How many 100W Incandescent light bulbs do you have stocked up?

Page 5 of 6  


Only $355? Not too bad for a fancy lightbulb in a box.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep, but that's what an incandescent is. It's a heater that puts out some light. But you get toasty fingers for $0.30 per day! Of course, you put fourteen of those light bulbs in an EdenPure chassis, and you got yourself a system that even Bob Vila would admire.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

Because you never know what the future might bring.
I'm not too keen on light bulbs, but I do have close to 50,000 rounds of ammunition stored up.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 02:30:28 -0600, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

Getting rid of all my CFLs and large incandescents and replacing with LEDs.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote in wrote:

Clare, where do you get affordable LEDs?
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/23/11 03:30 am, snipped-for-privacy@myplace.com wrote:

I may have one or two left from a multi-pack.
Perce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's wrong with the equivalent CFL, beside being more reliable/lasting many times longer, producing much less heat, and being much more energy efficient?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

CFL's are simply not suited to all applications, despite what you may think, that's what's wrong with them. Some of the obvious issues and where they don't work:
A - The light is not even close to the same color quality
Areas used for reading or fine work where you need to focus. Some decorative fixtures that simply don't look good with a CFL.
B - They take a significant amount of time to warm up to even a reasonable brightness and it's worse at low temps.
Light outside the door. Think I want to wait 3 mins to see who's there in winter? Or my kitchen, where I want to turn the light on, grab something and leave in 20 secs. Put in a CFL and then what do you do to fix that: Leave them on for hours.
C - You can't tell before buying them how long any particular one takes when turned on to put out a reasonable amount of light because the skunk manufacturers don't spec it.
D - In my experience, they don't last very long.
E - They can't be dimmed much, they are not dimmable along a wide range like regular bulbs. And the ones that are partially dimmable cost a lot more. See D above.
CFLs are fine for many general lighting areas, but that doesn't mean they fit all applications.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dimitrios Paskoudniakis wrote:

Much more expensive, less light output, very dim if cold (porch lights).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:58:45 -0500, "Dimitrios Paskoudniakis"

And being slow to start.
LEDs are more expensive than current CFLs, but less expensive now than the first CFLs I bought (which were pure CRAP) - and so far are working well.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I have two 100W incandescents in the house (the garage, actually). Since they will be illegal in a few days, I just bought 100 from 1000Bulbs, though.

About the same. I don't have a problem with the market speaking. I *do* have a problem with the losers in Congress deciding what's good for me.

Zero. I had a few in my last house. Didn't like them at *all*.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 18:13:04 -0500, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

You can move to Somalia or many other places if you have a problem with the U.S. Constitution and U.S. form of government. People do that all the time, don't they? But your point is taken. Here's a Congressman who proves that point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNZczIgVXjg

--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/26/2011 9:45 PM, Vic Smith wrote:

Oh come on! You know it's not Politically Correct to pick on Affirmative Action morons because they are the products of a government school education. Whenever you point out the deficiencies of that group, someone's going to scream RACIST at you. o_O
TDD
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 26 Dec 2011 21:45:07 -0600, Vic Smith

Vic, it sounded stupid when the "America, Love It or Leave It" crowd said it. It's even more stupid when the supposedly "enlightened" lefties say the *exact* same thing. You're proving my point, so I suppose I should thank you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No incandescents in stock here. But I have most of 2 cases of CFL's 18 bulbs a case, 60 watt equivalent, Feit brand. Son picked up 4 cases a Menards for 5 bucks each and gave us 2 of them. That's 28 cents a bulb. I've got all CFL in the house except a couple old bulbs in the basement, and some "special use" in appliances and cabinets. I live a bit north of Chicago. It gets cold. My outside garage doorway light is a CFL. My front porch light is a CFL. They work fine in the winter. Take a few minutes to get to speed. Doesn't bother me. All tube fluorescent in the garage. They take a few minutes to warm up too. Got CALl's in shaded lamps, globe ceiling fixtures, tulip ceiling fixtures on fans, and a 5 bare-bulb strip over the bathroom vanity. The bare CALl's are much easier on our eyes than incandescents. As far as pigtails being ugly, I never even thought about that. Never was one to measure the beauty of light bulbs. But I have easily wiped off a few dusty incandescents in my life. That would be a hassle with a pigtail. On the other hand, my son is a truck suspension shop mechanic. The pit lights and portable work lights are CFL's now because they don't pop like incandescents when hit by oil or water spatter.
Anyway, I don't see a problem with phasing out the selling of some incandescents. Seen various numbers about energy savings. And I don't see anything wrong with stocking up on the incandescents if that's what you like. To the guy always complaining about his barn light, he doesn't even have to stockpile. Just go to a 150 watt incandescent there.
--Vic
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<stuff snipped>

They're not really free at all. If you investigate closely, you'll find that the power company boosted your electrical bill by much more than the amount it took to pay for the "free bulb" distribution program. Usually, customers end up paying full list cost for the bulbs but they don't know. You didn't really think they were free, did you?
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/05/quarter_million_firstenergy_co.html
<<The bulbs are not exactly free, just as they were not really free in 2009 when the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio approved the company's initial plan. In both cases, customers will pay for the bulbs on their bills for three years -- along with the electrical delivery fees FirstEnergy will not collect because the bulbs use less than a quarter of the electricity a 100-watt incandescent bulb uses. When state lawmakers made saving energy mandatory three years ago, **all of the state's utilities made sure the law would allow them to be reimbursed for lost revenue for a certain number of months**. Lawmakers went along with it because it seemed the only way to get the utilities to back conservation. >>
They're certainly not free. The only issue is how much less than free they really are. That's a number that's going to be hard to find because it's been buried so deep.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 12/28/2011 7:53 AM, Robert Green wrote: ...

...
All of which is simply another demonstration of why the idea of mandates is so silly...when the cost becomes burdensome to the consumer, they'll figure out how to conserve on their own and such shenanigans won't be needed.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not sure, a truly free market should also take into account social and environmental costs. Anyway, there should not be an oil depletion allowance.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You mean if oil companies weren't given subsidies and tax write offs for drilling, they'd drill even more wells and the act of drilling would produce oil even if it wasn't in the ground?
The Communists proved what ideology is worth.
Then the tail end of your blatant assumption is that more energy at lower prices is a good thing. I assume that it's a good thing regardless of the environmental damage caused. The evil government looks at coastlines and says, hey people swim here, motel owners make their livings based on clean beaches. Maybe this is one of those areas we need not exploit until we really need to.
I'm telling you, this ideology crap is dangerous. Learn that there are 2 sides to every argument and that decisions must be balanced. Try to see both sides before coming to a conclusion.
--
Dan Espen

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well, since you're being absurd, you sure help make my point. Thank you.
Christopher A. Young Learn more about Jesus www.lds.org .
writes:

You mean if oil companies weren't given subsidies and tax write offs for drilling, they'd drill even more wells and the act of drilling would produce oil even if it wasn't in the ground?
The Communists proved what ideology is worth.
Then the tail end of your blatant assumption is that more energy at lower prices is a good thing. I assume that it's a good thing regardless of the environmental damage caused. The evil government looks at coastlines and says, hey people swim here, motel owners make their livings based on clean beaches. Maybe this is one of those areas we need not exploit until we really need to.
I'm telling you, this ideology crap is dangerous. Learn that there are 2 sides to every argument and that decisions must be balanced. Try to see both sides before coming to a conclusion.
--
Dan Espen



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.