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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
posted
"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.
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.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 631 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
