I so hate this state sometimes... First it was spanking now they want to ban light bulbs. Who's electing these people? I know no one I vote for ever wins so it's not me.
Can't we just let people have a little freedom of choice?
Posted by brojack17 (Member # 9189) on :
Typical government.
"Let's make every decision for them"
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While I'm sympathetic to the whole freedom of choice thing, I'm not really seeing a practical downside to the legislation.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I just like the name:
The "How many legislators does it take to change a lightbulb" bill.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*giggles*
You know this will just create an illegal trade in lightbulbs.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: *giggles*
You know this will just create an illegal trade in lightbulbs.
I can see it now...incandescent bulbs being run across the mexican border, ingested in condoms...
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
It says "California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine" and the article gives no mention of how much support it has or whether the bill will pass, so why get upset over something where the likelihood of whether the bill will pass or not is not even mentioned?
Besides, it makes sense to me to stop using conventional lightbulbs given how they waste energy compared to the newer lightbulbs. I've already switched to the newer ones at my house, anyway. It's really not that surprising, especially in California, where economically friendly legislation passes pretty often. I don't think it's a matter of choice; it's about how the California government wants our state to be a good place to live in, where the air is clean and people can actually grow up healthy because they don't have to breathe smog filled air from industrial plants or cars.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: While I'm sympathetic to the whole freedom of choice thing, I'm not really seeing a practical downside to the legislation.
I preferentially use compact fluorescents, and I still think this law is a dumb idea. And not just because of the inevitable lightbulb black market. (*snicker*) Encouraging people to use the compact fluorescents (maybe by subsiding them so they're not so bloody expensive) would be good. Forcing them?
Dumb.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think it's a matter of choice; it's about how the California government wants our state to be a good place to live in, where the air is clean and people can actually grow up healthy because they don't have to breathe smog filled air from industrial plants or cars.
That's why it's a nice state to live in. If you love conventional lightbulbs so much, you really don't have to live in California if they really do get banned.
We're talking about the California that has L.A. in it, right?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I actually use the "government approved" light bulbs because I'm cheap. But they're not as good as a regular incandescent bulb. They don't give out as much light and it's not as.... clear? pretty? nice?... It's not as good of a light.
There are rooms where I want incandescent bulbs. Like in the bathroom where I put on makeup. That's not a place for 2nd rate light. I'm unattractive enough without not being able to see as I put on my face.
I'm just pissed that they make every little thing illegal. This guy is getting PAID to sit there and come up with this nonsensical crap to govern every little aspect of our life.
These are the people tho declared Zinc to be "Toxic waste" If you drop a penny, you're spreading toxic wasting. Other places it's fertilizer, here it's toxic waste.
Mr Levine is going to go back to his constituants and brag about how he fought for the environment on the basis of this stupid bill. After he's re-elected, he's gonna find something else to ban. Last time he was elected, he started requiring supermarkets to recycle plastic bags. (not like most of them didn't do it already. But now they *MUST*)
Maybe the Libertarian party was on to something when they talked about the Ferret ban. Because it never stops. They will eventually ban something you like.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Encouraging people to use the compact fluorescents (maybe by subsiding them so they're not so bloody expensive) would be good. Forcing them?
Dumb.
They're just a dollar or two more and last a lot longer?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:We're talking about the California that has L.A. in it, right?
Hey, L.A. is MUCH better than it used to be. And it's not our fault we have all the awesome mountains and valleys and are right next to the ocean (all contributing factors to smog.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
SS: And they use less power. Which is important here in california where power costs 1 finger per kilowatt-hour.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think it's a matter of choice; it's about how the California government wants our state to be a good place to live in, where the air is clean and people can actually grow up healthy because they don't have to breathe smog filled air from industrial plants or cars.
Of course it's a matter of choice. You think choosing incandescent lightbulbs is a bad choice, so you think people shouldn't be allowed to make it. You've advanced some arguments to support your contention that this choice should be removed from people and prohibited by law. Trying to sell someone on the idea that there's no matter of choice involved in this bill weakens your other arguments.
I wonder if this would be preempted federally if it passes.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:They're just a dollar or two more and last a lot longer?
Conventional lightbulbs: $1-2 for a box of four
Compact fluorescents: $5-10 (on sale, sometimes $3 or less) EACH
But I still buy the compact fluorescents. And they don't always last longer -- I replaced one a month ago, and it blew Friday. (Right before I had guests coming and with no spares in the apartment, natch.) But I buy them, for a variety of reasons.
That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to make another choice! Especially since for some things, it's important to have the more intense incandescent light.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Subsidizing incandescent bulbs is an even a dumber idea, which is what is occuring presently.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
Politicians were first developed thousands of years ago. I think we need some major modifications to them too.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Subsidizing incandescent bulbs is an even a dumber idea, which is what is occuring presently.
How are they being subsidized?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Subsidizing incandescent bulbs is an even a dumber idea, which is what is occuring presently.
Why do you say that? They're extremely inexpensive to make.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Yeah, although these bulbs are more expensive, they last significantly longer.
The one downside I can see is that they take a bit of time to brighten to full intensity. However, even if you have the main light an old light bulb (so if you're just in for a second you can see immediately) and every other one in your room an incandescent light bulb... you're still doing everyone a favour.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Compact fluorescents: $5-10 (on sale, sometimes $3 or less) EACH
Maybe I"m thinking of different light bulbs than what's under discussion....
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator:
quote:"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
Politicians were first developed thousands of years ago. I think we need some major modifications to them too.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
This seems like an excellent law to me, actually.
I have libertarian leanings (although I think the party is a bunch of nut cases), so I have pretty strict criterion for evaluating laws. (One of these days, I should quantify that.) I abhor laws that try to stop me from hurting myself. This includes seat belt laws, for example.
But it is the responsibility of the government to step in when the community as a whole is in need. When there is a water shortage, the citizens have to accept restrictions on how much water they can use. California has been having power problems for a long time now. Their power plants have been unable to handle their huge population (hence the rolling blackouts) and just as they have had to ration water, so now they must find a way to ration electricity.
It is harder to quantify electrical use than it is to quantify water use. It seems to me that this law is just one specific way to ration electricity in a way that people can understand. Incandescent light bulbs are a huge drain compared to other more energy efficient options.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon:
quote: Compact fluorescents: $5-10 (on sale, sometimes $3 or less) EACH
Maybe I"m thinking of different light bulbs than what's under discussion....
One problem I've had with the flourescent bulbs is with dimming them. I've got some of my lights hooked up by X10 and when I tried dimming a flourescent bulb, it killed it. It dimmed down to nothing and would never light up again. It made me cry.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Seat belt laws are to prevent a drain on medical resources -- many of which impact state coffers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do the energy costs take into account the energy used to make the bulb? These CFLs have solid-state electronics. I assume they're pretty basic given the low price, but I thought it was pretty energy intensive to make those components. The longer life (although I've hear many anecdotes of shorter life) and 75% energy savings give a decent opportunity to amortize increased costs. I have no idea which way it comes out.
