RSS
How Many Politicians Does It Take To Change A Lightbulb? California May Find Out
from the but,-why? dept
There's been a lot of buzz today over the news that a California state politicians is probably getting to introduce the amusingly named "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act," which would ban the old classic incandescent lightbulb from California by 2012. It's no secret that fluorescent bulbs use up a lot less energy and last a lot longer than incandescents, and are becoming quite popular -- but that still doesn't quite explain the reasoning behind the legislation. In part, it's probably just to get more attention for fluorescent bulbs, but it's really an education issue, not a regulatory one. As people realize just how much they save by going fluorescent, they're making the switch anyway -- and adding legislation to ban the incandescent bulb doesn't make much sense, other than as a way for a politician to pretend he's making a difference. It's great that this legislator wants to get more people to make the switch, but this highlights how politicians use the hammer of regulation to view every problem as a nail.
32 Comments | Leave a Comment..
- Schrödinger's Download: Whether Or Not An iTunes Music Sale Is A 'Sale' Depends On Who's Suing
- We Don't Have A 'Wild West' Internet Now, But We Will If SOPA Or Similar Is Passed
- One Nation, Under Guard
- Supreme Court Denies Appeal For The Pirate Bay Founders
- White House Says It Can't Comment On Possible Chris Dodd Investigation
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Hopefully...
They need to improve the flourescents first. They are not suitable for replacing incandescants everywhere just yet.
A state law mandating eye strain is a little... uh... stupid?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Not really the right idea
Legislation isn't the answer, education is. I don't even think California would pass a law banning unnecessarily large vehicles even though it's quite obvious a lot of gas can be saved an emissions reduced. Through education incandescent bulbs will become a luxury just like gas-guzzling cars, boats, and planes (though on a slightly smaller scale).
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
... wow...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
And something more to think about, what happens if this ban goes through? What the heck is going to power all the bulbs inside the Californians refrigerators and stoves - not to mention the Lava Lamps as well...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Huh?
I can see hollywood flipping out over this when the colors in their videotapes become all distorted.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Just Great.....
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Saving the planet...BAH HUMBUG...
an incandecent lightbulb really doesn't contain any toxic chemicals, florecent bulbs have mercury, the balasts for the CFLs often have lead based solder, and i have no idea what the phosphor is made of/contains.
according to the earlier article it says that incand. bulbs are only 5% efficient. wrong. they ar more in the realm of 20-30%.
these are the same people who passed a bill here in washington that effectively declares hydroelectricity as NONRENEWABLE.
what about those electric cars they have been pushing. they use batteries that have to be replaced every 5 years or so for optimum performance. oh, and what about charging them? you have to plug it in and in many areas that electricity comes from hydrocarbons. they have just created more problems rather than fixing any.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Huh?
Also fluorescent lighting has been used in many photo studios and it does work well in small studios for video as well. That's not to say they will be able to replace those 20,000 watt flood lights or even many 1000 watt light boxes, but different applications, different needs. A fluorescent studio setup does cost more, however, for the same light output, but then it saves on energy costs in the long run, usually lasts longer before each bulb needs to be replaced, won't burn you, and people who work under the lights for hours on end would appreciate cold lamp setups.
As for dimmer packs, it does seem dimming fluorescent lights are more difficult, with most dimmer switches completely not designed to dim fluorescent lights anyway. I would think the solution to that would be to use LED lighting instead, if being able to use a dimmer is required.
In fact I would love to see High Intensity LED lights replace compact fluorescents.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Not really the right idea
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Welllll...
I'm not saying that I'd support something like a government-sponsored holocaust, but I'm just thinking that if the name was funny enough... well, you never know.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Stupid is as stupid does...
I just wonder what kind of bonus the fluorescent light industry is going to pay their lobbyists?
Here is an example of how California improves their local world:
1. "California" determines that there are some hazardous chemicals that outgas from building materials.
2. Legislation is passed to label buildings, so if you are sensitive, you can stay out. (Like the peanut warnings on candy bars.)
3. The law is interpreted as vague as possible.
4. Every building has a generic sign that indicates it "...may contain chemicals determined by the state of California that could be hazardous to your health".
5. Sign companies make a good profit from these signs.
6. Consultants that did the studies walk away with a chunk of cash.
7. Nothing else changes - except you had better have one of these signs on your building with a vague warning.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Stupid is as stupid does...
BTW, California isn't the only state to print "warning, might cause cancer" on the packages of cigarettes, "warning, may cause birth defects" on the labels of soda and other distilled drinks.... yeah, but do people always read these labels and follow them 100%?
So you point about the warning signs on the outside of SOME buildings in California falls into that same category. The warning is there if you actually care - or in your case, it's there to bother over-sensitive people like yourself... and it works, wouldn't you say so?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Light Bulbs
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
devils advocate seeing the light...
That being said, I doni't think this legislation will be useful not because of the underlying intent, but it seems very apparent that flourescent light bulbs != incandescent light bulbs in all functional areas. Until that happens, they should look for other ways to get energy savings, but you have to give credit for at least attempting to deal with the problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Start somewhere
I say use legislation, why not. It isn't like choosing a light bulb is a sacred right that every man, woman , and child should fear losing.
