They ain't dead yet!

No doubt it depends on one's lighting needs, Our living-room, bedroom, kitchen and family-room lights are on for long enough that we use CFLs there. The dining-room lights are on a dimmer, and dimmable CFLs are still expensive enough that we still use incandescents (reflector bulbs, which are not affected by the ban).

Moreover, if I understand the situation correctly, incandescents will still be available, but they will be halogen ones giving more light per Watt than the old-fashioned ones -- but still less efficient than CFLs.

It's possible that many of these regulations would never have been imposed if you didn't have members of Congress that have been bought by some corporation or other organization.

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.

Perce

Yah, us top-posters tend to be a cut above the rest. ;-)

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message news:Cj9Hq.4713$ snipped-for-privacy@news.usenetserver.com...

Certainly I have a bill of sale. I bought them over the Internet (tax free). You still might have time to order from 1000bulbs.com, before the nanny state starts throwing people into Gitmo for selling illicit lightbulbs. ;-) "Pssst! Wanna see?"

Nope. Tried them. They took longer to come up to brightness than the things were typically on.

I have some halogens. They're good for some applications but the light is quite harsh and they tend to throw shadows, more than a standard incandescent.

No, just too many do-gooders with too much time on their hands. No need for a conspiracy theory when good old incompetence explains it all.

Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.

I can't find anything either.

He installs garage door openers and makes up stories for a living.

Accounting for CFL savings gets pretty muddy when the power company overcharges you for electricity so that they can underwrite "giving away" bulbs below the cost of production. The bottom line is that you paid full price for those bulbs by paying your inflated electric bill.

-- Bobby G.

While it's true the Congress passed a bill (and I think the president signed it) that removed funding for the enforcement of the ban, the ban is still in place.

What this means is this: If you manufacture, transport, or sell 100-watt incandescent bulbs, no agency of government has the wherewithal to sanction you.

Yet.

But what if a future Congress restored the funding for prosecution? The EPA, CPSC, Department of Boogers, or whoever is in charge of this business pulls out their files - and believe me, they'll be keeping track - of offenders for the past five years and heads to court.

I can see it now: Millions upon millions of dollars flow into the treasury, suitably ear-marked for promotion of renewable energy! Companies that manufacture whale-oil lamps get grants (whales are a renewable resource).

Shouts are heard across the land.

Electricity is going to cost more, period. When the new EPA rules go into effect in January, a significant number of power plants will have to be shut down. I can't find the number for Texas (I remember 17), but various reports use the term "many."

Texas is but one of a couple dozen states facing the consequences of this new rule on sulfur dioxide emissions.

^^^^^^ Shots

So why is the same utility also advertising subsidies for its customers to replace their old refrigerators and air conditioners by more-efficient new ones? According to your logic, they should want people to keep using old, inefficient units that use more power.

Perce

because the local corp commission is making them? also this slows down the rise of generating capacity they need to build.

The federal gov't (i.e. the taxpayers) subsidizes the construction and ongoing costs of power plants. Building power plants, *especially* nuclear plants, is a losing proposition without the gov't subsidies, or without passing the full and complete costs onto consumers. It took President Obama granting $8.3 billion in federal loan guarantees to make the construction of two new nuclear reactors in Georgia possible. The private sector won't even touch the insurance of nuclear plants - it's up to the government to underwrite that, too.

Energy conservation reduces government expenditures. It also exerts a downward pressure on price increases imposed by the utilities. A recent study found that the five US states with the greatest renewable energy (solar and wind) capacity had the lowest rate increases in the country - even lower than the states that had the lowest adoption rates of renewable energy.

So if you want to keep your energy bills _and_ your taxes down, it's in your own best interest to be energy thrifty.

They are making money now. If they have to add new power plants, they will not be making money as it is expensive and nearly impossible to get the permits. Mention the word "power plant" and entire towns are up in arms to keep them out.

It is far better to keep existing facilities operating and sucking up the existing revenue than to invest billions to increase capacity.

building new power plants cost big bucks. its in everyones best interest to conserve power......

because ultimately the consumer must pay for all the added costs

Stupid, more electricity = more income. The problem, as always, is government.

Yes, and have a better life.

While generally true, in the case of power plants, it is not always so. Apply for a permit for a nuke plant and see how many years to process is and how much it will cost. The payback is rather poor.

Meantime, if you run the present equipment at 85% or so, you can still make piles of money and fuel the family yacht.

On 12/22/2011 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote: ...

Nuclear vs fossil really has almost no bearing on the difficulty in permitting/licensing any more.

Our local generation co-op has been trying for 10 years now to build a new coal-fired station and has had one obstacle after another placed in way. Even though initial plans included a demonstration "green" algae-based biomass project and the plant contains the highest level (even exceeding latest EPA emission standards) there's simply no satisfying the naysayers...their objective isn't clean progress; it's to stifle any development at all.

Increasing generation capacity.

So increasing capacity makes sense but is forestalling what inevitable???

I'm not getting what you're driving at, here.

We (our generation co-op) would certainly not be trying to build new baseload capacity if it weren't for the fact we are at the point of having to purchase outside higher-priced power to meet current demand.

As noted, w/ the decrease in wellhead natural gas available for irrigation that was the previous best option for those who had it, demand for replacement power is going up to pick up those loads.

Wind just doesn't cut it for baseload; the demand is highest at the times we have the least wind and while it is one of the prime areas in the country overall for wind and there is expanding installation, it operates at only 40% installed capacity on annual average basis and as low as 20% of capacity in mid-summer.

So, locally we need additional generation capacity to retain a stable and economical supply; the planned expansion also will provide E CO co-ops as well w/ that side benefit locally.

But, of course, the anti's are ag'in it; almost all of whom are not on the rural distribution and a great number of whom aren't even KS or CO residents but outsiders just looking for places to stick their noses into.

--