Light bulbs ban

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Well a couple of comments:
- the key word is phasing out. It would be kinda pointless to replace perfectly working filament bulbs. But when they die and you need to replace it, might as well go with the energy-efficient ones.
- the light is indeed different, but it's mainly a question of being accustomed to it. We used to not like it but now we don't even notice it anymore.
- I'm not sure about the extra energy thing, but to be honest I would be surprised if light bulbs made any sort of meaningful contribution to the average heat of your place. They however last longer so they're more efficient and cost-saving in the long run.
- if changing to a different type of light bulb is too difficult because "it's not what I'm used too, waaah waaaah", then this world is doomed.

You can still use the old filament bulbs, you just won't be able to buy them anymore. I know at least one person who plans on buying them en masse to spite the Red Menace of our government. Extra kudos if you figure out who that person is.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

On ebay you can buy a box of 25 cfls 23w=100w for $27.99

 

[Masquerouge]

You can still use the old filament bulbs, you just won't be able to buy them anymore. I know at least one person who plans on buying them en masse to spite the Red Menace of our government. Extra kudos if you figure out who that person is.

Is it...

Conservative poster #1?

Conservative poster #2?

Conservative poster #3?

Or, more surprisingly (especially to him)... administrative poster #4?

Find out... right after the break!



I don't really understand how you can hate a light bulb.

 

[LucyDuke]

I bet it's ama.

 

[Zelig]

I don't really understand how you can hate a light bulb.

They're liberal bulbs.

 

[Narz]

Anything that contains mercury sucks?

Anything as fragile as a lightbulb, yes. Fluesents also produce an unpleasant light compared to LED's.

Fun fact, you know how when you look up at the sun it helps you sneeze? Well, I can make myself sneeze looking at an LED light too but not flueresent or incandesent (sp). I don't know the explination for it but I thought it was intereesting.

 

[LucyDuke]

Fun fact, you know how when you look up at the sun it helps you sneeze?

Fun fact... looking at the sun blinds you. Don't do it!

 

[El_Machinae]

It probably was a bit of shorthand, intending to say a CFL drawing 23watts produces the same amount of light (which isn't measured in watts in any case) as an incandescent bulb drawing 100watts, which is true or at least in the mathematical ballpark.

I found that the "watt system" really helped when I was switching. Heck, we've all grown up knowing what 40w, 60w, and 100w bulbs were like. It's a convenient way of making a parallel.


And a quick tidbit: CFLs are damaged a little bit by turning them on & off (though not nearly as much as the older bulbs). If a light is going to be turned back on in 15 minutes (or less), it's cheaper in the long run to keep the CFL on.

 

[Mandeville]

CFLS are not as fragile as an incandescent bulb. They will not break nearly as easily, in fact in 4 years of using them I havnt had one break. They're in the washroom too so they can be exposed to water and moisture.

Know what kind of light bothers me? The fake blue eye melting lights that Americans have installed en masse in their vehicles. I guess we should use the 70s bingo parlor yellow incandescent smoke lights you all love instead.

 

[Zelig]

Anything as fragile as a lightbulb, yes.

What are you doing with your lightbulbs? The houses I've lived in for the past 15 years have been almost exclusively CFL lighting, and I've never seen a single CFL broken.

 

[DNK]

I tend to think that banning Incandescent bulbs is a bad idea. I'd prefer taxing them enough to bring their initial purchase prices up to the the same or slightly higher level as CFLs seems reasonable.

Exactly. I have no problem with this. It's simple, makes sense, and doesn't distort the market since it's just taxing the lights to bring their market cost up to their total cost to the public on account of GW.

Well, taxing them appropriately, not necessarily up to the cost of CFLs.

So, who wants to guess why the government would rather just start banning stuff and making complicated allowance schemes instead of the simple, efficient method?

Vegan?

All the outlawing is stupid. I'm just sayin' candles ain't always fossil fuels.

The glow of a computer monitor?

Both technically, yes. Vegan = no beeswax.

 

[Masquerouge]

So, who wants to guess why the government would rather just start banning stuff and making complicated allowance schemes instead of the simple, efficient method?
Both technically, yes. Vegan = no beeswax.

I'm pretty certain a ban is much more simpler to devise and implement than "taxing the lights to bring their market cost up to their total cost to the public on account of GW. Well, taxing them appropriately, not necessarily up to the cost of CFLs."

 

[Alpine Trooper]

So, who wants to guess why the government would rather just start banning stuff and making complicated allowance schemes instead of the simple, efficient method?

In many parts of the United States and Canada, toilets that use thirteen litres (3.4 US gallon / 2.8 imperial gallon) or more to flush have been banned in favor of toilets using six litres (1.6 US gallons / 1.3 imperial gallons) or less.

