Saturday, March 03, 2007

More CFL Back And Forth

The Sacramento Bee has yet more discussion of the proposed ban on incandescent lightbulbs this morning. As usual, if asked for a log in, use humboldtlib for the username and blogspot for the password.

9 Comments:

At 11:35 AM, Blogger Hayduke said...

I have commented on this before and will do so again.

The article in the Bee is a good one and brings up some good points not previously discussed. The "sparkle" that is missing in CFLs is a reasonable concern. Particularly in some antique ceiling light fixtures CFLs look awful. That is why non frosted bulbs are still sold.

The point about not fitting in all lamps is a bigger problem than they let on. I have four table lamps in my house where the "harp" holding the shade is too small for a CFL. Using one would require either buying a new harp, or a new lamp.

Dimmable bulbs do exist, but are very expensive, and I have never seen a rebate on one.

There are other issues as well, but I totally agree that a ban on incandescent lights is way premature, and fully agree with the suggestion by the UC Davis Director of the Energy Institute that if the state is going to get involved pushing for more energy efficiency in incandescent bulbs makes more sense.

 
At 12:42 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I really liked this quote:

"We didn't have to ban the dial telephone," he said. "We just worked into a better technology, and people accepted it."

 
At 1:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred, you must not get it. Don't you know that the government is on the cutting edge here? It must decide on which technology is appropriate for any application and then ban all others. This is why kerosene lamps must also be banned. The police must get around to arresting those in areas of the county that are not served by PG&E and still light with pure fossil fuel. They are EEEEEvil

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Hayduke said...

Sheesh. This kind of government meddling is enough to make a Libertarian out of you. Well, maybe not that extreme, but close.

 
At 7:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Reading all your comments has made me slightly dumber.

 
At 3:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Far be it from any of you to do anything that might possibly benefit all of society. Especially if it means going one inch out of your way or spending one penny.

This country was built by people who invested in a future that they didn't expect to see. None of you care about the future unless you can benefit from it. Like Fred who's dead at 74, you want to use it all up yourselves and leave nothing behind.

You call yourselves conservatives but you're really just selfish and greedy. Without putting anything of yours at risk, you enjoy the returns of the investments of real conservatives of the past. Remember when touchtone phone service cost extra? The people who got it paid a lot and that helped make available for everyone. Now you just accept it for free as your birthright.

Stop acting like third world serfs, whining about why you can't switch to CFLs. Find ways to make it happen. So you have to get new harps, put in diffusers or whatever. Americans are suppossed to be ingenious. Is that too hard to do?

 
At 9:15 PM, Blogger Hayduke said...

Actually I don't think this is about going an inch out of your way nor is it about spending money. It is about government being wrongheaded. I am as environmentally concerned as anyone, and already use CFLs where they make sense. There are simply places where the technology has not yet arrived to make their use feasible. They do not work well in dimmers and security lights to name two examples. There is actually a lot government could do to increase their use, such as making them more available to people at the lower end of the socio-economic spectrum. Sure you can buy them at Costco at a huge discount, but poor people can't get a Costco card. And finally being unhappy with the idea of bad government policy is neither a conservative or liberal agenda. It is simply common sense.

 
At 9:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That old excuse "common sense" is pure bullsh*t.

It's common sense that a big rock falls faster than a small rock and that the earth is flat. "Common sense" as a rationale for decision making is just a justification for ignorance by the unthinking and uneducated. Einstein said "common sense" are prejudices that were acquired at an early age.

Our civilization didn't develop as it has because people used common sense. We have developed because people took time to study, think, deliberate, experiment and realize truths that contradict "common sense".

 
At 11:21 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Okay people, even the poor can get CFLs. I believe the Redwood Coast Energy Authority has actually given them away for free in the past. And silly me, just poking around drugstore websites, notes that the average 100W incandescent bulb costs $3.00, and the typical 100W CFL costs $5.00. So, since CFLs last around ten times longer than incandescent bulbs (acording to the RCEA website), mathematics shows that CFL bulbs would actually be a good investment for low income households! Conservatives and liberals can agree! For a slight change in lighting quality, the conservatives can save money, and the liberals can save the planet, and everyone is happy! On a side note about the US Government being premature by wanting to ban CFLs, there are other places, like Australia, that are a bit ahead of us. If they can do it, I think we can too. Oh, and everyone whining about the government, I hope you all vote... Oh, an maybe we wouldn't need security lights if people weren't so messed up, but that's another issue.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home