Light bulb, thy doom is near!

Page 4 of 4  

wrote:

Good comment. But there's not much incentive to fake such a number as home energy use by category since it's so easy to check. Lots of data come from the California Energy Commission (it's paid for by the CA ratepayers on their utility bills). It's all on line for anyone to look at and critique. In other areas, utilities, energy offices and environmental advocates do studies. Sure, consultants do some of the work - but there are good consultants. The DOE did a massive lighting energy use report in 2002. It's being updated, but still a good reference for such things. It's on line here: http://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf_es/275es.pdf
Tomsic
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

12% of my bill works out to about 8kwh a day. Since you really only use lights about 6 hours a day that would mean I had about 1300 watts of light burning all evening.
15% of that would be a better number
Right now I have one 75w bulb, dimmed about 50%. If I stand up and start walking around I will have motion detected lighting following me around the house but a few minutes after I leave, they go out. Most of that light is on the order of 25-30 watts for each zone.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite the contrary, how much of an inroad to the lighting market do you believe the CFL's would have made if not for these studies and the resulting big nanny government mandate on incadecent bulbs? Seriously, you want to quote anything that comes out of the biggest nanny state in the country...California or the DOE, a department established Carter to end our dependence on foreign oil?
I hate to Ass-U-Me anything but assuming that the studies are correct does that justify the government throwing out the millions of dollars that manufacturers have invested in manufacturing facilities to make good quality and inexpensive lighting products in favor of new, unproven and very expensive alternatives that may or may not prove better over the long haul. Has the governments actions been to the consumer's benefit or has their passing laws that favor one product at the expense of another guaranteed the consumer will pay far higher prices for the CFL's that might have occured if they had to actually compete for market share?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:46:51 -0800 (PST), BobR

CFLs started selling because they got cheap enough for the numbers to look reasonable. If they are three times more efficient (using Harry's number) a 60w equivalent bulb saves you about .67 cents an hour at a 15 cent a kwh rate (about as high as it gets in the US, some places are less than a dime). If the bulb costs 5 bucks you break even at around 1000 hours. Since CFLs draw a lot more current when you turn them on this may not really work out that well and if the bulb is cycling a lot and it won't last as long. CFLs also have a problem being mounted base up, particularly in a recessed can. LEDs are an interesting product without he mercury problem but they still have the early end of life problem that plagued CFLs when they were new. Some of this can be blamed on power line surge problems. Harry probably does not see as many thunderstorms as we have in Florida. I know the UK people who come here in the summer are usually hiding under the bed the first time they are in one of those summer squalls with a couple of "flash/bang" lightning strikes a minute for a half hour or so. They think the bloody bosch are bombing them again. My neighbor lived here for 20 years and never really got used to it. If you don't have extensive surge protection lots of stuff gets blown up, including your CFLs.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 17, 11:00 am, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

Well, since my kwh rate is just a little over half that the payout has been a lot longer in useful hours and none of the bulbs has lasted that long anyway.
Since CFLs draw a lot more current when you turn

You sure have that right.

I only have three lamps that are in use with upward mounted bulbs. The house uses recessed lighting throughout and the CFL's don't last nearly as long as advertised.

They still do as far as I can determine.

That sure paints a very funny picture in the mind. Same holds for here in Texas where the tornado sirens help things along.

Not only used to them but in my own warped insane way, I enjoy them. The power of nature is something to watch, not fear.

Been lucky on that point thus far...knock on wood.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Most of the kneejerks reading your post will miss the part about being 25% more energy-efficient. That means, according to sources as diverse as Mother Jones Magazine and snopes.com that a 75-watt bulb will produce the same amount of light as a 100-watt bulb used to produce.
In that sense, it IS the end of the light bulb as you know it. However, NOBODY is banning incandescent bulbs. You will still be able to buy them anywhere. The difference between then and now is that you will have to get used to rating their power in lumens, not watts. A lumen rating of 1490-2600 is equivalent to the old 100-watt incandescent light bulb, but the 1490-2600 lumen energy-efficient incandescent model that will become mandatory on January 1 consumes only 75 watts.
Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Frank Warner wrote:

No, no, no. Everybody knows CFLs are more efficient. But so what? A VW bug is more efficient than a Hummer, soy steaks are more efficient than prime rib, a poncho is more efficient than a tuxedo. The issue here is why should my choices be curtailed because someone else wants to kneel at the alter of "efficiency?"

