myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
That green thing
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good old Bard, make it up as you bash. No truth to anything you said here, and no specifics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
I just don't like being told what kind of light bulb to buy.

Can you elaborate on this, please? What exactly do you mean by it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
MalibuGuru



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 9288

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The standard 100-watt light bulb is going away, and its lower-wattage cousins are soon to follow.

U.S. bulbmakers can no longer manufacture the 100-watt bulb as of Jan 1 as part of a multiyear push to boost the efficiency of the nation's lighting under a 2007 law signed by President George W. Bush. (idiot)

For consumers, the law is making the purchase of light bulbs more like an investment choice, with a need to balance higher up-front costs against longer-term electricity savings.

Some of the newest high-efficiency bulbs cost more than $20 each and are designed to last more than 20 years.

"The light bulb is moving from a 60-cent commodity that you throw into your grocery cart to an investment just like a refrigerator or major appliance," said Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association, an industry trade group. "It costs more money and you expect it to do more, and if you move, you might even take it with you."

Consumers will still see the old-style bulbs on shelves for some time. Lower-wattage incandescent bulbs are being phased out over the next two years. The law allows stores to sell remaining stocks of banned bulbs.

WHO GETS HURT? AS USUAL THE POOR.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17736
Location: Berkeley, California

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, a law signed by George Bush, not a regulation established by EPA. Do we need to wait for the apology?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 11:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stevenbard...Here is some factual information on Geo Bush's law

http://factcheck.org/2011/05/energy-efficient-bulb-costs/


Now, I would rather see us increase energy costs on a sliding scale for larger energy users rather than define what products need to be purchased. But, this regulation is not as bad as you would have us believe.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:
The standard 100-watt light bulb is going away, and its lower-wattage cousins are soon to follow.

U.S. bulbmakers can no longer manufacture the 100-watt bulb as of Jan 1 as part of a multiyear push to boost the efficiency of the nation's lighting under a 2007 law signed by President George W. Bush. (idiot)

For consumers, the law is making the purchase of light bulbs more like an investment choice, with a need to balance higher up-front costs against longer-term electricity savings.

Some of the newest high-efficiency bulbs cost more than $20 each and are designed to last more than 20 years.

"The light bulb is moving from a 60-cent commodity that you throw into your grocery cart to an investment just like a refrigerator or major appliance," said Terry McGowan, director of engineering for the American Lighting Association, an industry trade group. "It costs more money and you expect it to do more, and if you move, you might even take it with you."

Consumers will still see the old-style bulbs on shelves for some time. Lower-wattage incandescent bulbs are being phased out over the next two years. The law allows stores to sell remaining stocks of banned bulbs.

WHO GETS HURT? AS USUAL THE POOR.

You really are a fool. No, better to again point out that you're a lemming-like tool of the rabid right-wing party of FEAR. This has nothing to do with Obama and everything to do with Bush. This is faux outrage, totally manufactured by the right. (Your political think-alikes are trying very hard to make this an Obama issue rather than the Bush boondoggle that it is.)

The new so-called "100-watt" light bulb is exactly the same shape, size, appearance, and functionality as the original except that it consumes only 70 watts of electrical power. The light output is the same because it's still an incandescent bulb. It's just a better bulb.

A "75-watt" like LED bulb consumes about 11 watts of electrical power, about like a night-light.

I have started switching from CFLs to LED bulbs.

Yes, they're more expensive. Good things usually are. But they last forever -- I consider it a purchase of an infinite appliance rather than a disposable product, like toilet paper. Buy it once, own it forever.


coboardhead wrote:
Now, I would rather see us increase energy costs on a sliding scale for larger energy users rather than define what products need to be purchased. But, this regulation is not as bad as you would have us believe.

The frothing-at-the-mouth, rabid righties don't really care about cheap bulbs or electricity costs...... they are desperate to throw stones at the Obama administration. 99% of those idiot righties don't have the brains or will to seek the truth, so this type of narrative suits them well.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 9:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to expand on all of this...............It was a Democrat controlled congress that initiated this and there was a lot more to it than just light bulbs. My take on the light bulbs is that it may make some sense. Yes, it will save energy, but I am not sure it will save me any money. The compact fluorescents that I have don't last all that long and I have broken a couple just trying to screw them in (don't hold the tube while screwing). I also have a few incandescent floods in my living room and bath room (can fixtures) that are still working after 26 years of daily use. So far, the fluorescent floods aren't very bright compared to the incandescents.