Anyone know if the analysis has been done?
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
I don't think it makes sense for people to get that upset because they can't choose to use conventional lightbulbs; it really makes no difference. If it bothers people so much to not be able to use energy guzzling lightbulbs that limits the energy supply for everyone else in the state, they can write to their congressmen complaining about how much it will annoy them that they can't buy the type of lightbulb they like. Because it's just that important.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator: One problem I've had with the fluorescent bulbs is with dimming them. I've got some of my lights hooked up by X10 and when I tried dimming a fluorescent bulb, it killed it. It dimmed down to nothing and would never light up again. It made me cry.
Regular compact fluorescents (ok, I'm getting tired of typing that -- needs an abbreviation) cannot be dimmed. You need special (more expensive) one to allow that option.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
One of my big problems with this law is that while CFLs last long enough that the investment is worth the money (and the light quality is so much better!), there are many applications for light bulbs that put them at a high risk of breaking. I have a bedside lamp that I break the bulb in all the time, because I like having something to read by while lying in bed, but can be a violent sleeper. My desk lamp bulbs never burn out; they break first.
There are a number of similar situations, where light bulbs need to be exposed to breaking in order to be used. The replacement cost on CFLs is so much higher that I never use one in my desk lamp. Forcing them upon someone who has to have light bulbs in places they might get broken is pretty brutal.
Because seriously, do you want to be the one to tell the low income single mother of five rambunctious kids that every time one of her kids knocks a lamp over and breaks the bulb, she has to shell out $5-10, instead of $0.25 to $0.65?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I use the florescent bulbs, but they do have problems. They don't last nearly as long as the claims. They usually don't outright burn out soon (although I've had that happen several times, similar to what Rivka described), but they tend to get dimmer as time goes on. If you live in a house with inadequate or marginal lighting already, they can be a big (and expensive) pain.
quote:And it's not our fault we have all the awesome mountains and valleys and are right next to the ocean (all contributing factors to smog.)
Um, yes it is. Y'all chose to live next to the awesome valleys and mountains and ocean and smog.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I couldn't wait to move out of my parents' house and get my own place, so I could use incandescent light bulbs everywhere. Fluorescent light bulbs (I am told) do not emit red light particles, which inhibit the body's production of melatonin. This makes it harder to stay awake in rooms with fluorescent light bulbs. Anecdotally, I find myself more easily depressed, in a "seasonal affective disorder" kind of way, when I am surrounded by non-incandescent lights. Finally, pedagogical research indicates that students learn better when there is a source of incandescent light in the room somewhere.
Yeah, I see downsides here. I understand why CA is looking into this, especially given their energy issues, but I do see downsides as well.
Personally, I favor free-market solutions to things like this. Through my conscious choice to use incandescent light bulbs, I know I pay more in electricity. (This is why my father replaced them all with fluorescent bulbs when I was a kid.) If that difference grew more and more substantial, because fluorescents were really that much less wasteful, more and more people would rethink their choice. Similarly, if fluorescents became cheaper to manufacture, through increased production or improved technology, people would consider changing their choices. As it is, I am unconvinced of their efficacy, given that the savings in energy costs are relatively minor.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Because seriously, do you want to be the one to tell the low income single mother of five rambunctious kids that every time one of her kids knocks a lamp over and breaks the bulb, she has to shell out $5-10, instead of $0.25 to $0.65?
If your kids are knocking over lamps that often then you've got bigger problems than how expensive the light bulbs are!
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Have you considered getting a overhead light connected to a Clapper? It pretty dangerous to keep on breaking light bulbs, especially when it's right by your bed.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
By requiring only the use of more expensive light bulbs it is the most blatant attempt to keep the poor in the dark.
Posted by jh (Member # 7727) on :
Isn't it the point that the newer blubs last longer but cost more in the beginning so in the long run you're actually saving money?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Because seriously, do you want to be the one to tell the low income single mother of five rambunctious kids that every time one of her kids knocks a lamp over and breaks the bulb, she has to shell out $5-10, instead of $0.25 to $0.65?
If your kids are knocking over lamps that often then you've got bigger problems than how expensive the light bulbs are!
...duh?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by jh: Isn't it the point that the newer blubs last longer but cost more in the beginning so in the long run you're actually saving money?
That's the theory. In practice, it's pretty much a wash, IME.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I haven't kept a tally, but from my experiences using them, I have doubts that they really save money.
Posted by -Xan- (Member # 10091) on :
Obviously this a conspiricy to make the light in our houses more durable to that of aliens, Do you really think it has anything to do with energy, or pollution.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
The point isn't to save people money, is it? The point is to ration electricity. There may be better ways to do it, but this seems like a reasonable suggestion, at least. Perhaps instead of complaining about not being able to use our favorite kinds of light bulbs, we should try to come up with alternatives.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
quote:I have a bedside lamp that I break the bulb in all the time, because I like having something to read by while lying in bed, but can be a violent sleeper.
I could see broken light bulbs being the least of your problems if you ever get married.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by zgator:
quote:I have a bedside lamp that I break the bulb in all the time, because I like having something to read by while lying in bed, but can be a violent sleeper.
I could see broken light bulbs being the least of your problems if you ever get married.
Again: duh? Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Christine, this is precisely the time to be a libertarian. If the advantages were so amazing, protecting your pocketbook would drive you to get fluorescents with no law being necessary.
erosomniac, as I indicated, the light quality for a fluorescent is not better.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Icarus, I am not saying that there is an amazing PERSONAL advantage to using fluorescent over incandescent. I have never suggested that there is. There may be some small advantage, but I couldn't care less. Libertarian ideals fail when personal benefits and societal benefits clash. I believe there may be a great SOCIETAL benefit to this law, which means that no, libertarianism will not work here.
Added: This is also where I diverge from the Libertarian Party. I think they go too far and don't always understand that a benefit to the person is not always a benefit to society.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
It'd also be extremely inexpensive to toss your garbage into your neigbor's yard. And if half the people did that, the concientious half would still foot the full bill for garbage pickup by paying twice as much for their weekly collection.
Same thing with electricity bills, or for that matter gasoline prices, except the total bill increases cuz marginal production costs skyrocket. And the concientious power user pays more per unit than s/he would if the wasters utilized power more efficiently.
The wasters also see that increase. But there would be no need for such marginal production if wasters ceased wasting. *TANSTAAFL* Since the wasters don't pay for the full cost of that marginal increase in power production, the concientious users are subsidizing the wasteful users.
*ThereAin'tNoSuchThingAsAFreeLunch*
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I disagree in this case, Christine, even though I'm not always a libertarian. I imagine the benefit to society must be proportional to the benefit to me. I can't think of a good reason why it wouldn't be. And if the benefit to me is notable but not overwhelming, I remain unconvinced it is otherwise for society. Or is the cost of my energy not in line with the scarcity of the supplies used to make it and the damage done by the process? (I wouldn't mind seeing some hard numbers to inform this debate. Maybe after I get home tonight I'll look into it.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In rationing situations, I far prefer quantitative limits rather than use limits. If electricity needs to be rationed, then limit it by person. Fine or even cut off those who exceed their ration.