What if I WANT a 100-watt bulb that only puts out 200 lumens? I might need it for my chick brooder where the heat is more needed than the light.
If (some) incandescent bulbs are not banned, why will I not be able to buy them come January? What if I wanted one of the "lifetime" bulbs that faux veteran's groups used to sell. You remember, the ones with a 10d nail as the filament and that put out as much light as a candle while scoring over 100 watts? I won't be able to buy those any more due solely to legislative fiat and that fiat is the result of my betters deciding what's good for the country or the next generation.
Bah!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You got most of it all wrong. It's not about "you." It's not about personal "efficiency." It's about what works to cut back on power plant generation. That significantly reduces bad emissions to the air we all breathe. No question about it. Do you think most people give a shit what you want? I can't burn leaves. Have to pay taxes for them to be picked up. Can't even smoke tobacco in a lot of outdoor places. Tough shit, I don't whine about that. I adjust.
The few light bulb weirdos were accounted for by not outlawing the use of the bulbs you desire. You're free to stock up on incandescents. Anybody is free to do that. Simple to buy a lifetime supply - enough to pass them on to your kin. But that hasn't stopped natural born whiners from whining. Nothing works for that. You can also buy a Hummer, VW bug, prime rib, tuxedo, or mega-yacht. Nobody's stopping you. It's all available. Look like you want the world to revolve around you. News flash - won't happen.
Here's what you should do. Stock up on incandescents, and put them everywhere you can on your own property. Turn them all on if you like. Nobody will stop you. It'll make you feel righteous. Important. I do something like that when I take my dogs out in the dark. I often want to piss when I take my dogs out. If it's early and there's still some traffic I walk behind the pine tree in the front yard, pull out my dick, and piss on the lawn. If there's no traffic, I stand right on the town-owned sidewalk, pull out my dick, and piss on the lawn. Feels good, real good. Nothing like pissing in the toilet. When I'm standing out there in public with my dick out, pissing on the lawn, I'm the very center of the universe. You should forget about those light bulbs, and try that. Drink a beer if you need it.
--Vic
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And here your post turned to art. Something all us men can understand.
Bravo.
--
Dan Espen

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

Which straw broke the camel's back, the first or the last? Which of the unending list of government rules, regulations, and mandates will finally get your attention that your back is about to break? Will it be when one day they come to your house and arrest you for pissing on the lawn using evidence from DNA that they got from the piss?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure. Cells are always sloughed off.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Actually, the light bulb manufacturers themselves pushed for new efficiency standards. They wanted to advance, but knew that marketing would just be a race to the bottom without an imposed level playing field. As long as one manufacture could sell cheap inefficient bulbs, they all would have to in order to compete.
So they lobbied for the regulations. The government didn't force them to do anything they didn't already want.

Indeed. While you're at it, tell those damn kids to get off your lawn.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/1678387/kill-the-myth-incandescent-bulbs-are - not-banned
Frank
--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.sharpbywarner.com /
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd like to see a definitive reference that says the vintage look decorative Edison bulbs will still be available. Here is an example:
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
I know the National Resource Defense Council, which helped write the new law, has stated their interpretation of the law is that these bulbs can no longer be manufactured. The devil is always in the details. In this case, it's in how the new law is actually interpretted and enforced. I doubt the law says all odd-ball bulbs will still be available. If you have a reference from the govt that clearly shows what specific bulbs will still be available f I'd like to see it.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/21/2011 7:55 AM, snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Why would you want to ruin a thread that way????
Don Klipstein is seldom wrong on lightning http://donklipstein.com/incban.html there are also a couple links to the DOE, I think.
Another source http://applications.nam.lighting.philips.com/cmolegislation / also has a lot of links
Looks like the answer is "it depends"
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 05:55:49 -0800 (PST), " snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net"

I am sure the light bulb manufacturers helped write the law and this may be an opportunity for them to cut the number of special bulbs they have to make. They can just say the government made them do it and eat shit. Buy a new lamp holder..
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 13:36:08 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com wrote:

There's a problem with conspiracy theories; too complicated. When was the last time you saw a manufacturer who didn't say the equivalent of "buy a new lamp holder" when they a product was no longer profitable?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to manufacture.
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in the last few years for the unique look. Do you agree that it looks like they are banned?
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And since the vintage Edison look bulb that I provided a link to does not appear to fall under any of the above exceptions, it sure looks like decorative bulbs of that type will no longer be legal to manufacture.
(Amazon.com product link shortened)
There are many similar ones to that which have become popular in the last few years for the unique look. Do you agree that it looks like they are banned?
No, I don't think the vintage reproduction lamps are affected because they are not "general service incandescent lamps".
Tomsic
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The National Resources Defense Council which helped write the bill, says they believe they are banned. They are not on the list of bulbs that are exempt. And I can see environmentalists like the above making the claim that they are general service incandescent lamps. They provide some of the area lighting in some restaurants, for example. And they actually use a lot more energy than even an ordinary incandescent for the amount of light output.
Ultimately it will be up to whichever agency has enforcement to decide. Or maybe hte Supreme Court, if some environmental group wants to challenge it.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.