Govt subsidized light bulb fifty bucks a pop (generation, Obama, dollar)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You can still buy an SUV, a motorcycle, a sports car, a pickup, a sedan, a bike, ride a horse. If the government gets their way we all will be driving volt's at 40K a pop. So much for your ridiculous argument.
Ignore the lofty statements of Big Brother and the eco-freak greenies for a moment and think practical. How much light do your expensive, dangerous, Bolshevik Bulbs put out? Think lumens, not wattage or design. My old 100 watters are rated at 1690 lumens and provide a confortable reading light, lower rated bulbs do not. A 90 watt bulb, which was sold in California up until Dec. 31, is rated at 1450 lumens, and there is a very noticable difference between the two bulbs. Thank you very much, but intend to keep my old 100 watters until they all burn out. Perhaps by then they will have a LED bulb that is both affordable and efficient. In case some of you missed it, the bulb ban was postponed until at least October by Congress, still legal in some places.
Why? You have to count the total savings in terms of power usage and lifespan.
It's, without a doubt, cheaper to have $50 light bulbs (40 of them) that last 30,000 - 40,000 hours as opposed to incandescents that last 1,500 hours and use 60 watts.
It comes out to a $10,000 savings over a decade, do the math.
This is City-Data. I have no doubt that we have people on this board who'd consider that a reasonable price for getting to feel that they're sticking it to the evil Gvt. Such rebels.
Did you ever see a incandescent light on board Capt. Kirk's Star Ship Enterprise? Of course not. The walls or ceilings emitted light and in the labs of Philips, Hitachi or Samsung they are working on Organic LEDss (plastic films) that could in time be put on as a coating on a ceiling tile! Imagine rooms that have no lamps or point lighting fixtures and the light source lasts the lifetime of the house which might be estimated in centuries. LEDs and other steps away from incandescent Edison bulbs are the first steps into the future. Those who want to cling to their resistive light sources are much like those who clung to their whale oil or kerosine lamps. Now you notce I didn't mention an American company at the cutting edge of this new lighting technology. There really aren't any because Americans don't have what it takes anymore to be a world-class player in this technology.
Ignore the lofty statements of Big Brother and the eco-freak greenies for a moment and think practical. How much light do your expensive, dangerous, Bolshevik Bulbs put out? Think lumens, not wattage or design. My old 100 watters are rated at 1690 lumens and provide a confortable reading light, lower rated bulbs do not. A 90 watt bulb, which was sold in California up until Dec. 31, is rated at 1450 lumens, and there is a very noticable difference between the two bulbs. Thank you very much, but intend to keep my old 100 watters until they all burn out. Perhaps by then they will have a LED bulb that is both affordable and efficient. In case some of you missed it, the bulb ban was postponed until at least October by Congress, still legal in some places.
I have a 2400 lumen CFL bulb right here on my desk, it uses 40 watts.
100 watt equivalent LED bulbs are on the way, I have 75 watt equivalent Philips LED bulbs now. Cree makes the LR24-38SKA35 that uses 52 watts and puts out 3800 lumen, and you can buy Halogen 72 watt bulbs that put out enough lumen for your 100 watt Incandescent replacement.
If you can't figure out how to light up a house with the new technology
lights than that is your problem because it isn't hard.
1. That's kind of the government's job. It's leads the nation. It sets regulations, promotes health and welfare of the nation, and it supports new research.
No, it's not governments job. Government exists to protect the people. Not to tell the people how to live.
Quote:
In fact, the government has pretty much lead the way in research.
Not true at all. Read about Exxon, 3M, IBM, GE, etc, etc. They spend billions on research.
Quote:
The market? The market is there to make a profit, not be novel. They'll only come once they see the money rolling in.
Tell that to Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and thousands of others who have blazed trails BEFORE the money came rolling in. You obviously don't understand what an entrepreneur is. If you wait until the money comes rolling in you will be a follower, not a leader.
If there is one thing about government intrusion that has sent me ballistic it is this mandated lightbulb nonsense, telling citizens what kind of lightbulbs they can use. For both practical reasons and as an expression of political protest I refuse to use the CFLs, sarcastically dubbed by myself as "Bolshevik Bulbs." Every bulb in my home is the good old fashioned incandescent ones, the kind invented by Thomas Edison, and that policy will continue. No longer sold in California, stocked up on 100 watters before they went away. Hoarding them, only use them in the reading lamp one at a time, lower wattage in the other lamps. Wish I had bought more, but they are still advertised online, unsure of the quality of the advertised online bulbs. From the comments of others, the old style 100 watters are superior to any of the new CFL or LED products for reading.
