Incandescent bulbs bye bye + cartoon!

[jake_fink]

This news story:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/184290

Ontario is considering becoming the first province in Canada to follow Australia's lead in banning old-fashioned, energy-sucking light bulbs, Environment Minister Laurel Broten said Wednesday as the province draws up a plan to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.

Led to this cartoon:

Link to Gable cartoon

Oh, how we laughed.

 

[Sunny]

That's a scream! lol

 

[The Wingnut]

Here's a better idea...stop using power sources that produce emissions!

 

[jamespowers]

Regular light bulbs are also less poluting when you have to change them. You get rid of the bulb int he garbage but they expect you to recycle the new bulbs. I doubt that is going to happen and all that will end up poluting dump sites. Great. Murphy's Law anyone? :eusa_doh:

Regards,

J

 

[Lincsong]

Let's just start making candles out of animal fat again. But wait cows produce more pollution than incandescent lights.:eusa_doh:

 

[BegintheBeguine]

Um, excuse me, I am eating that animal fat called lard.

 

[Mike in Seattle]

Banning incandescent bulbs is in the works for California as well, according to the in-laws...

 

[The Wingnut]

...what? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I can understand the energy savings, but it's NOT an absolute. Incandescents have uses that flourescents can never fill.

This is sheer idiocy. Again, if the goal is to reduce the overall emissions at the plants, reduce the emissions at the plants instead of saddling the citizens with the burden of a ban. California's insistence upon relying on power sources other than hydroelectric and nuclear coupled with its environmental activisim with regard to clean air and greehouse gases is the height of hypocracy.

 

[jake_fink]

...what? I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.

I can understand the energy savings, but it's NOT an absolute. Incandescents have uses that flourescents can never fill.

They look better. Flourescents can still only reach about 80% of the colour spectrum.

 

[Lady Day]

When I paint, I have two desk lamps with what they say ate 'soft full light' (whatever that means) incandescent bulbs. They light a great, rich and even light (as they were designed to for painting). I just grabbed a pack of flourecence so we will see how that goes.

I dont mind change. Baby steps people.

LD

 

[Mr. Pinstripe Suit]

Always Look for the "Color Temperature" on CF Bulbs!!

They look better. Flourescents can still only reach about 80% of the colour spectrum.

I've had nothing but compact flouescents in my home for seven years and can tell you that I have a range of "color" options in play for various tasks. I have warm low-wattage uplights in each corner of the living room and bright "daylight" spectrum bulbs in work areas. I've had them for years so they cost me a bit, but the prices are really cheap now when I have to eventually replace them.

To get the right "mood" for each light, look for the color temperature printed on the base of the bulb. The really inexpensive CF bulbs almost always have a "2700" printed near to the "120v" stamp on the plastic base and are "soft white" rated, like incandescants have been. The "full spectrum" or "daylight" versions say "6000¬?" (of color temperature not heat) and are very close to natural daylight at any available wattage. Even though they have a high color temp, they're not harsh like full sunlight, just clean and clear.

Yes, I know waaaaay too much about them.

 

[koopkooper]

The federal government here has put out the feelers on this one in the media recently saying "they are considering", this means the jury is out and it probably won't happen till after the election.

Have you seen the price of those new lights, man ten times the price.

Seriously this is all part of the touchy feel good mood that is ever present as far as the environment is concerned. Hit the little guy not the big corporations. I bet big business will keep their lights burning 24 hours a day regardless of there being nobody in the building.

Personally I am sick of this environmental crap which is simply because of the hippy element that has moved into government. These same pot smoking hippies of the 60's are running our government and lives.
Half of them are rehashing the same rehetoric on environmental policy since the 60's and the other half have just taken back the DVD of Al Gore's inconvieniant truth and now think they actually have a policy to harp on about.The only truth in Al Gore's video is that he can't stand being in the shadows with no public profile and that the "green" lobby groups are paying him to be the spokesperson.
And here's an interesting fact.....A little-known group based in his home state, the Tennessee Centre for Policy Research, had the idea of looking up Mr Gore's energy bills for his large home in the Belle Meade area of Nashville to see whether he practised what he preached.

The headline figures, released to the group under federal freedom of information rules, were striking. Last year the Gore household consumed 221,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity - more than 20 times the national annual average.

His household consumption of energy rose between 2005 and 2006, the bills showed, from 16,200 kWh a month to 18,400 kWh last year. In addition, he spent on average $1,080 (£550) a month on natural gas. Combined, his electricity and gas bills reached almost $30,000.

Sorry but this environmental bag sounds a little to trendy to me.

 

[The Wingnut]

With exception to the energy savings, flourescent bulbs are an environmentally irresponsible choice. They contain more heavy metals than their incandescent counterparts and do not compact as easily in landfills due to the heavy plastic / ceramic housing and built in ballast. Incandescents are little more than glass and metal, and contain a comparatively insiginificant amount of dangerous chemicals and metals.

It is already illegal in most areas in the U.S. to dispose of flourescent tubes in the garbage because of the heavy metals and other chemicals contained in them.

