What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
142 Comments
- Yez70, on 10/12/2007, -4/+72An incandescent bulb costs about 25 cents. The new fluorescents run about $2.50.
You need 10 incandescents at 25 cents each to last as long as one fluorescent bulb - so the cost is the same.
The fluorescent will also cost $39 LESS to operate over it's lifetime, in comparison to 10 incandescents.
You are already paying MORE money for lighting. Shell out some cash and pay less.... - barktwiggs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37CFL's do not last long in refrigerator's and outside because the chemical reaction works better at higher temperatures. My friend has replaced CFL's about 4 times in the space of one year in his fridge and has finally switched back to incandescent in that appliance. Incandescents will still have their place.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+31Edison didn't invent the light bulb. He just took the idea and made it better. But improving on an idea != inventing it.
- falloutsyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Make an LED one, you've all the materials at a local radioshack. Or you could just make a mooninite sign. 1-31-07 NEVER FORGET!
- spikes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+26Yep, the Incandescent appliance bulb will always be around. Try shoving a CFL in your oven. :P
- neftaly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+26Because the mercury emissions from a power station running incandescents > than the mercury in a CFL.
Oh, and both CFL's and incandescents have less than 1 ATM of pressure - they both suck just about as much. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -10/+28Not when the goal is *banning* something.
Encourage change: Environmentalism. Force change: Politics.
I'm allergic to peanuts. Peanuts are bad for my environment. I, therefore, would like to encourage people to not use peanuts.
The proper way to do this, of course, is to ban peanuts, sue peanut companies and growers, and criminalize peanut possession...
Preposterous. - rolf, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16No, banning is a stupid idea. Incandescents have their place. The lightbulb in the fridge? CFLs don't start up well in the cold, and well, the fridge light isn't on that much anyway. The oven? I'd like to see a cfl in there.... melting with its plastic base.
Also, halogen lights, the common lights in car headlights, aren't they incandescents? Yes, halogens technically are. Do we move everybody to Xenon bulbs (the bluish lights better models have) when their bulbs burn out? That would be expensive to convert every current car on the road to take them.
Gee, a blanket ban sounds better already. Maybe we shouldn't use our brains and tax the lights at a rate making them on par with CFLs, so consumers are more inclined to choose CFLs at buying time but free to still make a choice. - elucubra, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14It IS stupid to BAN incandescents. ( I use CFLs about 80% at home and office).
Just slap an eco tax that makes them unattractive for general use. Thus they would be available for those uses where they are truly needed and not replaceable by CFLs, and CFLs would be preferred for general use.
Incandescents for general lighting have always been an unelegant and inefficient idea. Just like the internal combustion automobile. Inelegance refined to extremes.
Think about it:
A metal contraption that rides on balloons powered by a powerplant that translates linear energy into rotational energy in a bath of oil that ends up seeping or burning, while carriying underneath a can of highly flammable liquid ( i could go on) If you get rid of what you have come to think of as normal, cars are a harebrained ACME scheme. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10No such thing as a Frys for hundreds if not thousands of miles from Connecticut...
- sexycommando, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11that would include you, then.
- rompom7, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Nanny state? What?
Australia is far from being a nanny state.
They did NOT ban the SALE, PRODUCTION, or USE of incandescent bulbs. They are just introducing new energy standards, if an incandescent bulb can match those standards, you are allowed to use them.
The same way food companies have standards that prevent them from putting arsenic in our food. - richardtallent, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I spent $40 on CFLs, and I REALLY wanted to make them work for us. I got the 20W (75W equivalent output) 6500K "daylight" GE's that Wal-mart has been hawking.
My wife made me take them out.
While they would probably look great in a loft or a space with large windows facing overcast skies, the light color is far too cool (blue) for an old house like ours, and we have a mixture of chandeliers, sconces, and overhead lighting that just doesn't do well when mixed with the CFL color.
I tried to keep them in my home studio for awhile (I'm a photographer) because I liked the additional brightness and the lights are a lot closer to matching the light from my strobes. But with only that room having the CFLs, every time I looked down the hall it looked like an alien spacecraft had landed in there, and the room just felt to sterile.
So, reluctantly, I'm back to halogens and I have a bunch of CFLs in original packaging I'd be happy to sell on the cheap. Call me back when inexpensive CFLs are available with light output closer to 3200-3800K. - wonderchemist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9History Pet Peeve: Edison and his 'co-workers' did not invent the light bulb. Neither, did they invent a bulb that used a heated tungsten filament (like modern bulbs).
