Incondesent vs. Floursent?

Question

What are some peoples thoughts on banning Incondesent lightbulbs??

my personally thoughts...

My father is a photographer, and floursent lights wont provide the lighting he needs on indoor pictures.

What about all the poeple losing their jobs who work in Incondesent light bulb facotories.

what about all the interier designs that relay on incondecent, like the candle bulbs that people like to put in windows, or the ones that look like a buring candle people put on chandeliers.

What about heating bulbs for pets like reptiles, flouresents dont provie the needed heat for these pets.

on the brighter side we will all be paying less in electricity bills.

What are so of your thoughts, good or bad on this subject

Shilo.

One, proffesional photgraphers dont use a simple flash. They need lighting to light their backgrounds so they dont produce shadows when their other flashes do. and they are the only kinds that do take incodecent.

and 2, with my reptiles you cant use heaters because it will burn the, Tortoises like to dig, they only way they can get heat is sunlight or a bulb and floursecent dont give heat and I live in Ohio and its only warm enough about 4 months out of the year, they can die if they dont get heat.

Answer 1

It seems great that we can all feel good about the eco-friendly and conservation-friendly use of energy, but the real issue is the production of eco/conservation-friendly energy. This new plan does nothing to encourage the develpoment of new energy sources. Those of you that think that mandating this new light bulb is a great idea can sleep well, and remember recycled paper takes more energy and causes more pollutants than a good old fashion tree. Buy carbon credit! Drive your Yugo!

Answer 2

“My father is a photographer, and fluorescent lights wont provide the lighting he needs on indoor pictures.” - There is a wide array of non-incandescent bulbs such as LED and florescent. These can provide a better color correct light than do incandescent. You just have to look.

“What about all the people losing their jobs who work in Incandescent light bulb factories.” - I watched light bulbs being made on "How it's made" and it is not a labor intensive process. Since the people working there know it's coming maybe they can get training on jobs that pay better than low paying factory jobs. We should not embrace old technology simply because some people may need to find a different job.

“what about all the interior designs that relay on incandescent, like the candle bulbs that people like to put in windows, or the ones that look like a burning candle people put on chandeliers.” - Time to adapt. It's like saying "how about those computer programmers that only know how to program in FORTRAN?" They adapted. There are other lighting options beside florescent.

“What about heating bulbs for pets like reptiles, fluorescent don't provide the needed heat for these pets.” - If these lights become unavailable more efficient heaters are already available.

By the way, the legislation does not ban incandescent bulbs. It bans bulbs that produce less than a certain amount of light per watt. There are some incandescent approaches that meet this requirement. LED based lights also meet this requirement.

Gordon (and others that will bring up the mercury issue). if you read the rest of the story you will find the FDA said the $2000 cleanup was excessive and not appropriate. Additionally, most electricity in the US is made by burning coal. Burning coal releases mercury as well. The reduction of mercury emissions created by the energy savings from a CFL is FAR greater than the tiny amount of mercury found in a CFL.

Answer 3

There is a place for both kinds in our life. Better not ban either one just yet. The incandescent use more electricity than the florescent one but they also work outside when it is
-30 F, and I don't think the florescent will do that. So let the person decide which they want to use. I don't need the government telling me what kind of light bulb or lamp I need.

Answer 4

I agree that governments shouldn't ban incandescent bulbs. Taxing incandescents to discourage their use would be a good compromise, creating a disincentive to using them but still allowing access to them to those who really want to use them.

Using flash is no substitute for incandescent light in photography. Luckily, tungsten lights are a good substitute. So is natural light. Of course, if you shoot in black and white, the weird light signature of fluorescent tubes is irrelevant; it only matters in colour work.

As for the jobs, someone stated that Americans don't make incandescent bulbs. This is an invalid argument. You could be British, or Canadian, or from India. Besides, a job is a job. All people on Earth deserve the ability to pay for their lives. However, a good counterargument he could have made is that replacement bulbs require labour to produce, so there will still be jobs. Besides, if we carried this argument to its natural conclusion we would be banning digital photography and the compact disc, too.

The environmental cost of CFL bulbs is larger than most people think, but for some applications they are a superior choice, particularly bulbs that will be switched on and left on for a long time (at least 20 minutes). Bulbs that go on and off a lot (like in bathrooms or a pantry that is normally closed) are best to be incandescent, since these bulbs can survive many more on/off cycles than fluorescent bulbs can.

Answer 5

1) If your dad is really a photographer then he knows about using a flash for indoor photos.

2) Incandescent light bulbs aren't made in the US anyway

3) I am sure the interior design people will figure something out, after all, that's their job.

4) Most people use actual heaters for reptiles instead of the old incandescent bulb style heaters.

Answer 6

I asked a similar question...and provided a news link with this story:

The Financial Post reported in April that a broken CFL bulb cost a Maine woman more than $2,000 to clean when the state Department of Environmental Protection referred her to a cleanup company. At $5 in energy savings per bulb per month (as Davidson reported), one broken bulb could eat up 33 years’ worth of savings!

Answer 7

Ive used them for years, I didnt switch to them to be green, I switched to them to save money.
While I agree that a 60 watt flourescent bulb is not quite as bright as an incandescent. I get around it by installing a 100 watt flourescent. Even though its rated higher...the actual energy use is only 25 watts. It saves me over half and it is noticeable on my bill.

Answer 8

The real issue is that the government has no business regulating this. The market have the choice and it will balance in the right position. Regulations hurt the market and restrict the freedom of the people.
The savings are not worth it. And, as a_wood80 says, the real problem is not going to be solved. Just passed to the next generation.

Answer 9

And what about my freedom to choose which bulbs I wish to use? Well according to the nannies running Congress I don't have the freedom to choose. I must comply with their edict to live as THEY dictate!
I'm stocking up on incandescent bulbs. I'll buy enough to last a hundred years. I plan on screwing Congress just like a light bulb.

Answer 10

Here are my thoughts:

Are we using the same energy sources to light these fluorescent bulbs? The answer is yes, which means they will only prolong our dependence on the current energy sources. And whenever the first wave burns out, landfills will have an ungodly influx of mercury.