News Incandescent Light Bulbs to Start Being Phased Out in 2012

[CAC1001]

So I've noticed that incandescent light bulbs are to start being phased out in 2012, and we will have to purchase those compact flourescent bubs. This was signed into law by President Bush, however I am curious, how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...? Does this create a slippery slope regarding other products? The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them. Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

Also the incandescent bulbs cost more (though advocates say they are cheaper in the long-term) and are also ugly IMO (I don't want twisty bulbs, I want the traditional, well, "bulbous" bulbs!).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/phasing-out-incandescent-light-bulb/

This guy is apparently getting around the ban on bulbs greater than 60 watts in the European Union by selling them as miniature heaters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E3FS20101015

 

[NobodySpecial]

how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...?

Same way it can mandate lead free paint or unleaded petrol or Coke without 'coke' in it!

The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them. Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

They mandate insulation standards on buildings and until recently did require fuel consumption standards for classes of vehicles.

(I don't want twisty bulbs, I want the traditional, well, "bulbous" bulbs!).

And I don't want to have to stop using electronics components made with lead.

 

[CAC1001]

But paint with lead was more dangerous, was it not? And emissions from gasoline/petrol with lead also were more dangerous and polluting? And Coke with coke is dangerous.

Insulation standards I can perhaps understand. Electronics components that no longer have lead I can understand.

But they want to ban incandescent light bulbs over their efficiency it seems. It isn't like incandescent light bulbs are dangerous.

 

[zomgwtf]

But they want to ban incandescent light bulbs over their efficiency it seems. It isn't like incandescent light bulbs are dangerous.

300+ million people being able to use inefficient (energy wasting) electronics isn't dangerous? Wanna back that up or are you just stating your unknowledged(is that a word lol) opinion.

 

[CAC1001]

300+ million people being able to use inefficient (energy wasting) electronics isn't dangerous? Wanna back that up or are you just stating your unknowledged(is that a word lol) opinion.

How is 300+ million people using inefficient light bulbs that they have been using already for decades, "dangerous?" You're making it sound like someone is advocating switching to highly inefficient bulbs from already very efficient bulbs. No one is advocating that. And even if they were, only a very select few would buy such bulbs, because they would raise their energy costs. And because only a few would buy them, they'd have to cost even more because of the small market.

Some people may not want to use these more efficient bulbs, with reasons ranging from their looks to other reasons, for example, some towns and cities have found that using such bulbs in traffic lights causes problems during winter in that the old bulbs, with their heat, would melt the snow and ice on the traffic lights, whereas the new bulbs do not do this, and thus many traffic lights end up frozen over where people cannot see them.

 

[Gokul43201]

300+ million people being able to use inefficient (energy wasting) electronics isn't dangerous? Wanna back that up or are you just stating your unknowledged(is that a word lol) opinion.

Clearly, CAC meant 'dangerous' in the sense of posing an immediate health risk. In fact, the onus is upon those that demand/support the ban to show that there is a considerable danger to the community from this product that warrants regulating it this extremely.

 

[NeoDevin]

Clearly, CAC meant 'dangerous' in the sense of posing an immediate health risk. In fact, the onus is upon those that demand/support the ban to show that there is a considerable danger to the community from this product that warrants regulating it this extremely.

Seems to me the argument would be virtually identical to whatever was used for mandating insulation standards.

 

[mugaliens]

...how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...?

I dunno. Same way they can ban CFC's?

Does this create a slippery slope regarding other products? The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them.[/quote]

You know, if after last decade's rolling brownouts someone had fielded a bulb which cost, long-term, half as much as incandescent and lasted twice as long, I'd think long and hard about legal means to help weed people off their incandescent dependance. No, you cannot make them give up their current incandescents. However, you can nix the supply of incandescents so that CFL's are the replacement option of choice.. They are, after all, a healthier, happier, and cheaper per life-erg solution.

I know both the color temp and spread of colors in each bulb currently stick. I've got a too-low and too-high color in each of my two-bulb floor lamps which light my apartment. They're garish to look at, but the colors which mix and spread around the room are themselves quite enjoyable.

