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
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.
Warning: Spelling errors in this message are the product of a poor school
system. Pay teachures more than athletes.
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.
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
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
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
...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...
DeSoto, Iowa USA
... 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."
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
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
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.
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Morris Dovey wrote:
> I do find myself wondering how well the CF bulbs substitute for the
> incandescent bulbs in cook tops and freezers...
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.
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.