• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye

ptif219

ptif219

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
13,156
Reaction score
1,038
Location
melbourne florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Now we will be told what size light bulb we can use. More government control over our lives.

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye - San Jose Mercury News

As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy-saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.

Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.

The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.
 
Sensible. Has happened in Europe.. hard to get the old style bulbs now days and good. In this case government should mandate such things as people would never switch over to energy saving bulbs because they are more expensive than "old type" bulbs. Now the fact that energy saving bulbs last longer on average (way longer) and cost way less to run should factor in, but as we all know, the consumer is ignorant of such things and only want short term visible results. I think I have one old type bulb in the house, but that is due to the lamp ("it looks pretty" is the comment in this house).. and as soon as the lamp can be replaced then it goes.
 
PeteEU said:
Sensible. Has happened in Europe.. hard to get the old style bulbs now days and good. In this case government should mandate such things as people would never switch over to energy saving bulbs because they are more expensive than "old type" bulbs. Now the fact that energy saving bulbs last longer on average (way longer) and cost way less to run should factor in, but as we all know, the consumer is ignorant of such things and only want short term visible results. I think I have one old type bulb in the house, but that is due to the lamp ("it looks pretty" is the comment in this house).. and as soon as the lamp can be replaced then it goes.
Click to expand...

It's not the consumers whom are ignorant. The arrogance of your thoughts drips heavily in this post. People are too stupid, it's good to have Gov't tell the morons the better way to live.
 
ptif219 said:
Now we will be told what size light bulb we can use. More government control over our lives.

Kiss your 100-watt lightbulb goodbye - San Jose Mercury News

As of Saturday, what used to be a 100-watt light bulb manufactured and sold in California will have to use 72 watts or less. The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy-saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.

Similar new standards for traditional 75-watt, 60-watt and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go into effect in California over the next few years, with wattages reduced to 53, 43 and 29 respectively.

The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.
Click to expand...

As much as I'm typically against government regulation, I really can't get all that worked up over this. This is the quote that I think is important here:

The 72-watt replacement bulb, also called an energy-saving halogen light, will provide the same amount of light, called lumens, for lower energy cost.
Click to expand...

If it performs the same or better and can be offered at a comparable price, but will cost me less to operate, why wouldn't I want it? Personally, I buy those light bulbs already. That said, it probably shouldn't be the government's business as to how I light my surroundings. It would be far better to allow the company to produce the superior product and then let it compete on it's own against the less efficient model. Some people don't seem to realize that they won't have to force their agenda on others if they can just legitimately provide a better option.
 
Last edited:
I hardly ever buy bulbs that are over 60 watts (and most are 40 watts), so I'm not particularly alarmed by this. They're cheaper for me to operate, and provide plenty of light (particularly the new flourescent ones).
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I hardly ever buy bulbs that are over 60 watts (and most are 40 watts), so I'm not particularly alarmed by this. They're cheaper for me to operate, and provide plenty of light (particularly the new flourescent ones).
Click to expand...

I tend to use 40watt equivelent flourescents. Before that, I just used 40watt regulars. My eyes can be sensitive at night so I prefer dim lights.
 
Your quote:
ptif219 said:
Now we will be told what size light bulb we can use. More government control over our lives.
Click to expand...

From your link:
The new rule does not ban incandescent light bulbs; it just requires those bulbs to be 25 to 30 percent more efficient. And it only affects incandescent light bulbs manufactured in 2011 or later, not those already in use or on store shelves.
Click to expand...

Exactly what are you bitching about? This is the government requiring greater efficiency, on your behalf, from manufacturers. This is win/win for you. You can still BUY a brighter bulb, it will just use less energy.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Your quote:

From your link:

Exactly what are you bitching about? This is the government requiring greater efficiency, on your behalf, from manufacturers. This is win/win for you. You can still BUY a brighter bulb, it will just use less energy.
Click to expand...

Nothing like killing US Jobs to make you feel better eh?

In Obama's vision, the nation's mastery of new technology will create American manufacturing jobs.

"See, when folks lift up the hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines stamped "Made in America," Obama said in an Aug. 16 speech at a Wisconsin plant. "When new batteries to store solar power come off the line, I want to see printed on the side, "Made in America." When new technologies are developed and new industries are formed, I want them made right here in America. That's what we're fighting for."