The concern about this is no different than our concerns about the head New Yorker that thinks XL drinks should be forbidden. Many things government does are good, but some go overboard. In the long term, the light bulb thing will probably work out well for the country as a whole, but on an individual scale, the cost for lights in my overall utility bill is insignificant. I certainly won't be buying them to save money. My guess is that for the welfare folks, the government will have to offer subsidies because of the expense.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007

Quote:
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (Pub.L. 110-140[1] originally named the Clean Energy Act of 2007) is an Act of Congress concerning the energy policy of the United States. As part of the Democratic Party's 100-Hour Plan during the 110th Congress,[2] it was introduced in the United States House of Representatives by Representative Nick Rahall of West Virginia, along with 198 cosponsors. Despite Rahall becoming 1 of only 4 Democrats to oppose the final bill,[3] it passed in the House without amendment in January 2007. When the Act was introduced in the Senate in June 2007, it was combined with Senate Bill S. 1419: Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007.[4] This amended version passed the Senate on June 21, 2007.[5][6] After further amendments and negotiation between the House and Senate, a revised bill passed both houses on December 18, 2007[7] and President Bush, a Republican, signed it into law on December 19, 2007 in response to his "Twenty in Ten" challenge to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in 10 years.[8]

The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.”.[9] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promoted the Act as a way of lowering energy costs to consumers.[10] The bill followed another major piece of energy legislation, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The bill originally sought to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote petroleum independence and different forms of alternative energy. These tax changes were ultimately dropped after opposition in the Senate, and the final bill focused on automobile fuel economy, development of biofuels, and energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
coboardhead



Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The biggest problem with the older incandescent bulbs is that they produce so much heat that they add significantly to the air conditioning load. On a new, well insulated building, this can be as much as 40% of the airconditioning load (according to my mech. engineering assoc.).

If you live in a warm climate with a relatively well insulated newer house, you might be impressed with how quickly you pay for the lower heat producing bulbs on your air conditioning bill.

IMO, this was a good law. No one needs to buy or rent an energy hog of a building to save the developer or owner a few bucks. This levels the playing field.

I will miss the availability of cheap bulbs to use in my work light that I always drop. But, maybe now I will be a little more careful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 4161

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
If you live in a warm climate with a relatively well insulated newer house, you might be impressed with how quickly you pay for the lower heat producing bulbs on your air conditioning bill.


If you live in a cold climate, then heating cost will go up with the new bulbs. Overall, it's probably a wash.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807

PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2012 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

techno900 wrote:
Just to expand on all of this...............It was a Democrat controlled congress that initiated this and there was a lot more to it than just light bulbs.

Perhaps so, but today's frothing righties posture with incredible outrage and try to attach this life threatening insult to Obama. Frankly, it's laughable. And Bush signed the bill.


techno900 wrote:
My take on the light bulbs is that it may make some sense. Yes, it will save energy, but I am not sure it will save me any money. The compact fluorescents that I have don't last all that long and I have broken a couple just trying to screw them in (don't hold the tube while screwing). I also have a few incandescent floods in my living room and bath room (can fixtures) that are still working after 26 years of daily use. So far, the fluorescent floods aren't very bright compared to the incandescents.

Agreed. The CFLs are an interim solution until the price of LED bulbs comes down. Keep in mind that way back, the original CFLs cost a bundle until economies of scale brought the cost down.

And, yes, CFLs are a good solution only in certain applications. They fall short because:
- They're fragile and break easily;
- They don't like frequent on-off (the electronics inside the base fails) -- but they do well where they're on 100%
- They truly suck in the cold until they warm up.

The mercury hazard inside CFLs is identical to that in EVERY fluorescent bulb -- no worse. Nobody complained about the gazillions of existing fluorescent tubes (that contain FAR more Hg) until the rabid rightie spin-masters decided to hang that on Obama.


techno900 wrote:
Many things government does are good, but some go overboard.

Yes, true. I'm not sure any of us is skilled enough (except for Iso, who's the smartest creature in the Universe) to accurately discern what's too much. Personally, in the face of uncertainty, I prefer to err on the safe side if the downside is someplace bad (which, for example, means I think we should cut CO2 emissions way back until we really understand the significance of "global warming").


techno900 wrote:
In the long term, the light bulb thing will probably work out well for the country as a whole, but on an individual scale, the cost for lights in my overall utility bill is insignificant.

I agree that they're expensive. So are many of the unnecessary things that we humans buy and do. In my opinion, the money I'm spending on LED bulbs allows me to learn and also supports a fledgling industry (if only it was a US industry instead of a Chinese industry).

And I guess I'm lucky..... my residential power costs 5.9 cents/KWH. Even at that, I want to cut back, because it's less about my money and more about the impact on the environment.


techno900 wrote:
If you live in a cold climate, then heating cost will go up with the new bulbs. Overall, it's probably a wash.

Put on a sweater and warm socks.


coboardhead wrote:

I will miss the availability of cheap bulbs to use in my work light that I always drop. But, maybe now I will be a little more careful.

Question: Will "rough service" bulbs go away too? (That's what belongs in a drop light.)

Or, you could buy one of the new LED trouble lights -- mine works great.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 3 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group