The engineers really need to work on a better color spread, rather than trying to find the single-most perfect frequency. Our sun is a huge spread of frequencies. Just mix the phosphers, low to high, and experiment with best combinations thereof. Or skip the human research, get scientific, and find something which most closely approximates a 300W halogen bulb.

Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

Yes, they could.

 

[CAC1001]

You know, if after last decade's rolling brownouts someone had fielded a bulb which cost, long-term, half as much as incandescent and lasted twice as long, I'd think long and hard about legal means to help weed people off their incandescent dependance. No, you cannot make them give up their current incandescents. However, you can nix the supply of incandescents so that CFL's are the replacement option of choice.. They are, after all, a healthier, happier, and cheaper per life-erg solution.

So in other words, you don't want people to be able to decide for themselves what to buy and how to live, you want Mommy Government to decide for them? Because the people are children and Mommy Government knows best, so if the people refuse to buy products that are "healthier, happier, and cheaper," than Mommy Government must come in and force them to in some way?

While we're at it, why not ban all fast-food? And ban candy and cookies and cakes. Also ban sodas, like Coke and Pepsi, which would surely have a great long-term effect on the healthcare system, by reducing obesity and related diseases. When you stop drinking pop, you don't miss it very much. I don't think anyone would really miss fast-food either. Let's also mandate that only Energy Star appliances can be sold.

It amazes me how many people are perfectly fine with government trying to dictate to people how to live. There's a fine line between regulating in the name of keeping people safe from things like lead paint in toys, drain cleaner that could explode in your face, cars that could lose a wheel while going 70 mph, etc...and things like incandescent light bulbs because the bureaucrats "feel" that the general populace should buy them.

As for rolling brownouts, where? You mean California? In Cali, that was the result of not regulating the energy industry properly.

 

[drankin]

So in other words, you don't want people to be able to decide for themselves what to buy and how to live, you want Mommy Government to decide for them? Because the people are children and Mommy Government knows best, so if the people refuse to buy products that are "healthier, happier, and cheaper," than Mommy Government must come in and force them to in some way?

While we're at it, why not ban all fast-food? And ban candy and cookies and cakes. Also ban sodas, like Coke and Pepsi, which would surely have a great long-term effect on the healthcare system, by reducing obesity and related diseases. When you stop drinking pop, you don't miss it very much. I don't think anyone would really miss fast-food either.

It amazes me how many people are perfectly fine with government trying to dictate to people how to live. There's a fine line between regulating in the name of keeping people safe from things like lead paint in toys, drain cleaner that could explode in your face, cars that could lose a wheel while going 70 mph, etc...and things like incandescent light bulbs because the bureaucrats "feel" that the general populace should buy them.

As for rolling brownouts, where? You mean California? In Cali, that was the result of not regulating the energy industry properly.

I agree, it's lunacy. Might as well bring back the prohibition while were at it. Let's not stop there, a tube guitar amp is so much more innefficient than a solid state guitar amp. Hey light is light, sound is sound. May not be as nice but just think of how much electricity is being saved... craziness.

 

[russ_watters]

Seems to me the argument would be virtually identical to whatever was used for mandating insulation standards.

I disagree. Building code standards aren't for homeowners to follow, they are for architects, engineers and developers to follow. Someone who buys a home won't necessarily even know what the code requires. And that's fine: they don't have the expertise to make proper decisions about it anyway.

 

[BobG]

You all realize that you need to be a little more careful with the CFL bulbs than the incandescent bulbs, right?

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

I only referenced the Snopes web page, because it addresses one of the early cases that became an overblown horror stories for not buying CFLs.

I'm not sure how many people take any special precautions for cleaning up broken CFLs, though. In fact, I'm not positive all that many maintenance people at commercial businesses know how they should handle the full size broken flourescent bulbs. They just know they can't put the old bulbs in the trash.

