http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43724744/ns/business-going_green/

House Republicans are pushing legislation that would overturn measures in a 2007 energy act requiring efficiency upgrades in the old-fashioned incandescent light bulb, little changed since it was invented by Thomas Edison in 1879.

Mind you these same Legislators are still nit picking on the debt limit and how ultra rich people create jobs blah blah blah and still find the time to waste others time on this crap

The legislation, Barton said, "is about more than just energy consumption. It is about personal freedom."

personal freedom? Really? I didn't realize incandescent bulbs were a form of free speech.

USA Today and Gallup in February and found that 61 percent judged the law to be good, and 31 percent bad. More than seven in 10 said they've switched to more energy-efficient light bulbs, and 84 percent said they were satisfied with their non-incandescent light bulbs.

So once again Republicans are fighting a battle that only a few people actually want or even care about. Were talking 84% satisfaction with CFL's which can only mean less than 16% either don't care or dislike the bulbs. This hardly sounds like a key issue or something to even get worked up about. Yet here we are a few weeks from shutting down the federal gov't over spending limits and we have a nutcase Texan worried about less than 16% of the population and its dislike for CFL's

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

... a nutcase Texan ...

Or is that just a push to burn more oil and coal in power stations?... And make the rich energy tycoons yet richer at the expense of everyone and the planet?

What about people's freedom to enjoy an unpolluted planet?!


A strange world indeed...

It's still the only planet we have,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The legislation, Barton said, "is about more than just energy consumption. It is about personal freedom."

personal freedom? Really? I didn't realize incandescent bulbs were a form of free speech.

The personal freedom they reference is the freedom of choice, not free speech. If even 16% of the market want a different product that was previously perfectly safe, albeit not "energy efficient", it should still be their choice to buy if they wish.

USA Today and Gallup in February and found that 61 percent judged the law to be good, and 31 percent bad. More than seven in 10 said they've switched to more energy-efficient light bulbs, and 84 percent said they were satisfied with their non-incandescent light bulbs.

... and we have a nutcase Texan worried about less than 16% of the population and its dislike for CFL's

I'm not attempting to change the topic, but I'm going to bring up another political view to illustrate a point.

The last statistic I saw said that up to 63% of Americans are in favor of the Death Penalty. That leaves 37% that are forced to kill against their will.

I'm happy whenever someone is sticking up for my view, even if I'm in the minority. Freedom of choice is supposed to be what makes this country so great, but we seem to be quickly losing that mindset in favor of political correctness.

fredom of choice should come at the expense of adding more coal burning power plants. Its an enormous waste of resourses.

They do make a point that they are attempting to make an incandescent bulb thats 20-30% more efficient but the problem is that the bulb is only 10% efficient at providing light. Most of the energy is wasted as heat. Heat which is great during the winter but an annoyance in the summer which again adds to wasted energy as you have to spend just a bit more money to cool what the light bulb is heating.

We complain about freedom of choices.. whens the last time you saw gas stations with much variation in pricing? some choice. why aren't we up in arms about that? we are complacent because we think we have a choice.

The CFL's and now LED lights are now the choices. You could, if you choose, hoard the incandescent lights. So maybe you could buy them overseas.

I also recall that the US is a bit late on getting to the CFL's. Who knows.

Though I'd like to reiterate that this is probably the wrong time to be worrying over lighting when this country has much more pressing matters such as a shutdown in a couple of weeks

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

fredom of choice should come at the expense of adding more coal burning power plants. Its an enormous waste of resourses.

Doesn't matter if you or anyone else thinks it's a waste of resources. I think alcohol is a terrible way to kill brain cells, but I would never want that choice taken away from people.

We complain about freedom of choices.. whens the last time you saw gas stations with much variation in pricing? some choice. why aren't we up in arms about that?

The problem with your gas station analogy is that they are all based upon the same futures pricing on a barrel of oil. It's kinda hard to have much variation in pricing when most of our oil supply is purchased from roughly the same areas of the world.

The CFL's and now LED lights are now the choices. You could, if you choose, hoard the incandescent lights. So maybe you could buy them overseas.

But why should I have to go through such extremes to get my choice? Why can't the market simply be left alone so that consumers can let products live and die by their own cost factor and demand?

Though I'd like to reiterate that this is probably the wrong time to be worrying over lighting when this country has much more pressing matters such as a shutdown in a couple of weeks

I suppose it's the wrong time to worry about abolishing the death penalty, abortion rights, same sex marriage, etc. too. Though I agree that lighting isn't on the same level of anything I just posted, I must point out that you decided to bring the topic to the forefront in an effort to criticize someone you disagree with.

Even if the government shuts down and our lives turn to spit, life goes on and there will still be other things that concern people.

There is still a choice. CFL, LED, and i believe several forms of vapor lighting. There are still candles, lanterns, and sunlight.

---

Janice

There is still a choice. CFL, LED, and i believe several forms of vapor lighting. There are still candles, lanterns, and sunlight.

CFL has mercury and I'm concerned about the long term effects of heating the gas indoors around my loved ones. LED's luminescence needs work. The rest of your "choices" lack practicality, but I'll remember your level of pragmatism when the shoe is on the other foot.

There is still a choice. CFL, LED, and i believe several forms of vapor lighting. There are still candles, lanterns, and sunlight.

CFL has mercury and I'm concerned about the long term effects of heating the gas indoors around my loved ones. LED's luminescence needs work. The rest of your "choices" lack practicality, but I'll remember your level of pragmatism when the shoe is on the other foot.

If the other options are not acceptable to you, there is always the option to
illegally import the incandescent lights, much like certain tobacco alternatives are imported. Or make your own, the technology is not highly secret, other than how to make them burn out sooner.

Seriously, lack of incandescent lights really effects your quality of life that badly?

As far as LED's "needs work".. there has been a ton of work already done, including adjusting spectrum of emissions and light output. Longevity is extremely long, electricity consumption much lower. But of course some
are never ready for the future, and continue to dwell on the past.

---

Janice

CFL's don't seem to like my house. I have a steady 119 volts and my CFL's last about 6 months and cost a heck of a lot more. Replaced every light in house in January and only a few are still working. Brand new underground 400 amp service. I give up.

---

Official Abuser of Boinc Buttons...
And no good credit hound!

CFL's don't seem to like my house. I have a steady 119 volts and my CFL's last about 6 months and cost a heck of a lot more. Replaced every light in house in January and only a few are still working. Brand new underground 400 amp service. I give up.

You have to buy your CFL's from a known good source. Far to much made in China crap on the market that costs 100x in carbon over a regular bulb.
(Not saying all made in china is crap, just some)

---

If the other options are not acceptable to you, there is always the option to illegally import the incandescent lights, much like certain tobacco alternatives are imported. Or make your own, the technology is not highly secret, other than how to make them burn out sooner.

So your answer is more impractical choices? Wow, way to win votes and change minds. Are any of your arguments going to be realistic? Or are you going to leave all practicality behind?

Seriously, lack of incandescent lights really effects your quality of life that badly?

I don't know about you, but lack of choice, or anyone trying to take away my choices because they wish to push their own political views on me and my life affect me greatly. My view, and my argument, is much more about having a choice or options that people are happy with than it is about simple incandescent lights.

As far as LED's "needs work".. there has been a ton of work already done, including adjusting spectrum of emissions and light output. Longevity is extremely long, electricity consumption much lower. But of course some
are never ready for the future, and continue to dwell on the past.

Again, if LEDs have made such headway, then they should compete on the market and survive by being a better option, not through legislation. Let the consumers decide. If people want to keep their older option because it makes them happy, then who the hell are you to question it or advocate taking it away?

so pushing the political view that inefficient lighting choices isn't a political standpoint. It seems we want things both ways. the point is this was clearly put through congress before. It was voted on and passed by a Republican president. Suddenly, in the midst of the conveniently created Conservative budget crisis we are being told that CFL's need to be removed, incandescent bulbs are better, and our Texas Congressman just doesn't have enough to do.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

... we are being told that CFL's need to be removed, incandescent bulbs are better, and our Texas Congressman just doesn't have enough to do.

The only thing incandescent bulbs are good for now are for generating unnecessary heat and wastefully burning fuel. Even the very latest wire filament bulbs are hopelessly inefficient for their useful light output.

