Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2007, 10:21 AM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,761,797 times
Reputation: 849

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampgrrl View Post
I use all long life bulbs in my house. Power bill is lower, they last longer, MUCH longer.

And they aren't easy to break.
Once they get tons of trash heaped in on top of them in landfills, they'll break and all the heavy metals will then be potential threats to our water supply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2007, 10:54 AM
 
177 posts, read 312,574 times
Reputation: 125
• I don't want the government telling me (or anyone else) what type of light bulb to buy. That goes for St. Gore, too, stay out of my house.

• I like the new bulbs for their efficiency, but I'm not crazy about the bluish cast they put on everything.

• If US industry can go from concept to thousands of bombers per year (like back in WWII), then they should be able to make a more efficient auto in one year instead of 5-10.

• Battery technology is advanced enough to make the Electric Vehicle a viable alternative. Internal combustion is stone age technology, but won't go away anytime soon.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
I have already purchased enough of the "regular" lightbulbs to last for the rest of my life, my childrens life, and my grandchildrens life

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 11:02 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
595 posts, read 2,344,444 times
Reputation: 193
Using compact fluorescent bulbs actually reduce pollution, because CFLs use far less electricity than incandescent bulbs as per the waste coal fired plants create.

Besides just about everything is all those electronic goods in your computer is toxic to the enviroment. I'm all for banning regular bulbs or placing a heavy tax on their use.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 11:05 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,100 posts, read 39,266,002 times
Reputation: 4937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampgrrl View Post
Using compact fluorescent bulbs actually reduce pollution, because CFLs use far less electricity than incandescent bulbs as per the waste coal fired plants create.

Besides just about everything is all those electronic goods in your computer is toxic to the enviroment. I'm all for banning regular bulbs or placing a heavy tax on their use.
Ah, but, if I already have them - you won't know
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Washington DC
626 posts, read 993,129 times
Reputation: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by mbuszu View Post
For those of you who missed it, this week Congress approved a new bill forcing auto manufacturers to achieve a new average fuel economy standard for vehicles sold in the US. Links to a couple relevant articles are below.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/18/news/congress_energy.ap/index.htm?postversion=2007121816 (broken link)
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/auto...ion=2007121910

I think the bill is weak. I find it very hard to believe that much higher fuel economy isn't easily achievable technologically. I also find it hard to believe that the new standards will really do much to conserve oil nor to help wean the US off of it. Why not set the standards much higher to something like an average of 50-75 mpg? Everyone knows it is plausible.
This seems unnecessary. Japanese automakers are already kicking butt because American automakers have been so slow to make fuel efficient vehicles. If GM, Ford, and Chrysler don't pick it up, they'll go bankrupt, or at the very least they'll have to downsize tremendously.

Regarding outlawing incandescent light bulbs, I think that's just horrible idea. I like CFLs for SOME light fixtures, but they're not appropriate for all. I don't like the warmup period. Also, they're worthless for things like lava lamps, which run on the heat generated by the bulb. I'm putting my money on LED bulbs. Once they're cheap enough, CFLs will be a distant memory.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 11:24 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
595 posts, read 2,344,444 times
Reputation: 193
LED bulbs are definitely the future. But they still aren't cheap enough, that said I should buy one and try it out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 11:35 AM
 
6,762 posts, read 11,631,332 times
Reputation: 3028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqualung View Post
I'm putting my money on LED bulbs. Once they're cheap enough, CFLs will be a distant memory.
I agree with this. CFL's are a great example of good intentions leading to bad consequences.

Point being, they have mercury in them. As much as everybody would like to dream that people would recycle them, they won't. Right now there is low interest in recycling them because companies can make new ones much cheaper than they can recycle.

As for the coal plants adding mercury to the atmosphere, yeah, thats bad. But as we move away from standard coal to "clean" coal, solar, and wind, we can eliminate that source of mercury contamination in our environment. It would be an utterly retarded move to ban incandescents and cause CFL's to grab hold of the marketplace by government force. LED's will be the better solution.

I'm currently on "clean" electricity and pay a couple of dollars more a month to be on it. So no mercury is being produced by me using my incandescents. I do have a few CFL's, but personally don't want them in all my fixtures, just certain ones.

I still haven't read the bill, so I don't know if it has a mandate to ban incandescents. If it does, its truly a shame.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 11:47 AM
 
Location: New Orleans, LA
595 posts, read 2,344,444 times
Reputation: 193
This is far worse than bulbs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2007, 12:35 PM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 7,761,797 times
Reputation: 849
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vampgrrl View Post
LED bulbs are definitely the future. But they still aren't cheap enough, that said I should buy one and try it out.
Yes, these will work...except that they can change their radiance and wavelength with temperature variation.

You just can't make me happy...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:02 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top