bil. Compare that to TARP, which was $787Bil and most of it has already been paid back. In fact, the most it's estimated that TARP will cost taxpayers is now down to $80bil, with the possibility it will actually result in a profit.

Then of course we have the Community Reinvestment Act and the regulators who aggressively used it to push lenders to make loans to lots of people that could never pay it back.

There is greed and stupidity that has always existed and is part of human nature. The mistake libs make is that they think govt is immune from it and offers a fix for anything that goes wrong in the private sector.

[HeyBub]

It's funny, people *try* to offend you, and it slides off you like the truth off the brain of a republican. Then I make some observations that were in *no way* meant to offend, and you get all worked up and feel insulted.

Let's review the facts, again:

1. You claimed that you NEVER started an off topic thread.

1. This claim struck me as absolutely ludicrous, and I stated as such.

2. You challenged me to point to a SINGLE off-topic thread that you started.

1. The next day, you started another off-topic thread, and I made note of it.

2. You call me busted.

I don't dislike you, although I disagree with your political views and just about every other view you have. But you sure are one twisted up dude when it comes to reason and logic.

[Twayne]

...

...

IF that's the case, you don't belong on usenet or any un-monitored group. To even respond to trollish posts inviting responses is to lower yourself to the same level. There appears to be 4 trollers and 9 ignorants of newsgroup ways. Either get a thicker skin or find another sandbox.

[clare]

Hey, you gotta do like I do. Consider the source. Smitty cannot offend. All he can do is argue. Not only is he never wrong, he's always right. You cannot convince him with facts because his mind is already made up. His experience is the only valid experience - If he has not seen it (or even recognized it when he has seen it), it cannot be so.

Unlike Smitty I reserve the right to become smarter. There is an old saying,

The wise man learns from other men's mistakes, The average man learns from his own mistakes, The fool never learns, because he never makes mistakes.

and

He who never makes mistakes has never accomplished anything of worth.

I know I'll get feedback from Smitty, but so what.

[HeyBub]

Yeah, you're right. I gave him every chance to mend the error of his ways... Some folks are just intransigent.

Oh well.

[Don Klipstein]

There are many exemptions, not just ones for light output dimmer than typical 40W, or same as or brighter than better 150W.

There are also other exemptions, including:

• Design voltage outside the range of 110-130V

• Base other than E26/E27 "medium screw base"

• Tubular, globe, flame-shape or reflectorized bulb

• Most specialty types, including appliance/oven, vibration-resistant, bug light, plant light, blacklight, and most other colored types

• Ones that meet an energy efficiency standard that a few halogen replacements for "regular light bulbs" meet

I have a more complete list at:

[vjp2.at]

What happens with dimmers and other switches that require incandescent?

- = - Vasos Panagiotopoulos, Columbia'81+, Reagan, Mozart, Pindus, BioStrategist

---{Nothing herein constitutes advice. Everything fully disclaimed.}--- [Homeland Security means private firearms not lazy obstructive guards] [Urb sprawl confounds terror] [Phooey on GUI: Windows for subprime Bimbos]

[Twayne]

Nothing. Read Don's post; I just found the same thing myself. Idiots and trolls are keeping this silliness going for their own delight. They are not being truthful in any way. Want an incandescent street light bulb or lighthouse bulb? There you might have a problem.

HTH,

Twayne`

[Jack Stein]

I read Don's post but don't recall it addressing what happens with dimmers that require incandescent lighting? IF I can buy 75 or 100 watt incandescent lights for my dimmers, nothing could stop me from using them everywhere?