But, within that limit, let individuals decide how they want to allocate their share of the resource.
I can't use a CRT monitor in a room lit by flourescents - it gives me a headache in about 2 minutes.
If I want to forego air conditioning or set my heat very low in order to have the light I want, that should be my choice within the ration limits that have to be imposed.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
aspectre, that's a ridiculous analogy.
Does anybody want to address the benefits of incandescent light?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ya know, rather than making us accept inferior light, we could build more (nuclear) power plants... You know... rather than making our lives less pleasent by degrees.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
There's a thought.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Icarus -- I, too, would like to see the full cost analysis including the manufacture of the light bulbs. I would also like to know exactly how much this would benefit society. That could definitely sway my opinion. I am, of course, working on the assumption that it could drastically reduce state energy consumption and minimize or end the blackouts.
Dagonee -- I think that would be a much better idea if it is practical to implement. The trouble is that I'm not sure the average person would understand when they had to turn the lights out unless the lights went out for them. I don't have a meter inside my house and I don't have any practical notion of how much my energy consumption costs.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ya know, rather than making us accept inferior light, we could build more (nuclear) power plants... You know... rather than making our lives less pleasent by degrees.
It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant so that isn't a realistic short term solution.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Christine: when was the last time we had a blackout?
Rabbit: We'd better hop to it then!
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Rivka,
Perhaps I am misreadking, but the link you gave lists the bulbs as $99?
Wal-Mart's site says 2 to 3 for one, which has been my experience.
Now, I grant you that this is still more expensive than regular bulbs, but I dont' see it as significantly so.
I grant you that the other issues that you and Icarus have raised are significant.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
pixie: It was August 2005.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Storm, that was for 24 bulbs.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Ah, I see.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Stormy, it's also a LOOOONG way to Wal-mart where I live. Not that I would shop there even if it wasn't. Which is probably why it's so far.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KQ: It's always so incredibly crowded at Wal*Mart. I can see why you wouldn't want to shop there.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Well to start with, Icarus, your understanding of SeasonalAffectiveDisorder is wrong.
As well as a shorter period of light per day during the winter, the light spectrum is redder because the Sun is lower on the horizon and thus travels through more atmosphere to get to you. In summer, the spectrum is bluer because the Rayleigh scattering is lessened due to the shorter distance that sunlight has to travel through the atmosphere. SAD is treated by imitating summer lighting: ie increased exposure to light on the blue-end of the spectrum. Hence the use of tanning lamps in the original treatments.
A 14watt fluorescent bulb puts out the same amount of light as an 80watt incandescent bulb. That 66watts of extra energy wasted by the incandescent bulb is turned into heat energy, as photons in the infrared region with some transfered from the heated bulb itself to the air through conduction&convection. While you may be getting more red light from an incandescent, that is due to the choice that the manufacturer makes inregards to the coating used on the interior of the bulb.
The photons produced by the ionization itself within fluorescent bulbs produces a spectrum centered in the ultraviolet region. Which is converted into white light by the thin layer coating the interior of the glass. The ratio of red to blue within that white light is controlled by the coating that the manufacturer chooses to use.
[ January 31, 2007, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Yes.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Sure. You are starting to see LightEmittingDiode lighting systems being sold as replacement for fluorescents. Significantly higher efficiency leading to reduction in electricity cost, especially because waste heat has to be paid for twice: once in producing that heat, and again to remove that extra heat to cool off the building.
LED lighting is still marginal on the financial bottom line: ie contemplatable mostly because they have an extremely long lifetime even compared to fluorescents, and large enterprises have to pay out moolah for worker time to replace burned out bulbs.
[ January 31, 2007, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Yes, although the costs would be accordingly high to account for the decrease in repeat business. This is likely a large part of why CFLs are so expensive.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I actually use the "government approved" light bulbs because I'm cheap. But they're not as good as a regular incandescent bulb. They don't give out as much light and it's not as.... clear? pretty? nice?... It's not as good of a light.
There are rooms where I want incandescent bulbs. Like in the bathroom where I put on makeup. That's not a place for 2nd rate light. I'm unattractive enough without not being able to see as I put on my face.
Okay, I'm late to the party. But there's been some discussion of light quality between incandescent and fluorescent light, and this is something that can be (and has been) quantified.
Light quality has two metrics*: color temperature and color rendering index (CRI). Start with color temperature -- this ranges (in this example) from about 2000 degrees** (warm light) up to about 8000 degrees (cool light). Warm light has more red tones, and cool light has more blue tones. If you look at the spectral density graphs for incandescent bulbs (2700K) and fluorescent (4100K), they're pretty much the inverse of one another. In other words, incandescent makes a white shirt look orange-ish, and an CF makes it look blue-ish (though without looking at the same shirt under two different lights side by side you won't be able to tell -- it'll just look white).
Every light source has a unique spectral density graph. The benchmark, of course, is sunlight. Sunlight has a color temp of 6000K and a CRI of 100 (obviously). Some of the other common lighting sources (besides the two being discussed here) are high pressure sodium (these are the lights everyone knows as the yellow parking lot lights), and metal halide (the really bright white stadium lights).
Okay, so color temperature is one way to discuss the light quality. The other, more important way, is the CRI. This is a percent that represents how accurately the light source displays all the colors in a visual spectrum. A really good light source will have a CRI in the low 90s. Your typical high pressure sodium light will have a CRI of 22 (the common anecdote here is that under this lighting you can't distinguish between blood and oil). Typical 4' fluorescents (think: WalMart) have a CRI in the mid-60s (put one of these in your closet and you'll find you grabbed one black sock and one blue sock, thinking they were the same color). Most consumer level CFL's have a CRI in the mid-80s (which is pretty good). Incandescent bulbs have a CRI of 100. They do an exceptional job of rendering subtle color differences. This doesn't change the fact that everything you view under a warm light is slightly orange-tinted -- that's why they evaluate the CRI and color temp separately.
So, CFL are actually more similar to sunlight in temperature, but a lot of people dislike them for home use. I think this is partially because of their (relatively) poor CRI, but mainly because everyone's used to the warmth you get from incandescent lights. Fluorescents can be hard on the eyes, and they've been linked to migraines and eye fatigue.
Whereas incandescent lights are much cheaper, provide a warmer light source with a better CRI, but are fantastically inefficient.
I personally use CFL wherever they fit. Because fluorescent lights require a ballast they don't always fit in a standard A19 socket. I've had good luck with the lightlife, and I like the energy savings.
*The third metric of lighting design, and the most commonly talked about one, is footcandle level. This refers strictly to the light intensity; not the quality. As an aside, the higher the quality of the light, the lower the intensity needs to be.
**Color temp is measured in degrees K, and is essentially measured by comparing the hue of the filament to the hue of a metal rod heated to that temperature. This is estimated for all other light sources, which don't have filaments. So the terms 'warm' and 'cool' refer to the spectral density and not the actual temperatures.
quote:I am, of course, working on the assumption that it could drastically reduce state energy consumption and minimize or end the blackouts.
Lighting accounts for roughly 10 - 30% of all electricity usage (depending on the area of the country and the time of year, among other things). So don't assume cutting the lighting bill will reduce blackouts. You can have on every light in your house and probably not draw as much current as your computer and television do.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
That was a great post, JT. Thanks.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Well to start with, Icarus, your understanding of SeasonalAffectiveDisorder is wrong.
I have no idea how you could make such an evaluation, given that I didn't make any statement here about SAD. I stated that exclusively fluorescent lighting produced in me symptoms similar to those described by SAD sufferers. I also alluded to educational research indicating that students learn better when there is an incandescent light source in the room.
Next you'll tell Dagonee he doesn't understand the causes of headaches . . .
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: I just like the name:
The "How many legislators does it take to change a lightbulb" bill.
They should have called it the "We're not the brightest bulbs" bill.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't necessarily have a problem with the bell, assuming the monetary savings are real. I see flourescent bulbs on Amazon for $3 a bulb (you might want to check it out riv, if you're spending any more than that).
If there really are health concerns, like migraines/eyestrain and such, then I think it's a stupid bill. Maybe they could just limit it to commercial venues (office buildings)?
The savings look real though. We use a mix of flourescent and incandescent in my house. I find that the CFL bulbs really do last something like 10 times longer (not always) than incandescent bulbs. If your average incandescent bulb is $.30, then the price itself is a wash, if you measure it out over the life of the bulb.
Then the savings comes in the form of a lower energy bill. Appx. 20% of your home energy costs are from lighting, and CFL bulbs can cut wattage from 75watts down to 13watts whill still producing the same brightness. That's about 83% less energy being used to light your home, which lowers your actual electric bill by 16.6% on a monthly basis, and better yet, it's just plain less energy being used. That's real money. Of course that all depends on whether or not the estimates for how long these things should last are real. But for everyone here saying that if something is cheaper people will buy it, well, people can be stupid, and just not KNOW that something better for them is available.
For economic reasons, I say it's a great bill. For health reasons, if that's true across the board, then forcing someone to put up with the side effects is a horrible stupid idea, instead they should try to make them more available to consumers who might want them, and work on spreading the word of their benefits.
I think the savings are real though, which confuses me Pix. You were just complaining in the global climate change thread that you need to be sold on technological advances to solve the energy crunch, which you were especially decrying in California. This is another piece to solving that puzzle.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: Where in the other thread did I say we should pass laws requiring every day people to change the way they do things?
I said we should use EEStor powered cars, but I didn't say "Let's pass a law requiring everyone to drive one." I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a resaonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: Where in the other thread did I say we should pass laws requiring every day people to change the way they do things?
I said we should use EEStor powered cars, but I didn't say "Let's pass a law requiring everyone to drive one." I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a resaonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
I see it the same way, there is no reason for the government to tell me what to buy. Products have to be more efficient and cheaper if they are going to make it, its stupid (though somebody could possibly provide examples demonstrating otherwise) to say its, "Better" but the government is going to have to make people buy it if its going to succeed.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:If there really are health concerns, like migraines/eyestrain and such, then I think it's a stupid bill. Maybe they could just limit it to commercial venues (office buildings)?
As I recall, the correlation between migraines and eyestrain was all recorded in an office setting.
I personally doubt you'd see any of the same correlations in home use, simply because you don't need a comparable amount of task lighting at home.
And there are already restrictions on the types of light you can use in new commercial or industrial construction. There's a national energy code that every new building has to meet, and one of the requirements is that the lighting for the building not exceed a certain number of watts/sq. ft. In addition to that, there's a minimum footcandle level that must be met, depending on the occupancy. Between these two requirements it's nearly impossible to design an office building and not use mainly fluorescent lighting.
JB, thanks. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: Where in the other thread did I say we should pass laws requiring every day people to change the way they do things?
I said we should use EEStor powered cars, but I didn't say "Let's pass a law requiring everyone to drive one." I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a resaonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
I never said you supported any such legislation. And if you can, I'm still waiting to hear a response from you on my comments in that thread.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Absolutely.
For one thing, there are other reasons to replace bulbs than burn out - as has been mentioned, they do get broken occasionally. Also, there is always new construction and remodeling going on that is constantly producing need for brand new light bulbs that aren't simply replacements. Sure the cost might be higher, but I have no doubt they'd release them to the public, as quickly as possible.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lyr: Oh but I don't have a right to an opinion on the other thread. I've been ordered to sit down and shut up. Please don't bring that thread to this one.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'm unattractive enough without not being able to see as I put on my face.
You look fine to me. I wish you'd stop insulting my friends.
I think I've told you this before, missy!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: Oh but I don't have a right to an opinion on the other thread. I've been ordered to sit down and shut up. Please don't bring that thread to this one.
I never told you to sit down or to shut up. I'm not bringing the argument here, I'd like you to either go back to the other thread and answer it there, or email me, whichever one is better for you. I asked an honest and perfectly valid question of you, which I'd like to see you reconcile with your arguments in that thread.
If you choose not to, fine I guess, I can't make you, but I'd really appreciate it. This will be the last I say about it in this thread.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Well, perhaps they wouldn't at that; a business model is a hard thing to shake. But if you, as a private inventor, invented an eternal bulb, and you thought the profit per bulb would make a factory a good investment even if you only sold X number of units over the next century, then certainly you would borrow money to build that factory, no? The whole point of non-monopoly capitalism is that you're not stuck with what General Electric does. Ask IBM how many computers they sell these days.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
No thanks Lyr, I don't feel like getting worked up and kicked around some more.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Well, perhaps they wouldn't at that; a business model is a hard thing to shake. But if you, as a private inventor, invented an eternal bulb, and you thought the profit per bulb would make a factory a good investment even if you only sold X number of units over the next century, then certainly you would borrow money to build that factory, no? The whole point of non-monopoly capitalism is that you're not stuck with what General Electric does. Ask IBM how many computers they sell these days.
True enough.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wonder (as a sometimes theatre tech) if changing the colour with a gel (colour filter) might make fluorescents easier on the eyes?
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
CFLs have mercury in them.
I'll let that stand by itself.
As to the light issue, you can buy CFLs with the correct spectrum to fool your mind into believing its daytime. FLs are regularly used by companies with night shifts who want to make sure their employees are alert.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
I have lupus, and it is true that some people with lupus have trouble tolerating fluorescent lighting, due to the UV output.
If this bill passes, so many people are going to sue California for vision and health problems related to the poor quality of light florescent bulbs produce.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering how the bill is even worded. Is it illegal to BUY them in California or to USE them in California?