- ricksite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Dimmable CFLs are very expensive and availability is limited. Like many people, when I need to change a light bulb, I don't want to have to order one online. I want to pick one up on my next trip to the grocery store. The energy to have a bulb or two delivered to my house would be way more than the energy than the bulb was going to save.
- EntangledPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7None of my CFL make any noise at all.... totally silent.
- EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Lumens per watt, CFLs are more efficient than existing LED bulbs. However, LED bulbs can be dimmed.
- Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7A ban is stupid. How are they going enforce the ban? Is there going to be a light bulb police who check people's houses? Are they going to search people at the borders for smuggling in incandescent light bulbs?
- tecdocTi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Incandescent free x6 mo. Saved ~10% on my electric bill. Find them at home depot and lowes when they are on special . Most of the bulbs in our place were bought when they had an 8 bulbs for $4 sale about a year ago.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I'm not sure if they'll have any materials at radio shack nowadays.
I went to a local radio shack looking for an audio cable for a cd drive, they don't carry that anymore. They have all the cordless phones you could ever dream of. - Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@over90
From memory, Edison tested literally hundreds of filiments to form the current incarnation of the light bulb from something that only vaguely resembled it... Saying he didn't invent the light bulb is like saying the inventor of the automobile didn't invent anything because both the engine and the concept of wheeled vehicles were already around.
Anyway, yes, there are MANY places incandescents should be used... There is several different non-lightbulb-production-related industries that would die without them (like, say, film....) - VermiciousKnid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8me too dude. It sends me crazy when I hear ppl say Edison invented everything.
My other history pet peeve is: "Columbus proved the earth was round."
AAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!! - AnotherCanadian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6erm, it gets cold in canada. -35c cold. i need my incandescents for outdoor use thankyouverymuch
- earlycj5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Interesting that this article says you can't use CFLs in your bathroom due to humidty. I've had four of them in there for two years now with no issues. Never knew it was an issue.
- Tiak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Erm, there are ways to do it... As the article mentions SOME CFLs lack dimmers, not all... As for LED bulbs... I haven't seen any of the actual bulbs hit the market yet, but I assure you that individual LEDs can be dimmed just fine.
- versapak, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@47f0
Maybe because we don't have google handy while we are standing at the store buying our lightbulbs. [face_rolling_eyes]
I usually buy my CFL bulbs at Sam's Club in bulk packs, and hadn't personally seen dimmable ones. When placing a CFL in one of my dimmable fixtures, and finding it didn't work, I didn't think... hmmmm... Maybe I should go google this. No, I thought... Shoot. I guess CFLs don't work in dimmable fixtures. I guess I'll just throw an incandescent bulb back in there, as I have yet to run into one of those that didn't work. - EBFoxbat, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Give me one application that an incandescent is needed over an LED or CFL.
Basic lighting: CFL.
Instant on (fridge, motion trippeped spot lights): LED.
Fridge: LED
Oven: LED - Square47, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Cfl's don't perform as well aesthetically as incandescents. Lighting designers may spec cfls in architectural recessed cans (which has been common for awhile), but when it comes to retail and commercial space...they don't have a cfl that performs as well as the PAR lamps they put in a lot of fixtures. I sell lighting professionally (large dollars commercially....It's not like I work at Menards....smartass) and I think cfls should be used wherever feasible, but there are still some areas that demand better performance and a more natural look than cfls. Basically, I don't think you'll be rid of the incandescent anytime real soon. Maybe as the tech develops things will change though.
- Vlatro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@elucubra
***** you and your Eco-tax. Why don't you guys every say what you really mean on those faggy little bumper stickers. "Save the environment, destroy the free market".
CFLs are great because they can save you money if you live in an area where you're paying 4¢ or more per KWH, otherwise you get screwed by the price. Now you want to ***** me over on the price of incandescent bulbs to give me an incentive to get ***** again on the price of CFLs.
CFLs will be adopted and in wide use. I have no doubt of that, but let the market decide when. don't give the government reason to create new taxes so you can feel better about your light bulbs now instead of waiting 5 years when increased competition amongst manufacturers makes them cheaper. Consider for a moment the factory's incentive to become more energy efficient in production, helping close the gap in operational costs between them and their competition. If the bulbs are cheaper, their margins tend to be lower and the volume produced will be higher. That's an excellent incentive for them to be less wasteful while producing the bulbs. When the government taxes incandescent bulbs up to $2.50 each, why would CFLs ever need drop below that price? Competition on the lower end of the market (generics) will stagnate. Newer, more efficient bulbs will continue to be developed, but it will take much longer for them to come down in price, and some ass hole like you will then want to put an eco-tax on the CFLs too. - MrSteamTank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Honestly, I'm all against having the government dictate how we live and banning things left, right, and center. However, a reasonable sin tax for incandescents wouldn't be a bad idea in my opinion. Much like how cigarettes and alcohol have their own sin taxes. Not that incandescent bulbs are sinful but they do unecessarily put stress on energy grids due to their overall wasteful tendencies.
The taxes would then be used to improve the energy grid so those that are wasteful at least pay for themselves. This would also have a discouraging effect on people purchasing incandescent's as well. - EntangledPhysx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I replaced 3 incandescent bulbs with 3 CFL in my room. WOW!! I am NEVER going back to incandescent, EVER!! The light is much more pure and easy on the eyes. Plus it feels good knowing I'm doing my part to help the environment :)
- insomuchas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Incandescent bulbs, like Pentium 4 prescott's do not waste any power in the wintertime.
We pay to heat our house anyways and the extra warmth means we burn that much less oil. Maybe ban them from Hawaii and Florida and So Cal but in New England they are 100% efficient 6 months out of the year. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I use CF's in about 95% of my house and all barns and outbuildings. I use them for one reason only: They are fiscally benificial to me & my family. I don't do it to save the Earth. I don't do it to output less CO2. The GWNannies continually attempt to tinker with free-market ideas in a never-ending attempt to make YOU and I feel guilty about everything and anything we do. Incandescents are fine for those who choose to use them and they should NOT be banned. Nor should they be taxed any more than any other lighting source. When CF's become a financially reasonable light source for everybody around the world, then we'll see the fade (no pun intended) of the incandescent.
The 'Progressive' practice of levying taxes to modify the (completely legal) undesired behaviors of the Less Refined Populace is straight Fascism.
Really, if it were so simple to SAVE THE EARTH as replacing all the incandescents with CF's, couldn't Hugo Chavez simply nationalize a Venezuelan lightbulb factory and give away CF's to all the poor people? Starting with his OWN...?
Please NannyDoGooders, don't force your religion on Un-Nuanced simpletons like me...
God bless Amerika... - imjustsayin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I am a new CFL convert. I resisted trying them due to my distaste for old fluorescent lighting. I was very pleasantly surprised to find that the quality of light was quite good. I found no qualitative difference between CFL and incandescent. I am gradually replacing each bulb that burns out with CFL.
I am, however, strongly opposed to a ban. There are situations where CFL’s just aren't the best choice particularly if you live in a cold climate. Most have been mentioned already, but I also have decorative light fixtures in my house that have flame shaped bulbs. They are very seldom used, and a CFL would just look terrible. Just to give you and idea how rarely they are actually used, I've lived there almost 3 years and have yet to replace one. I really don’t want to go through all the time, expense, and hassle of buying totally new fixtures, and they are used so seldom that I don't think it would make that much difference. I would bet money that more energy would be saved by me not having to buy a light that would be saved by getting one that could use CFL.
On top of that, I think that government stepping in could stifle invention. They have made progress in making incandescent more efficient. I am willing to be that any innovation in that direction would quickly die if the government killed the market. CFL’s are already taking off. Why do you think they are becoming cheaper? Demand is increasing and technology is getting better. They are almost certain to be more the standard than the exception in a reasonable amount of time. That is, of course, unless a better technology comes along in the meantime. - zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I replaced all my bulb with those CFL bulbs two years ago.
so far 4 has failed. - nakba, on 10/12/2007, -10/+12"Has the nanny state run amok once again?"
Isn't this about the environment, not libertarianism? - Cyphase, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There's no need for a ban or a tax. The market is already starting to switch to fluorescents. Before 2010 in Australia and 2012 in California (the bans I know about), and in a couple of years everywhere anyway, we'll be mostly switched over. This is an example of the government trying to get ahead of the market, then taking credit when incandescent bulbs are barely used anymore.
- whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2@richardtallent
I've actually found quite a range of usability amongst the CFLs. Shockingly enough, the worst, bluest bulb I ever bought was from a big name manufacturer (I think GE). I actually found that a lot of the GENERIC bulbs were better. They aren't identical, but they are warm and after a couple weeks my brain has rewired itself to thinking it's "normal."
As I posted elsewhere, GE has been fighting against CFLs. Consumers switching to CFLs will have a large negative impact on their business model. The same is true of some of the other big name brands. Based on my experience, I think they intentionally sandbag their bulbs. I don't think there's any other explanation for some of the crap bulbs they make. - barktwiggs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@shableep
Agreed. We need to be sticking to a more incentive based 'carrot' approach rather than a penalizing 'stick' one. I know numerous states are giving tax credits to people who install solar panels, wind mills, or even buy hybrid cars. - cjwl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'd rather support renewable energy sources than buy bulbs which generate more hazardous waste.
- cranium, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@47f0
You might want to read those product reviews, sparky. - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -0/+2@NonFluro
That's why CFLs don't make sense for every country. But they sure make sense for some countries, like America. We heavily rely on coal and will for quite some time (due to our huge coal reserves). Take France, on the other hand. It produces around 80% of its power from nuclear. Even if the rest was coal (it's not), that would be a small slice.
So I definitely don't offer it as a worldwide panacea and wish others wouldn't, either. - anthonyk28, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2So California's Energy Commission tells me I'm too stupid to tell if the CFL in my room is flickering. I hate CFL's with a passion - they don't look like real light, they flicker constantly in my house [whether due to wiring, or some other issue is completely irrelevant because I refuse to investigate and potentially rewire the entire ***** house to accommodate a theoretical saving in energy (for every CFL I buy someone makes one less incandescent? *****), as there would be no physical saving of money until I'd worked off the cost of upgrading the house in the first place], and they only last three times as long as a regular light bulb for ten to twenty times the cost.
I leave two lamps on 24/7. They're exactly identical lamps, both plugged in on the same circuit. The incandescents have never flickered except when loose in the socket, and last at that usage for roughly six months. CFL's flicker constantly, like a piss-poor office light, and last at best twelve to fourteen months.
And CFL's are environmental nightmares, for more than the mercury argument. Next time you promote CFL's take your head out of your ass for a second and look at the packaging, materials (both raw and refined), and manufacturing processes required to produce a CFL. All of this info is based on common sense - you can read all this on any CFL package.
Raw materials: Plastic. Wow. Don't remember my incandescent using - by weight - the same amount of plastic as the average scientific calculator...hell, I don't remember it having any plastic. I don't throw out that much unrecyclable plastic from any other single source, and neither do most people;
Glass. CFL uses three times as much glass as an incandescent;
Mercury gas.
Manufacturing process: I'm not a manufacturing expert, but I'd be willing to bet that the creation of CFL's required the creation of new factories, new machinery, new refinery processes, and new pollution, energy consumption, and subsequent waste. Show me that these factories - at best - use far less energy and create far less pollution than the ones producing incandescents and I'll introduce you to the proud owner of a Nobel Prize.
Packaging: Holy ***** on a stick, Batman. I don't even need to point out that an incandescent is generally packaged in a single piece of CARDBOARD. Often recycled, certainly recyclable, and definitely biodegradable at least. Why the ***** then are CFL's vacuumed into blister packs? Just exactly how much ***** plastic do we need to consume in order to save the planet?
Shipping: See if you can get the same number of CFL's in their packages into a box as incandescents. Go ahead: I don't need to see you do it to know you can't. And I have never ever in my entire life seen a fancy convoluted display system focusing on eye appeal for incandescents. So in the space in which you would have shipped 10,000 incandescents before, you now ship 2000 CFL's along with their display setups.
Disposal: Break a thousand incandescents in the trash and aside from the likelyhood of eventually consuming glass dust, you'll probably never get sick. I can't be sure, but I doubt there are more than a handful of odd deaths contributed to incandescent light bulbs, yet we know the effects of mercury poisoning firsthand; seriously, we don't even use it in thermometers anymore. Unsafe for thermometers but fine for lightbulbs? Have you ever seen Enigma eat a CFL? They're lead paint or leaded gasoline; they're DDT; they're CFCs; they're cadmium. Sure they're all useful, but we should know enough now to be able to say that simply because there is an alternative does NOT make it better by default.
