More Crap From the "Party of the Poor"

from JoeUser Forums

Link

I like compact flourescent light bulbs. I really do.

In fact, you will not find traditional incandescent bulbs in our house for that reason. And our nominal electric bill (average bill between 30-50 bucks a month) reflects that and other energy saving options that we implement around our house.

But I'm going to readily acknowledge that good flourescent light bulbs do not come cheap. The cheapest ones aren't worth buying, frankly, and you have to go somewhere in the $2-3 a bulb range to find a bulb that will actually last. Honestly, it's worth it in the long run.

But given the average 3 bedroom home, and the almost inevitable minimum of 10 lightbulbs throughout the home, and you can see where converting to all flourescent might not be an affordable option for some, in light of the fact that incandescent bulbs are about 1/10 the price. In other words, for the cost of one flourescent bulb, you can light the entire house with incandescents (of course, you pay more in the long run, but honestly, that's not something the poorer members of the community see, especially since utilities are covered by welfare programs, light bulbs are not).

And so, armed with this knowledge, it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. And yet they are. If the loonies in the legislature have their way, Californians will no longer be allowed to purchase incandescent bulbs. And as usual, the poorest will be the hardest hit by their insane laws, because the cost of outfitting the aforementioned 3 bedroom home with compact flourescent bulbs would be half a day's wages for a minimum wage employee, not the kind of outlay one expects to put into light bulbs.

The proposal to ban incandescent bulbs is yet another symptom of a government run amuck, a government that has lost touch with the people it was elected to represent. If you want to cut electric usage, increase rates. Make electricity pricey, and families will do more to conserve, and consumption will drop. But to even consider banning consumer choices, especially in ways that could very well hurt the poor financially, is contemptible and disgusting.

politics
24,795 views 78 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs.


Would you expect anything less from that crazy state?

This is ridiculous. It's, as you said, "another system of a government run amok" . . . but such is life. Can we truly expect anything else from either party?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The cheapest ones aren't worth buying, frankly, and you have to go somewhere in the $2-3 a bulb range to find a bulb that will actually last


i've never paid more than than a buck; a year or so ago, i found a place that was sellin 2 per pack for $1. i've only had a single bad one.

given the average 3 bedroom home, and the almost inevitable minimum of 10 lightbulbs throughout the home, and you can see where converting to all flourescent might not be an affordable option for some


both la's dwp and socal edison (and very likely all the other electic utilities in the state) happily rebate part of the price for fluorescents. even if they're currently buying 25 cent incandescents (cheapest i've ever seen), a 1000% increase in the price of bulbs hasta be wayyyyyyy down the list of financial concerns for anyone living in 3-bedroom anythings--except perhaps a 'this old box' add-on projects--$25.00 a year hardly compares to a minimum $1000 monthly rent or mortgage payment.

it seems ludicrous that California would be seriously considering implementing a ban on incandescent light bulbs. And yet they are. If the loonies in the legislature have their way, Californians will no longer be allowed to purchase incandescent bulbs. And as usual, the poorest will be the hardest hit by their insane laws,


same thing could be said about leaded gas.

the cost of outfitting the aforementioned 3 bedroom home with compact flourescent bulbs would be half a day's wages for a minimum wage employee


considering his takehome aint gonna be enuff to pay the rent, he'll be spared the torment of having to read his eviction notice while sitting on the bare floor dulling his hunger pangs by drinking his fill of free cold water.
Groupy 2 - Organize multiple applications into grouped tabs on your Windows desktop
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hmmm....I see a lucrative black market springing up!  Can anyone say "UPS"?
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think this would be a great thing for the environment. They aren't saying that everyone will have to replace all their lightbulbs on one day. Just when a lightbulb burns out the only available replacement will be the CFC not the incandescent. Even people who don't have a lot of money should be able to afford to replace their lightbulbs as they burn out.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

I think this would be a great thing for the environment.

