Thread: Will You Buy A $50 Light Bulb?

Originally Posted by Proud South Korean

Electricity costs aren't a joke nowadays. I'd gladly buy a bucketful of those bulbs to replace all the bulbs in my house if it will conserve the enormous electricity costs. $50 a bulb is puny compared to the costs it will save in utilities in my opinion

People are probably tired of hearing me say this but I live off grid so I pay very close attention to electricity use and I can tell you light bulbs are basically inconsequential unless you use 100 watt bulbs which very few people now do. These fony stats on the new bulb compare them to these 100 watt bulbs so the results are skewed. Most people now use curly bulbs at 25 watts or 40- 60 watt incandescent bulbs unless maybe it's a reading light. If you already use low watt bulbs these 50 buck bulbs will never reach the break even point in their lifetime which I will bet is less than advertised anyway. Besides that you can already get similar bulbs far cheaper, I recently bought 4 for 20 bucks at cost co that use 6 watts, why would I spend 50 for this government bulb? As I said, 10 million tax payer dollars down the toilet.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

Ten million spent by the gov to develop a bulb nobody is going to buy is not penny wise. Private industry will make bulbs that get the most bang for the buck as the technology progresses. Gov on the other hand feels free to squander tax payer dollars on pie in the sky BS which IMO is pound foolish.

A couple of things though...We NEED to be moving towards more efficient and sustainable fuels and energy systems. Solar power has demonstrated that there wont be significant progress based solely on the private industry. We have had the technology for going on 40 years now. It still isnt readily available and affordable. The flip side to that of COURSE is that when green energy loans are gifted to campaign contributors in the name of politics, that **** is a recipe for disaster every time. But look at what cost alone is causing. A clean efficient safe form of sustainable energy has gone and remains untapped. I dont believe we could currently get off of fossil fuels using green energy sources but we can damn sure make a dent in the problem. Personally I'm not all that concerned about whether or not oil companies (and lets face it...private citizens via their 401ks) make obscene profits on oil. Im not overly concerned about where we get the fossil fuels from. I AM quite concerned about the yellow/gray layer of smog that sits over every major population center in the country. We can do better. We NEED to do better. Promoting ideas like a 10 watt light bulb...or a pickup truck that runs as efficiently on CNG as regular gasoline and gets 40 mpg...or efficient mass transportation...or whatever...is in my opinion worth the investment. If I can tell my great grandkids that we were part of a positive transition to cleaner energy sources, while we are fishing on a clean lake breathing clean air...Im OK with that...even if it WAS thought up by democrats (which...it wasnt).

Fact is we HAVE to do things different. We simply have to. I would rather see state governments hold a lottery and draw 1 in 4 houses and at no cost to the homeowner than what we all pay in taxes install solar panels in parts of the country where solar is most viable (or offer no interest loans and reduced costs with the homeowner having the right to opt out of they choose) than to see them piss more money away in social programs and 'stimulus' programs that simply add to the debt. The increased demand would have the natural benefit of reducing cost of solar panels overall AND reducing consumption of fossil fuels...reduced demand equals reduced prices. At the same time we should be going after every available fuel system there is while continuously searching for a viable replacement for fossil fuels. There are SO MANY things we should be doing different...better...smarter.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

People are probably tired of hearing me say this but I live off grid so I pay very close attention to electricity use and I can tell you light bulbs are basically inconsequential unless you use 100 watt bulbs which very few people now do. These fony stats on the new bulb compare them to these 100 watt bulbs so the results are skewed. Most people now use curly bulbs at 25 watts or 40- 60 watt incandescent bulbs unless maybe it's a reading light. If you already use low watt bulbs these 50 buck bulbs will never reach the break even point in their lifetime which I will bet is less than advertised anyway. Besides that you can already get similar bulbs far cheaper, I recently bought 4 for 20 bucks at cost co that use 6 watts, why would I spend 50 for this government bulb? As I said, 10 million tax payer dollars down the toilet.

I think it is awesome that you live 'off the grid'...I really do. I really cant stand the new bulbs. My experience is they have to be replaced as often as filament bulbs, and I cant stand the light they produce. However I think if we look at solar power use in this country we see why just letting the markets drive production and cost doesnt always work.