 

[Borek]

While we're at it, why not ban all fast-food? And ban candy and cookies and cakes. Also ban sodas, like Coke and Pepsi, which would surely have a great long-term effect on the healthcare system, by reducing obesity and related diseases. When you stop drinking pop, you don't miss it very much. I don't think anyone would really miss fast-food either. Let's also mandate that only Energy Star appliances can be sold.

Trick is, many people will oppose ban on everything you have just mentioned, but later they will say "we didn't know it can hurt us" and they will sue everyone around (Mommy Gov included where applicable). If you can make people became responsible for their own actions instead of blaming everyone around, that will be much better solution. But it is not going to happen.

Perhaps the idea that world will end in 2012 is no that bad after all.

 

[waht]

How many citizens does it take to screw in one efficient light bulb?

 

[alt]

You all realize that you need to be a little more careful with the CFL bulbs than the incandescent bulbs, right?

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

I only referenced the Snopes web page, because it addresses one of the early cases that became an overblown horror stories for not buying CFLs.

I'm not sure how many people take any special precautions for cleaning up broken CFLs, though. In fact, I'm not positive all that many maintenance people at commercial businesses know how they should handle the full size broken flourescent bulbs. They just know they can't put the old bulbs in the trash.

And how many people are actually not going to put a broken or defunk one in the trash ?

There is also a report (somewhere, I'll try to find it) that they actually have a larger carbon footprint, are worse for the environment in the long run, etc.

 

[Jack21222]

So I've noticed that incandescent light bulbs are to start being phased out in 2012, and we will have to purchase those compact flourescent bubs. This was signed into law by President Bush, however I am curious, how can the government mandate what light bulbs we purchase...? Does this create a slippery slope regarding other products? The reasoning for the light bulb ban is that they are inefficient and use too much energy. But that doesn't seem like a reason for government to ban them. Government could ban SUVs and pickups and big-screen TVs by that same argument it seems, couldn't they...?

Also the incandescent bulbs cost more (though advocates say they are cheaper in the long-term) and are also ugly IMO (I don't want twisty bulbs, I want the traditional, well, "bulbous" bulbs!).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/business/phasing-out-incandescent-light-bulb/

This guy is apparently getting around the ban on bulbs greater than 60 watts in the European Union by selling them as miniature heaters: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69E3FS20101015

I'll never understand why people insist that they want to be needlessly inefficient. I don't mind people being inefficient because they get some other benefit from it, but the people that waste energy just for the sake of wasting energy really irk me.

I'll give some examples. People who eat meat supposedly have a larger carbon footprint than vegetarians. However, changing one's entire diet around is a major sacrifice to make in the name of efficiency.

Conversely, look at the people who speed up to red lights, only to put on their brakes as they get to the light. That is the equivalent of taking gasoline and just lighting it on fire for no reason. It would not be a major life change to just drift up to the red light.

I'd hope the free market would have killed off the old inefficient light bulbs by now, and I'm not sure that the government should be regulating this sort of thing, but come on. Pick your battles. Arguing "I want to be inefficient because I've always been inefficient! I hate saving money!" just sounds petty.

 

[Al68]

I'd hope the free market would have killed off the old inefficient light bulbs by now...

Why? Th market hasn't "killed off" oil lamps or wax candles yet. Of course, like oil lamps and candles, the old bulbs would become rare when the new bulbs get better and cheaper.

Arguing "I want to be inefficient because I've always been inefficient! I hate saving money!" just sounds petty.

It is petty if you can easily afford the initial cost of new bulbs. The old ones might cost more in the long run, but when it's dark and you're short on cash, you must pick between a 20 cent bulb and darkness. Bad decision, maybe, but not petty.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Bummer. I use CFs almost everywhere and approve of their use generally, but I still like to use incandescent bulbs in places like the pump house, where I use the bulb as a heater in the winter. I also like to use 100watt bulbs for test loads, for work. They also make nice current limiters for testing, in a pinch.

Also, except for a few months of the year, here in Oregon, the heat from an incandescent bulb is not wasted. In fact, when we factor this into the equation along with the energy cost of production, incandescent bulbs may be more efficient than CFs.

