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.)

I believe they are pushing CFL's because they make good bank on them and LED's as long as governments and the like buy them they can get premium price. It is all about making money. I want a light that actually lights up as soon as I turn on the switch. Waiting a minute or two for the bathroom to light up sucks!
If it is about saving power...Well I bet we could all come up with a list that would fit. Sitting at a Red light with no one coming the other way should be illegal, it is a waste and pollutes your air.

---

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

"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.

Wow.....Do you actually believe what you wrote????????After reading this I find it hard to believe that you don't equate people wasting power running seti should be taken out on thin ice....WOW

---

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

lets look at how gov't has taken away choices. Fuel efficiency in vehicles. Hmmm we hate these. interstate highway system. Yech. WHo needs direct roads when we had those nice winding US Highways. Heck why bother having any product safety. we'll figure out which electric razor is safe when they explode in our hands. Won't use that brand again. and those darn airbags and metal devices in my car doors cost money. Please Mr. Gov't take them out so I can save a buck.
Food and Drug administration where they regulate food processing. Who needs that. Its a waste. It's survival of the fittest and if your gut can't take E. coli thats to bad. while we're at it why regulate what's put into drugs. I want choices and I want them cheap. Heck give people plecibos they'll never know for the most part

Really, honestly, are we really that encumbered by CFL's.

---

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

So you're equating taking away incandescent light bulbs to building highways, preventing E.Coli and exploding razors?

Welcome to the Internet Forums. Your logic is superior and I must concede to your point. Batman can't beat Superman in a fight.

<roll eyes>

no I'm comparing one gov't regulation to another. I submit that internet logic is lost on me. You wish to tell me that CFL legislation inconvenience you and prohibits you freedoms while I suggest the same for automobile safety features, helmet laws, food regulations. All these things either inconvenience people or make people pay more to purchase or use them. I think thats the point. Is it just inconvenient or do we just not like to change.

Sometimes change is bad. putting lead in gasoline making it cost more then decades later removing the same lead and again claiming it cost more.

Sometimes its good. CFL's are. but maybe are inconvenient. I can live with a little inconvenience if in the long run I'm safer, have cleaner air to breath, and see it actually making a difference.

---

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

no I'm comparing one gov't regulation to another.

Not all government regulations should be considered equal. Your logic seems to suggest that if I'm against regulations in favor of CFL or LED lighting, that I must also be against building roads or the FDA. Your logic is incomplete. I don't need to be against those other things to be against regulation of CFLs.

I submit that internet logic is lost on me.

The link I provided is an abstract of the typical internet argument. In fact, I've seen similar exchanges in face-to-face debates.

You wish to tell me that CFL legislation inconvenience you and prohibits you freedoms while I suggest the same for automobile safety features, helmet laws, food regulations.

I also think that automobile safety features should not be government mandated. Same with helmet laws. Food regulations, on the other hand, I think are perfectly OK.

All these things either inconvenience people or make people pay more to purchase or use them. I think thats the point. Is it just inconvenient or do we just not like to change.

No, it isn't a matter of not liking change, and if you think that, you've completely misunderstood and mis-characterized the other person's (my) view.

We should not and cannot afford to simply look at government regulation as a "necessary evil" that "inconveniences" us or makes things more expensive. They are not a necessary evil, and our government should not be in the business of inconveniencing it's people unless they are a criminal.

It's about keeping the government out of the free market. It's about allowing people to make their own choices. The choice to buy a CFL if they believe it's a better option. The choice to not wear a helmet if they feel they don't need one. The choice to smoke in a bar which the establishment owner allows it. The choice to live one's life as they wish to, because we're free and our constitution is supposed to provide that to us.

It's about not advocating the use of force (government and laws) to shape the world to your own views and opinions of morality.

Sometimes change is bad. putting lead in gasoline making it cost more then decades later removing the same lead and again claiming it cost more.

Sometimes its good. CFL's are. but maybe are inconvenient. I can live with a little inconvenience if in the long run I'm safer, have cleaner air to breath, and see it actually making a difference.

There would be no inconvenience if we stopped lobbying the government to our own sense of morality. It starts by showing others through open dialog that there are different views out there and they should be respected too.

I am smart(humor intended)

---

Janice

I am smart(humor intended)

Careful. I'm a member of the Black Ops Ninja Division of the Green SEAL Rangers. I'll use my leet skillz on joo! ;)

I don't see CFL's as a moral issue. Abortion, yes. Alcohol tobacco yes.

CFL's not so much. using CFL's is no worse than the Gov't forcing auto makers to comply with efficiency standards.

I say efficency is to be expected not belittled. Now theres no doubt that people didn't wake up one day and decided that they needed CFL's and come hell or high water they were going to have them. Well other than my dad.

Wearing a helmet on a bicycle or motorcycle while uncomfortable and possibly irritating is protection for the rider and saves us money because that individual will survive without a head injury when or if they crash by not requiring a neurosurgeon to put their brain back in its place among other parts.

