Republicans Try to Block New Light Bulb Restrictions

Mott the Hoople said:
Yurts just being a partisan hack showing he can spin anything the GOP supports. Never mind the fact that the energy bill that put this standard in place was approved by a GOP congress and signed into law by a GOP Presidents. Now their opposed to it and so Yurt is now too.

Here are some facts about CFL's. First, a typical CFL lasts about 6,000 to 15,000 hours of use where a comparable incandescent lamps will last 750 to 1,000 hours. So essentially a CFL will last ten times as long or longer then an incandescent one. CFL's also use about 1/4 the energy to produce the same quantity of light. For example, a 100 watt incandenscent lamp will generate about 1,600 lumens of light. It only takes 25 watts of power for a CFL to produce the same amount of light.

Then there is the quality of light. Recent formulations of phosphors make the light from a modern CFL of very near to same quality as incandescent lamps, so that is a very over stated issue and if you don't believe me, do the pepsi challenge. Go into a room lit by one, then the other in a blind test and tell me if you can tell the difference. I couldn't.

Then there is the issue of cost. A CFL will cost a bit more in purchase price then an incandescent lamp but because they use less electricity, produce more light per watt and last 10 times longer they are more cost affective then incandescent lamps and they are about 5 times more efficient in energy use.

So so far you have a huge advantage in performance and energy savings at a minute difference in light quality which brings us to the issue of CFL's and mercury.

In terms of environmental impact CFL's that go into a landfill or incinerator will discharge their mercury into the environment. In areas where energy sources other than coal is used to generate electricity this is a legitimate criticsm. So for example if you life in a western area where electricity is generated via hydroelectric power their would be a net increase in mercury into the environment. However, most of the US used coal and since coal contains mercury then the net affect is that the wide spread use of CFL's would reduce mercury emmision into the environment by about 2/3. For example, for about every 8000 hours a 100 watt incandescent lamp is used about 5.8 mg of mercury is emmited into the environment from the consumption of coal powered electricity. Conversely when a comparable CFL is used for 8000 hours only about 1.2 mg of mercury is emitted from coal powered electricity and about 0.6 mg mercury from the disposal of the lamp for a net total of 1.8 mg mercury. So from that standpoing CFL's represent a 66% decrease in mercury emmisions in regions where coal powered electricity predominates. Emmisions of mercury from CFL's can also be easily mitiagated by placing the lamp inside a ziplock baggie, then inserting it inside another (double bagging). This simple method can retain upwards to 90% of mercury emmisions from CFL's.

There there is the issue of mercury exposure. Mercury is a developmental toxin. In it's elemental form or as a hydride (the form found in CFL's) it's not that toxic to adults and the exposure from a broken lamp is so small as to be fairly insignficant. Young children are a different story and exposure to mercury is a concern but again, the levels of mercury are so low that this risk can be mitigated by simply removing children from a room were a CFL has broken and opening the windows for about 20 minutes to allow the mercury vapors to dissipate. So again, not really much of a concern there.

The biggest concern I have for CFL's is that they are mostly produced in nations like China which do not have worker safety standards for mercury exposure, i.e. work place PEL's (permissable exposure limits) nor do they have the appropriate administrative or engineering controls to prevent worker exposure to mercury and thus mercury poisoning has been a significant issue for those workers.

On the balance though there is much to be gained in energy conservation by using CFL's with little, if any, sacrifice in quality, safety or environmental impact.
Click to expand...

And lets not forget that for those too pigheaded to want to save money, that incandescents will STILL BE AVAILABLE!

They will cost a bit more, but they will be more energy efficient.
 
mott....i have been opposed to the bill from the beginning. so i fail to see how i'm a partisan hack about it and how i am only "now" against the bill. perhaps instead of frothing at the mouth over your dislike of those who lean right, you ought to get the facts first.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And lets not forget that for those too pigheaded to want to save money, that incandescents will STILL BE AVAILABLE!

They will cost a bit more, but they will be more energy efficient.
Click to expand...

not over a hundred watts....at least in california...stop spewing factually incorrect information in order to score cheap political points
 
Topspin said:
to spiral or not to spiral, you may not save what they promised. But if used to it's potential you can save thousands.
Click to expand...
I think studie have shown that if the typical home replace all incandescent lamps in a home with CFL's a net savings of between $1,000 and $1,500 can be realized over 5 years usage.
 
Yurt said:
mott....i have been opposed to the bill from the beginning. so i fail to see how i'm a partisan hack about it and how i am only "now" against the bill. perhaps instead of frothing at the mouth over your dislike of those who lean right, you ought to get the facts first.
Click to expand...

Sure you have Yurt, sure you have. We believe you.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Funny how you didn't include my entire comment...but then again, doing so would show how you are just disingenuous liar, editing and taking people's comments out of context to try and make your point.



No other points you brought up merit discussion if you can't even discuss my very straightforward comment honestly.
Click to expand...

your whole purported comment, they are actually SEPARATE comments, does not change the fact that you did in fact say it....why are you lying about it?

you want off foreign oil...just not enough to use an energy efficient lightbulb.
Click to expand...

you unambiguously state that if i use these so called energy efficient lightbulbs, that this will ween us off foreign oil. there is no other way to take your sentence and the preceding comment backs that up by declaring it will help us to be energy independent. even 3D called bullshit on your claim about the oil, but do you call him out for saying that....no....you reply to him as if you did in fact say that...like i said, your irrational hatred of me causes you to meltdown....you're hilarious in your effort to back peddle here.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Sure you have Yurt, sure you have. We believe you.
Click to expand...

fuck you mott....show a single post where i supported the bill. i have been against it since day one. why you now have to call me a liar is beyond me. you've shown yourself to be as bad as onceler and nannyzappa. asshole.

i can only imagine how you would take it if someone claimed you supported something you never ddi. you would be all angry with righteous indignation demanding links and if no links are provided you call bullshit....dishonest hypocrite
 
Yurt said:
your whole purported comment, they are actually SEPARATE comments, does not change the fact that you did in fact say it....why are you lying about it?



you unambiguously state that if i use these so called energy efficient lightbulbs, that this will ween us off foreign oil. there is no other way to take your sentence and the preceding comment backs that up by declaring it will help us to be energy independent. even 3D called bullshit on your claim about the oil, but do you call him out for saying that....no....you reply to him as if you did in fact say that...like i said, your irrational hatred of me causes you to meltdown....you're hilarious in your effort to back peddle here.
Click to expand...

Your irrational hatred of me won't allow you to admit you took my comment out of context......

I CLEARLY said "HELP" us achieve energy independence...not "MAKE" us energy independent.

Do you not see the difference?

Of course you don't...your partisan hatred won't allow you to.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
And lets not forget that for those too pigheaded to want to save money, that incandescents will STILL BE AVAILABLE!

They will cost a bit more, but they will be more energy efficient.
Click to expand...
I think their concerns about them being phased out are legitimate. It would not be cost affective to continue to manufacture them under the current regulatory climate but....so what? It appears incandescent lamps are headed the way of the vacuum tube radio and diplodicus.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I think their concerns about them being phased out are legitimate. It would not be cost affective to continue to manufacture them under the current regulatory climate but....so what? It appears incandescent lamps are headed the way of the vacuum tube radio and diplodicus.
Click to expand...

And I'll bet people also complained when the incandescent light bulb was first invented too...

"...give up my dependable oil lamps for some expensive new gadget? I don't think so..."

People are resistant to change. Just look at the outrage some are epxressing over this subject.

Think about how many home owners at the time would have had to have their ENTIRE house wired if they wanted electricity.
 
So when I spent $10 on a lightbulb when the one I used to use was sitting next to it for a $1.50 am I contributing to us being energy independent and saving the environment or am I just a sucker who got ripped off?
 
ZappasGuitar said:
NAH...no partisan hatred coming from ANY of Yurt's posts...ROFL!
Click to expand...

telling mott to fuck off for repeatedly lying about my stance on the bill has nothing to do with his politics, nor does it indicate hatred. if you want to see hatred and bitterness, read your own posts...

more idiocy from the board nanny
 
cawacko said:
So when I spent $10 on a lightbulb when the one I used to use was sitting next to it for a $1.50 am I contributing to us being energy independent and saving the environment or am I just a sucker who got ripped off?
Click to expand...

If your not growing Herb with it, you just bought a union light bulb and $8.50 worth of bs. :palm:
 
Yurt said:
telling mott to fuck off for repeatedly lying about my stance on the bill has nothing to do with his politics, nor does it indicate hatred. if you want to see hatred and bitterness, read your own posts...

more idiocy from the board nanny
Click to expand...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight..."fuck off" is just another term of endearment between two old friends!

I bet you can be seen calling out just such a greeting to your best friends and dearest family members each and every day!
 
cawacko said:
So when I spent $10 on a lightbulb when the one I used to use was sitting next to it for a $1.50 am I contributing to us being energy independent and saving the environment or am I just a sucker who got ripped off?
Click to expand...

If it's a bulb designed to last 5-6 times longer and to use less energy to light your home...then you made a good investment.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
If it's a bulb designed to last 5-6 times longer and to use less energy to light your home...then you made a good investment.
Click to expand...
Tests show they both do not last longer, and do not use less energy. So, you spend a ton on a bulb that saves you nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top