 

[IMP]

I have swapped out all of the incandescent bulbs in my entire house except for the oven and the freezer. There are just so many positive things about CFL for me:

Much better color if you get the "day light" one's (warm white is yucky).
Use much less electricity.
Make much less heat (huge plus here in the south).
They last much longer.
They are becoming less expensive quickly.
The newer ones have no warm up time, they come on instantly.

LED may be the future if the prices come WAY down from where they currently are.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I read a study somewhere that claimed using CFL bulbs was not more efficient on the basis that people ended up keeping the lights on longer.

 

[Borek]

Bummer. I use CFs almost everywhere and approve of their use generally, but I still like to use incandescent bulbs in places like the pump house, where I use the bulb as a heater in the winter. I also like to use 100watt bulbs for test loads, for work. They also make nice current limiters for testing, in a pinch.

Also, except for a few months of the year, here in Oregon, the heat from an incandescent bulb is not wasted.

Plus there places where I prefer to have a bulb that goes on immediately, not in a few seconds. I will spare you details.

 

[Evo]

Plus there places where I prefer to have a bulb that goes on immediately, not in a few seconds. I will spare you details.

Plus you have to use a much higher wattage equivalent than what they suggest, they do not give out as much light. Still I guess at double the suggested wattage there still might be some small savings. The culprits are the people that have every light on in every room, even during the day when there is so much natural light that you can't tell the difference if you switch the light off. I did that yesterday to someone to prove my point, they didn't notice I had switched their light off.

 

[rootX]

Plus you have to use a much higher wattage equivalent than what they suggest, they do not give out as much light. Still I guess at double the suggested wattage there still might be some small savings. The culprits are the people that have every light on in every room, even during the day when there is so much natural light that you can't tell the difference if you switch the light off. I did that yesterday to someone to prove my point, they didn't notice I had switched their light off.

I wonder if there has ever been a survey on that.

 

[Barwick]

Same way it can mandate lead free paint or unleaded petrol or Coke without 'coke' in it!

They mandate insulation standards on buildings and until recently did require fuel consumption standards for classes of vehicles.

And I don't want to have to stop using electronics components made with lead.

I think the point was...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" is a copy of the US Constitution, specifically the section most relevant to this post. Can you find in that list in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, ANYWHERE where "we the people" gave "them the Mafia" (that's what I call government) the right to regulate what kind of light bulbs we can buy?

You'll remember, the Constitution is written specifically such that "if it doesn't say government can do it, then it CAN'T do it". Those "things" are limited to the states or to the people.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think the point was...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html" is a copy of the US Constitution, specifically the section most relevant to this post. Can you find in that list in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution, ANYWHERE where "we the people" gave "them the Mafia" (that's what I call government) the right to regulate what kind of light bulbs we can buy?

You'll remember, the Constitution is written specifically such that "if it doesn't say government can do it, then it CAN'T do it". Those "things" are limited to the states or to the people.

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

 

[czelaya]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned on how this law is benefiting certain corporations. I'm sure, one way or another, the body of politicians who have pushed for this legislation is being rewarded by specific enterprises. Politicians become millionaires delegating these types of laws. I will try to find an article by the CATO Institute on the matter.

Like the OP has already stated, government intervening with what choices we make in the market is dangerous. This may seem trivial, but it's seriously opening doors to new ways government intervenes in the market, and our personal lives.

I'm still disgusted on how the federal government intervened with the American auto industry (it's sickening because you're not letting much needed corrections in the market place, and helping those who mismanage business at the tax payer's expense).

 

[czelaya]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

Then anything can be considered national security.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Like the OP has already stated, government intervening with what choices we make in the market is dangerous. This may same trivial, but it's seriously opening doors to new ways government intervenes in the market, and our personal lives.

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

I'm still disgusted on how the federal government intervened with American auto industry (it's sickening because you're not letting much needed corrections in the market place, and helping those who mismanage business at the tax payer's expense).

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

 

[czelaya]

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices?



Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression.

We are talking about bulbs here correct? Every action one makes affects another. You can't rely on central planning for your personal protection.

Silly how? What I find silly is that you're not allowing bad institutions to fail. You can't state that letting GM fail would of caused a depression. We won't know, will we, because of government intervention.

 

[Jack21222]

Why? Th market hasn't "killed off" oil lamps or wax candles yet. Of course, like oil lamps and candles, the old bulbs would become rare when the new bulbs get better and cheaper.It is petty if you can easily afford the initial cost of new bulbs. The old ones might cost more in the long run, but when it's dark and you're short on cash, you must pick between a 20 cent bulb and darkness. Bad decision, maybe, but not petty.

I've never in my life been in a position where I couldn't afford a 4 dollar light bulb, and I hope I never am. I'm certain there's some sort of government assistance or charity for people that poor.

I read a study somewhere that claimed using CFL bulbs was not more efficient on the basis that people ended up keeping the lights on longer.

Why would somebody keep the light on longer just because it's a CFL? Except for the time in between when an incandescent burns out and gets replaced (where a CFL wouldn't have burnt out yet), I can't see what the type of light bulb has to do with keeping the light on longer.

 

[NeoDevin]

I disagree. Building code standards aren't for homeowners to follow, they are for architects, engineers and developers to follow. Someone who buys a home won't necessarily even know what the code requires. And that's fine: they don't have the expertise to make proper decisions about it anyway.

And the new regulations will be for the light bulb manufacturers to follow. Homeowners will go to the store and buy whatever light bulbs are available.

 

[CAC1001]

I'll never understand why people insist that they want to be needlessly inefficient. I don't mind people being inefficient because they get some other benefit from it, but the people that waste energy just for the sake of wasting energy really irk me.

I don't want to be "needlesly inefficient." I just don't like the government telling me what bulbs to buy, especially when the replacements at the moment can have characteristics I don't like.

 

[Evo]

Why would somebody keep the light on longer just because it's a CFL? Except for the time in between when an incandescent burns out and gets replaced (where a CFL wouldn't have burnt out yet), I can't see what the type of light bulb has to do with keeping the light on longer.

It's the same mentality that if your car is more fuel efficient you can drive it more and if it's lower calorie/fat, then you can eat twice as much.

 

[CAC1001]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

Perhaps, but as mentioned, almost anything could be considered a matter of "national security." There's even a twist on this with when it comes to corporate welfare, basically which industries are a national security concern, and thus justify special subsidies, special protections, etc...that otherwise would never be granted.

Some industries one can consider a literally crucial to the national security, but what this results in is all sorts of other not really crucial industries lobbying to be labeled crucial to the national security so they can get the special priviledges.

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

Protecting the general public from what though? We can build more power plants for the electrical grid. There's a fine line here. I don't see how my using incandescent light bulbs puts your life at risk.

So are big-screen televisions that use lots of energy a national securiy concern too?

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

Couldn't the auto industry have gone through a controlled bankruptcy of some type...? Part of the auto industry bailout was about saving the UAW as well.

 

[Barwick]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

That's probably one of the things they'd use to justify it. They can use ANY reason they want to, but does that mean it's Constitutional? No, it means they're stretching the Constitution to fit their political whims.

When one looks at the Constitution through a lens of "it means exactly what it says", it's pretty simple.

 

[Evo]

Protecting the general public from what though? We can build more power plants for the electrical grid. There's a fine line here. I don't see how my using incandescent light bulbs puts your life at risk.

It's supposedly what Americans want, "going green", right?

If every household in the U.S. replaced ONE light bulb with a GE Energy Smart bulb, we would save...
A combined national total of $600 million a year in energy costs.
Enough energy to light more than 3 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of more than 800,000 cars.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm#why

 

[Barwick]

The problem is that your actions affect my life. Who protects me from everyone else's bad choices? We should do the same thing to incandescent bulbs that we do for cigarettes - tax them according to their cost to society. This is how we can maintain liberty while still protecting the general public.

