Jump to content

Got a CFL?


monsoon

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I personally am thrilled that this legislation was signed and will be urging my representatives to vote AGAINST the repeal of the incadescent ban, if it gets to that. If this was left up to individual municipalities, it would take decades to get rid of this wasteful technology.

As far as recycling, states have mandated recycling levels for municipalities in the past and could easily help spearhead recycling efforts for the cfl bulbs.

This is a great thing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally am thrilled that this legislation was signed and will be urging my representatives to vote AGAINST the repeal of the incadescent ban, if it gets to that. If this was left up to individual municipalities, it would take decades to get rid of this wasteful technology.

As far as recycling, states have mandated recycling levels for municipalities in the past and could easily help spearhead recycling efforts for the cfl bulbs.

This is a great thing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

while states have mandated recycling levels, what are the penalties and how well are those mandates enforced? i really see this as an increase in mercury in ground water, which can be arguably worse than the difference in energy. if LED bulbs were more cost effective and prevalent, then i would be behind something like this, but the federal government should not be putting something like this into law.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make no mistake what this is about. This is about big business, pure and simple.

Perhaps, but it certainly doesn't hurt my power bill by switching to all CFL's. Businesses have known this for quite some time so it is a no brainer for consumers to switch at home as well.

I personally prefer the color from a CFL over the yellow tint that incandescents give off but I'm sure there are those who don't share my views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outside of the environmental issues, Fluorescents and incandescents aren't the same. No matter how much a manufacturer tries to label their product as equivalent to a color temperature, it is simply not a full spectrum light, nor is it a stead light, nor is it a directional light. Look at how much effort companies go through to make effective office lighting and still people complain about offices. They are simply not the same. It would be far better to put that kind of money into developing better incandescents that in trying to force people to use flos.

But the fact is that this has nothing to do with what is better for the earth or what is better for us, but what is better for the companies. They can no longer make money off of incandescents, they can be manufactured cheaper in Asia. But Flos - they still have rights to that technology, and it's complicated enough they can make money off of it. Make no mistake what this is about. This is about big business, pure and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that link and those numbers used 100 watt bulbs as an example. how many people use 100 watt bulbs in all their homes. i'd say that's a pretty unfair calculation. i use no more than 60 watt bulbs in my home, many are just 40. i imagine most people do the same (100W is super bright, brighter than most people want).

i'd be willing to bet if they used 40 or 60 watt bulbs in their calculations, the amount of mercury would actually be less than incandescents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And as big of a fan of CFL's as I am, you are correct. If you followed their calculations, this is what you'd find:

40w: CFL mercury would be 1920 vs Incandescent's 970. (11W cfl)

60w: CFL mercury would be 1968 vs Incandescent's 1455 (13W cfl)

Based on the site, they used numbers to 'spin' their cause. However, I still say the answer is easily accessible recycling programs and consumer education..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their are technologies that can make coal plants cleaner, however our government has yet to mandate them. In developing countries, where plants are coming on line at the rate of one every 2 weeks, I would doubt they even put much thought in that technology.

CFL's have their place in helping us reduce energy consumption and hopefully they can help us bridge until LED's or other light sources using even less energy are made readily available.

I agree, energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, and tidal should be more agressively pursued to help satisfy our future energy needs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i never said CFL's don't have their place. as i have said before, i replace pretty much every bulb in my apartment with them. i just don't think the federal government should be mandating their usage and should be putting their efforts towards renewable energy research and mandating cleaner power plants.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know why you keep mentioning 100W bulbs. as i said before, they aren't that common unless you want to be sitting under the sun for everything. the only place i have ever used a 100W bulb was in a light next to the driveway at my mother's house. she lived on a dark street and this brightened up the driveway better than a lower wattage. other than that, everything has always been 25, 40, or 60W, depending on the usage.

and while i understand the benefits of moving to CFL's, if they're required, I can guarantee that the majority (80+%) of the people will not recycle them properly, even if it is mandated. many people consider recycling to be a hassle. now i'm not justifying their actions, but there's no way around it.

i would prefer to see government money going towards alternative energy sources. start at the source. we keep coming up with these gimmicks (and to a degree, that's what they are) to get around that, but the 800 pound gorilla here is the source of the energy. if we can get that taken care of, then we can eliminate a ton of the issues. but that's not going to come through subsidizing corn for ethanol or banning incandescent bulbs or taxing the hell out of them. it's only going to come from good research into newer technologies. if LED's were more mainstream, they'd come down in price. throw some money into that. they'd be a hell of a lot safer for the environment than CFL's... and they have the added benefit of lasting a whole lot longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just don't think the federal government should be mandating their usage and should be putting their efforts towards renewable energy research and mandating cleaner power plants.