There's no possible way they could police usage in the most populous state in America. Which leads me to believe they make it illegal to sell them there. I wonder if that includes making it illegal to buy them over the internet, which means places like ebay and Amazon would have to be mindful of the location of their sales.
The whole thing sounds like it would be rife with holes and that enforcement would be a real issue. And as always, the bulk of the burden would probably fall on the poor.
I think California's best bet to a near term solution to their energy woes is less silver bullet, and more an amalgam of solutions. I think they should create a massive fund, a billion dollars to start with, to loan to people to use for Green upgrades, be it solar heating, PVC panels, new windows (better insulation for heat trapping, double paned), Energy Star appliances, to help offset the price of a hybrid car, or even to buy a supply of flourescent lightbulbs. Then they need to spend some money to upgrade their energy infrastructure, but I think the program would be a win win for everyone. The loans will eventually be paid back, so it's an investment with guaranteed basic return. Property values will go up on any home that takes advantage of the loans, energy bills (including heating bills) will plummet across the state and will alleviate the 'crisis' part of their energy problem.
That kind of solution is fiscally responsible, even advantageous, and doesn't force anything on anyone, with the possible exception of a modest raise in taxes to pay for the start-up costs.
Posted by BlueWizard (Member # 9389) on :
Just a few thoughts -
1.) Light Dimmers - you can't Dim florecent lights. I have a 150watt incandecent light in my living room in a lamp that has a dimmer. Most of the time, while I am watching TV, I have it on it's dimmest setting. On those few occassions when I'm reading a book, I turn the light up. But most of the time, the electrical consumption is very low.
Many many houses have Dimmers for mood lighting. You want enough light to see your way around, but you don't want it to be bright. There is no way to resolve this with Florecent lights.
2.) Closed Light Fixtures - only the most expensive Florecents are rated for closed or sealed light fixtures. In my previous house, my bathroom and kitchen lights where enclosed in glass globes, sealed from any air movement. Florecent lights blew out very quickly in these fixtures. They actually blew out FASTER that incandecent lights.
3.) Cold Weather - true not a real big problem in California, but I live in Minnesota, and to use florecents in a yard light or in your unheated garage, you need special expensive 'Cold Start' florecents.
I can see the government making a big push for florecent lights, but is this the best method? And further what is the penalty? Will I be fined if I have incandecent in my house? Will I be arrested if I am bringing incandecents across the boarder? Will they raid my house if they find I am ordering them on-line?
Now, presumably they are just banning the sale of incandecents, but is that really practical considering there are some applications where florecent simply doesn't work?
Perhaps each retailer could add $.25 to $.50 to the cost of each 4-pack of standard bulbs and use that money to reduce the cost of Florecents. That would encourage people to buy Florecents for every application in which they would work.
Now the government could place a 'Sin' tax on incandecent, but that doesn't do anything to solve the problem and only creates more revenue that the government can squander.
I think a market oriented approach would work much better. They could pass a law that requires businesses to add a penny (or half-penny or whatever) per watt to the cost of incandecent bulbs and to divert that money into the reduction of the cost of florecents. This would increase the cost of incandecent bulbs, but would not make common four-packs prohibitively expensive.
Cost is a huge factor. Poor people buy incandecent because they are short on cash-on-hand. They economize on everything, even though in the long run the cost is more. It's not about how much does it cost me over time, it's about how much cash do I have in my pocket right now.
Note that now you can by 'daylight' florecent bulbs for roughly the same price as ordinary florecents. They have a bluer light.
For the record, I use mostly florecent bulbs even though I am relatively poor.
Steve/BlueWizard
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
I don't have any citations readily available, but I thought that compact flourescent lightbulbs had to be specially disposed of to avoid contaminating landfills with the small amounts of mercury found in these bulbs. If the improper disposal of these bulbs is in fact detrimental to the environment, couldn't forcing the use of these contribute to the eventual poisoning of the water table?
edit: here's a link to info on mercury as it relates to CFLs (compact flourescents). Summary: even though improper disposal results in mercury contamination, this is still less mercury than would be released into the atmosphere from the production of power for conventional bulbs.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
You know, this is very similar to the change in toilet tanks that was forced on us, as a nation, some time ago, in order to conserve water. And the mandatory placement of water regulators in shower nozzles. Both are stupid, because in both cases the lack of water makes it more likely you'll have to use it more wastefully. How many times have you had to flush more than twice after a big, erm, load? At least the shower nozzle thingies can be removed. When I shower with inadequate water pressure, it makes my shower take longer, wasting more water in the end, I'll wager. Getting shampoo out of long hair with no water pressure is fun. I've taken to opening up hotel nozzles when I travel and removing their regulators.
This "supply side environmentalism" is silly.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:1.) Light Dimmers - you can't Dim florecent lights. I have a 150watt incandecent light in my living room in a lamp that has a dimmer. Most of the time, while I am watching TV, I have it on it's dimmest setting. On those few occassions when I'm reading a book, I turn the light up. But most of the time, the electrical consumption is very low.
Many many houses have Dimmers for mood lighting. You want enough light to see your way around, but you don't want it to be bright. There is no way to resolve this with Florecent lights.
This is only true for compact fluorescents. Standard fluorescent lights (with have the prefix 'T', for 'tube') can be dimmed, but require a special dimming ballast.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:If there really are health concerns, like migraines/eyestrain and such, then I think it's a stupid bill. Maybe they could just limit it to commercial venues (office buildings)?
As I recall, the correlation between migraines and eyestrain was all recorded in an office setting.
I personally doubt you'd see any of the same correlations in home use, simply because you don't need a comparable amount of task lighting at home.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have lupus, and it is true that some people with lupus have trouble tolerating fluorescent lighting, due to the UV output.
I don't have lupus, but I still have trouble tolerating fluorescent lighting. The flickering alone is enough to drive me batty, but really, it's the pain and eyestrain that does me in. And yeah, I'm talking about home use of compact fluorescents as well as fluorescents in office settings.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Speaking of flickering, CRT computer monitors nauseate me.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
All right, the tech geek of the house (my husband) has come home and informed me that fluorescent lighting has improved dramatically in the very recent past. Apparently, the flickering is gone -- something about not having balaste anymore. (I don't really understand that part...all I got was they don't flicker anymore.)
Not that this has anything to do with my opinion of the law, but it does keep coming up. Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
I wonder. The flickering being gone - is that a recent thing? I heard that back when I was still in Canada, but I still saw the flickering.
I think what some people don't get - and this has nothing to do with your husband, Christine, or any other specific people - is that some of us really are so incredibly light sensitive that we can see flickering where it's non-detectable by pretty much anyone and everyone else.
And yeah, Icky, CRT monitors make me ill, too. I hate the flickering on those - it's so bad.
But I gotta be honest - LCD monitors give me problems, too. So I'm a freaq of nature. Ain't the first time. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Apparently, there are ongoing improvements but the most recent have been in the last couple of years. Here is a full list of how they are better than they once were:
1. Due to higher demand, manufacturers have started offering more broad-spectrum lights...a warmer light about the same as an incandescent.