The EVIL GOVERNMENT!!

 

[DNK]

I'm pretty certain a ban is much more simpler to devise and implement than "taxing the lights to bring their market cost up to their total cost to the public on account of GW. Well, taxing them appropriately, not necessarily up to the cost of CFLs."

It's not a strict ban, though. And it's still distorting the market. The other option requires deciding how bad the things actually are (which I assume they've done) and taxing them accordingly. It doesn't distort the market (exceptionally) and it still gives people the freedom to choose how to light their homes.

In many parts of the United States and Canada, toilets that use thirteen litres (3.4 US gallon / 2.8 imperial gallon) or more to flush have been banned in favor of toilets using six litres (1.6 US gallons / 1.3 imperial gallons) or less.

The EVIL GOVERNMENT!!

You're right actually, I retract my previous statements. We shouldn't be banning or taxing toilets or light bulbs. If there's a problem with excessive water usage, we should be taxing water, same with electricity. If 1KW/h of electricity does $2 of "damage", then add a $2 tax. People are free to then choose what sort of toilet they want given the increased cost of usage. This is actually the argument I normally adopt, I guess I forgot about it until you mentioned that.

So, being obnoxious aside, what was your argument since you didn't actually make one? Glad I could make it for you

 

[luiz]

Most brazilians switched during an energy crisis we had on the late 90's, when energy prices rose sharply. The conclusion was, savings are not guaranteed. It depends on the use you give to the fluorescent bulbs. If they're for places that keep them on most of the time - like, say, restaurants - then indeed they last longer and save energy. But in places where you will turn them on and off frequently - like, say, a bathroom - they will last much shorter and the costs of constantly replacing them will far exceed the energy savings. Stick to the incandescent ones for such uses.

In my apartment, for example, switching was clearly a bad move. Every other month I have to replace some of those fluorescent lights and they're not cheap. I wish I had not paid attention to the official campaign.

 

[IglooDame]

I found that the "watt system" really helped when I was switching. Heck, we've all grown up knowing what 40w, 60w, and 100w bulbs were like. It's a convenient way of making a parallel.

Agreed. I'm unfamiliar with lumens or candlepower ratings as well.

And a quick tidbit: CFLs are damaged a little bit by turning them on & off (though not nearly as much as the older bulbs). If a light is going to be turned back on in 15 minutes (or less), it's cheaper in the long run to keep the CFL on.

Might you have a link that explains this in detail? If CFLs are not damaged as much as older bulbs, only use perhaps a fifth of the electrical energy, and with older bulbs "startup surge" was a myth and it was thought that unless you were turning it off for less than a few seconds you should leave it on, I don't quite understand the logic.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Is it...

Spoiler :

Conservative poster #1?

Conservative poster #2?

Conservative poster #3?

Or, more surprisingly (especially to him)... administrative poster #4?

Find out... right after the break!



I don't really understand how you can hate a light bulb.

You should've picked Door Number 5:

 

[Masquerouge]

You should've picked Door Number 5:

Darn! No kudos for me

 

[sonorakitch]

We've covered this in a thread a while back and I still think the ban is asinine.

I have fancy low voltage lighting everywhere and I pay my power bill. If the gov't wants to keep me from burning my lv 4" can lights and wasting energy, they can raise my rates and further the solar credit. Then, I will put panels on the garage roof which is flat with a 2' parapet, and I will collect the money from APS that my solar array pumps back into the grid. All the while I can still enjoy my fancy low voltage lighting everywhere and don't have to put up with installing god awful light fixtures and put in flourescent garbage through the house.

Makes more sense than "banning" something. It is ridiculous.

~Chris

 

[luiz]

We've covered this in a thread a while back and I still think the ban is asinine.

I have fancy low voltage lighting everywhere and I pay my power bill. If the gov't wants to keep me from burning my lv 4" can lights and wasting energy, they can raise my rates and further the solar credit. Then, I will put panels on the garage roof which is flat with a 2' parapet, and I will collect the money from APS that my solar array pumps back into the grid. All the while I can still enjoy my fancy low voltage lighting everywhere and don't have to put up with installing god awful light fixtures and put in flourescent garbage through the house.

Makes more sense than "banning" something. It is ridiculous.

~Chris

Yes, banning is indeed ridiculous. Even Brasil, that has a ban-happy government, and went through a massive energy shortage in the late 90's, didn't ban any sort of bulbs. The government just raised the tax for people who used over a certain ammount of energy, which is the sensible, pigovian thing to do.

Banning is the moronic, senseless approach.