Well, I can't imagine mandating CFL's costs much to do or requires much effort whereas converting over to renewal energies and mandating cleaner power plants are grossly expensive to implement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

converting to renewable energy sources would come at a cost to the people (directly and by way of the government). mandating cleaner power plants should only come at a cost to the energy companies who should not be passing these costs on to their customers. there could be some cost to the gov't by way of incentives, but that wouldn't be outrageous.

banning incandescent bulbs comes at a cost to the environment and to the people who need to buy more expensive bulbs to replace their burned out incandescents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know why you keep mentioning 100W bulbs. as i said before, they aren't that common unless you want to be sitting under the sun for everything. the only place i have ever used a 100W bulb was in a light next to the driveway at my mother's house. she lived on a dark street and this brightened up the driveway better than a lower wattage. other than that, everything has always been 25, 40, or 60W, depending on the usage.

and while i understand the benefits of moving to CFL's, if they're required, I can guarantee that the majority (80+%) of the people will not recycle them properly, even if it is mandated. many people consider recycling to be a hassle. now i'm not justifying their actions, but there's no way around it.

i would prefer to see government money going towards alternative energy sources. start at the source. we keep coming up with these gimmicks (and to a degree, that's what they are) to get around that, but the 800 pound gorilla here is the source of the energy. if we can get that taken care of, then we can eliminate a ton of the issues. but that's not going to come through subsidizing corn for ethanol or banning incandescent bulbs or taxing the hell out of them. it's only going to come from good research into newer technologies. if LED's were more mainstream, they'd come down in price. throw some money into that. they'd be a hell of a lot safer for the environment than CFL's... and they have the added benefit of lasting a whole lot longer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can we mandate cleaner power plants which require much more investment and not expect higher electric bills? We've lived on cheap energy in this country for WAY too long and unfortunately all will have to pay, power generators and consumers alike.

We should still move away from incadescent bulbs because we can gain a great savings in energy usage. I mean when you replace a 60W incandescent with a 13W CFL, the savings are tremendous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear God man, what is going on here? I have mentioned 100w bulbs once. A study I linked to mentioned them once, and that is the only thing at all you responded to. To be honest, the reason I used 100w bulb instead of incandescent is because it's easier and quicker to spell. It doesn't matter what wattage you use. It's inefficent and it produces heat which generally is wasteful. Tax them so the price is comparable to CFL's.

How is 'government money', which is MY money, being spent on banning incandescents? Sounds pretty cheap to me. While paying for solar, wind or anything else is going to be subsidized by that 'government money' which seems to be in short supply these days. Not that I don't think it's important, I think we'll be very lucky if we're not sitting in the dark in just a few short years, but as I said...IT IS ALWAYS EASIER TO CUT CONSUMPTION THAN INCREASE SUPPLY OF ENERGY.

Please let me know when you are able to refute that. Put your money where your mouth is. Invest in some alternative energy sources. Or just talk to someone who installs solar panels. Anyone who is honest will tell you FIRST, you need to cut your CONSUMPTION, INSULATE, and then it might make sense to spend thousands on making your own energy. Before that, you might as well put your money in a pit and burn it to stay warm.

Let me know when you can refute the fact that mercury in the air is more dangerous that mercury in a landfill.

Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the government should be taking the money (your money) it uses to subsidize oil companies and put that money towards subsidizing renewable energy. there's your answer.

i have said several times, i use CFL's myself. i have a problem with the government telling me what i can and cannot buy. incandescent bulbs have a purpose for many people (i still MUCH prefer the light they give off to the light of CFL's).

the reason i have an issue with CFL's is that there will be far more mercury in landfills than in the air once we start using them. the reason is that the majority of incandescents being used release less mercury (either into the air or land) than CFL's.

then there's the issue of recycling. who's going to pay for that? that's YOUR money that has to go to the special care at these new recycling centers that will have to exist in every town. we can't depend on just IKEA for that (heck, i'd spend more money on gas and release more pollutants to get to the nearest IKEA than i would if i used incandescent bulbs). i think that's an unnecessary burden on the towns and states, which will equate to higher local and state taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we probably have a slightly better chance of a small amount of our tax money being taken from the oil companies than expecting investors in utilities to voluntarily reduce their profits because you (and I) feel they should make 'greener' power. But let's face it, that ain't going to happen while Bush is in office. He's said as much.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.