Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: muawiyah

Do you or anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of the incandescent bulb?


4 posted on 07/17/2011 9:55:12 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: SeekAndFind

The same reason for the banning of FREON — money, geld, d’argent, moolah, flooss.

Sheesh folks, some people will get very rich by promoting CFL bulbs. Ever seen a poor congresscritter?


6 posted on 07/17/2011 10:02:45 AM PDT by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Higher profits for Ubama’s buddies at GE. Also less freedom. And the global warming idiocy.


7 posted on 07/17/2011 10:05:29 AM PDT by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Why was it banned?

Just ill-informed Congressmen sitting around one day saying to each other "Let's stir the pot" so they banned them.

You have to understand that the United States lighting requirement is met mostly through the widespread installation of fluorescent lighting systems ~ and that has been the case since the early 1950s.

Incandescent lights consume such a small part of the national power production they are and have been IRRELEVANT for a very long time.

Only by claiming that all incandescents were in an on state 24/7 were their analysts to come up with a projected savings of $21.33 per year for each person. Since most incandescents are actually NEVER ON most informed analysts suggest that the maximum feasible savings would be more like 1% of that, or less than a quarter dollar per year, and that assumed that you would purchase and use only the most efficient fluorescent lights possible. As it turns out in heavy use in the home fluorescent lights don't take well to being turned on and off all the time, nor do they stand up well to WET ENVIRONMENTS ~ when they are in close proximity to the "wet".

So any savings are probably ephemeral at best, and might even be LOSSES.

Congressmen are, when you get right down to it, innumerate.

12 posted on 07/17/2011 10:18:26 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
One word: enviroweenies. They believe that these new bulbs will save so much energy that the earth will be saved. Hollywood types got on the band wagon.

I never heard one report on TV or radio that explained that it would take a ton of earth to counteract the mercury pollution caused by one light bulb. Just wait until all that mercury hits the landfills!

Course in the real world, there is always a story, such as GE profiting by producing these bulbs in China, just like all their other “green” projects. Follow the money and you will no doubt figure out why Congress critters allowed themselves to be “convinced” to vote for such a travesty.

19 posted on 07/17/2011 11:08:51 AM PDT by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind
Do you or anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of the incandescent bulb?

It's cheap, contains no toxins, it serves it's intended purpose, and it WAS made in America. Associated with conservatism which shares all those characteristics, it was a natural target for liberals/appeasers like Congressional Democrats and President Bush.

30 posted on 07/23/2011 7:41:14 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: SeekAndFind

Do you or anyone know the reasoning behind the banning of the incandescent bulb?
###

It is so GE and a couple of other corporations can make more money and pay off more corrupt politicians.


44 posted on 07/23/2011 11:56:56 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson