California Proposes to Ban Incandescent Lightbulbs 1074
zhang1983 writes to tell us CNN is reporting that California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs with the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act". The act will promote Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) to replace the inefficient incandescent lightbulbs. According to him, "Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications, meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
how many? it's simple, really. (Score:5, Funny)
It takes a vote of more than half of the legislative body considering the measure. The full Assembly requires a majority vote of 41 and the full Senate requires 21, based on their memberships of 80 and 40 respectively.
Great!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, there are some left, but I'll go to the store and come back with more!
You get used to them quickly, they do have a short hesitation before lighting up, and some require a warm up of a few minutes to reach full light. Most don't.
I have one outside in the carport that comes on instantly, but it is an old style florescent, in a circle-shaped package. It really is instant, no problem.
On one, you get about 35 watts of light (incandescent) for 7.5 watts. That one cost more, but I love it.
Only problem is paying for all the new lights. Most people want a replacement bulb for one that has burned out, the cheapest they can get. The 7.5 wall bulb aforementioned was about $7.00. I hope it lasts forever...
The sooner you replace those incandescent bulbs, the more you save. Can't use them on a dimmer controlled circuit, or one with an infared motion detector sensor. Probably not a good idea to replace the incandescents in the refrigerator, mine has several, in freezer also. You can try that, but some compact florescents are dimmer when cold.
Here is a good link [lowes.com] for information on the new bulbs, and how they can save money.
Get to the store, however, to find the less expensive bulbs in 4-packs, etc.
That isle will have a lot of interested shoppers, so be forewarned.
Rapidweather
Re:Great!! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:how many? it's simple, really. (Score:5, Insightful)
CFLs not always a good choice (enclosed fixtures) (Score:5, Informative)
There are, however, still many applications where CFLs just aren't a good choice.
1. There are dimmable CFLs but they only dim so much and not very smoothly
2. Not recommended for enclosed fixtures (trapped heat shortens life of electronics)
3. Not recommended for use with photocells
Another problem with CFLs is that quality is very uneven and people tend to buy the cheap ones. They should avoid CFLs without an Energy Star label.
One good thing about CFLs is that they can produce quite a wide variety of light from a soft warm light to something very close to daylight. People often end up disappointed though because they don't know what to look for and they end up with a light that's too harsh or too dim looking for their tastes.
A ban on incandescents doesn't make sense. You can't really ban them because they are still needed for certain applications. You could however tax them which would make CFLs seem more attractive.
Re:CFLs not always a good choice (enclosed fixture (Score:5, Interesting)
Fluorescents are also a pain for photographers, for the same reason -- flip your shutter at a faster frame rate than the ballast on the light and you'll see very bizarre things, like having two pictures in a row, one lit and the other not.
anywho...not to say I'm against CFL's -- I'm not, I love them -- but there's a time and a place for "legacy" tech, and a ban would be dumb.
Stroboscopic effect - LEDs even worse (Score:5, Informative)
Be aware that LEDs operated on AC exhibit worse flicker than the cheapest fluorescent. At least with a fluorescent, there is some light from the phosphors between cycles -- an LED goes completely dark between cycles. I recently examined dozens of brands of LED holiday lights -- every single one flickered like crazy. At least they made some cool effects when you swung them around.
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:5, Informative)
But they're very fragile, and one of them broke when I tried to arrange my light fixture on it.
And the power here in this building isn't very good, so in relatively short order, two more blew out.
3 of them were in the garbage inside of a month. Wonder how much energy they cost to make?
I got 6 old school bulbs to replace them. They cost a $1. And they last longer.
That's why I personally haven't switched.
Next time I pay $10 for six light bulbs, I want a warranty.
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:5, Informative)
Taken from http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.
So, if you add the 4mg intrinsic to the CFL(being pessimistic here and assuming NONE get recycled properly) and the 2.4 mg from electricity production you end up with 6.4 mg of mercury released to the environment, as opposed to the 10 mg for regular incandescent bulbs. About 2/3 the mercury our regular light bulbs are giving off, and some of the CFLs will get recycled eh? Sounds like a good tradeoff to me.
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact, metallic mercury, while not particularly healthy, isn't nearly as hazardous as the scaremongers would have you believe. It's not "soluble in the blood stream" (sic). Mercury compounds (as would be expected to be found in food) are FAR more hazardous than elemental mercury.
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:A: depends on who's asking and (heh) how (Score:5, Interesting)
I also tried to find dimmable CFL's. Not in my town - only on the internet for 5x the cost of a standard CFL bulb.
When all CFL's are dimmable, and the bulbs are the same form factor as regular bulbs, or we have cost-effective LED lamps that are also dimmable and fit, then this could work. I think this bill is a few years too early however. Maybe if it was one of those "reduce over the first 5 years, eliminate in 10" it would be viable. You can encourage reduction by putting a "penalty tax" on standard bulbs, and use that money to subsidize CFL / LED.
Re:No great loss... (Score:5, Informative)
I've gotten 60W replacements with lumen outputs higher than the incandescents they replaced and they are indeed brighter (once they fully get going in 15 seconds).
Another thing to look for is the light temperature rating. 'Bright White', 'Soft White' & 'Daylight' are just some of the different light temperature ratings out there. The temperature of the light can give a different feeling of brightness for a particular room. For instance I replace the can bulbs in my kitchen with 65W equivalent CFL bulbs that were Soft White type temperature. They rather sucked. I then replaced those with the same lumen output but with temperature of Bright White, and the results were much better for that type of room.
Things to think about for sure.
Re:No great loss... (Score:5, Informative)
Most importantly, though, I noticed a drop in my bill immediately - greater than the cost of the 4 bulbs in one month.
Re:No great loss... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No great loss... (Score:5, Informative)
Some people see 60Hz fluorescent light as a solid white where others see it as a really fast strobe light. Also, as fluorescents age they start 'missing' and have a lower and intermittent Hz.
Like color blindness, if you don't have 'fast' eyes it is hard to believe that the bad fluorescents can make others physically ill when all you see is solid white.
Re:No great loss... (Score:4, Informative)
I hate fluorescent lights because I'm prone to migraines and the constant flickering irritates me. I can tolerate 72hz or 75hz CRT monitors but can still see the flickering. I find 60hz CRT monitors downright painful after a few minutes - but have no problem with televisions. The reason I don't have problems with televisions is that they likely use a higher-persistence phosphor than computer monitors, plus I typically do not typically sit 18" from a television.
Re:No great loss... (Score:5, Interesting)
Physics gets in the way. We won't ever have anything that can replace incandescent bulbs. Discrete spectra will never be the same as a continuous spectrum, and the only way to generate a continuous spectrum is to heat a solid, liquid, or ultra-high pressure gas/plasma up to an extremely high temperature. Oh, yeah, and that's the definition of "incandescence."
Basically, what this law would mean is that instead of fixing the real problem (which is that we don't have enough clean power production and don't have enough power distribution in this state because our power production and distributions is run by a bunch of greedy corporations who are pumping that money into the pockets of the rich instead of recycling it back into infrastructure), instead they pass the buck, creating new problems for other people in the process. Ever try to take photos/video of your family in a house lit by CFLs? It looks like crap.
For that matter, can you imagine what a ban on incandescent bulbs would do to Hollywood? They'd have to move to another state. No, really. They would have to move to another state. While Videssence does make some special floods that are fluorescent (with a much larger number of peaks), my recollection is that they still don't produce colors as vibrant as old-fashioned halogens do. IIRC, the light also doesn't carry as far, so you need more of them, closer to the talent. Works fine for a news set where you can hang them three feet above the always-sitting anchors... not so much for a movie set.
Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see laws requiring manufacturers to come up with solutions that reduce power consumption for electrical appliances and electronics... but mandating the replacement of incandescent bulbs with those damn CFLs is NOT the right way to do it. That's the way to make every remotely sane person order incandescent bulbs by mail order and flip a big bird in the direction of Sacramento, thus resulting in MORE greenhouse gasses from the extra trucking.... So much for their "big savings."
