Posted on 03/22/2007 2:24:18 AM PDT by Man50D
I admit I agree with your idea of term limits, but those *&^%$#@* would never relinquish their power over us "common folks". Congress is so corrupt and they couldn't afford to live under the laws they pass for us to abide by every day.
I also disagree with our tax dollars paying for their retirement and other perks. They should have to pay their way. The sheeple just love the dollars these clowns bring back into their districts.
I have replaced virtually all of my light bulbs with compact Flours but I have a question, Why is my NYSEG bill going up and up and up and up and.......
Low flow toilets means you flush 3 or 4 times, after plunging of course.
I don't know why your bill is going up. We recently replaced many of our bulbs too, but haven't noticed any change in our bill - yet.
Jut think what a better world it would be if we could just ban liberals.
Lemmings.
But banning the sale of incandescents from one private party to another, even if you believe that the goal is worthy, is not only intrusive but unnecessary; The light quality of CFs keeps getting better, the price keeps going down, and they keep getting more and more popular, if the amount of space they occupy on store aisles is any indication.
The market can handle this fine, especially when LED lamps become more cost-effective. and I predict that in ten years, most of the incandescents sold will be for specialty use (like appliances) or places that want to be historically accurate.
I've gone mostly to CF -- the only incandescents left are the ones I don't use much, so the old bulbs haven't burned out yet, and the ones on dimmer switches. I'm not actively removing working incandescents, but I'm changing over by attrition. If you haven't looked at CF lately, look again -- the purplish tint of the early models is gone, and they have fourescents that are every bit as bright as incandescent floodlights, after the first 30 seconds to a minute.
Aside from consumers already havign an incentive to switching over, the power companies have an incentive to subsidize their use, at least in places that are near capacity. The more folks can cut usage, the longer they can go without building more generating capacity.
I don't get the advertized life span out of CF bulbs, but I don't get near the advertised life out of incandeascents, either -- I have dirty power, and need to get a whole-house line conditioner, among other wiring improvements.
The reality is that people will run more lights longer if they are forced to use CFs everywhere to get around the warmup time. They also don't last as long as claimed and take 10-20 times the energy to produce as incandescent. I could go on for paragraphs about all of the misleading hype about CFs but the point is that they are fine for some applications but inappropriate for universal use.
The implicit carbon footprint would be intolerable.
Quote from a dimbulb.
Not only is it not a joke, but I happen to think it's a worthwhile goal. I hate having to drive 2-3 hours in any direction to see anything dimmer than Orion.
And they have ideas that would cut into light pollution without sacrificing safety or compromising comfort, usually at fairly low cost with savings in the long run. For example, put street lights closer to the ground, with reflective hoods on top of them; light that shines straight up in the air is wasted anyway, and more efficiently focusing light where it's needed means you can run at lower wattage and save money in the long term.
What a crock. I have bought florescents for various purposes, but sometimes incandescent works better. It should be a choice (particularly when you can get a 4 pack of GE soft whites for less than 99 cents, while the cheapest florescent bulbs go for $4 each.
And yes, there is energy cost savings... but it should still be a CHOICE.
I am so sick of big-brother government.
More Corporate Welfare disguised in the form of new regulations.
They're too busy with their stupid candles to care.
Move to North Korea.
In addition, anyone who has tried them know that the "equivalent light" ratings are total fantasy. A 100 watt incandescent clearly creates far more light than a "100 watt equivalent" fluorescent that only consumes 30 watts. Put two of them side by side and you'll see what I mean.
It looks great on paper but don't believe it.
Why not let the marketplace make that determination? Are we going to mandate that everyone upgrade their furnaces and A/Cs? If these bulbs are so superior to incandescent light bulbs in terms of cost savings and lumens, then most people will buy them.
The incandescent bulb also emits heat.
Sounds like a market will develop for "PRE-BAN" lightbulbs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.