California may ban light bulb...

[Peikko 1,575]

http://cbs2.com/national/topstories_story_031132337.html

(AP) SACRAMENTO, Calif. How many people does it take to change a light bulb? In California, the answer could be a majority of the Legislature.

The electricity-wasting incandescent bulb would be banned - replaced by energy efficient compact fluorescents - under a bill that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine plans to introduce.

He says the spiral light sources are so efficient that consumers should be forced to use them. The compact bulbs use one-fourth the electricity spent in an equivalent incandescent.

"Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," said Levine, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said in a news release Tuesday. "It's time to take a step forward."

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Interesting. I think it's a step in the right direction.

[GaryC 7]

What about all the people that make regular light bulbs? They are going to be put out of business!!! How heartless of you!

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

Interesting. I think it's a step in the right direction.

I concur. I've been swapping from reg to flo whenever the reg bulb burnt out.

Daniel

:energetic:

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What about all the people that make regular light bulbs? They are going to be put out of business!!! How heartless of you!

A savvy CEO of a light bulb company would have started manufacturing fluorescent bulbs long ago, Gary. Most probably, light bulbs are manufactured in China or some other country where it costs a fraction to make - have you bought a light bulb lately? And lastly, have I ever advocated that we keep a business operating simply as a way to keep people employed?

[de_sjiem 0]

While I agree with the wosdom of using flourescent lightbulbs, I'm not sure politicians can outright ban incandescents.. Maybe encourage flo's but .. ban incandescents? wouldnt that be against constitutional rights? (the freedom to waste electricity?) while they are at it, why not ban Hummers and other gas guzzling vehicles?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Compact fluorescents emit the same light as classic incandescents but use 75% or 80% less electricity.

What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

That's the law of large numbers--a small action, multiplied by 110 million.

The single greatest source of greenhouse gases in the United States is power plants--half our electricity comes from coal plants. One bulb swapped out: enough electricity saved to turn off two entire power plants--or skip building the next two.

Just one swirl per home. The typical U.S. house has between 50 and 100 "sockets" (astonish yourself: Go count the bulbs in your house). So what if we all bought and installed two ice-cream-cone bulbs? Five? Fifteen?

Says David Goldstein, a PhD physicist, MacArthur "genius" fellow, and senior energy scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council: "This could be just what the world's been waiting for, for the last 20 years."

Swirl bulbs don't just work, they pay for themselves. They use so little power compared with old reliable bulbs, a $3 swirl pays for itself in lower electric bills in about five months.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/108/open_lightbulbs.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I have loved compact fluorescents for a while. My mom has some that have been working for 15 years now. The were pricey back then but are pretty cheap now.

LEDs will replace fluorescents. But they are where fluorescents were 10 years ago.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/09/le...ghtbulb_r_1.php

Edited February 1, 2007 by LuckyStrike

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Interesting. I think it's a step in the right direction.

i agree. in fact, just about every lightbulb in my house is of this type. however, do you think you can afford to pay $5-7 per lightbulb when this law goes into effect?

i can see it now - instead of smuggling pot into cali, it will be light bulbs.

[DeadPoolX 9]

While I agree that "compact energy-efficient fluorescents" are better, I think it's a mistake to outright ban the use of regular incandescent lightbulbs. Freedom of choice for the consumer is something we cherish in the country -- or at least, it should be anyway. I don't like the idea of the government meddling like this. I could see the government encouraging the use of fluorescents, but they can't (shouldn't be able to) force them on us.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

While I agree that "compact energy-efficient fluorescents" are better, I think it's a mistake to outright ban the use of regular incandescent lightbulbs. Freedom of choice for the consumer is something we cherish in the country -- or at least, it should be anyway. I don't like the idea of the government meddling like this. I could see the government encouraging the use of fluorescents, but they can't (shouldn't be able to) force them on us.

I agree in principle but the incandescent bulbs use up way too much electricity. Unless someone could make a strong argument as to the difference between the quality of light, I don't see how banning these dinosaurs is infringing on consumer choice.

[ladybird216 2]

Interesting. I think it's a step in the right direction.

i agree. in fact, just about every lightbulb in my house is of this type. however, do you think you can afford to pay $5-7 per lightbulb when this law goes into effect?

i can see it now - instead of smuggling pot into cali, it will be light bulbs.

We were in CA last November and I think they were trying to promote these bulbs then...we found some priced at $1.99 for 4 in the local supermarket, we bought a few boxes and brought them back home...now that's all we use.

Jen

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

Interesting. I think it's a step in the right direction.

i agree. in fact, just about every lightbulb in my house is of this type. however, do you think you can afford to pay $5-7 per lightbulb when this law goes into effect?

i can see it now - instead of smuggling pot into cali, it will be light bulbs.

We were in CA last November and I think they were trying to promote these bulbs then...we found some priced at $1.99 for 4 in the local supermarket, we bought a few boxes and brought them back home...now that's all we use.

Jen

somewhere along the way they must be subisidized. here they run about that for one bulb.

[midicat 0]

It'd be ok. People in California are more used to paying outrageous prices on everything! I'm sure they'd protest less than people in other states, plus there more for the clean air acts and all that jazz.

Do they make those swirly bulbs in 100watt? My lizard needs 100W bulbs. I might look into this! They last longer too eh? Seems like i'm always replacing light bulbs, of course at about $.25 each it doesn't break my heart when one burns out.

[Fandango 1,439]

I agree that the flours are great and totally smack down the old incandescent lightbulb, but do not agree with this being a legal issue.

What next?

While I agree with the wosdom of using flourescent lightbulbs, I'm not sure politicians can outright ban incandescents.. Maybe encourage flo's but .. ban incandescents? wouldnt that be against constitutional rights? (the freedom to waste electricity?) while they are at it, why not ban Hummers and other gas guzzling vehicles?

totally agreed!