But a closer look at the lighting industry reveals that isn't going to be easy.
Click to expand...

Obama's Vision and reality not meshing?

In announcing the plant closure here, GE said in a news release that "a variety of energy regulations," including those in the United States, "will soon make the familiar lighting products produced at the Winchester Plant obsolete."

"For those who make incandescent bulbs the law was bad for business," Yan said. "For people like us, it was very good."
Click to expand...

Light bulb factory closes; End of era for U.S. means more jobs overseas
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I hardly ever buy bulbs that are over 60 watts (and most are 40 watts), so I'm not particularly alarmed by this. They're cheaper for me to operate, and provide plenty of light (particularly the new flourescent ones).
Click to expand...

So you live in the dark, literally that is, not figuratively....:2razz:

Long time ago, circa 1984, I took a college class called "Alternate Energy Technology".
We compared energy sources, their best uses based on properties, wastes produced, difficulty to get the fuels to power plants, etc.
Oil wasn't really considered in the study, as it is primarily a transportation fuel.
.
After doing all the comparisons, the class determined that nuclear was expensive but cleanest, and had the least deaths from mining to use to disposal of waste products. Coal was cheapest, but dirty and dangerous, accounting for more deaths than any other. Natural gas was a nice compromise, but at the time it wasn't available in enough locations, and it was hard to transport.
Bunker oil was still being used, but was being eliminated from the mix since the Carter days.
After we did all that, the professor threw in ONE MORE ITEM to consider, conservation....
If every house switched over to flourescents for just half their lighting load, we could SHUT DOWN a lot of our power plants, and it would be a lot of years before new ones would have to be built....
I know that makes sense for the technically minded here, but it also looks like a goddamcommieplot to the ubercons among us who think we need to just burn more coal, air pollution be damned.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
Your quote:

From your link:

Exactly what are you bitching about? This is the government requiring greater efficiency, on your behalf, from manufacturers. This is win/win for you. You can still BUY a brighter bulb, it will just use less energy.
Click to expand...

Should this not be the manufacturer doing this not the government?

I have found compact fluorescent do not last longer. I am stocking up on incandescent lights because I thought they were going to be phased out by the government. How many more laws on light bulbs will we have?

Lights out for the incandescent bulb | The Washington Post
 
UtahBill said:
So you live in the dark, literally that is, not figuratively....:2razz:

Long time ago, circa 1984, I took a college class called "Alternate Energy Technology".
We compared energy sources, their best uses based on properties, wastes produced, difficulty to get the fuels to power plants, etc.
Oil wasn't really considered in the study, as it is primarily a transportation fuel.
.
After doing all the comparisons, the class determined that nuclear was expensive but cleanest, and had the least deaths from mining to use to disposal of waste products. Coal was cheapest, but dirty and dangerous, accounting for more deaths than any other. Natural gas was a nice compromise, but at the time it wasn't available in enough locations, and it was hard to transport.
Bunker oil was still being used, but was being eliminated from the mix since the Carter days.
After we did all that, the professor threw in ONE MORE ITEM to consider, conservation....
If every house switched over to flourescents for just half their lighting load, we could SHUT DOWN a lot of our power plants, and it would be a lot of years before new ones would have to be built....
I know that makes sense for the technically minded here, but it also looks like a goddamcommieplot to the ubercons among us who think we need to just burn more coal, air pollution be damned.
Click to expand...


Name calling, false arguments, and spurrious claims of "back in college we determined".

Wasn't there a singer who made waves by pointing out if we all just use 1 square of toilet paper we'd save millions of acres of trees?


The issue is of being forced by bureaucratic nimrods to behave in a manner they see fit, rather then by personal choice.

But please, blather on about how we really think it's a commie plot and we like dirty air!
 
MrVicchio said:
Name calling, false arguments, and spurrious claims of "back in college we determined".

Wasn't there a singer who made waves by pointing out if we all just use 1 square of toilet paper we'd save millions of acres of trees?


The issue is of being forced by bureaucratic nimrods to behave in a manner they see fit, rather then by personal choice.

But please, blather on about how we really think it's a commie plot and we like dirty air!
Click to expand...