Now, anyone willing to embark on some exotic materials science to do another Swann and Edison to improve upon their 100-years old tungsten-in-inert low pressure atmosphere glass envelope thermionic valve-like lighting device?

(Or is the USA uniquely really that far behind the times? Or only in Texas?)


The only filament bulbs I still regularly use are in my car!

Keep searchin',
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

The only filament bulbs I still regularly use are in my car!

Keep searchin',
Martin

That's OK....
Your car is the next to go.
Because our government has determined that if everybody only had the choice to ride a motorcycle, which are (add their stat here) more efficient, the average household would save (add their stat here) every year and reduce carbon emissions by (yet another government stat here).

So, starting in 2014, you will no longer have the choice to buy a car.
If you like them, better buy a few spares now.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

so pushing the political view that inefficient lighting choices isn't a political standpoint.

It's a standpoint about not wanting people to take away my choices and dictate to me what I must run in my house. That my choice is deemed "inefficient" by some people is irrelevant to me. If wanting the freedom to make my choice without lobbyists creating laws limiting my options is political, then I guess I'm guilty as charged.

If we are advocating electrical efficiency, then we may as well start creating laws dictating that PCs manufactured 3 years earlier must be outlawed. No one can buy or run older PCs because they are inefficient and waste electricity compared to newly manufactured machines. Forget letting the natural effects of the market do it's own thing, we must speed it up and force the change upon people to get things moving, right?

Taking it a step further, SETI@Home may as well stop handing out work to older, inefficient machines because they are a drain on our power plants, and generally not worth their weight in credits. Running an nVidia GPU will become mandatory because they have the highest efficiency rating for SETI@Home and it's official apps.

And we should mandate 3D televisions because they clearly offer a superior entertainment experience. "Superior" being an indirect synonym of "efficiency" and a direct synonym of "better", so we need to get these things into people's homes right away!

Do you see where I am going with this? Do you see how this isn't about politics or conservatism or efficiency? I'm truly not trying to be facetious about all this. I'm really hoping to make a point and get through to you.

It seems we want things both ways.

Not at all. I want choice, you and Soft^Spirit seem to advocate dictating what everyone's choices are.

the point is this was clearly put through congress before.

Yes, I note that many laws are passed that I disagree with, but it seems corporatist lobbyists aren't the only ones with clout in D.C.

It was voted on and passed by a Republican president.

Oh, well, that makes it OK then. I'm expressing a view of choices, err, scratch that, obviously a conservative view, and the Republicans are associated with conservatism, ergo I must be OK with the law that was passed by a conservative republican president.

I couldn't care less about the conservative view on this debate, just for the record. Don't confuse my demand for choice as a "clever" mask for conservatism, or a refusal to be "ready" for the future (whatever that means).

Suddenly, in the midst of the conveniently created Conservative budget crisis we are being told that CFL's need to be removed, incandescent bulbs are better, and our Texas Congressman just doesn't have enough to do.

Because amidst this crisis, there are still people who would create laws dictating to the entire population what they should run, and essentially how they should live (anti-smoking laws), and these wrongs need to be righted too.

"Better" is merely an opinionated view based upon what an individual values. The tyranny of the majority should never be forced or oppressed upon the minority, and laws supporting as much should never be created.

I value my long term health and I value decent lighting in my house. CFLs and LEDs do not fit that description, therefore I do not value those options and I would argue they are not "better".

I hope we never lose focus on repealing laws that take our choices away, even if we're in the middle of WWIII.

As far as LED's "needs work".. there has been a ton of work already done, including adjusting spectrum of emissions and light output. Longevity is extremely long, electricity consumption much lower. But of course some
are never ready for the future, and continue to dwell on the past.

Again, if LEDs have made such headway, then they should compete on the market and survive by being a better option, not through legislation. Let the consumers decide. If people want to keep their older option because it makes them happy, then who the hell are you to question it or advocate taking it away?

LED's are making strong headway, and they will soon be common place. Like anything else, it takes time to ramp up, consumer markets being one of the last to be targeted. Current payoff on LED bulbs by power savings is around 15 years (well under the expected lifetime). Traffic lights are being converted, commercial lighting is changing, and many other applications. There are some flashlights with very cheap versions out, (not a great indicator of what they are capable of).

