I have first hand experience with the "better" bulbs they are describing.
A client of mine is an ardent enviro. He purchased these bulbs for every fixture in his small- 20 x 20 office where 3 or 4 people worked on engineering details and bookkeeping. They cost upwards of $7 each. None of them lasted for even a year, and they were only on from about 8:15 am to 5 PM, mostly in the winter months. He could be a real tightwad about the power bill, discarding the impending blindness of employees.
By any measure, these bulbs definately did NOT last longer. I don't know if they truly lowered the power bill, as he would selectively turn lights on/off, so I couldn't get a handle on a cross measurement. I do know the $7 bul;bs were purchased far oftened than I do at home, where I often had lights on for over 16 hours at a stretch, doing bookkeeping for my clients.
I think changing over should totally be voluntary. If the government can dictate what light bulbs we have, where does it end? This cannot be a Homeland Security issue. This is just a control issue. More stupidity out of Kalifornia.
Wanna bet me that most of the lights in traffic control are the old style? How about them being changed? OH- right- not bright enough to meet "their standards".
I can see it now...the state police rounding up Walmart managers for stocking incandescents and ignoring illegal aliens/terrorists...
What are they planning as a substitute for the incandescent bulb? Fluorescent.
California is already the fruitcake state with unreasonable restrictions on chemicals and waste. Do you think they know that a fluorescent bulb has MERCURY in it in order to make it work?
Save me as much as $72 per bulb after 5 years?
If the bulbs last only 4 months each,(which they did at a client's office) that is 3 bulbs a year for 5 years = 15 bulbs @ $7 ea= $105 over 5 years, which puts me $27 into the hole for EACH light fixture I am putting a bulb into. I just counted 35 regular lights in this house, a twin bulb flourescent lamp, 2 small mini bulb reading lamps, and the "can lights" in the kitchen=10. 45 lights over 5 years @ a loss of $27 eash would cost me $1215 total, which is far more than one month of soc sec money I currently collect. The math just doesn't work.
Besides, where is all this production going to come from?
Kalifornia needs to get out of people private lives. No wonder residents are fleeing.
Second:
The life expectancy claims made by the manufacturers seem to be highly exagerated. I have never had one florescent bulb last 7 years in order to amortize the added expense of them towards the "energy savings".
What are your opinions on these lamps?
Can expel the PRK from the Union then declare war on it?
How does the world's sixth largest economy come up with such stupid ideas?
Libs and socialist controlers advancing on all fronts, compelled lighting, Fairness Doctrine, cut and run, global warming, carbon swapping, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
I like those spiral bulbs, but I don't want anyone making me buy them. If this passes, next you'll have someone saying they need to raise taxes so they can purchase these more expensive bulbs for the 'poor and needy.'
This is a very disturbing trend!
This is liberal land. Liberals actually are not liberal. They are fascist elitist dictators who want to control every aspect of life.
Ya know, these people have WAY too much time on their hands!
California takes yet another step towards officially becoming Mexiforniastan with this move. Soon, they will officially enter, "the dark ages."
I think new advancements in LED lighting will make CFL's irrelavent in about 15 years. Some of what I have seen is very encouraging. I love the potential of LED.
Tonight, interiewed on KFI-640AM's "John Zeigler Show," The legislator behind this bill says it will ban sale of incandescents in CA, *not* use of them.
I'd like to outlaw Lloyd Levine. Not to mention the rest of his cohors in the assembly.
We need to provide power to the ever expanding population. OR, LET NO ONE ELSE MOVE HERE.
BUILD MORE POWER PLANTS.