Yes - people can pay less - for things made in China and Mexico. That's great for America isn't it? Aren't we trying to bring jobs back to this country? Inspire and incite manufacturing and technology growth in this country?

As I've stated earlier, CFL's (curly bulbs) have some definite and direct environmental issues.

Funneling money into American technology and American manufacturing is a perfectly reasonable use of TAX dollars.

Nobody is forcing anybody to buy $50 light bulbs, but if the long-run product helps this country on multiple fronts it's money well spent.

How many billions of dollars do we give to Pakistan?

Yeah - I have no problem with funding USA led technology and innovation. Even if the initial cost is too high for the average person to justify.

I buy 50.00 dollar light bulbs all the time. Sometimes more.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Yes - people can pay less - for things made in China and Mexico. That's great for America isn't it? Aren't we trying to bring jobs back to this country? Inspire and incite manufacturing and technology growth in this country?

As I've stated earlier, CFL's (curly bulbs) have some definite and direct environmental issues.

Funneling money into American technology and American manufacturing is a perfectly reasonable use of TAX dollars.

Nobody is forcing anybody to buy $50 light bulbs, but if the long-run product helps this country on multiple fronts it's money well spent.

How many billions of dollars do we give to Pakistan?

Yeah - I have no problem with funding USA led technology and innovation. Even if the initial cost is too high for the average person to justify.

Kinda depends on how you 'fund' it. Giving away hundreds of billions of dollars to 'green' companies that happen to be major campaign contributors only to watch them go tits up with no obligation to repay the loans...yeah...thats a BAD idea. Some might even say 'corrupt'. Tossing out the carrot and let companies fight over it...thats a GOOD idea. And yes...cost matters to the consumer. If your product is too expensive then it isnt going to get used. Period.

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Yes - but if you break a CFL? And how/where do you dispose of your dead CFL bulbs?

Don't they contain mercury? Do we want a few hundred million of these in the landfill over the next 10 years?

Do you have flourescent lights in your kitchen, under your patio, or in the garage? Most houses do, as well as most schools, most office buildings, most hospitals etc. etc.

In tie, I think most lighting will be very affordable LED's, but til they come down in price, I think CFL's are a great choice that is less costly but still saves a great deal of electricity.

Light bulb electric use is nibbling around the edges. It is heating elements that use the most energy and that is where technological advances could make a real difference. When you make your toast in the morning you are using 1000- 1500 watts. Then theres your stove and oven, water heater, hair dryer, clothes dryers , heaters and yes even your fridge.Heating elements are the big user of electricity. Not to mention AC in summer, deep well pumps and various other 220 volt appliances. Then theres television, computers, video games etc etc. Lighting is the last thing we should be paying 10 million for not the first.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

Light bulb electric use is nibbling around the edges. It is heating elements that use the most energy and that is where technological advances could make a real difference. When you make your toast in the morning you are using 1000- 1500 watts. Then theres your stove and oven, water heater, hair dryer, clothes dryers , heaters and yes even your fridge.Heating elements are the big user of electricity. Not to mention AC in summer, deep well pumps and various other 220 volt appliances. Then theres television, computers, video games etc etc. Lighting is the last thing we should be paying 10 million for not the first.

Precisely correct. However if you were able to completely eliminate the need for 110 vac power needs (which are the majority of the day to day needs) and encourage the use of swamp coolers over AC (just because we CAN do something doesnt mean we SHOULD do something and MAYBE advocate for people to toughen up a little and not insist on AC if it 'phew' rises above 80...or heating just because 'brrr' it drops below say...65...well...that WOULD make a significant difference. More energy efficient appliances also helps. it ALL helps.

Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon

Ten million spent by the gov to develop a bulb nobody is going to buy is not penny wise. Private industry will make bulbs that get the most bang for the buck as the technology progresses. Gov on the other hand feels free to squander tax payer dollars on pie in the sky BS which IMO is pound foolish.

Ten million to save $600 million sounds like a hell of a deal to me! And that doesn't even include the savings from improved health due to less pollution from coal fired power plants.