Isn't imposing those fluorescent light bulbs as dumb as central planning?

Question

I mean who's gonna tell you how long to leave the lights on, how many lamps to have in your house, how many to have on? Do they really last that long, don't they require much more components than regular ones and are they not more costly to make? Plus some are dangerous, and they aren't even useful for turning them on for a few seconds like when you just walk into a room.

Answer 1

It's pretty dumb. It's never works out when you FORCE people to do things, rather than give them positive incentives for doing them.

Answer 2

I am always looking for ways to conserve energy (one of the homes I am considering buying already has two solar panels and if I can get a permit, I will add a horizontal windmill*). I bought a bunch of the fluorescent light bulbs about 2 years ago, I have several problems with them (and will stockpile enough incandescents to last the rest of my life when the phase-out begins in 2011):

1. I think the flourescents are useful for certain applications, such as lighting a porch or certain rooms, but for reading and cooking I find that I need 3 of them on, when 2-100 watt incandescents would work. In that case, it probably means that there is little or no savings.

2. Cost - you are correct, for them to be worth the price difference (for them to last 3 to 5 years) you need to leave them on for at least 15 minutes, turning them on and off a lot does not increase their energy consumption, but it does drastically reduce their life.

3. Mercury content/special disposal - Mercury thermometers were banned about 4 years ago, since mercury is a really bad environmental pollutant. If you put these bulbs in the trash, they will end up in landfills and eventually make their way into the environment (since older landfills are not completely tight and even newer ones are only required to be leakproof for 50 years). I live in a very Liberal county in a VERY Liberal state and I have not received any information on how to dispose of them. If it means that I have to drive the 12 miles to the county waste transfer station every time I dispose of them, I doubt I will.

* This is a beach house, the wind blows steadily, but at present in that county it is still very difficult to get a permit for a residential windmill. The rich Libs from my other area of residence (who own second homes here) don't like they way they look or the noise and are actively opposing an off-shore wind farm - meanwhile they are banning light bulbs that cause a lot less eye strain and increase the production and dispersal of mercury.

Answer 3

I also agree with a lot of what Yo its me says above.

I changed over to compact fluorescents in most of my fixtures based on the perceived economics. In my mind, I used a free-market approach to implementing the new technology, i.e. when I believed the initial cost and quality of light was acceptable based on the operating cost, I switched as many as I could. Yes, I have saved some money on my electric bill.

Unfortunately, I have also discovered several locations that do not work well with the comp. fluor.
I mark each one on the date I install it and several times, I have changed the bulbs after 6 months. At that rate, the cost, resources to produce, and disposal concerns are not worth it compared to regular incandescent bulbs.

Therefore, as long as they continue to improve the compacts, I will continue to buy them and use them where appropriate. However, I am completely against a phase out because of the problems listed above. I should be able to choose the best product for my application and installation. The government should mind its own business and go back to doing whatever it is that it does best, whatever that is!

Answer 4

They may save a bit on the overall electric bill, but IMO they don't produce the same amount or quality of light. You also cannot put them in three-way lamps, because nobody makes any three-way fluorescent replacements. They are frightfully more expensive, and illegal to dispose of in the trash. Plus the ballasts contain mercury. But the environmentalist whackos say they are the future, the same imbeciles that claim global warming is ruining the world.
If you are smart, you'll do as I did, and remove the fluorescent replacements and put in the newer and twenty times more efficient LED replacements. They are also dreadfully expensive, but they last forever and use so little current that they pay for themselves in a year. Plus, they are made in three-way units. Still better, they contain no hazardous materials and are disposable in normal trash (which I've not had to do because one never burned out so far).

Answer 5

Big Brother should butt out! However, I changed all of ours, including two yellow ones outside, over 11 years ago (when they were expensive). My electric bill went down and has stayed down. It is just the smart thing to do, particularly when the bulbs are as cheap as they are today. I agree with Judd that the LED bulbs are what people should buy now and I am replacing ours as they burn out with the LED type.

Answer 6

Yeah I observed this too using fact i want a unfastened bag. Hell, i want a unfastened easy bulb, too. i only choose unfastened stuff. i admire unfastened stuff. What i certainly choose, nevertheless, is a unfastened tshirt. or in line with threat a unfastened motor vehicle. Hmmm..that'd be advantageous. yet perhaps it's going to be a unfastened bulb in a unfastened bag. yet i do no longer know...that could we get? A bag or a bulb? that's no longer consistant...everyday yahoo.

Answer 7

To be honest, the government is making laws about energy consumption because most citizens in the U.S. don't have enough concern for their country to take these actions on their own. Americans are used to plenty and therefore, waste it without concern to the damage that results to the future of the country as a whole.

People cry about the cost of gas but drive gas hogs. Some people have no choice, but many do have a choice. By cutting our consumption, we also cut the price. Americans are not getting the leadership they need to be responsible citizens in regards to energy consumption. It is a matter of more than the price. It is a matter of national security and should be addressed as that. The trouble is, we are unwilling to think of it in those terms until we have to wait in line to get gasoline.

Answer 8

I use those bulbs throughout my house and it has saved me alot of money. The bulbs do last longer and only use a fraction of the energy. My elec. bill is $30 cheaper a month.

Answer 9

I believe self control and discipline is more helpful than going in for new technology at cost that are beyond ones pocket

Answer 10

i tried them. they suck. they're expensive and they don't last a lick longer(maybe even shorter). they tend to be dimmer too (says something about the people trying to shove the down everyone's throat--dimmer, i say!)! pain in the a55 to dispose of PROPERLY. and really, lights are the lowest electricity consumer in the house!