What name calling? Here is one for you, specificially. Mr. V, you are a very dim bulb where it comes to energy issues...
You go ahead and burn your incandescent bulbs, especially in the summer when the excessive heat given off those bulbs cause your air conditioner to work overtime...yeah, that's smart..
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I hardly ever buy bulbs that are over 60 watts (and most are 40 watts), so I'm not particularly alarmed by this. They're cheaper for me to operate, and provide plenty of light (particularly the new flourescent ones).
Click to expand...

The only thing that bugs me about CFL's is that some of them have to warm up for several minutes before you get full lighting.
So I mix in a couple halogens.....
CFL's really should be disposed of at Home Depot and/or Lowe's, though.
 
UtahBill said:
What name calling? Here is one for you, specificially. Mr. V, you are a very dim bulb where it comes to energy issues...
You go ahead and burn your incandescent bulbs, especially in the summer when the excessive heat given off those bulbs cause your air conditioner to work overtime...yeah, that's smart..
Click to expand...


How many lights do you think people burn at once. The heat does not cause that much more heat to cause the temp to increase in the whole house. It is about the extra energy used because it produces the heat.

This is more government control because people never make the right decisions only the government knows best. So much for capitalism and product choices.
 
Last edited:
UtahBill said:
The only thing that bugs me about CFL's is that some of them have to warm up for several minutes before you get full lighting.
So I mix in a couple halogens.....
CFL's really should be disposed of at Home Depot and/or Lowe's, though.
Click to expand...

They are considered hazmat and must be disposed of properly through the local waste management facility.
 
UtahBill said:
The conversion to CFL's was in the works long before Obama, but don't let that bit of info stop your incessant and ignorant hatred of our President....
Click to expand...

I posted a link showing the law Bush signed in 2007
 
UtahBill said:
What name calling?
Click to expand...
UtahBill said:
I know that makes sense for the technically minded here, but it also looks like a goddamcommieplot to the ubercons among us who think we need to just burn more coal, air pollution be damned.
Click to expand...
UtahBill said:
Here is one for you, specificially. Mr. V, you are a very dim bulb where it comes to energy issues...
Click to expand...
Really, because I mocked your "back in college we determined..."
UtahBill said:
You go ahead and burn your incandescent bulbs, especially in the summer when the excessive heat given off those bulbs cause your air conditioner to work overtime...yeah, that's smart..
Click to expand...

OH GNOES! Not an extra few minutes of AC!!!! Terrible! Actually in the summer the curtains are open for light. About half my bulbs are incandescent and half are those goofy twist bulbs.

As for being "dim bulb" on energy issues...

The power required to create the CFL bulbs, and then ship them over here from China AND for proper disposal of said bulbs > incandescent bulbs manufactured here and used here. But that's a lot of hidden data and requires more insight then just "40w > 100w lol!"
 
UtahBill said:
The conversion to CFL's was in the works long before Obama, but don't let that bit of info stop your incessant and ignorant hatred of our President....
Click to expand...

Wherein did I specifically blame Obama for this? I was contrasting the Green Enviro move which Obama pushes being a Job Maker, and what's really going on.
How is it "hatred" to point out failure?
 
I really find it hard to care about this much one way or the other. I switched over to compact fluorescents about 3 years ago and have no desire to switch back. My electric bill has been noticeably cheaper since I got them, and I've not had to replace a single bulb in that 3 years.
 
molten_dragon said:
I really find it hard to care about this much one way or the other. I switched over to compact fluorescents about 3 years ago and have no desire to switch back. My electric bill has been noticeably cheaper since I got them, and I've not had to replace a single bulb in that 3 years.
Click to expand...

we use mostly fluorescents as well. who doesn't want to save money AND conserve energy at the same time?
 
molten_dragon said:
I really find it hard to care about this much one way or the other. I switched over to compact fluorescents about 3 years ago and have no desire to switch back. My electric bill has been noticeably cheaper since I got them, and I've not had to replace a single bulb in that 3 years.
Click to expand...


I tried them had several last not even a year. I do not like the hazmat part or the mercury in them.

I would like the choice but as has been going on for a couple of decades now our choices are being taken away by a government that is becoming a police state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom