Only in California...

Polk65

mensnewsdaily.com wrote:

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/31/light-bulb-ban-for-california-because-you-cant-smoke-cigarettes-if-you-cant-see-em/

California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine has introduced the “How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb act.” The legislation would ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012.

The first ”pollutant” we need to ban are buffoons in government, but that won’t happen anytime soon, as the “what to ban” docket is quite full for the foreseeable future.

Time to buy stock in window treatment futures. :rolleyes:

Loopy Lloyd

F1nut

Hopefully, he'll stick his finger into a live socket.

ben62670

I wonder what he drives for a vehicle? Do you think its bio fuel? Na most of these guys drive gas hogs, and then preach what we should use. I can't wait till they market nice LED lights for the home. I think we should still have a choice. If we are going to ban anything lets ban Chinese junk, and sending our work to foreign countries. Oh yeah we have to pay them to be our friends.

shack

Making it mandantory is not going to work unless it is a national inititive. The idea of using something other than the incandesant light bulb is sound. It is an energy hog and very inefficient. If as a nation if we converted to CF bulbs, can you immagine what would happen to the price of oil and natural gas? There have been economic think tanks (not just liberal green types) that have determined that a 2 percent reduction in energy usage would create a large surplus in oil and natural gas. If indeed the CF bulbs create a 5% ± energy savings it would be huge. To me this totally different from the no smoking, no trans fat issues noted in the blog. It is not a light vs NO light issue. Simply a different technolgy that does the same thing only more efficiently. Remember leaded gas?

When I first read this I too was indignant, but after further thought it makes some sense. BTW I have several of the CF bulbs in my home. Not because of the energy savings, which I guess there are...but because I like the light they give out and I hate changing light bulbs all the time and the CFs do last a long time.

ben62670

CF throw much less heat which is a plus where I am.

TroyD

Yeah, I've been reading into this....shack's pretty much nailed it.

BDT

markmarc

I like the fact that it is a simple way to give more "headroom" on the electrical grid, especially as society uses more electricity.

sucks2beme

I've tried a few of these. Either bad out of the box, or died shortly thereafter.
&*()^# worthless crap!
Show me one that lasts, and I'll buy a bunch. So far, just another worthless fad.

shack

sucks2beme wrote:

I've tried a few of these. Either bad out of the box, or died shortly thereafter.
&*()^# worthless crap!
Show me one that lasts, and I'll buy a bunch. So far, just another worthless fad.

I've got a half dozen or so no-name brand from Wal-Mart that have been going for almost a year. CF light bulbs have been around since the 80s. Hardly a fad.

Danny Tse

shack wrote:

I've got a half dozen or so no-name brand from Wal-Mart that have been going for almost a year. CF light bulbs have been around since the 80s. Hardly a fad.

About 2 weeks ago, while I was in San Diego, I bought up the local Walmart's entire stock of CF floodlight bulbs (use 15 watts to give 65 watts worth of light) @ $1.00/each. These are GE brand CF bulbs. When I came back home to Northern California, the same bulbs were selling at Target for about $6.00/each. While I have seen similar deals up here for "regular" CF bulbs, I haven't come across that good of a deal for CF floodlight bulbs. Perhaps the discounted bulbs were subsidized by the local utilities down in Southern California.

cheddar

My only beef with the tech is that only the newest ones turn on immediately when you hit the switch. For a lot of the CF bulbs out there, you have to wait something like two minutes while you wait for the thing to warm up in near darkness. They need to work on getting CFs to universally go to full brightness immediately. Otherwise, when you first hit the switch, you'll feel like you're in a third world country.

Demiurge

I don't believe government shouldn't be in the business of mandating stuff like this.

It's no different than ethanol mandates. Take away money from Big Oil and the lobbyists, and give it to Big Corn and their lobbyists. In the end the general public takes it in the ****.

I know I'm more free market than most, but I actually believe in it. Americans want what we want, when we want it, and a lot of it. Change should be a choice when it comes to commodities. Light bulbs aren't causing anyone any harm as they are now. Let the market decide.

Take hybrid vehicles. They're catching on now because of the price of gas -- not because the government banned trucks and SUVs. It's amazing what companies and individuals can do when there's a market for them to succeed in. No government needed for that.

shack

Demiurge wrote:

I don't believe government shouldn't be in the business of mandating stuff like this.

It's no different than ethanol mandates. Take away money from Big Oil and the lobbyists, and give it to Big Corn and their lobbyists. In the end the general public takes it in the ****.

I know I'm more free market than most, but I actually believe in it. Americans want what we want, when we want it, and a lot of it. Change should be a choice when it comes to commodities. Light bulbs aren't causing anyone any harm as they are now. Let the market decide.