And none of that matters anyway - to ban a legal product is not only unconstitutional and fascist, it removes the will of the free market and replaces it with the approval and subsequent subsidy of governmental justification. - NonFluro, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Not every country uses 100% coal power!
- victorycig, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11I also found the "nanny state" frame unfair. If ever there was a reason to institute government regulation, it is to help stop global warming--a threat that surely threatens every human on the planet. This isn't about politics. It's about our species' survival.
And I happen to like peanuts ;) - winterblink, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Been swapping out incandescents for a little while now, I actually like these better than those. Too early to tell how much savings I'll be seeing in the long run, but short term looks good. I can't help but wonder though how long it's going to take for my power company to start cranking rates up when the masses start to do this, and they aren't bringing in anywhere near as much cash as before...
- strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"BAN THE BLAH BLAH"
What bulb, exactly, do you suggest I put in my adjustable lights? Sure, there are cold cathode bulbs that can be adjustable, but they are in no means ready to rival the brightness of a 100 watt bulb. - LogicBomB, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I'm in sales (internet fax services) and I can tell you FIRST HAND that people like pigg123 and gromnie are extremely bloody common, if not the majority. They are the kind of people that just CANNOT recognize that spending more money NOW to save them lots of money LATER is a good trade. The idea of saving lots of money on the energy bill by spending a little more up-front on the bulbs just doesn't compute.
In my industry, you need to pay for the faxing service so that you don't have to spend money on the phone line, paper, toner, repairs, lost contracts to busy signals, etc. But all people EVER hear is "well, that's a little more than I pay right now...". You need to look at cost savings as a whole, not just the parts you care to see. - whiledo, on 03/25/2009, -1/+3SHORT ATTENTION SPAN VERSION: THE PARENT POST HINGES ON INDUSTRY BS AND EPA SHENANIGANS
@magicjava
I don't buy this reasoning. You know who lamp manufacturers are? People who make light bulbs. Most have been dead set against CFLs, because they know in the long run it will drastically decrease their sales. And utilities have a pretty strong interest in selling as much power as possible.
So first off, their claims are suspect. And what is the definition of "many parts of the country"? If they had some actual impressive number (like, maybe "30% of the country"), why wouldn't they use that?
From:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/business/02bulb.html?ex=1325394000&en=78dfdd6856cb7590&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&pagewanted=all
'Light-bulb manufacturers, who sell millions of incandescent lights at Wal-Mart, immediately expressed reservations. In a December 2005 meeting with executives from General Electric, Wal-Mart’s largest bulb supplier, “the message from G.E. was, ‘Don’t go too fast. We have all these plants that produce traditional bulbs,’ ” said one person involved with the issue, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of an agreement not to speak publicly about the negotiations.'
Second, are you relying on EPA rules to reflect reality? Do you realize how poorly EPA rules from decades ago have actually been followed? Utilities have played with all kinds of loopholes due to their political connections. It's all been a charade. Things don't look any more serious with the current political climate. So would you rather stake mercury reductions on technology or on politicians? Here's some very interesting information on just how useless this new rule may be:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/dailymojo/2005/03/mercury_reduction.html
"Yet a recent investigation by the EPA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) casts doubt on the new proposal's ability to achieve any meaningful change. ... The OIG also uncovered major flaws in the EPA proposal's design, flaws that threaten to undermine the new rule's effectiveness, as well as several loopholes that would allow hundreds of plants to avoid regulation altogether. ... The plan's greatest flaw is that it effectively sets the cost of polluting lower than the cost of compliance. ... Moreover, in many cap and trade programs, polluters are often allowed to borrow against their future right to pollute, so that they can essentially buy time to prepare before they clean up their act. However, in the EPA's proposal no limits are placed on how long this borrowing can go on. Take this together with the low safety valve price and it means that plants can theoretically continue to pollute indefinitely into the future for less money than it would cost to comply." - collinong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The problem with this kind of legislation that bans a whole class of products (incandescent bulbs) is that it focuses on the wrong parameter to measure progress. The real goal is efficiency, so they should pass laws that mandate improved efficently lightbulbs, whether that comes in the form of compact flourescents, LED bulbs, something else new, or even improved incandescents.
For example, GE has incandescents on the way that equal or rival CFs in efficiency:
http://news.com.com/2061-11128_3-6162567.html -
Show 51 - 100 of 142 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is