I don't like paying for auto insurance. Its a state law in many places I really don't, but I know that the second I stop paying I'll have a huge accident and be without a car. I would also be unable to update my cars registration or have my car inspected. but I digress

On the overall scale or things to worry about CFL's when we are about to shutdown the gov't is substantially silly

---

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

I don't see CFL's as a moral issue. Abortion, yes. Alcohol tobacco yes.

But it is. It's about saving the planet or saving the environment. Not everyone feels the same way, nor should they be forced to.

CFL's not so much. using CFL's is no worse than the Gov't forcing auto makers to comply with efficiency standards.

Which is another no-no. People are already wanting higher efficiency standards simply based upon current gas prices. Where there is demand, there will be supply, or soon will be.

I say efficency is to be expected not belittled.

I do expect efficiency. But I don't expect the choices to be shoved down my throat through government force. I should be the one that decides what to buy and when I'm ready to buy it. Not everyone else.

Now theres no doubt that people didn't wake up one day and decided that they needed CFL's and come hell or high water they were going to have them. Well other than my dad.

Of course not. But saving the planet is a political issue that has lots of controversy and differing views. It seems to me that a few people from one side of the argument have been able to create a law that would prematurely force one option over another.[/quote]

Wearing a helmet on a bicycle or motorcycle while uncomfortable and possibly irritating is protection for the rider and saves us money because that individual will survive without a head injury when or if they crash by not requiring a neurosurgeon to put their brain back in its place among other parts.

It wouldn't be any of our concern monetarily if we didn't force people to buy insurance. Everyone should be responsible for themselves.

I don't like paying for auto insurance. Its a state law in many places I really don't, but I know that the second I stop paying I'll have a huge accident and be without a car. I would also be unable to update my cars registration or have my car inspected. but I digress

So you see the value in buying insurance. Just as someone who wears a helmet while riding a motorcycle or even a bicycle sees value in doing so. It is their choice to do something about it. This choice shouldn't be forced upon others.

On the overall scale or things to worry about CFL's when we are about to shutdown the gov't is substantially silly

And on the overall scale of things to worry about, the government shutdown is nothing compared to the many near-misses of asteroids that could completely wipe out all life as we know it.

There's always something larger to be concerned about. The small things require just as much of our attention if we're going to have a happy future.

I don't see CFL's as a moral issue. Abortion, yes. Alcohol tobacco yes.

But it is. It's about saving the planet or saving the environment. Not everyone feels the same way, nor should they be forced to.

I'm not trying to save the planet. I am trying to reduce my electric bill
you'd prefer corporations like AT&T and their 60 years of non innovation? It took the gov't to force them to make their entire grid digital. My parents were stuck in analog until the 1990's. Thanks Gov't for forcing their hand.

Which is another no-no. People are already wanting higher efficiency standards simply based upon current gas prices. Where there is demand, there will be supply, or soon will be.

you've clearly not been to Texas. The idiots care less about the mileage than how big of mud tires they can slap under that new truck.

I do expect efficiency. But I don't expect the choices to be shoved down my throat through government force. I should be the one that decides what to buy and when I'm ready to buy it. Not everyone else.

That is true but this law was passed back in 2007. We were given 7 years to get used to it. It doesnt seem like I'm being force fed anything. In fact you can still buy incandescent bulbs until 2014.

Now theres no doubt that people didn't wake up one day and decided that they needed CFL's and come hell or high water they were going to have them. Well other than my dad.

Of course not. But saving the planet is a political issue that has lots of controversy and differing views. It seems to me that a few people from one side of the argument have been able to create a law that would prematurely force one option over another.

I'm not aware that the Energy Inefficiency Board has a valid point on this one.
and again I'm not trying to save the world. I just like lowering my electric bill.

Wearing a helmet on a bicycle or motorcycle while uncomfortable and possibly irritating is protection for the rider and saves us money because that individual will survive without a head injury when or if they crash by not requiring a neurosurgeon to put their brain back in its place among other parts.

It wouldn't be any of our concern monetarily if we didn't force people to buy insurance. Everyone should be responsible for themselves.

I couldn't agree more though its pretty much a fact that some people just won't take responsibility for themselves. My dad had quintuple bypass surgery about 5 years ago. He's still convinced it was the eggs and bacon he ate on Sunday that was the problem not the 2 packs a day he continues to smoke. BTW his Cholesterol is always 150 or less.

I don't like paying for auto insurance. Its a state law in many places I really don't, but I know that the second I stop paying I'll have a huge accident and be without a car. I would also be unable to update my cars registration or have my car inspected. but I digress

So you see the value in buying insurance. Just as someone who wears a helmet while riding a motorcycle or even a bicycle sees value in doing so. It is their choice to do something about it. This choice shouldn't be forced upon others.

you take your life in your own hands riding without protective gear.
Should we allow these individuals, especially the ones without insurance, who then have a major wreck to waste a Doctors time in the ER when they come in with half their brain exposed. They made a conscious choice to wrecklessly endanger themselves. shouldn't they have to live or die by that decision.