Re:Mee too (Score:5, Informative)
1) CFLs don't typically work well on a dimmer switch or any faulty wiring. I've found two instances of faulty wiring in my home because of constantly blowing CFLs.
2) In Washington State, many companies (Lowes, Fred Meyer) have coupons for $2 off a CFL, up to 8 per person per trip. Albertson's, Lowes, Fred Meyer, Wal-Mart, etc. sometimes have sales with bulbs running about $2 each - free light bulbs! Stock up as you only have to pay the tax on them - comes out to aobut 18 per bulb depending on local tax rates. 3) The CFL coupons are available through various electric companies nationwide - not all areas have them. 4) CFLs contain a starter just like any fluorescent bulb. This is what makes them wear out when used with a dimmer. 5) Be careful about using CFLs near infants and children. The mercury CAN cause significant health issues. CFL, dimmer at night for the night light - can add to the mercury content for a child if the light blows up.
This is the problem with having legislators rule us. They don't always check the facts or dangers but require us to obey.
With electric rates being Federally deregulated in 2008, CFLs help NOW, but when consumption drops, then the electric companies can charge just a little more for less power. Seems like a good idea until you realize you pay just as much for 1/4 the consumption. Ingenious way of raising electric rates.
Re:Mee too (Score:5, Funny)
Just a thought...
Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know if LEDs will work with dimmer switches?
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:4, Informative)
Most dimmer circuits are choppers; they switch the circuit on and off 120 times a second. The fraction of time that the circuit is on increases as the knob is turned.
Anyway, the easily-accessible CFLs are not compatible with dimmer circuits.
That's funny... (Score:3, Informative)
I've replaced old failed dimmer switches that were at least 25 years old, and they were clearly "choppers", not rheostats. I've worked on several very old houses and never come across an actual rheostat.
How a dimmer switch works. (Score:4, Interesting)
Rheostats as the primary means of dimming lights have long since gone away over a 100 years ago. The overwhelming vast majority use a low current potentiometer that sets a time in a simple RC time circuit for a SCR/Triac to switch on on circuit (light bulb). The Triac switches on when the RC circuit charges up to the threshold voltage and remains on until the AC waveform crosses the zero voltage point in its cycle, shutting off the SCR/Triac. Basically, the larger the potentiometer value, the longer the RC charge time is set to, and the shorter duration of time that the circuit is on. Check out a typical circuit diagram [wikipedia.org] on Wikipedia
Incandescent bulbs don't care about this chopping of the AC sine wave, since they are simply heating elements that glow brightly...they can smooth out the flicker somewhat effectively. Fluorescents don't like this at all, since they are the product fluorescing gases from high voltage excitation provided by a transformer. However, dimmable CFL bulbs are available. They pretty much reconstitute the voltage through the use of a solid state ballast (instead of a simple transformer), and adjust the "drive" of the bulb excitation based on the input from the wall switch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent up (Score:3, Informative)
They work, just specific ones: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A dimmer circuit works by varying the line voltage going to the socket. Problem is, typically this power supply isn't going to vary its output voltage in proportion to its input voltage -- it will output 12 volts regardl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
LEDs that work on alternating current do NOT work with dimmer switches.
Last I heard, the "D" in "LED" stands for "diode."
By definition, a diode is a device that allows current to flow in one direction while opposing it in the other direction.
It would seem that it would be therefore impossible to have an LED that truly works on non-rectified alternating current, unless it was running only 50% of the time.
What am I missing? Is it that the term LED is now a misnomer applied to a non-diode technology,
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Some newer AC LEDs meant as replacements for incandescents come bundled with an AC to DC inverter. Various people are selling inverters combined with higher power LEDs, like the Cree or Luxeon 5 watt emitters, packaged into an incadescent sized space.
LEDs aren't quite there yet when it comes to indoor lighting. They make great flashlights, unless you want to see a long way off, but they tend to suck for general interior lighting.
nercury and CFLs (Score:3, Insightful)
besides, all kids have to have access to a source of mercury to play with. if folks were serious about that (and all fluorescents and neon sign lighting has mercury,)
Yes, CLFs have mercury but then the mercury they contain is less than the mercury emitted from coal power plants that produces the electricity needed to light incandescent lights. Unfortunately they are point sources of mercury and the bulbs need to be properly disposed of, and how many places have such programs setup? I bet not many. If
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:4, Insightful)
Its hot there and you probably dont need an extra heat source.
However the idea that incandescants are "bad" is really quite foolish.
They take less energy to produce, are cheaper to produce and easier to dispose of (no heavy metals or polutants)
The down side? atleast 80% of the energy they use goes to heat. Is this really a down side? Many people call this waste heat - but it certainly is not waste if it is doing something useful - like heating your house! I live in england - this means my central heating (electric) is on most of the year - it rarely gets warm enough for it not to be in use.
Also given our latitude in the breif summer that we have it is also lighter much longer into the evening.
This generally means that when the lights are on, the heating is also on. The heating is controlled by a thermostat - so until the room is at a certain temerature, the heaters will be on. If some of that heat is being provided by incandescant bulbs then it just means the heating comes on less.
So that means all the energy is now useful... So given efficiency is useful work out / work in then for the above usage (which is common) incandescant bulbs provide 100% efficiency. Given the cost to produce and the polutants in the so called high efficiency bulbs is it really a good idea to switch?
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Many heating solutions like ground source heat pumps, ventilation heat exchangers, etc, give more heat energy per electrical watt put into the system than lightbulbs. IE, heating your house with waste heat from lightbulbs might take twice as much electricity as running a heat pump. So even if the heat gets used, it's comparative waste.
"it rarely gets warm enough for it not to be in use."
Errr, sounds like you need to up
Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (Score:4, Interesting)
There's also the issue of dimmer switches. Do they make fluorescents that can be dimmed? How can I dim the lights to create a romantic atmosphere if doing so causes the light to burn out?
Then of course there's the color of the light. Most fluorescents give off a freaky white light. But, I know they make fluorescents that have the warmer color like incandescents, so there's no problem there.
No they shouldn't (Score:3, Interesting)
Powering an incandescent bulb is within reason. What's next? No P4s allowed since they waste so much energy too?
Besides banning a particular type of bulb is totally stupid, it would be better to just have regulations on efficiency. As long as we're all being jerks about it just tax inefficient bulbs.
Arrr.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I love the concept, I'm a fan of lower energy usage, and when I've put in new fixtures I tend towards regular flourescent so that I've got the light with the lower bills, but until someone can show me how disposing of a CF bulb every half year is wort
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been very reluctant to convert certain rooms of my house to CFL because of the fact that some CFLs give me problems after a few minutes, some take a few hours before the problem occurs. (Which is particularly importan
Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (Score:5, Funny)
If they want to target something, let them ban electric heaters. People ought to be running P4 servers as space heaters. At least *do* something with all that electricity!
Light bulbs are a lousy source of heat. (Score:5, Informative)
Modern heat pumps have COPs in the 2-4 range for air-coupled units, and higher for water or ground-loop units. A watt of energy pumps 2-4 watts of heat into your house from outside.
And lastly, gas heat doesn't suffer transmission loss to the degree that electricity does, since it is burned on-premises instead of being burned far away, used to make power (at a loss), pumped over transmission lines (at a loss), and *then* made into heat in your house.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's not insightful, it's silly (I think the GP was going for the funny mod). Electrical resistance heating is about the worst you can do for efficiency. Even in the winter, you would be far better off using lower energy bulbs and letting your furnace or heat pump heat your building. Making matters even worse, lightbulbs usually aren't placed correctly f
I don't like this (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The color spectrum is another story; as another poster pointed out, changing or tinting the tube coating can help with this.
Re:I don't like this (Score:5, Funny)
known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.
The dark side of knee-jerk do-gooder-ism (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what ALWAYS happens when someone seizes upon a single good idea and then decides to make it manditory; CFLs save tons of energy, but they contain mercury. The intelligent people who use them know this and dispose of properly; the masses won't, so the "solution" they eliminates mercury emissions from power plants ends up INCREASING mercury in the environment from millions of illegally disposed of CFLs.
In true California fashion, they will probably institute manditory $10 deposits on CFLs as well as creating a massive new lightbulb disposal infrastructure which will use more resources, produce more CO2 and cost billions more than just keeping incandescents.
Re:I don't like this (Score:5, Informative)
With modern fluorescent bulbs, there is no reason not to use them. They come in warm and daylight temperatures now, so they can more closely reproduce a incandescent light or a daylight look. It is interesting to note that proofing tables (for graphic artists, printers, etc) have fluorescent lights in them. This seems to put weight behind the idea that fluorescents *can* produce good light.
Personally, I bought a 68-watt MicroSun [microsun.com] lamp for my main living room to replace the stupid 300-watt Halogen. It's super bright and has a very good color index because it is a Metal Halide bulb.
As far as the law goes.... what happens to the bulb that has been on for 100-years at that firestation in the Bay Area?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do a spin test to get an idea on what the flicker rate is. With modern CFL's I can spin a top and *barely* see a flicker pattern. In corporate lighting with multiple bulbs I cannot see the flicker at all, even *with* a fast spinnin
Re:I don't like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Color Temp (Score:3, Informative)
You may also want to look into Metal Halide bulbs. MH bulbs are like a mini-arclamp. It would be nice if those fast start xenon ones they use in cars could made their way into homes. The only MH fixture I could find wa
No, no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Cool, but what about the mercury? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Cheap CFLs tend to break easily. Cheap CFLs are the only kind the poor can afford. Thus all those who do not have money pouring out of their assholes will be breaking CFLs left and right. How many of those do you think will go into the recycling queue? You can't currently put that kind of thing in your recycling bin, you have to actually take it to the landfill.
This is not a solution to a problem, or even a solution looking for a problem. It's a problem looking for a so
Right idea, wrong method (Score:5, Insightful)
Ban inefficient politicians (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Kind of shortsighted (Score:4, Interesting)
CFLs are nice, and regular incandescent bulbs are on their way out for a number of reasons, but CFLs are far from perfect. Try finding a CFL replacement for a 40 watt chandelier bulb which offers good light without a ballast hum or warm up period for example. I've replaced most of my bulbs with CFLs now, but finding a good replacement for a 40 watt incandescent chandelier type bulb is damn near impossible.
Oh yeah, and CFLs are still expensive as hell, which a lot of people don't like (even though they may save money in the long run). Replacing all the bulbs in my small house cost a few hundred dollars.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they are not. Only the good ones are expensive. My local Grocery Outlet is selling four-packs of ~20W CFLs for $2.00. The dollar store regularly has 1-packs and sometimes 2-packs. Before Grocery Outlet got them, I bought a couple of four-packs at a Friedman Bros. for $5 each.
The problem with CFLs is that the GOOD ones are expensive. The ones that have decent color and don't make noise, that is.
Outlawing incandescents mean
Re:Kind of shortsighted (Score:4, Insightful)
Depending on what they burn in your area to generate electricity, the mercury in the extra fuel needed to produce the extra juice needed to run an incandescent over a fluorescent's lifetime could exceed the mercury in a CFL.
Since those are gas-discharge lamps like fluorescents, I don't think you would ban them when outlawing incandescents.
If you ever find anything, please let me know. I've tried the existing options, and they are very disappointing.
Perhaps mandating a public service notice stuffed in (or printed on) each electric bill would be a better choice than an outright ban.
I repeat, "What about RFI?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that I expect California's legislators to worry about this, even though CA probably has the largest concentration of movie, music, video, and television studios in the country, but what are they going to do to force the manufacturers of fluorescent fixtures (who are largely Chinese companies serving the megabox stores of America nowadays) to clean up their emissions?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I guess HIDs are next (Score:5, Funny)
These homes usually have a very musky odor teamed up with the occaisional U-Haul or Ryder truck parked out front.
What's next? (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps it should be illegal to drive instead of use public transportation? Illegal to drive a car that gets less than 20 mpg, or carries only two people?
Perhaps they should ban CRT monitors and TVs, since flat-panels take up so much less power? Perhaps they should ban TV altogether, since it's a waste of electricity?
Maybe they'll start prosecuting people who take warm showers, or stay in the shower too long.
All you Democrats who complain about the administration's wiretapping, warrantless searches, and other invasions of our privacy, what do you think of this?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This would kill the film industry (Score:3, Interesting)
Better idea (Score:5, Insightful)
Logic, whoda thunkit? (Score:5, Funny)
Thus and so, I recommend that all Californians be unscrewed.
Or screwed some more, I haven't decided yet.
Is Coercion Justified? (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover, the coercive policy will almost certainly fail in its goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Since it takes more energy to construct CFLs, forcing their adoption will generate more CO2 emissions in the short run. History has shown that making a technology more efficient causes people to consume more of it usually to the point that the increased usage offsets the efficiency gains. Contemporary incandescent bulbs are orders of magnitude more efficient than Edison's bulbs yet we certainly do not use less electricity per capita for lighting. I doubt that CFLs will change this fundamental dynamic.
Can we really justify imposing fines or even imprisoning people to enforce a policy that will almost certainly fail and would provide only modest benefit even if it worked perfectly?
Re:Is Coercion Justified? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's necessary to accelerate replacing incandscents with CFLs, because a lot of people either don't care, or simply don't get it. How many offices are left lit all night? How many SUVs do Americans drive? If only people had made more sensible choice, such regulations would never been thought off.
Moreover, the coercive policy will almost certainly fail in its goal of reducing CO2 emissions. Since it takes more energy to construct CFLs, forcing their adoption will generate more CO2 emissions in the short run. Sounds plausible but let's do some simple calculation first. A CFL normally consumes 1/5 to 1/3 power of an equivalent incandescent bulb. Suppose a 60W incandescent bulb has a life span of 2000 hours and the CFL replacing it works twice longer (conservative figures, just for the purpose of illustration). The energy saved would be:
4000 hours * 60W * (1- 0.25) - energy_needed_in_making_one_CFL + 2 * energy_needed_in_making_one_incandescent
The first term comes to 180KW. Even if making one CFL need more energy than making two incandescent, which I highly doubt, the overall result is not likely to be negative or even a small positive. In other words, energy saving by using CFL is a considerably big NET GAIN.
Parent post on /. and the fact it being moderated as interesting actually makes a great example for my first argument - some people either don't care or just don't get it, even in the presence of mounting evidence. It's a really sad thing.
Hmmm... I Don't Know About This (Score:4, Informative)
But just to put people in their place, I want to point out that fluorescent light technology isn't that much newer than incandescents: read this Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] entry on fluorescent lights. They are anywhere from 110+ to at youngest 80 some years old. Frankly, I am putting more stock in LEDs myself. For one thing, if the LED technology is improved, you'd be able to have bulbs that could be tuned to the correct color. Just imagine instead of having a dimmer, you have three RGB sliders that allow you to set the lights to ANY color you want. That's the way it SHOULD be. Aesthetics + efficiency. My personal interior design catch phrase is, "Lighting is EVERYTHING dahling".
save the world (Score:3, Interesting)
What ever happened to efficient packaging (not $ efficiency) - I mean we are already paying 10-20x to get a CFL, give it to me in a recycled box for $.20 more. Be green all the way, not just half way.
Only Logical... (Score:5, Funny)
Up next, I propose manditory minimum sentences of at least five years for people who don't floss (poor dental hygene hurts all of us! Including the children!) And only one of those gosh-darned extremist Libertarians would oppose the reasonable action of sending in a paramilitary SWAT team every time someone leaves their faucet running too long!
And, without a doubt, reading blogs like Slashdot is harmful to your health... it keeps you from being outside and getting exercise! Not to mention the millions of lost man-hours to our economy caused by people reading Slashdot at work. And don't get me started on the energy wasted running the Slashdot servers 24 hours a day, 7 days a week! Only someone totally brainwashed by the Capitalist system to destroy the enviornment, and someone who hates Democracy and Social Welfare to the core, would suggest that we don't criminalize Slashdot!
Thank god for the progressive state of California to realize that personal freedom and individual choice is simply a barrier to be smashed and destroyed in the struggle to make a better world!
