Okay, I'm letting you know! Again, I refer you to your own article, "The new lights are comparably priced to the regular incandescent lights. A two-bulb package of 100-watt incandescent bulbs is about $4.32 at Lowe's, while a four-bulb package of new 72-watt halogen bulbs is $8.66, or $4.33 for two."
You can't regulate or force concern, sorry. If people wish to disregard conservation, that's up to them. Forcing them to do things your way, just because you think that's how it ought to be done, is an infringement on their American freedoms.
Nice way to take him out of context. He was specifically talking about LED bulbs, which at Lowes are $40 each.
Okay, I'm letting you know! Again, I refer you to your own article, "The new lights are comparably priced to the regular incandescent lights. A two-bulb package of 100-watt incandescent bulbs is about $4.32 at Lowe's, while a four-bulb package of new 72-watt halogen bulbs is $8.66, or $4.33 for two."
You didn't follow the thread of our discussion. LED's are not required under this new regulation.
Only if you marry the wrong person.
I think it's fair to say that one looses freedoms whenever you sign into any contract; because you are agreeing to abide by various terms and conditions. You have to operate within those limitations, and that's a loos of freedom even if it was voluntary.
Wrong. If I drive on the autobahn, where there is no speed limit and I only drive 55, I'm not giving up my rights to go faster, I'm simply choosing not to.
Further, I cannot imagine any actual rights that are lost by entering into marriage,
anything that is possibly lost was never a right to begin with.
Ok, here I thought you had a legitimate reason to think that. Thanks for the clarification.
Okay, I'm letting you know! Again, I refer you to your own article, "The new lights are comparably priced to the regular incandescent lights. A two-bulb package of 100-watt incandescent bulbs is about $4.32 at Lowe's, while a four-bulb package of new 72-watt halogen bulbs is $8.66, or $4.33 for two."
When I looked at Lowes, they don't even list a 72 watt halogen, only 60, 75, and 100. Those are the three closest to 72 watt. And a four pack of standard 100 watt incandescents are $2.48 for four.
If they wanted to lower energy usage, they could have simple required lower wattage incandescents which would use the same energy as the halogens.
When I looked at Lowes, they don't even list a 72 watt halogen, only 60, 75, and 100. Those are the three closest to 72 watt. And a four pack of standard 100 watt incandescents are $2.48 for four.
If they wanted to lower energy usage, they could have simple required lower wattage incandescents which would use the same energy as the halogens.
Did you check the Lowes in California where the new regulation is taking place first?
A quick look on google finds a 2 pack of 72 W halogen light bulbs for $3. Bulbrite 115170 72w A19 Halogen Bulb in Soft White (Pack of 2)
And this doesn't include the savings in reduced energy costs. You still have the option to buy bulbs with lower wattage if you wish. The idea was to provide an alternative that provides the same amount of lumens as a 100 watt bulb for less money, which is what the new requirement does.
I noticed the same thigns as you did regarding wattage and prices when I was loking into this, but I decided to look a little deeper into the long term differences on simple purchase costs.
Now, looking at these two options:
GE Soft White Double Life 100-Watt General Purpose A19 (6 Pack) - 49345 at The Home Depot
Philips 70 Watt T60 White Halogena Energy Saver Light Bulb, Dimmable 2Pack - 209692 at The Home Depot
The incandecents put out 1555 lumens at 100 watts and have an average lifetime of 1500 hours.
The halogens put out 1600 lumens at 70 watts and have an average liftime of 3000 hours.
So basically, looking at the average lifetime ratings, 4 incadecent bulbs are worth as much as 2 halogen bulbs as far as time goes. So in order to make it more cost effective from a pure long-term purchasing perspective, the cost for a halogen bulb must be lower than double the cost of an incandecent bulb.
In the obove instance, the incadecents are about 59 cents a bulb and the halogens are about $4.49 a bulb. As far as purchasing goes over time, the incadecents end up being much cheaper. The halogens only offer a minimal energy efficiency boost though, especially when one considers that other options offer much greater energy savings potential.
However, CFL bulbs look to be the best bang for the buck in all respects.
EcoSmart 23-Watt (100W) Soft White CFL Light Bulbs (4-Pack) - ES5M8234 at The Home Depot
1600 lumens at 23 watts with an average lifetime of about 10,000 hours.
This means that the CFL can be 6.67 times as expensive as the incandecent to have the same long term purchase value.
But these CFL's are about a buck each. Meaning that over the span of 10,000 hours, you'll have to by 6 or 7 incandecents compared to one CFL which means you'll spend about three times as much using the incandecent without factoring in the energy savings from the 75% decrease in energy use.
Now, while this doesn't take into account the energy savings, it also deosn't take into account the delay that CFL's have, the fact that they can't be dimmed, or other issues that they have. I just looked at things from a pure long-term purchasing costs perspective.
I don't have a problem with halogen bulbs per se. I don't like the fact that they get so hot and think they could contribute to burns and house fires. They also will burn out much faster if they are touched with the fingers. Oil from fingers greatly reduces their lifespan.
I do not like CFL bulbs at all. I've had them before and don't like that they take so long to come on. When I turn on the light switch, I expect there to be light. Recently I made a huge mistake and put one in an outside floodlight. It takes at least 5 minutes to get fully bright in cold weather.
I replaced the lights in my living room, 10 dimmable recessed fixtures, with led bulbs. It cost a lot of money, but since these lights were on a lot, I figured they would pay for themselves. Now my wife wants me to replace them with incandescents because they are not very bright and she has trouble reading the newspaper.
So, all bulbs have advantages and disadvantages.
From my exerience, the CFL's have improved quite a bit as far as how long it takes for them to pop on and become fully bright. They used to be absolutely terrible, but most of the ones I use right now pop on pretty much imediately and are bright within about 30 seconds. The only exception are the one's I got for the cans in my kitchen, which pop on right away, but take a longer time long to brighten fully (probably a minute or two). I'm probably going to replace those ones because of it.
But like you said, all bulbs have advantages and disavantages. My energy savings with the CFLs have been quite noticable, and I personally consider the drawbacks of them to be minor so, for me, it makes way more sense to use them instead of other bulbs. But other people might find those drawbacks to be a much bigger deal than I do.
I have recessed dimmable fixtures in every room in my house. Sams Club has dimmable CFLs at a decent price, so I've been thinking about getting some for some of the fixtures we don't use that much to see how they work these days.
I haven't used the dimmable ones, so I can't tell you how those are.