I agree with you. We have allowed our government to grow too big and powerful. Now they tell us what bulbs to buy even though CFLs require a large investment, produce inferior light unless you are very close to them and contain extremely hazardous material.
But when our government leaders jump on the AGW bandwagon, the facts are immaterial.
Why? You have to count the total savings in terms of power usage and lifespan.
It's, without a doubt, cheaper to have $50 light bulbs (40 of them) that last 30,000 - 40,000 hours as opposed to incandescents that last 1,500 hours and use 60 watts.
It comes out to a $10,000 savings over a decade, do the math.
My experience with "longer lasting bulbs" is that they don't. So before you get too comfortable with your savings, you should get some experience with those $50 bulbs in real life conditions to see how long they really last.
And how many years these 40,000 hour bulbs last? Like most people, I use very very few bulbs as much as 3 hours per day. Most of mine are on maybe 1 hour per week, and some much less than that. So at 1 hour per week, those bulbs would last over 700 YEARS. So I would make the investment, but nobody would realize the savings. Even using one 3 hours per day they would last 40 years. I'm not willing to invest any sum of money for a 40 year return.
Ignore the lofty statements of Big Brother and the eco-freak greenies for a moment and think practical. How much light do your expensive, dangerous, Bolshevik Bulbs put out? Think lumens, not wattage or design. My old 100 watters are rated at 1690 lumens and provide a confortable reading light, lower rated bulbs do not. A 90 watt bulb, which was sold in California up until Dec. 31, is rated at 1450 lumens, and there is a very noticable difference between the two bulbs. Thank you very much, but intend to keep my old 100 watters until they all burn out. Perhaps by then they will have a LED bulb that is both affordable and efficient. In case some of you missed it, the bulb ban was postponed until at least October by Congress, still legal in some places.
CCFLs emit at about 50-70 lumens per watt. A 40W CCFL is more efficient than your 100W incandescent.
Your Bolshevik bulb (hilarious title considering who the Bolsheviks were) are less efficient.
And you can buy lower temperature bulbs if you like the warm colors of incandescent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
No, it's not governments job. Government exists to protect the people. Not to tell the people how to live.
Protect the people? Say, with health-care? Great idea!
[quote]Not true at all. Read about Exxon, 3M, IBM, GE, etc, etc. They spend billions on research.[quote]
Pretty much every modern convenience we enjoy has its roots in a government project. The internet is notorious for being derived from ARPANet. GPS satellites wouldn't be there if not for space exploration. In fact, the sweeping progress of miniaturization can be directly tied to federal spending into space exploration--it's expensive, on the scale of $10,000 per pound to put things into space.
IBM might do the research, but it's backed heavily by government expenses and interest.
Quote:
Tell that to Michael Dell, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and thousands of others who have blazed trails BEFORE the money came rolling in.
Computers, genius. Those were well established machines by the time Dell, Gates, or Jobs ever got around to making money on them.
Quote:
You obviously don't understand what an entrepreneur is. If you wait until the money comes rolling in you will be a follower, not a leader.
Investors don't really put money into novelty interests--only when there is a realized profit will that happen. Richard Branson is probably the craziest man alive because he isn't just a money magnet, but he spends his money on crazy ****, like space planes.
My experience with "longer lasting bulbs" is that they don't. So before you get too comfortable with your savings, you should get some experience with those $50 bulbs in real life conditions to see how long they really last.
And how many years these 40,000 hour bulbs last? Like most people, I use very very few bulbs as much as 3 hours per day. Most of mine are on maybe 1 hour per week, and some much less than that. So at 1 hour per week, those bulbs would last over 700 YEARS. So I would make the investment, but nobody would realize the savings. Even using one 3 hours per day they would last 40 years. I'm not willing to invest any sum of money for a 40 year return.
We have one property that required 160 exterior light bulbs that are all on photocells and we switched to 13 watt CFL's. In 2.5 years we've only had to replace 6 of those light bulbs with an average of 10 hours per night throughout the year every single night.
That savings, so far, has come out to approximately $5,000 over the course of that 2.5 years.
I'm all for LED lighting and yes, I know it's expensive, at one of our other properties, that's just finishing up new construction, we used 65 LED MR16 bulbs for the landscape lighting. The LEDs are $36/piece. The savings isn't nearly as much as the CFL's right off the bat but the next time we'll need to replace the bulbs will be 11 years from now. They'll pay for themselves in 5 more months.
The technology will get better.
To each his own though. The savings isn't all that much compared to what the property brings in but why needlessly throw money out the window when you have alternatives?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