Breathtaking hypocricy (Score:4, Insightful)
Here are a few free suggestions. If you strongly feel that CFL should be used instead of incandescant then buy them for your own damn home amd business. If you think it would be a useful application of public funds then propose that the state purchase and distribute CFL's for free or a much reduced price. But don't use the police power of the state to enforce your own fashionable whim of the moment. If this proposal does succeed then good luck dealing with the mercury poisoning.
Re:Wrong target (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Wrong target (Score:5, Interesting)
I use CFLs here at home. Have for years. But the idea of making incandescents illegal is ridiculous.
What will studio photographers do? How about people who are sensitive to the noise many CFLs make? What about legacy fixtures that CFLs don't fit into?
Run a public information campaign instead.
Re:Wrong target (Score:4, Insightful)
Three words:
Bright white LED's.
Re:Wrong target (Score:5, Funny)
Ouch, my wallet!
Re:Wrong target (Score:5, Interesting)
What is with this focus on whether or not I follow some rote process for reducing energy usage? Why not focus on how much I'm actually using?
I average 300 kwh per month and drive a small car
I'm getting tired!! (Score:3, Insightful)
For for God's sake...why not give incentives to do good things, and not ban them or tell me I can or cannot do them!! I don't need the nanny state to protect me from myself or dictate my shopping decisions. Make the new lights tax free! Hey, if they're cheaper, I might try them out. If I want to ride my
Re:Wrong target (Score:5, Funny)
That's 5 words
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wrong target (Score:5, Interesting)
I also think they need to make the local beverage container recycling places take your old CFLs to keep the mercury from leeching into the water tables via the landfills. Maybe even give you a dollar each (of course there would be a CRV-type fee assessed at the time of purchase).
Does kind of make one wonder though, does Lloyd Levine have any friends that own CFL companies. From what I've seen, even though the big guys like GE and Sylvania are starting to enter this space, I more commonly see off-brand companies on display. What a boon it will be for these smaller companies.
Re:Wrong target (Score:4, Insightful)
OT: Smoking Bans (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just a pet peeve of mine, but I get sick of seeing smoking bans rolled in with a bunch of nanny laws which only protect you from yourself and your own stupidity.
SMOKING AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE. There's this little thing called second-hand smoke. I seem to recall it being actually worse than first-hand smoke, since the first-hand smoker at least has a filter.
I'm all for repealing drug laws and such in general - it's none of anybody else's business what you put in your body. But what you put in our, collective air is our, collective business, and as such it is the legitimate domain of state regulation.
And back on topic again... yeah, banning incandescent light bulbs is stupid.
Re:OT: Smoking Bans (Score:4, Insightful)
This is true, and that's why for years, they had bans for smoking in PUBLIC places where smoke would affect a person that had to go there...like a govt. building, DMV..etc. It is not fair to have smoke trapped in a place a person has to go that does not smoke...I agree with you.
However, recent smoking bans have gone too far. Private establishments now, believe it or not, even in New Orleans (last bastion of sin and freewill), will not allow you to smoke in private establishments if serving food is their primary form of business....places that are primarily restaurants.
I say this is WRONG. If a proprietor wants to allow smoking in his place, then those that prefer not to smoke...can either deal with it, or take their hard earned dollars elsewhere.
There were restaurants around before this bad that had no smoking allowed. I've had dates that smoked, and felt they didn't want to go there since they couldn't light up...so, it works both ways.
Now that the ban is in effect....choice that was there before, has been taken away. The nanny state has won another battle.
I argue that this IS like other situations you mentioned where this does affect the individual...before the ban, an individual could decide whether to work at or be a patron at and establishment that allowed smoking on premise...now, that personal choice is taken away.
For reference, I'm a recently reformed smoker myself...and not having any smokers around IS easier for me...but, I'd rather have others have the choice than my having less temptation.
You can still smoke in bars and casinos, and the street down here....but, how much longer till they try to regulate that? Smoking is still a legal activity...if they want to ban smoking, then try to make cigarettes illegal? Why not protect everyone? See? That just doesn't make sense either....at least not to me.
I say that state really shouldn't be the business of protecting people from themselves.....
Re:OT: Smoking Bans (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it is....remember seeing the signs (not as often displayed these days) saying they reserved the right to refuse to serve anyone..? No shoes, no shirt, no service?
It is publically accesible...but, it is a private place of business.
When there is no ban...EVERYONE has a choice of whether to go there as a patron, or an employee. No one holds a gun to anyone's head forcing them in the door to stay.
With smoking bans....there is no choice.
And in the US at least, freedom to choose is supposed to be one of the highest tennets (sp?).
Re:OT: Smoking Bans (Score:4, Insightful)
My complaints about smoke are mostly in public places. Particularly, I would like to see smoking banned in the usual sense of "in public", as in, out on the street. I'm sick of walking through clouds of other people's smoke just by walking through a crowded public place (a busy street, a university campus, etc). Smoking on the street is just like urinating on the sidewalk; no, it's not going to kill you, but it's mildly unhealthy and rather disgusting and people shouldn't be allowed to pollute our public spaces like that.
As to smoking in private establishments, I think the urine example segues there nicely to a quote I saw here on Slashdot somewhere. It was something like "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool." Would you (presuming "you" are generally opposed to state intervention) be OK with someone operating a privately-owned but open-to-the-public swimming pool in which people were freely allowed to urinate, even so far as having a "peeing section" so as to minimize offense to the non-pissers? I imagine most of you would say "no", and I know the health department sure would. The same sort of reasoning seems applicable to smoking in public restaurants. I guess I'm theoretically OK with a "smoking establishment", i.e. a place where people go primarily to smoke, inasmuch as I'd be OK with a golden-shower-fetish porn studio or brothel (that is to say, I think both are gross, but if everyone there is OK with it, and it's not spilling out into public, go right ahead).
Continuing the analogy further, I'd say the same line of reasoning applies to smoking in the home too, if you have children or other such dependents. If you own your own home and you want to piss on the carpet in the living room, then you do that, have fun. But if you've got kids, who are dependent on you and stuck in that environment - or say, if you rent a room in your house to someone - then I think most people would agree that creating that sort of unhealthy squalor is grounds for having your kids taken out of that environment, or grounds for your tenants to file legal complaints against you. Same thing for smoking.
Now I know a bunch of smokers are going to say, "but that leaves practically nowhere left to smoke!" Tough. Smoking is not something you biologically need to do, and it's not a right (in the sense of a claim right; it's within your right to liberty rights to smoke, provided you're not doing anything else wrong by it). Have "smoke rooms" like bathrooms, with ventilation systems like a bathroom's plumbing (bars might be good candidates for conversion into places like this); or smoke when you're out in the middle of nowhere and nobody is going to be offended by it, like pissing behind a bush in the country. Yeah, I know these rules would make it hard for you to find a place to smoke with the way things are set up now. But that's not the intention (I honestly don't care what you do with your own body), it's just a side-effect of keeping you from polluting other peoples' air space. If that makes it a little harder for you to support your addiction, tough shit, if you'll pardon my french.
Also, as a sidenote: the bit about second hand smoke being worse than first hand smoke is just something I recall hearing. Whether or not it's true is not relevant to my point.
And, once again back on topic... if the government wants to regulate energy usage, it should do so by REGULATING ENERGY USAGE. Rather, it should impose fines for causing the negative side-effects of producing energy, which would raise the price of energy, and reduce it's usage. But banning a class of products is the wrong way to go about it. I'm not advocating a tobacco tax or a ban on cigarettes - just making it illegal to smoke in certain circumstances, like it's illegal to piss in some circumstances. Outright banning of products is usually a bass-ackwards way to go about achieving your real goals.
Re:Wrong target (Score:4, Insightful)
Raise the taxes on incandescent, reducing taxes on LED and CFLs.
Re:Somewhat pointless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Try a new one (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As to your turn signal, there are obviously applications (like blinking lights) that are terrible for CF. And good for LED, which
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too bad CFLs are LESS effecient in some cases (Score:4, Informative)