Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have dozens of lights in my house that I turn on maybe once every three months. I don't need long lasting bulbs. Incandescent bulbs have lasted 10 years in many fixtures in my house. They are extremely cost effective for fixtures that you don't use very often.
Minus the amount of energy they bleed, when something is cheap, there is often times a reason why they cost so little. Incandescent bulbs are obsolete, it just seems like there are some people that haven't realized that yet.
But feel free to stock up on them, I am sure stores are happy to get rid of that useless technology.
I did stock up on them and saved a lot of money. I have some that are ten years old and still work fine. Why would I spend hundreds of dollars to replace bulbs that hardly ever get used?
And you have it backwards. Lots of people stocked up before they were banned and stores sold out quite quickly.
You have fallen into the "one solution fits all situations" trap. Sometimes when something is cheap it's because it's a good cheap solution.
Yes, it does seam like there are some people that haven't realized there is a place for incandescent bulbs.
Consumers don't always get to decide when something is obsolete, that is the point of leaded fuel. The consumers didn't make that choice, the fact that it was obsolete is the reason for ending leaded fuel and incandescent light bulbs.
Just because some consumers like obsolete technology doesn't mean we should still be manufacturing it.
That was also forced on the auto industry by government. It wasn't "obsolete." The government said, "get the lead out." It required new technology, and cars became more expensive. At first, they didn't run as well, either. It was a long process.
ummmm, LED's are where it's at. I changed over last year and saw about a 20% reduction in my electric bill each month. That crap adds up.
You can get them in varying wavelengths now pretty elcheapo at Home Depot.
Fluorescent is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo yesterday.
20% just from lighting? I don't believe it. You haven't done an objective comparison where your other electrical use (air conditioning/heat, etc.) was the same.
I am amazed at the interest in the subject. Personally I think the legislation was superfluous as they were becoming obsolete anyway due to new alternatives. But this was a Congress that spent much of its legislative effort renaming Post Offices.
It's costing people a lot of money. I have spent hundreds of dollars on bulbs that either burn out quickly or are too dim to do the job (LED's don't burn out but you need 5 times as many to get the same light). I'm all for being green but is it really green when you're tossing bulbs that contain mercury every few months? I've replaced the bulbs in my bathroom at least three times over in the last two years. There are four of them. They're expensive and toxic in land fills and what are the environmental costs of manufacturing them when they have to be replaced so often?
I'm not happy with being forced over to the new bulbs. If I had my druthers I'd go back to incandescents. The light was warmer, they did the job and they lasted years.
20% just from lighting? I don't believe it. You haven't done an objective comparison where your other electrical use (air conditioning/heat, etc.) was the same.
Changing bulbs hasn't changed my usage one bit. Lights are a very small part of my electrical usage. Computers, TV's, the blower on the furnace and appliances are the big part.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.