On the overall scale or things to worry about CFL's when we are about to shutdown the gov't is substantially silly

And on the overall scale of things to worry about, the government shutdown is nothing compared to the many near-misses of asteroids that could completely wipe out all life as we know it.

to true yet I don't see the Gov't officials marking the calender for August 2nd as the line in the sand for an asteroid.

There's always something larger to be concerned about. The small things require just as much of our attention if we're going to have a happy future.

True but do you worry about a mouse in your house when a tornado is ripping the roof off. I doubt it. Save yourself and later after the threat has passed if the mouse is still a problem later then take care of it.

---

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

I'm not trying to save the planet. I am trying to reduce my electric bill

I wouldn't mind saving on my electric bill either, but yet again, I want to decide what to buy and when to buy it. I don't want to be told what I'm allowed to buy.

you'd prefer corporations like AT&T and their 60 years of non innovation?

Competition brings innovation in any free market. The government should be encouraging more competition by helping more businesses succeed, and the best way the government can do this is through tax breaks for business owners. This includes small mom-and-pop shops. The more businesses there are, the more jobs and the more competition thrives. bringing much-needed innovation.

It took the gov't to force them to make their entire grid digital. My parents were stuck in analog until the 1990's. Thanks Gov't for forcing their hand.

And yet the government has allowed Ma Bell to join back together creating less competition. The government has no clue what they're doing and they should stay out of the free market.

you've clearly not been to Texas. The idiots care less about the mileage than how big of mud tires they can slap under that new truck.

Don't need to when I see it all over Illinois here. My own brother who lives with me and helps take care of my step-father (his full-blooded father) drives a rather large Ford F-150 and complains about his mileage all the time. He made his decision, now he has to live with it.

None of that negates my point though. Car purchasing trends have shown that smaller, more energy efficient cars are in higher demand due to rising fuel costs. All this regardless what you see on the road. They have a right to drive whatever they wish and I would never support a law that outlaws fuel-inefficient vehicles.

That is true but this law was passed back in 2007. We were given 7 years to get used to it. It doesnt seem like I'm being force fed anything. In fact you can still buy incandescent bulbs until 2014.

The point still remains that through government force I won't have that choice come a certain point in time. We shouldn't have to "get used to it", be "inconvenienced" by it, or forced to on any level. Hence why some people want to get rid of legislation like that. The problem is that the more we ignore the issue in favor of larger problems, the less time we'll have to get it off the books. There's always some other "big thing" to worry about.

I'm not aware that the Energy Inefficiency Board has a valid point on this one. and again I'm not trying to save the world. I just like lowering my electric bill.

Same as I stated above. I'd love to save on my electric bill. But it needs to be by my choice and when I deem a product good enough to switch to. Not when the government tells me it's time.

I couldn't agree more though its pretty much a fact that some people just won't take responsibility for themselves. My dad had quintuple bypass surgery about 5 years ago. He's still convinced it was the eggs and bacon he ate on Sunday that was the problem not the 2 packs a day he continues to smoke. BTW his Cholesterol is always 150 or less.

And my mother died from diabetes and refusal to take care of herself. I loved my mother more than I care for almost anyone else on this planet, but it was her choice to cheat on her diet all the time and not go to the doctor regularly.

Doesn't matter if these people don't take care of themselves. It is not and should not be our responsibility to force them to do so.

you take your life in your own hands riding without protective gear.
Should we allow these individuals, especially the ones without insurance, who then have a major wreck to waste a Doctors time in the ER when they come in with half their brain exposed. They made a conscious choice to wrecklessly endanger themselves. shouldn't they have to live or die by that decision.

How is that any different from now? Even with insurance made as a law people still do stupid things and go to the emergency room without insurance. Fining people for not having insurance will not stop them; it will only generate more cash to line the pockets of politicians and hospitals.

I've seen several times where a hospital releases someone early because they don't have insurance, or their insurance won't pay for everything and the individual doesn't look rich enough to pay for it themselves. My mother was one such case, and so was another guy I knew for 10 years before he moved to another state that was less populated and therefore easier to get public aid. Now he sits on his ass doing wanna-be cop work still insisting we never landed on the moon when we said we did in '69.

to true yet I don't see the Gov't officials marking the calender for August 2nd as the line in the sand for an asteroid.

No, because there is no constituents worried about it, so no votes will be had. They don't care about right or wrong or you or me. They need votes to keep them in office so they can collect a paycheck off our tax money.

True but do you worry about a mouse in your house when a tornado is ripping the roof off. I doubt it. Save yourself and later after the threat has passed if the mouse is still a problem later then take care of it.

Depends on if the mouse happens to be caring something as deadly as the bubonic plague. I might save myself from what appears to be imminent danger from the tornado, only to die a slow death from sickness. All threats need to be sufficiently examined and taken care of. Making a mistake of ignoring one over the other because you assume it's harmless can come back and bite you in the ass later.