If you think those Beverly Hills mansions are going to be lit with compact flourescents, you're mistaken. And some of those places use more electricity than a small town.

I think this is a HORRIBLE response. I agree we need to take care of the environment, but not through silly legislation like this. Frankly, any place that bans incandescent bulbs and doesn't have any provision in city building codes for houses to be built to reuse their greywater for landscaping is pretty hypocritical, if you ask me.

same thing could be said about leaded gas.

Yeah, because I see all the black smoke emanating from incandescent bulbs, kingbee.

Sorry, but this is nuts.

 

 

 

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Wednesday, January 31, 2007
I think this would be a great thing for the environment.

If you think those Beverly Hills mansions are going to be lit with compact flourescents, you're mistaken.
Damn straight... no one likes flourescent chandeliers
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
no one likes flourescent chandeliers


It makes the gold glow in an odd way . . .

"Jeeves, what happened to the chandelier. It looks brassy."

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
We have started buying some florescent bulbs. Spendy little suckers and havent used them long enough yet to see a difference...but our regular bulbs are starting to burn out and we are replacing them. In the kitchen, of the 5 available lights, 3 are now flourescent. One thing that I notice is there is a delay from when I flip the switch to when those blubs turn on. It happens with another table lamp we have in the house. I know there is a delay with flourescent bulbs (usually reasonably small), but sometimes it takes a second or two to fire up and then sometimes its like they need to warm up to finally get to full brightness. We also put one outside to replace the burnt out incandescent; flip the switch and you cant even tell it is on....takes a while to get going. Need to mount some friggen flood lights out there!
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Truth is, ziggy, they really DO save money over the long term. But I haven't seen good ones at the dollar or less prices kingbee is describing; although as he mentioned and I have seen elsewhere, there are subsidy programs in CA that may affect the prices of the bulbs. Even at the prices I pay, though, the savings are insane.

But the light isn't up to par. I know they say a 20 watt bulb produces as much light as a 75 watt, but I can tell you for a fact this isn't so. I'm a person used to using 40 to 60 watts, and I have yet to find a 20 watt that matches the light output.

I just think this whole circus is absurd and that this is a poor way to get the desired result. In EVERY case where a product has been banned/taxed heavily in one state, the "grey market" has thrived (Wisconsin's tax on colored margarine comes to mind, as does Colorado's ban on strike anywhere matches, and New York's massive cigarette taxation). The net result of all of this will be lost sales revenue in CA, as honeowners who don't want to switch will not.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
Never used one. Do they come in really low wattage? The bulb I keep in my work area is 40 watts, and it annoys me sometimes.

No, I don't think the government should be doing this. I think California is paranoid about it because of their 'rolling blackout' culture and the mess they had with their power companies. I think before they worked their way down to light bulbs they could address air conditioning, and folks that don't respect them.

I used to live in a HUD housing project for a while when I left college, and there were people who regularly sat around in the middle of the summer leaving their front doors or windows open, etc. You'd go into their apartments and find their windows cracked to let the smoke out, middle of summer, icebox cold with the air conditioning turned down as low as they could stand it. Then they'd gripe and complain about the bills.

That was in a moderate climate of east tennessee. Imagine what the cooling expense is in Southern California. I would think that lightbulbs would be one of those issues that you'd get around to after you came up with something substantial to deal with the real problems.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Never used one. Do they come in really low wattage? The bulb I keep in my work area is 40 watts, and it annoys me sometimes


Yes, they do come in pretty low wattages. You might want to check them out. The upside is, they last quite awhile.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
because I see all the black smoke emanating from incandescent bulbs


i was offering as an example another product that was legislated outta existence even though it was less expensive than its replacement. if i'd been given a dollar each time i hadda endure someone lecturing me about the benefits of leaded gas vs the drawbacks of unleaded, i might be a republican today.

yet, strangely enuff, these days people are driving their cars just as fast and for a hell of a lot more years than previously.