Take hybrid vehicles. They're catching on now because of the price of gas -- not because the government banned trucks and SUVs. It's amazing what companies and individuals can do when there's a market for them to succeed in. No government needed for that.

Yeah....but who does the consumer blame when there is NO fuel... They will all be yelling for the govt to DO SOMETHING! Energy is not something to be left to the whims of the market. It is not Coke or Pepsi. It is fundimental to the very structure of our economy and nation as a whole. There is a reason there is a DOE. The markets solution to energy is to withold in order to manipulate the price....OPEC limiting production ring a bell? I am a true free market proponent...but if we allow the market to dictate price and availablity when the Chinese and Indians are conusming the majority of the energy resources available it may be to late to change.

Energy as we know it today is more than a commodity. If there is unlimited availability and choices...then that will change. But not now.

Strong Bad

There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. Pushing a so-called ban on bulbs is just rediculous. Start a marketing campaign promoting the CF bulbs and all the benefits to switching.

Fire that idiot politician for not having anything else better to do, take his salary and hire some marketing people!


John

Demiurge

shack wrote:

Yeah....but who does the consumer blame when there is NO fuel... They will all be yelling for the govt to DO SOMETHING! Energy is not something to be left to the whims of the market. It is not Coke or Pepsi. It is fundimental to the very structure of our economy and nation as a whole. There is a reason there is a DOE. The markets solution to energy is to withold in order to manipulate the price....OPEC limiting production ring a bell? I am a true free market proponent...but if we allow the market to dictate price and availablity when the Chinese and Indians are conusming the majority of the energy resources available it may be to late to change.

Energy as we know it today is more than a commodity. If there is unlimited availability and choices...then that will change. But not now.

We're not going to run out of energy. I'm sure you can find a study saying we're going to run out, but do you believe that?

We also have nuclear energy (just one option), but we're scared of meltdowns that happened in the past, despite the technological advances over the years -- so no nuclear power plants. Given the need for them, we'd have them.

I happen to use the CF bulbs in my house, but it was a choice. There is obviously a company that was able to market them to someone like myself without the government holding my hand.

I am all on board with you that the logic is there. That said, the market always ultimately gravitates towards the alternatives when people are being hit in the wallet. It creates opportunity. It's the same as the car manufacturers having to offer more fuel efficient vehicles. This doesn't just mean hybrids, but better engines, etc.

I also don't think that our current government bureaucracies are a solid argument for more government bureaucracy.

markmarc

Energy is more than a commodity, it's a National Defense issue. The more extra energy we have on the grid the better it is for consumers. Secondly, it keeps from having power companies spend multi-millions on endless environmental studies and lawyers to expand or build new power plants.

On occasion, the gov't must mandate in order to prod the population/industry. Remember the CAFE standards, it forced the auto industry to face the reality of fuel efficiency.

bobman1235

Just as a note about nuclear energy (I know it was only an example) but the biggest real concern is what to do with nuclear waste (on the order of BARRELS a day of contaminated cooling water and the like that we litearlly can do nothing but bury) rather than meltdowns. With all of the technology and enough safeguards, the risk meltdowns is negligible, whereas nuclear waste is a significant problem.

shack

Strong Bad wrote:

There's a right way and a wrong way to do things. Pushing a so-called ban on bulbs is just rediculous. Start a marketing campaign promoting the CF bulbs and all the benefits to switching.

If something is critical...and energy consumption and availablity is a critical issue...then gentle nudges and marketing campaigns are not enough. For environmental issues, I can live with the soft approach. If we don't do something now, we may face an energy crisis down the road that could cripple our nation. Baby steps now such as the CFL could go a long way to secure the future.

sucks2beme

I will try looking at (gasp!) Walmart for bulbs.
I hate going there, but I tried several types from Home Depot.
Time for something different. Like all things, there's quality, then there's
crap. Looks like price doesn't tell quality of the bulb.
Either way, energy will get nothing but more expensive.
If we had applied all the money we wasted trying to fix Iraq
into fixing our energy problems, think of where we would be now.

shack

markmarc wrote:

Energy is more than a commodity, it's a National Defense issue. The more extra energy we have on the grid the better it is for consumers. Secondly, it keeps from having power companies spend multi-millions on endless environmental studies and lawyers to expand or build new power plants.

On occasion, the gov't must mandate in order to prod the population/industry. Remember the CAFE standards, it forced the auto industry to face the reality of fuel efficiency.

Bingo. I for one do not want the energy policy of this nation to be left to the free market. The sooner we do whatever to make oil a non-factor in national/world policy the better. Next time there are brownouts in the major cities because demand outstrips the abiltiy to deliver, ask yourself if a 5% reduction of demand would have made a difference.

PolkThug

bobman1235 wrote:

Just as a note about nuclear energy (I know it was only an example) but the biggest real concern is what to do with nuclear waste (on the order of BARRELS a day of contaminated cooling water and the like that we litearlly can do nothing but bury) rather than meltdowns. With all of the technology and enough safeguards, the risk meltdowns is negligible, whereas nuclear waste is a significant problem.

The waste produced by a nuclear power plant is teeny tiny when compared to the waste produced by a coal burning power plant.

shack

PolkThug wrote:

The waste produced by a nuclear power plant is teeny tiny when compared to the waste produced by a coal burning power plant.

Yeah, but they last just a little longer.

Demiurge

Let's think this through in a way that pertains to this very hobby of ours. Let's say you believe government has the <strike>right</strike>, no I'll make it even easier, the responsibility to mandate change like this on our nations businesses. Clearly those of you who support the governmental end of this measure believe that's true.

Should government be able to limit the wattage of your amplifiers, pre-amps, and receivers? If they started doing that how many of you would start screaming? Probably all of you. I know I would.

I'm sure we've all seen this logo:



That's backed by the EPA. The Energy Star program is not a mandate, and I'm perfectly okay with it because of that. Why? It's a volunteer program for businesses. Purchasing products with the Energy Star logo is also voluntary on behalf of the consumer.

What if that was mandated? Do you agree with Energy Star then? I sure don't.

The point in resisting government on initiatives that effectively ban otherwise safe commodities is that it's never ending. You may think the idea of limiting wattage outputs on your amplifiers is silly, but the constraints of government upon the lives of it's citizenry grows by the day.

If CF light bulbs make you feel good, wouldn't you feel better if you listened to your music on a simple 12V clock radio instead of your giant rig and grossly oversized television?

This isn't about being against energy conservation -- it's about having the freedom to choose. Most self proclaimed conservationists are the biggest hypocrites of all.

Doing good ain't got no end. Make everyone equally miserable. Sounds like Socialism to me....

steveinaz

Kalifornia likes to mandate common sense, remember....god forbid we think for ourselves or make a decision on our own.

Everyday this state looks more and more like "San Angeles" in the movie "Demolition Man"

"...this is bad for you, hence, illegal...."...LOL friggin Cali. Though admittedly, this cause has some merit, I hardly think it needs to be legislated.

Demi..."enhance your calm"...ROTFLMAO!!! Gotcha..just messin with you bro, you know I got nothin but love for you man.

shack

Freedom to choose is not an unlimited right. Never has been...never will be. At times it becomes a tired old mantra.

PhantomOG

what makes more sense? Trying to force someone to do something, or educating the person and making them *want* to do that thing?

Demiurge

Nobody is arguing that it is. It's a legal commodity that harms no one, other than those who believe it's depleting the worlds energy supply. I don't know how you argue that, but you're free to believe it, I guess.

That said, I still want to know why running CF light bulbs does a damn thing when you've got the energy sucking system we all have here.

Demi..."enhance your calm"...ROTFLMAO!!! Gotcha..just messin with you bro, you know I got nothin but love for you man.

Too much passion on this stuff! I even got your back on the smoking stuff.

steveinaz

Passion....I agree. Though it seems a small issue, it's the principal of the thing. I don't like seeing freedoms being chipped away at---even if it is something I could care less about. Hell, I use a bunch of these bulbs in and around my house--they're great. Doesn't mean I wanna make a law saying you've got to have them too.

sucks2beme

steveinaz wrote:

Passion....I agree. Though it seems a small issue, it's the principal of the thing. I don't like seeing freedoms being chipped away at---even if it is something I could care less about. Hell, I use a bunch of these bulbs in and around my house--they're great. Doesn't mean I wanna make a law saying you've got to have them too.

Just like having toilets that take two flushes to work!
Bring back the 3 gal. flush!!!

shack

Since I will probably not live long enough to see the day when the demand for energy exceeds our ablility to produce it, I guess it should be no concern of mine. Of course that is only about 25 years if you believe the actuarial data. My kids and their kids will have to deal with it. That said, unless we change our ways, whether voluntarily or mandated, based on all the factors we know today, we will run out of the abiltiy to produce enough energy to sustain even our current level of demand sooner than later. If you believe technolgy will bail us out...fine. If you want to rely on the good sense of not only the US but the world at large to make sure we are prepared for the future...fine as well. You and my kids can work it out. I won't be part of the problem.

markmarc

I have a close relative who spent several years as a senior engineer at WIP for nuclear contanimated material. That site is as safe as can be, the chances of a leak are so minimal with all the redundencies, yet because of a few way too paranoid individuals, it remains closed. Leaving tons of solid waste sitting out in the open in a far more environmentally unsafe situation.

The key to nuclear powers success, is in following the french model. they have only 2 reactor designs (one by Westinghouse). Once construction begins no major changes take place. In this way, predictability and efficiency is the end result.