2. Ballists have gotten better, reducing the flickering...theoretically faster than the eye has to cope with. The typical CRT is 60 MHz whereas these new lights are 200-500 MHz
3. They are smaller and more efficient than ever...now the same size as an incandescent bulb and 4-6 times more energy efficient.
4. Average lifespan of incandescent bulb is 2 years, fluorescent is 15 years.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Last time I went to Costco, I picked up a pack of 4 energy-saving bulbs for $7, about the cheapest I've ever seen them.
These bulbs also produced a slightly yellow light rather than the harsh white light that I normally see, which I appreciate.
Posted by Maliam (Member # 9915) on :
I have one question, is the light emited by these compact floresent bubls basickly the same as regular floresantes? Cause if so I would have a problem with this law. In lots of cases floresent lights tend to give me a headache. Part of that comes from haveing been dignosied with Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome which is affected by floresent lights. It doesn't affect me so thats all I have to say just wanted to put out one reason I think it might not be the best of ideas.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Welcome to Hatrack, Mailiam. Posted by Maliam (Member # 9915) on :
Thanks
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: While I'm sympathetic to the whole freedom of choice thing, I'm not really seeing a practical downside to the legislation.
I preferentially use compact fluorescents, and I still think this law is a dumb idea. And not just because of the inevitable lightbulb black market. (*snicker*) Encouraging people to use the compact fluorescents (maybe by subsiding them so they're not so bloody expensive) would be good. Forcing them?
Dumb.
The fluorescents give me terrible headaches. I had one in my bedroom for a bit until I realized that it was the source of my agony.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Christine, this is precisely the time to be a libertarian. If the advantages were so amazing, protecting your pocketbook would drive you to get fluorescents with no law being necessary.
Bingo.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: In rationing situations, I far prefer quantitative limits rather than use limits. If electricity needs to be rationed, then limit it by person. Fine or even cut off those who exceed their ration.
But, within that limit, let individuals decide how they want to allocate their share of the resource.
Agreed.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ya know, rather than making us accept inferior light, we could build more (nuclear) power plants...
Agreed, although Rabbit's point is relevant, of course.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Wal-Mart's site says 2 to 3 for one, which has been my experience.
They don't seem to sell them on their website. But IME, it is virtually impossible to get them for less than $3 -- and that's a SALE price. Regular prices in most stores (like the KMart I was in this afternoon) start at $5 each -- and that was in a multi-pack. Individual bulbs were over $6 apiece.
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: That was a great post, JT. Thanks.
Absolutely! I only knew some of that -- very cool.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't necessarily have a problem with the bell, assuming the monetary savings are real. I see fluorescent bulbs on Amazon for $3 a bulb (you might want to check it out riv, if you're spending any more than that).
You're forgetting shipping costs. If I were to get one of theseand one of these -- because those are the two wattages I generally use, and because getting two packages reduces shipping cost per -- I would pay $36.84. Just the 14W bulbs would run me $19.82 (shipping would apparently be the same $7.90 as with both). Three packages of the 14W, still $7.90 for S&H, so a total of $43.66 for 12 bulbs. Fortunately, there are cheaper places. That's the best I found this morning, and if I can't find anything better tonight I plan to order em. $27.27 with S&H for a single package (better rate for 8 than Amazon had for 12), and I'll probably toss in some other stuff to lessen the per-item shipping charges.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a reasonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
Exactly. Remember, I (almost exclusively) use CFLs, but I don't want the law to force everyone to make the same choice I do -- or to take away my choice.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wonder (as a sometimes theatre tech) if changing the colour with a gel (colour filter) might make fluorescents easier on the eyes?
JT would know better than I, but I believe the loss in intensity would make such a solution counter-productive. A gel is a filter -- it can remove some frequencies, but can't put in the missing ones. Anyway, the flickering issue (and yeah, it's better than ten years ago, but it's still present -- oh, and the bulbs that are cheapest have the most flicker effect) wouldn't be helped at all.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:2. Ballists have gotten better, reducing the flickering...theoretically faster than the eye has to cope with. The typical CRT is 60 MHz whereas these new lights are 200-500 MHz
Thanks, Christine.
Yep, that's quite an improvement.
I could still see the flicker for a monitor I had with a refresh rate of 120MHz. I purposely bought a monitor with a high refresh rate because of my vision problems. It didn't work.
I'm wondering what 200-500MHz would be like for me. Would it solve the problem? I don't know, but I'd like to give it a try.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
rivka -
I had this long post all set up, but like an idiot I accidentally deleted it, so here's the cliffs notes version:
That comes to $38.25 for the 12 bulbs. Is that any better?
Forgot to add, as a bonus, they are all guaranteed by warrant for five years.
[ January 31, 2007, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And qualify for free shipping -- not bad. I think those are the same as the ones I just ordered. Which were cheaper, but didn't have free shipping. So it came out just about the same. Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Given that most people do not purchase fluorescents, we can assume that, however most people measure value for themselves, current fluorescents 'cost more' per increase in value than current incandescents.
The argument that supports a measure requiring the use of fluorescents then has to be that incandescents have some additional cost to other people (an externality) that results in their 'real cost' per increase in value being higher than that for fluorescents.
Personally, I suspect this is (at best) a 'second-best' attempt -- passing a law in an attempt to circumvent the bad effects of other laws. Specifically, restrictions on power production.
Of course, it would fail dismally if passed in the form of a ban. There would be a huge black market, and probably some successful court challenges related to interstate commerce when people formed cooperatives to purchase them from out of state. Not to mention that because of the change in demand for fluorescents due to the law, there'd be a shortage and/or price increase (mostly the latter, at least in the long run).
In the form of incentives its only minimally better. The total cost of the incentives would almost certainly be greater than the increase in benefit conferred by reducing the effect of the externality, especially as government has a horrible track record of appropriately tuning subsidies (they tend to get perverted to rent-seeking ends, such as in many agricultural industries, government works, and similar). A tax on incandescent lightbulbs would be slightly better than incentives, but only slightly. Pigouvian taxes (ones to compensate for externalities) are one of the most straightforward applications of market change, and are much less susceptible to rent-seeking.
The best approach would probably be to make it simpler to open new power plants, particularly nuclear power plants, in California.
Of course, that only indirectly addresses the concerns of environmentalists. But allowing additional plant openings, even of non-nuclear plants, could be balanced by a system for trading carbon credits, keeping emissions tightly capped. That's a good way to address an externality.
In fact, that might be readily extendable to light bulbs, creating a more efficient allocation with much more efficiency than a tax. Allocate manufacturers of light bulbs with some minimal carbon credits, and require them to obtain (or reduce usage so as to not need) further credits based on the amount of energy their bulbs consume (as based on average carbon usage of energy production in the state with this law), then require bulbs sold to californian consumers be certified to have been manufactured in this manner.
Its moderately clumsy, but a lot better than other consumer goods standards. Businesses that want to produce inefficient lightbulbs will need to purchase more carbon credits, meaning other businesses will have reduced production and net carbon production has gone down. Many businesses will produce more efficient light bulbs, and businesses already producing efficient lightbulbs, like those making fluorescents, won't need to acquire as many carbon credits, meaning their costs will be lower.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
An engineering friend of mine did a study in one of her classes doing a cost analysis thing of incandescent bulbs to flourescents. The study compared a CFL - 20w (75w incan), 120 volts, 1200 lumens, 8000 hrs of life, soft white. And an incandescent - 75 w, 120 volts, 1170 lumes, 750 hrs of life, soft white.
The format wasn't exactly suited to Hatrack, and the bold, underline, italics don't show up, but it's still basically readable, hope this helps anyone wondering about the basics of the cost advantages:
Design Variables: The solution must be either a compact fluorescent or incandescent light bulb for indoor residential lighting purposes.
Constraints: A. Boundary i. Color- Preferred soft white color for residential room lighting. Both light bulbs satisfy this boundary constraint. ii. Fixture Compatibility- According to General Electric’s website both products are compatible with any light fixtures. iii. Lumens- A lumen amount of 1100 is desirable for an average room, especially for college students when studying at a desk. Both options have close to the same lumen amount with fluorescent being a little higher at 1200 lumens compared to 1170 for incandescent. B. Technical Factors i. Cost of Electricity- According to Tipmont Electricity Rates (power company for Tippecanoe County) the cost of electricity per kWH up to 500 kWH is $0.08. ii. Factors in Table I and II- wattage, voltage, initial lumens, rated life, color and cost. iii. Disposal cost- According to the EPA, compact fluorescents like figure I. may be thrown away like regular incandescent light bulbs because of the minimal mercury content. However, the incandescent bulb needs to be replaced more often then the fluorescent which consumes more time. iv. Excess Heat and Safety- According to Lights of America, “90% of the energy consumed by an incandescent bulb is wasted heat” which makes incandescent bulbs very hot to the touch compared to fluorescents (about 350 degrees to 90 degrees Fahrenheit). v. Calculations- Attached in appendix A are calculations done to compare the total lifespan energy and replacement cost of a fluorescent vs. incandescent bulbs. It was calculated that a fluorescent bulb would last for approximately 333.33 days while the incandescent would last for 31.25 days. Thus, I calculated the total cost for each bulb over the lifespan of the fluorescent bulb.
Conclusions: Using the cost of electricity at 8 cents per kilowatt hour, the fluorescent bulb would cost the consumer in Tippecanoe county approximately $1.15 per month while the incandescent would cost nearly four times that amount at $4.32 per month- assuming that the light bulbs were on 24 hours. The total cost for the bulbs was $67.24 for the incandescent and $20.64 for the compact fluorescent at the end of a 333.33 day period. This is about a 31% difference in energy cost, so that even though the compact fluorescent costs more initially it is still worth it in the end for energy cost. Moreover, taking some of the technical factors of heat and safety and disposal, the compact fluorescent confirms its prominence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
There are a few reasons that cost balance sheet doesn't bear out for many people.
A very large one, perhaps the biggest, is that people discount future earnings, often severely. The cost of bulbs needed now is low now, while the cost of fluorescents isn't. This isn't just about how people feel about money, either; money not spent now can be invested, making it worth more in the future than the same amount of income at the future time.
People cause bulbs to break. Breaking even one fluorescent bulb significantly adds to costs, while breaking a fluorescent bulb doesn't nearly so much.
People don't leave lights on for so long, and many bulb purchasers are renters. Even when the renter is paying for electricity, if he or she is leaving the location before the crossover for costs (I calculated it at, for normal usage, over a year, I think approaching two years, a few months back), then it makes more sense to purchase incandescent.
I agree fluorescents are a good idea, but people can choose otherwise for sound reasons.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No one I know takes the $2.50 per bulb they save by buying an incandescent vs. a flourscent and invests it. That too, is not how people think. That $2.50 ends up being spent at McDonalds. And bulb for bulb, that cost analysis works perfectly for someone able to realize the benefits, but you're right, it depends on who is buying it. If your house has some odd, rampant bulb breaking phenomenon there, then I suppose it would make more sense not to buy flourescent.
Thing about the renters though, you'd be right about people who don't pay for their own electricity (though really, they DO pay for their own electricity, it's bundled into the price of their rent). But for people who do pay their own electricity, what's stopping them from taking the bulb with them when they move to somewhere else? You do know those things unscrew right?
That said, I agree with this:
quote:I agree fluorescents are a good idea, but people can choose otherwise for sound reasons.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, it's a lightbulb. It'll probably break during the moving process.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That's an odd line of thinking.
If you're careful and package it correctly, there's no more reason for it to break during the moving process than for it to break traveling from the store to your house.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: 2. Ballists have gotten better, reducing the flickering...theoretically faster than the eye has to cope with. The typical CRT is 60 MHz whereas these new lights are 200-500 MHz
I think you dropped in an extra 'M' there. You know, 'mega' is not just a word meaning "we're really cool and use technojargon". It has a specific meaning. When discussing numbers, you should try not to go off by six orders of magnitude.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
When you're correcting simple typos, you should try not to sound like a jerk.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Seriously, you think people should pack light bulbs and take them with them when they move??
Wow.
Frankly, the effort of packing up light bulbs like they were fine crystal seems like an absurd extreme. Moving is unpleasant enough.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I did mean MEGA herz..Unfortunately, I have also just discovered that the ones that have such high frequencies are very new and not really available yet. (I did not understand this last night.) You can do a Wikipedia search, however, to find the ones that go up to 13.6 MEGA Hz.
If you believe I have a fact wrong, you are welcome to point it out to me (with references) but I would appreciate some common courtesy. I pretty much admitted that I was relaying all this from the tech geek in the family (which isn't me), but I am not stupid.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Icarus -- I packed the light bulbs when I moved. It wasn't that hard. Most of the unused ones were still in the boxes they came in and I don't even recall doing anything special to protect them. (I did this in a long move to a new state as well as a cross-town move.) None of them broke.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well, the typical CRT is measured in Hz (Windows defaults to 100 Hz, I believe) - KoM was at least correct about that. The electronic ballasts I saw frequency ratings on put them in the 20-50 KHz range.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: Seriously, you think people should pack light bulbs and take them with them when they move??
Wow.
Frankly, the effort of packing up light bulbs like they were fine crystal seems like an absurd extreme. Moving is unpleasant enough.
Agreed. I mean, ones still in the package I take. But I certainly don't go around removing them from fixtures. Besides, I'd imagine a landlord doing a final walk-through might be unhappy if they were unable to actually SEE the apartment.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Who said they were intentionally taking that specific money and investing it? But they might well spend it on current consumption (which is worth more to them), and if they're keeping a budget having $10/month less in the household line item might well result in having $10/month more in the 401k line item.
People rationally reallocate their funds all the time, and people do think in ways that result in rational reallocations. No, they don't think they'll take $2.50 they might have spent on a bulb and put it in stocks instead, but that would be a markedly silly way to do most things. Unsurprisingly, that's not how reallocation of income occurs, yet such reallocation still happens.
Renters frequently don't take bulbs; after all, the landlord provided bulbs with the apartment, it would feel unfair to leave the apartment without. Heck, it might even qualify for the landlord taking part of their deposit if they left the apartment without light bulbs, depending on the wording of the lease and statement of current condition.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And it certainly wouldn't be a recommended way to get a good reference. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Heck, it might even qualify for the landlord taking part of their deposit if they left the apartment without light bulbs
My law school lease specifically allowed for this. Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:How many times have you had to flush more than twice after a big, erm, load?
Never, with a Drake toilet made by Toto.
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Here is a link to a Consumer Reports article about the subject.
So anyway, I did a little figuring yesterday after I discovered this thread. I used the life expectancy numbers on the packages of the various bulbs. What I got was that if I replaced all the lights in my house with CFL I would save about $20 per month in electrical costs. But the CFL would cost me about 25 cents per 1000 hours (life expectancy of bulb) as opposed to about 21 cents per 1000 hours for the incandescent bulb I’ve been using.
Still, that would be a net savings. And in the summer the cost of cooling my house would probably go down too because the incandescent lights put out way more heat.
I need to do a little more checking, but yeah, I’m sold on the idea. So far.
What I’m NOT sold on is the idea of having that law. I hate it when governments try to pull stuff like that. It is usually the poor people and fixed income people who get hit the hardest. And then the politicians who pass such laws brag about how they always help the poor. They campaign like, “I’m a friend to the disadvantaged and downtrodden so vote for me.”
I wonder if Mr. Levine has ever proposed a law that would hurt him and his family?
At any rate, right off hand I can think of several bans that would save electricity.
How about banning electric can openers and mixers. Manual can openers and eggbeaters are a lot cheaper and last a whole lot longer than electric ones. Heck, why not expand the ban to include a whole bunch of different electrical appliances that our grandparents got along fine without. (I’m not talking about electric ranges and refrigerators, and I’m not suggesting going back to wood burning ranges. I’m talking about electric razors and toothbrushes and such.)
Or how about banning all those espresso and cappuccino machines? In California that would sure save a lot of electricity. And why stop there? Ban coffee. Wow! What a savings in electricity that would be. And since coffee is bad for you (ask any doctor) you would be eliminating a health hazard too. And for the folks who just have to have their morning caffeine jolt, there is always Nodoze pills.
With a little effort and imagination I’m sure I could come up with a bunch more suggestions.
Ok, Ok, maybe it could be argued that my suggestions are ridiculous - bordering on Swiftian. But are they any more ridiculous than Levine’s proposed ban on light bulbs? Because we are talking reduction in electrical usage here, and my suggestions would certainly do that.
Sam
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
On the subject of taking lightbulbs with you when you leave:
The initial argument was that people won't buy a CFL because they'd have to leave it behind when they move.
It just doesn't make sense. If you are specifically buying your own more expensive bulb, the landlord can't really complain that you're stealing his bulb. So you get a bunch of incandescents and replace the bulbs before you leave, as everyone here says, they are ridiculously cheap, and paying a dollar and a half for some quick replacements is still well inside the profit margin. Further, you could always save the bulbs you're replacing to begin with and then put them back when you leave.
If everyone is complaining about the cost of a CFL, why wouldn't you take it with you? Wrap it in some toilet paper and paper towel and just be careful with it. It's not crystal, and unless the trip to your new house involves a space shuttle launch, I think the risks and efforts are being overly dramatized.
I wouldn't go through the effort for a 30 cent incandescent, but for something that costs 10 to 20 times more? Sure I would, and I don't understand the scoffing attitude some of you are treating me with. It looks to me like common sense, and like the arguments being made against it are at the extreme end of overly complicating something relatively simple.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Because Wal*Mart decided to go green, discount stores are lowering prices fast. Packs of compact fluorescents will be dropping to ~$1.50 per bulb. I'd been buying the Costco pack at $20 for 8bulbs. Don't know how much they cost there now. No need for any recent purchase: there's been 14 fresh bulbs sitting in the closet for a year or two or three. (Forgot that I had plenty of spares when I bought the last pack a year ago)
[ February 02, 2007, 02:21 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"And since coffee is bad for you (ask any doctor)"
Nope. Unless you have a medical condition known* to be aggravated by caffeine intake, drinking up to a quart or litre of coffee per day is better for your health than avoiding coffee.
* I haven't run across any actual peer-reviewed&published coffee studies on illnesses for which "don't drink coffee" is the standard professional advice. Perhaps someone else can come up with some. And no, I don't mean posted on / published in an amateur/"alternative" health site/book.
[ February 01, 2007, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: On the subject of taking lightbulbs with you when you leave:
The initial argument was that people won't buy a CFL because they'd have to leave it behind when they move.
It was? I thought the initial argument was that this was a dumbass idea for a law. I'm not against people switching or against people carrying their lightbulbs around from apartment to apartment. I am against using the power of law to mandate the variety of lightbulbs that people have, especially when there are legitimate reasons not to have this preference. It's ridiculous.
quote: Sure I would, and I don't understand the scoffing attitude some of you are treating me with. It looks to me like common sense, and like the arguments being made against it are at the extreme end of overly complicating something relatively simple.
I think you're taking things too personally (Surprise!). I'm not scoffing at you, I'm scoffing at the asinine excess of legislating light bulb purchases.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Huh?
I guess I should have been more specific: The thing I've been primarily discussing for the last 20 hours or so, and brought up initially by fugu, was that renters and others who don't stay in one place very long, shouldn't buy a CFL bulb because they'd have to leave it behind.
As for the law, I'm on your side. As for taking things too personally, you leave me confused. Firstly, I don't know what: "I think you're taking things too personally (Surprise!)." means. Do I have a history of taking comments directed in my general direction too personally, or something? Was this:
quote:Seriously, you think people should pack light bulbs and take them with them when they move??
meant to be sarcastic or aimed at someone else? Given that I had just made a comment having to do with bulb portability (can't believe I just uttered THAT phrase), and you made what looks like a pretty derisive statement afterwards, the "you" there looks fairly plainly directed at ME.
Tell me where I've gone wrong there.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
It may be directed at you, but I don't see it as being particularly insulting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I'm just being sensitive (Surprise?!).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Does that mean no more Christmas tree lights in CA?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Not only that, it would mean no Christmas AT ALL.
Lloyd Levine is a mean one!
Posted by Samuel Bush (Member # 460) on :
Note to aspectre:
Well toss me in the lake and call me Bob! I did a little checking and there really does seem to be no unity of the faith in the medical community about the health risks of coffee.
So Ok, I withdraw my health risk comment. But it would still save a lot of electricity to ban coffee. Although it would sure piss off a lot of people.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)