Why are they pushing CFL's? because they are viable and should pay off within
the year (in most applications. They perform poorly in low temperature and frequent on/off situations)

There are LED bulb equivalents for consumer bulbs. The good ones cost about $30-60 each. Economies of scale are in progress.(the MFR cost of LED/most electronic components is not significant when compared to the R/D costs.)

---

Janice

"I don't know about you, but lack of choice, or anyone trying to take away my choices because they wish to push their own political views on me and my life affect me greatly. My view, and my argument, is much more about having a choice or options that people are happy with than it is about simple incandescent lights.
"

Oh yes one more thing. So.. you should have a choice to give lead soldiers to your children to play with, no warnings of the lead content? This is one of many choices that have been "lost", and the world is a better place without them.

Actually, I disagree with the ban on standard lights. Just like I disagree with helmet laws. I do not think they can eliminate stupidity via legislation.
No helmet laws, no seatbelt laws.. things like this would go a long way to flushing the gene pool.

And honestly I predict in the near future anyone using standard incandescent lighting will prove just as intelligent as those drinking tequila and driving without a seat belt.

---

Janice

The only filament bulbs I still regularly use are in my car!

I'm so happy for you! Just don't tell me what I must run or create laws dictating the same.

LED's are making strong headway, and they will soon be common place.

That's great and all, and if you really believe in it's superiority, then let the market take it's natural course and sway toward the better option. Leave it out of the law books.

When they are deemed "better" by all, then they will naturally push competing options out of the market place.

If it must be clarified to you, I have never stated that I will always and only run incandescent lighting for the rest of my life. All I am saying is that if I currently don't think the alternative technologies have matured to my liking, I should still be able to choose the option I'm happiest with until a better product comes along. My choices shouldn't be affected by government mandates because there are other people who would rather dictate to me what is "superior".

Oh yes one more thing. So.. you should have a choice to give lead soldiers to your children to play with, no warnings of the lead content?

I never said anything about warnings. Put the proper warnings on products so that people can make informed decisions, provided you keep the propaganda off the warning labels.

But otherwise, yes, if it is my child, I should be able to do as I wish (within reason). If I choose to allow my child to reach into a light socket to teach it a lesson and you deem that as bad parenting, keep your opinion to yourself and let me raise my child in whatever way my significant other and I wish.

Actually, I disagree with the ban on standard lights. Just like I disagree with helmet laws. I do not think they can eliminate stupidity via legislation.
No helmet laws, no seatbelt laws.. things like this would go a long way to flushing the gene pool.

I think this is the first thing you said that I agree with, though...

And honestly I predict in the near future anyone using standard incandescent lighting will prove just as intelligent as those drinking tequila and driving without a seat belt.

...I'm pretty sure you just called me unintelligent here in a back-handed way. Your opinions of my intelligence aside, I couldn't care less what you think of people who run incandescent lighting so long as I can choose at will and without fear of repercussions due to legislation.

The only filament bulbs I still regularly use are in my car!

I'm so happy for you! Just don't tell me what I must run or create laws dictating the same.

As I tried to say in a rather tongue in cheek way with my last post.

I am sick and tired of our government, who can't even balance their own checkbook with our money, constantly trying to figure out new ways to assert more and more control over my life.

Telling me WTF I can screw into my own light socket is asinine. Let the free market control that. I use CFLs in some applications because of the power savings. But only high quality GE. I have tried some of the bargain brands and they were downright crappy. Either did not start properly, varied widely in the amount of light output they were supposed to provide, or really lousy color temperature.

And anybody have any figures on just how much mercury this initiative is gonna pump into our environment???? Oh yeah, they are supposed to be recycled. Years from now, we are gonna start reading stories about mercury contamination leaking from our landfills at an alarming rate from all of the CFLs that somehow escaped from the recycling police and got buried. How's that working out for you?

I would love to switch to LEDs. Most energy efficient of all.
WHEN they get the price down, the color right, and the life expectancy what it can and should be.

Let the market and consumer decide, not the government.

---

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster