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 think it depends on long the light is used. For a bathroom or closet, CFL's are probably not worth it, but for a porch light that burns all night, they probably are.
Please tell me that you are not trying to compare car pollution to light bulbs. Home lighting makes up a small amount of the power bill. Why doesn't the government mandate electric water heaters to be able to heat up water using only 100 watts, considering that makes up a massive amount of your power bill? Why not mandate refer's run on 25 watts?
There is about 106 million homes in America including owners and renters. If the government could get each home to just change 1 incandescent light bulb that the household uses the most then I think anyone could see the benefit even if it wasn't entirely beneficial to just you but to the collective.
106,000,000 x 47 watts (not used to do the same work) = ???
The biggest problem I have with these light bulbs is I live in a colder climate, when you witch one on for outside by the time it's bright enough you're usually switching it off. That's my major complaint.
Kinda like the HID lighting that's even more efficient than CFL's.
I've noticed Duke Energy around here using, for their highway, accent and street lighting, LED clusters that are quiet bright. I bet they're expensive but to them the man power to change bulbs and/or repair lights probably gets pretty expensive, they usually contract it out.
Yeah that's what we need. Government telling us what kind of light bulbs we are to have. Do you understand how insane that is? Hopefully it will get repealed.
I'm not sure I understand the "insanity" as you see it.
But I do understand the initiative. It 's about conservation; the fuels that are used to product electricity, their by-products, and their overall effects.
Coal amounts for just over 50% of all fuels used to create electricity.
I'm not sure I understand the "insanity" as you see it.
But I do understand the initiative. It 's about conservation; the fuels that are used to product electricity, their by-products, and their overall effects.
Coal amounts for just over 50% of all fuels used to create electricity.
A "global initative" is a nanny state? OK.
And I never said it was right or wrong- just stating the facts.
Then like I said before, why doesn't the government mandate the water heaters, refrigerators, stoves, etc, all use a certain amount of juice? Instead of going after the power-hungry products, they go after...light bulbs. That makes sense.
Everybody complains about the cost of fuel. But there is a effectively a finite amount of fuel in the pipeline. If we have to use it for making electrical power for mostly lighting, and we have a way to say 80% of it by changing to a different lighting source, why would we not do that?
If most of my electric bill comes from the use of lighting, and I can cut the lighting part by 77%, why would I complain about such things as the bulb taking an extra 15 seconds to come on full power, unless I love taking my money out and burning it in big piles.
A 60 watt bulb uses just 14 watts in a flourescent bulb.
Then like I said before, why doesn't the government mandate the water heaters, refrigerators, stoves, etc, all use a certain amount of juice? Instead of going after the power-hungry products, they go after...light bulbs. That makes sense.
A very large amount of our use of electricity comes from lighting. Changing to Flourescent bulBs is very very easy fix. Increasing the efficiency of water heaters and refrigerators and stoves, may in some ways be impossible and in others very very expensive. And increasing them by the level of efficiency increase cause by changing the light bulbs, by almost 75% in ALMOST ALL cases, is beyond our current technology.
Everybody complains about the cost of fuel. But there is a effectively a finite amount of fuel in the pipeline. If we have to use it for making electrical power for mostly lighting, and we have a way to say 80% of it by changing to a different lighting source, why would we not do that?
A 60 watt bulb uses just 14 watts in a flourescent bulb.
I already said that if LED's were cheaper, about the price of a CFL, then I would switch right now. Maybe in the near future, 5 years or so, then it will be at a reasonable cost.
And we have a 245 year supply of coal. Build more plants.
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.
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 fail to understand the nanny state