...and most people will not be bothered to recycle thier bulbs. A nice ideal, but one that few stick to.

I've got no problem using CFLs, as long as nobody's forcing me to due to some misguided crusade. They make sense as far as my utility bill is concerned...but I've got lamps that won't work with them, and would look ridiculous with them. As far as California's concerned, the state is not going to solve its energy problems until it withdraws its 30 year ban on building nuclear plants. Only two nuclear sites bearing nearly 50% of the state's power load with no plans for replacement or augmentation makes absolutely no sense. Putting another 30 to 35 % of the remaining load on emissions-producing coal and natual gas fired plants when there is a growing mandate for reduced emissions is irresponsible at the very least. Saddling citizens with a ban, an invasion of their privacy and a robbery of their choice as consumers with the false pretense of environmental responsibility is criminal and hypocritical.

...one of the world's most advanced developers of nuclear plants, General Electric, is moving out of the state. California is strangling itself, all the while proclaiming it's for our own good.

On that topic, from Yahoo! News:

But the venerable incandescent may have life in it yet. General Electric Co. said Friday that by 2010 it would make an incandescent bulb twice as efficient as today's - and by 2012 produce one that is four times more efficient, on par with CFLs.

"Banning any specific technology is absolutely unnecessary," says Kim Freeman, a spokeswoman for GE's Consumer & Industrial division in Louisville, Ky., which includes lighting. "GE supports national policy that will drive improved energy standards for all lighting products, regardless of the technologies.

As an aside, I work in a museum in which we are replacing most of the display lights with CFLs, and I've seen CFLs literally last just a few weeks...I'm right back up on the ladder removing a bulb that for some reason overheated and literally broke off of its ballast. I'd say that we're lowering our overhead, but the lights take about 10 minutes to reach full brightness and still don't light the way the old ones do, and they seem to last just as long.

 

[staggerwing]

I hate the things. At least the ones I've seen don't come on right away, and don't give off as much light (yea, that's a generalization since you've got to compare wattages, etc). When I travel, I carry my own light bulbs because I've found a lot of hotels using these horrible contraptions now. Somehow, my 50 year old eyes just don't see as well with them. Moreover though, we need a lot less government intervention in our day to day lives. Probably why I have an affinity for the Golden Era.

 

[BegintheBeguine]

I reccommend Verilux

I bought some Verilux bulbs form Vermont Country Store catalog about 7 years ago and not only are they a flattering and accurate daylight (better than Ott-lite lamps which I also use) but they last for years. They have just burned out so I have to get some more.

 

[Rooster]

Moreover though, we need a lot less government intervention in our day to day lives. Probably why I have an affinity for the Golden Era

BRAVO!:eusa_clap

 

[koopkooper]

This is part of my dislike with the current time I am living in.
Constant messing in my life, constant hypocritical decisions and expectations of people.

For example, you can't use regular lightbulbs because that will use too much energy but it's ok to drive a massive Hummer, go on a vacation to Europe on a Jet Plane,spend countless hours on your computer and mobile phone...blah blah blah the list goes on.

It's not ok to smoke but it's ok to take "recreatational drugs" and when it's our kids just say that they were "experimenting", thank goodness they don't smoke!

It's ok to watch MTV and see Britney and Paris Hilton and others carry on like a porkchop in front of the camera trying to be all sexy with their stick creature bodies but heaven forbid we find a Playboy magazine under our son's matress.....now where could he possibly get the inspiration to buy this filth!

It's ok for black Americans to use the N word to each other and in music, but a white American can't use it???? What the!! as an Australian I could never get this when I worked in the US. Surely we all shouldn't use this word!!!

It's not ok to smack your child, but it is ok to give them drugs to keep them calm, apparently ADH is everywhere and practically each child has this disorder, either that or anaphylaxis. What is with anaphylaxis, is this a 21st century reaction or what.Seems to have reared it's head recently in mamouth proportions.

I am sure you can think of more

 

[Roger]

Well, whale oil burns cleanly and it is a renewable resource as long as whale reproduce.

 

[koopkooper]

Good idea, we should harvest whale, get the oil sell the rest to the Japanese!!

 

[Orgetorix]

This is part of my dislike with the current time I am living in.
Constant messing in my life, constant hypocritical decisions and expectations of people.

Well, I agree with you. I'm generally in favor of a small, limited government. But to be realistic, there has always been government intrusion, and past forms might be quite shocking to people today.

For example, suppose you had lived in the 18th century. If your neighbor's house was burgled, there would have been no police force to investigate the crime and find the culprit. The sherriff would have had the right to call on you to leave your job, supply your own weapon, horse, food, and supplies, and join a posse to catch the thief. If you refused, you'd be subject to a fine or jail time, and there'd be a reward for whichever of your neighbors brought you in, using just about any force necessary. And if you had been killed in the posse, well, that's just the risk you take doing your duty as a citizen.

Governments have always intruded on citizens' lives. That they choose to do so (most of the time) in ways that don't threaten life, limb, or property is somthing for which we should be thankful.