Outdated and polluting technologies such as these should not be allowed onto store shelves. Let the educated people make this decision and pass the legislation so the rest of the uneducated don't have to teach themselves about the differences between light bulb technologies.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Stupid is as stupid does...
And, I never said anything that would lead you to think that California mandates the cigarette warnings, that is federal stupidity.
The signs don't bother me - it's the govt mandates, especially those that cost private citizens and corporations money, or federal mandates that force local schools to spend more, for instance. Unfunded mandates.
The bottom line, some where behind this promotion is a lobbiest representing some interest that is going to make money from this legislation.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Bad point of Flourescents
With regard to the colour temperature, using warm white (3000K rather than 5000K) are more like incandescents, and so more suitable for some rooms.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
on the head
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Saving the planet...BAH HUMBUG...
If you've ever felt how hot a incad. bulb is, you'll realize that if it is 20-30%efficient, then CFL would be 100-120% efficient, which is impossible.
So we'll stick with 5% for incad. and 20% for CFL.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Saving the planet...BAH HUMBUG...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: reading by low watt bulbs
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Flourescent bulbs
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fluorescent bulb eye problem
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
My eyes can't survive florescent lighting and I am
My eyes are filled with pain that nothing relieves. The pain moves on to redness that seems to up the pain level even more.
Is anything going to be done for the few of us that seem almost to be allergic to florescence. Normal soft light bulbs and halogen bulbs even more, permit me to have a reasonable quality of life. I am so concerned that with the rush to legislate everything under the sun that people like me will end up living at night with candles - which by the way are expensive and with their smoke throw Lord knows what into the air.
Does anyone know if those of us with opthamalogical probems will be permitted to use the less green but so much kinder though not very greenish bulbs that are available today?
Many thanks.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
incandecent light bulb ban
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Start somewhere
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Light bulb ban
Take apart a CFL bulb sometime and look inside the heavy plastic (petroleum-based) case. Here's what's inside: A printed circuit (PC) board with copper traces, 10 capacitors, 6 diodes, 6 resistors, 2 small IC's (I think), 2 aluminum brackets, 1 small magnet with aluminum coilwire around it, 2 heavy multilayer copper wire coils on black plastic cores, an iron frame around one of the coils, 2 steel screws, 2 steel nuts, 2 non-conducting plastic (petroleum) safety washers, 2 tungsten filaments (for start-up of the bulb I presume), 4 long filament stand-wires, 2 heavy-gauge plastic insulated power-supply wires, a great deal of wiring for all the components and a great deal of lead-tin solder to affix each component to the board, plus the standard aluminum threaded base and base contact (which, incidentally, is all there is to an incandescent bulb).
The whole thing weighs 4 to 6 times what an incandescent bulb does and costs $4.95, as opposed to $0.25 for an equivalent incandescent bulb. So let's see, it's bigger, heavier, costs 20 times as much, requires a great deal of petroleum-based plastic, and also substantial amounts of semi-precious and even exotic mined metals and complex electrical equipment. (I.E.: Copper, lead, mercury, tin, silver, gold, aluminum, silicon, iron, steel, cobalt, samarium, kaolinite, polymers, adhesives, resins, carbon, rubber, etc.....). So it costs much more to produce and ship (greater weight implies more diesel burned to move anything), and it is hazardous to dispose of legally. Compare how much mining and oil exploration have to occur to make one of these CFL bulbs to the same considerations for the old incandescent bulb and it is very clear that the incandescent is the less environmentally damaging choice. Even though it burns more energy when used, much of that lost heat is not lost at all because it helps to heat your home, and most homes in the US require some heating at night...when the lights are turned on! Additionally, our generating network is moving rapidly toward cleaner sources (Nuclear/wind/solar), so mandating a much more materials-intensive CFL will only increase the need for mining and oil exploration. As I see it, this CFL law is a great bonanza to anyone in the metals mining, oil exploration or electronic components industries. I'm all for these industries, but doesn't this defeat the purpose of a promised "environmentally-friendly light bulb"?
One last thing: In a supposedly "free country" like the US, the central (federal) government has no right to ban ANY type of light bulb. and you should be offended at this gross overreach by both the Congress and this President. (It reminds me of the alcohol Prohibition experiment of the 1920's-30's.) If you understand the principles that the Founding Fathers based this Constitutional Republic upon, you cannot support or tolerate any ban at all.
Is anyone out there interested in petitioning to get this portion of the ridiculous knee-jerk energy bill repealed? I'm working with my congressmen and Senators in Colorado right now to generate such a movement. Predictably, only the Republicans have even responded to my phone calls--and they are outraged by the ban as well.
"They that will sacrifice even one libery in order to secure safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
I couldn't have said it better, Ben.
--Steve Davis
Denver, Colorado
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Fluorescent bulb
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Mandating CFLs is evil!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]
Add Your Comment