OT: best legislative bill title EVER!

Page 5 of 5  


Some unfortunates have an incandescent bulb under cover heating the pump in the well house, and are _damn_ glad they don't have to do it with flourescents. Like the cooler light for reading, given my advancing age and declining acuity....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Interesting thing in that article. They say that about a fifth of home electricity costs come from lighting. I did a bit of calculating and figured that if I burned every single light in my house 24/7 it would be just about a fifth of my total electricity usage. In reality I suspect it is more like about 8-10%. Of course we heat with electricity and have electric hot water heater and clothes dryer, plus our climate is a bit colder than most of CA. Still.....
Of more concern is that this is typical legislative effort to force a solution rather than try to achieve a result. While CF's have some advantages (although I find that I seldom get even twice the life of an incandescent from one, usually it is about even) it makes little sense to require a technology that could easily be supplanted by something like LED lighting - or something we don't even know about. The goal should be to reduce energy use, rather than sell a particular product. I suspect that if you follow the money you'll find that the ones proposing this legislation are getting more than a bit of jingle from then companies making the CF bulbs.
Oh yeah, CF bulbs suck if you have cold weather. They *never* come on below about 20 F. and are pretty dim below 60 for a while. They don't work well with motion sensors because they take too long to come on. I tend to mix the two types (always the optimist, I hope to gain some energy/cost savings even though I don't see any yet) so that I can get at least some light immediately when I flip the switch.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Warning: Spelling errors in this message are the product of a poor school system. Pay teachures more than athletes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL!
-- Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:39:17 -0800, Tim Douglass

Then there's the little matter of dimmers. While CFs purpose-made to be dimmable can be dimmed with dimmers made to work with fluorescent lighting, they're not so happy with one that isn't made for that purpose and for that matter they're not all that happy with some dimmers that _are_ made for that purpose. And try to find a dimmable CF globe or flame at Home Despot.

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

Agreed - CF bulbs make good sense in many situations but not all. One factor is how long the light is on in typical use. Fluorescents provide the most benefit in uses where they remain on for longer periods, rather than a quick on/off cycle.

Maybe, but I think that this is also an example of the typical lawmakers approach of "let's pass a law that makes us look like we are doing something but offends no one." If the intent is to reduce energy use or to begin to address global warming, then we should use market forces to change ingrained habits gradually. Put a "carbon" tax on all fossil fuels that is enough to raise the costs of coal/petroleum/gas -based energy use and many people will start thinking about ways to conserve energy. This particular law is similar to trying to address gasoline usage by raising fuel economy standards for auto makers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Zen Cueist wrote: | The answer seems to be "62", in California.
| The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" | would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving | compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
Too bad CNN wasn't able to post a link to the text of the proposed law - that would have been quite a bit more informative...
Assemblyman Levine and his staff have surely researched the issue carefully, discussed the matter with constituants, and have reached consensus that CF bulbs will be acceptable substitutes for use in restaurants and clubs; film studios and theaters; aviation (imagine LAX with CF beacon, approach and runway lights with CF landing lights on all planes; and police helicopters with CF searchlights), highway (including traffic control, signage, street lighting, and emergency vehicles), rail, and ocean transportation; medical facilities and devices;...
...and surely Lloyd and all the members of his intelligent and well-informed staff are "leading by example" and have already replaced all of the incandescent bulbs in their offices and residences (including those in their kitchen appliances and personal vehicles) with CF bulbs.
I do find myself wondering how well the CF bulbs substitute for the incandescent bulbs in cook tops and freezers...
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think the degree to which they have researched this is indicated by the comment attributed to him or one of his staff the indicated, "incandescent technology has not changed in over 100 years."
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote: | On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 10:40:05 -0600, "Morris Dovey"
| || Zen Cueist wrote: ||| The answer seems to be "62", in California. || ||| The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" ||| would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of ||| energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs. || || Too bad CNN wasn't able to post a link to the text of the proposed || law - that would have been quite a bit more informative... || || Assemblyman Levine and his staff have surely researched the issue || carefully, discussed the matter with constituants, and have reached || consensus that CF bulbs will be acceptable substitutes for use in | ... snip of some very good questions | | I think the degree to which they have researched this is | indicated by the comment attributed to him or one of his staff the | indicated, "incandescent technology has not changed in over 100 | years."
Agreed - and I'd like to suggest to Californians that failure to exercise due dilligence at this level of elected "public service" should trigger an automatic recall ballot.
-- Morris Dovey DeSoto Solar DeSoto, Iowa USA http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Neither has breathing. It is possible that he and his staff actually inhaled.
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:

The mental image I get is of the cartoon light bulb indicating the arrival of an idea being replaced with a CF bulb ... and having to wait a moment while it lights up. ;-)
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Morris Dovey wrote:
> I do find myself wondering how well the CF bulbs substitute for the > incandescent bulbs in cook tops and freezers...
They won't.
Even at an average of 18 lumens per watt, incandescent lamp sources still have a place in the overall quest for higher efficiency lighting, and short term, quick response lighting is what incandescent is all about.
Lew
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.