Everything affects everything else in some manner. But to say that my choice of light bulbs affects you in any measurable way is an utter absurdity.

Frankly, that is just silly. Sure, we need to allow market corrections, but not when we're facing the greatest crisis since the depression. We simply couldn't afford to take the hit that the collapse of the auto industry would have generated.

The crisis we're in right now was CAUSED by those government policies, not the free market. It was from what's called "Crony Capitalism". When one group goes to government and pushes to get laws passed that benefit their industry, or company.

Government passed laws that encouraged banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them, and promised that they would buy those mortgages through FNMA. All of a sudden, everyone and their grandmother (literally) were buying houses, so the inflation-adjusted price for a house (a value which for over a century was nearly Kansas-flat) all of a sudden went through the roof. Houses were overpriced, and it had to stop sometime. In 2003, someone said we need to stop this type of lending now, but some other group of people said "you just hate the poor". So nothing was done about it.

Now, all of a sudden someone pulls back the curtain and sees what all these crappy mortgages really are, and all of a sudden, NOBODY buys the government-backed securities from FNMA. Here's where the trouble starts.

Banks can only lend based on how much assets they have on hand. They have a TON of government-backed securities, which are one of the safest form of investments. All of a sudden though, those government-backed securities are worth a fraction of what they once were.

This normally wouldn't be a problem, except for another brilliant Government fix, the Sarbanes-Oxley act, which says you can only claim the "market value" of an asset. Well since nobody bought those Government-backed securities at the market this week, guess what they're worth "at the market"? ZERO. So now guess who has virtually "zero" assets on hand? Banks. So guess who can't loan *any* money anymore for any purpose whatsoever?

Then on top of that, as this gets worse, and people stop buying houses (because nobody has the cash to buy a house, and very few can get loans except from a few select small local banks and credit unions), the value of houses goes through the floor. NOW guess what? Those mortgage backed securities REALLY aren't worth what they're supposed to be worth anymore, and the problem went from "this could be bad" to "oh **** (a slang word for biological waste)"

Now, if you want to look directly at the auto industry, there's some cute little group of laws (again, Government) called "anti-scab laws". Basically what they say is, if a shop is a union shop, and they go on strike for any reason, it is ILLEGAL for the owner of that company to hire workers in their place while those workers are on strike. Doesn't matter if they're getting paid $35 an hour (like they did in the auto industry) plus a benefit package that would make a Senator blush... even if there's a line of 25,000 people outside the door saying "I'll take that job for $6 an hour", the owner of that company can NOT hire those people. It is ILLEGAL.

And so, the unions know it, and the management knows it. The management just wants to get back to making parts so they don't lose their job, so they give in, knowing the deal is unsustainable. The union bosses want to make more money, and they want to keep their members, so they push hard to get them these raises and benefits, knowing it's unsustainable.

But who cares, they all know the government won't let such big companies fail...

And you know why nobody else gets into the business to compete with these big 3? Because it's utterly impossible. Even if you had a 50 mpg full size truck that had the best safety system on the planet, and 500,000 of them were already built, you would need literally millions of dollars to even so much as get a single vehicle to market.

Why? Because of all the government regulations that prohibit market entry. Who do you think pushed the government for all these regulations on the auto industry? I'll give you one hint, one company's name starts with a "G" and ends with "eneral Motors". The other two you can guess... They know they have the resources to deal with those regulations, but upstart companies don't.

I live in Michigan, my business indirectly is dependent on the auto industry, but guess what, those bailouts were the most moronic thing we could have done.

Know what would have been a tremendous thing to happen? If we didn't have these asinine government regulations on the auto industry, the best thing would have been one, two, or all three of these companies breaking up, and their assets being sold to the highest bidder, piece by piece. Then, dozens of small US car manufacturers could start over, without the unfunded liabilities like the ridiculously high pensions and such, and make cars that are the most competitive in the world.

 

[Evo]

Let's stay on the topic of lightbulbs.

 

[Barwick]

How do you discuss a topic without also discussing analogous situations and historical data?

 

[Evo]

How do you discuss a topic without also discussing analogous situations and historical data?

It's called staying *on topic*. Discussing whether an automotive company should have been bailed out has absolutely zero to do with energy saving lightbulbs.

No more dragging the thread off topic by anyone please.

 

[mheslep]

I agree, it's lunacy. Might as well bring back the prohibition while were at it.

Interesting point. At the time in the US people commonly assumed an amendment to the Constitution was required, the 18th, for the federal government to accomplish such a sweeping prohibition, and yet another amendment was required to repeal the first. Now it seems the federal government is said to evolve to do what ever it desires.

 

[Barwick]

Interesting point. At the time in the US people commonly assumed an amendment to the Constitution was required, the 18th, for the federal government to accomplish such a sweeping prohibition, and another amendment to repeal it. Now it seems the federal government is said to evolve to do what ever it desires.

mmmmhmmm... The last time they followed the Constitution on something was the prohibition... it may have been wrong, but at least it was Constitutional.

 

[edward]

It's the same mentality that if your car is more fuel efficient you can drive it more and if it's lower calorie/fat, then you can eat twice as much.

Actually it is a bit more than that. I remember as a kid we had a circular fluorescent bulb in the kitchen. My mom would always say: "just leave the light on, turning it off and on makes it burn out faster."

Now I find this at a GE web site:

Can I use a CFL in applications where I will be turning the lights on/off frequently?
Compact fluorescent light bulbs work best if they are left on for over 15 minutes each time they are turned on. These types of lamps can take up to 3 minutes to warm-up. Warm-up will probably not be noticeable from a user stand point, but the lamp needs to warm-up in order to reach the point of most efficient operation. Frequently switching them on and off will shorten the life of the product. If the life of the lamp is shortened significantly, you will not reap the financial benefits (includes energy & life of lamp), that are common to CFL lamps.

There are other things to keep in mind. For lights with a dimmer switch a special CFL bulb must be used. I think that these are fairly recent.

Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/ask_us/faq_compact.htm

 

[mheslep]

[...]
Don't use CFL's in recessed lighting because they may overheat. That sounds odd, but apparently the plastic base on the bulbs still can get very hot. Some of the CFL's that I have replaced looked like the base was partially melted.

That's because incandescent bulbs, inefficient as they are, radiate a good bit of the waste heat as relatively near IR, or short wave, much of which transits the bulb directly into the room. CFLs, and to a larger degree LED lighting with all their efficiency, radiate heat in the far IR or very long wave. The latter doesn't go directly into the room, but ends up conducted or convected into the housing. Some LED recessed lighting products come with some heat sink attachments as a consequence. Expensive, but then again it lasts ~10 years.

 

[CAC1001]

Two quick questions:

1) Are infrared heat lamps basically lightbulbs that you can't see the light to? (since incandescent lightbulbs emit so much of their energy as heat as opposed to light?).

2) Won't these new CFLs hurt the profits of the lightbulb companies if they last so long? I mean a company I don't think would want a mass-produced product to last too long, right?

 

[WhoWee]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

I like that argument - for the need for more nuclear and coal plants.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

 

[Evo]

Does anyone have data on how electricity is actually used? (In the world, the UK, the US, the EU, or whatever.) I imagine lighting isn't that large a portion, and that most of it wasn't incandescent (highway lighting, factory lighting, etc.).

Before I switched out my incandescents my household electricity bill would be dominated by lighting (~50%?) in the spring and fall, but I don't know that I was typical and I'm pretty sure that consumer electricity usage is a small slice of the total.

see my post https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2939554&postcount=36

 

[CRGreathouse]

Not seeing it, Evo...

 

[Al68]

For starters, it could be considered a matter of national security. The safety of the nation depends on our energy supply, and the grid is already stressed.

LOL. Now that's an pretty extreme example of rationalization to justify violating the constitution.

That's even better than the absurd nonsense right-wing pundits make up as hyperbole to make fun of Democrats.

I hope that was intended as a joke.