more importantly, your kids now have one fewer thing in common with napolean.

as far as smoke color goes, what emanates from power plant stacks may resemble cute lil cumulus formations but if you're ever forced to choose between spending an hour in a long tunnel full of bumper-to-bumper traffic or testing stack emissions without a ventilator, the healthier choice would be the former. them nasty-lookin clouds of exhaust might might give you a hell of a headache and shorten your life by a few days or weeks; on the other hand, the last thing you ever see could easily be damn near invisible as it billows outta the stack.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
the ones i use pull 20w and provide illumination comparable to 60w incandescents. i've been discouraged from using one in the the flex-neck lamp i use to light up the area around my computer because all the fluorescent bulbs i've tried have been longer than the flared shade causing them to be much more distracting or interfering than the 75w incandescents in there now.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top

as far as smoke color goes, what emanates from power plant stacks

That's funny, I never saw smoke emanating from windmills, hydroelectric dams, or solar panels, kingbee.

I'm not saying that changing to CFL's isn't a good idea; it's a GREAT idea, actually...I'm saying I see it as being ridiculous to legislate. And I don't think it's analogous to gasoline at all.

Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
one thing that neither your article or the link mentioned was that phillips, the largest maker of incandescent bulbs, plans to stop making them anyway by 2016. also, california's biggest electric utility, southern california edison has given away over 1,000,000 florescent bulbs because it's actually cheaper to give the bulbs away than fuel the power plants.

and it isn't all just about conservation of electricity. both articles neglected to mention that the savings are not only the 55 bucks per bulb, per year. it also would cut about 1300 pounds of carbon dioxide per bulb, per year. The California Energy Commission estimates that eliminating incandescent bulbs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 1.82 million metric tons per year.

i'm not sure this ban is necessary, as incandescents will probably go the way of the 8 track tape eventually. but in arguing against it, you neglected to point to the real motivations that are about much more than saving a few bucks. and you neglected to mention the assistance being provided by socal edison.

california has some serious problems with co2 emmissions, and this bill is about dealing with that. it is not how you tried to shallowly frame it as some "big government" trying to stop business from happening.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
california has some serious problems with co2 emmissions, and this bill is about dealing with that.


CA's Co2 emissions aren't tied to light bulb usage, and you know it, Sean. You're right when you say that incandescents will soon go the way of the 8 track, but it should be because of consumer demand, NOT because of legislation. This IS about big government controls, Sean, and it reeks.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
CA's Co2 emissions aren't tied to light bulb usage, and you know it, Sean


actually, according to the orig. associated press release article, they are.

The idea has annoyed some Republicans, who say people should be allowed to make their own choices about which bulbs to buy. But Levine, who heads the Assembly's Utilities and Commerce Committee, points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.


He said replacing one 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent bulb would prevent 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide from being pumped into the atmosphere by electric plants. Carbon dioxide is a major component of the gases that most experts believe are responsible for global warming. Consumers could also save $55 over the life of a single bulb.
full article...WWW Link">Link

another article explains the rest...
If Californians switched completely to compact fluorescent bulbs, it would reduce carbon-dioxide emissions by about 1.8 million metric tons per year or as much as shutting down one or two gas-fired power plants or removing 400,000 cars from the road, said California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld, a physics professor emeritus of the University of California-Berkeley. California emits about 500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases a year.

``We treat it as too small to be noticed,'' said Rosenfeld, who last year won the federal Energy Department's highest honor. ``It's a perfect example of all the low-lying fruit that's around. In the case of fluorescent lamps, it's particularly silly not to be using them.''

full article here..link="http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/16586529.htm?source=rss&channel=mercurynews_northern_california"]WWW Link
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Wow, sean. This is the first time I've heard about wind turbines and solar panels causing CO2 emissions. Thanks for the updates.

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.


This much is an outright lie!

Wow, sean. This is the first time I've heard about wind turbines and solar panels causing CO2 emissions. Thanks for the updates.


You forgot hydro electric. Which is where "most" of CA power comes from. Can you say "Hoover Dam"?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Which is where "most" of CA power comes from.


Which is part of their stupidity, if you ask me. The government's busy banning lightbulbs rather than developing alternative energy sources, and buying the resources of other states (specifically water) rather than gathering their own resources. How much water has been lost by transporting it the distances required to get it to southern California.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
points out that the new bulbs are so efficient that electric utilities give them away.[/quote]

This much is an outright lie!
End of quote


not according to the article..what's your evidence?

[quote]Wow, sean. This is the first time I've heard about wind turbines and solar panels causing CO2 emissions. Thanks for the updates.


are you contending california doesn't have gas fired plants? they do...many. as of 2004, i believe they had 66 of them. some were on the "retirement list" to be done by 2008 i believe, but many were not.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
California Gross System Power for 2005
In Gigawatt-Hours (GWh)



Fuel Type
In-State
NW Imports
SW Imports
GSP
GSP Percentage

Coal {2}
28,129
4,926
24,796
57,851
20.1%

Large Hydro
34,500
12,883
1,701
49,084
17.0%

Natural Gas
96,088
1,786
10,812
108,686
37.7%

Nuclear
36,155
691
4,861
41,707
14.5%

Renewables
30,916
-0-
-0-
30,916
10.7%

Biomass
6,045


6,045
2.1%

Geothermal
14,379


14,379
5.0%

Small Hydro
5,386


5,386
1.9%

Solar {1}
660


660
0.2%

Wind
4,446


4,446
1.5%

Other
-0-


-0-
0.0%

TOTAL
225,788
20,286
42,170
288,245
100.0%

Source:

Net System Power: A Small Share of California's Power Mix in 2005, Energy Commission Publication # CEC-300-2006-009-F. (Acrobat PDF, 10 pages, 230 kilobytes, date on line April 13, 2006)


the above outlines california's energy sources. i'm sorry the chart didn't print as it was shown on the page. but you can follow that each source has a percentage atthe bottom. coal has 20% roughly, and gas is around 37%. hydro comes in THIRD w/ 17% aprox. MOST of that is instate sourced. even adding the couple of points for smaller hydro doesn't even give it 2nd place, let alone 1st.

Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sean,

So why aren't they working more on alternative energy and less on regulating the end user? I'll tell you why: lobbyists. It's much easier to target joe commuter as the source of Co2 emissions and ignore big businesses, but it's also dishonest. The truth is, the reason they aren't exploring wider implementation of alternative energy options is because of the potential loss of revenue by energy suppliers.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Now add together what the gas, water, wind and nuke produce
Totaling
34,500 large hydro
96,088 natural gas which only accounts for 2.3% of CA's generated CO2
Link
36,155 nuke
14,379 geothermal
5386 small hydro
4446 wind
660 solar
taken together those are some pretty impressive GWh numbers and of all of them, only the natural gas one give off CO2. And like I said only 2.3% of the states total generated CO2 levels came from making electricity with natural gas. They need to work on the coal one most assuredly. I can find no information on the "renewables".
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think it's analogous to gasoline at all.


you see no similarity between legislating incandescent bulbs outta existence and legislating leaded gas outta existence?

unleaded gas was once more expansive yet produced less horsepower by volume than the alternative. making leaded gas unavailable to consumers wasn't easy on minimum wage workers--or anyone else--driving the automotive equivalent of a 3-br home.

if you can envision a non-theoretical alternative scenario in which we would not now be filling your kids' bodies with toxic levels of lead, please share. i'm all for non-carbon energy sources (i'm less concerned about co2 than i am about so2 and hg btw) but i'm not gonna hold my breath, so to speak, in anticipation of socal edison shutting down its coal-fired steam plants.