It's working, it's working!

[California98Civic]

I have a great aunt in law who has an incandescent bulb in a lamp in her house that she says she installed in 1968. Not kidding. 1968.

[nemo]

Originally Posted by XYZ

Translation (not that it's needed): Now you no longer have any choice. Your ability to decide and choose what bulbs you might want to buy has been taken away. That action was taken to benefit someone other than you. It was supposedly done to benefit society, for the good of us all...

This is not true. Some of your choices are LED, CFL, LED, and Halogen-Incandesent What was mandated was how many watt can be used to create a certain level of light output. Some bulbs were exempted for the standard like 3 way and rough service.

[Frank Lee]

It's kind of like the Corporate Average Fuel Economy of lighting. I am for CAFE as it drives efficiency which we all know is good yet unfettered market forces don't reward efficiency until it's too late, yet I'm opposed to the lighting standards.

The main difference between this and CAFE is that with CAFE you still have all the choices available to you.

"CALF" (Communist Authoritarian Lighting Fail) fails to recognize that there are other efficiencies than lumens per watt. I have applications for lights where the heat is a desired "byproduct" in fact so much so that the heat is the product and the light is the byproduct.

And the price of the traditional bulb is but a fraction of the new junk.

Yes I say junk- as noted earlier, we are paying more for less. Flip a CFL on outside or even in a room as cold as those in my house and chances are you will be ready to go back into a different room by the time the damned thing warms up enough to work. In fact in rooms that I tend to be "in-n-out" of quickly, I've gone back to incandescent. And the "dimmable" CFLs are a joke. Those were even more expensive than the regular CFLs and they're such a fail that I don't use the dimmer any more.

So the point of CALF is to reduce electricity use, huh. There are about 1,000,000 better ways to get people to reduce electricity use. First off would be real progressive rate structures, that reward the small user... quite the opposite of the retarded regressive Midwestern model where the small EFFICIENT users subsidize the SLOBS by paying far more per kwH.

And of course the government could stop paying people to reproduce. A billion less consumers should alleviate the pressure on resources of all sorts.

[nemo]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I have applications for lights where the heat is a desired "byproduct" in fact so much so that the heat is the product and the light is the byproduct.

I understand nothing like sitting under my mom reading light in the winter up there in cold country. Here I have the opposite I don't want any thing to generate heat.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

And the price of the traditional bulb is but a fraction of the new junk.

True for the initial cost.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Flip a CFL on outside or even in a room as cold as those in my house and chances are you will be ready to go back into a different room by the time the damned thing warms up enough to work. In fact in rooms that I tend to be "in-n-out" of quickly, I've gone back to incandescent.

Have the same problem here with some of them and the rooms don't get below 78F.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

So the point of CALF is to reduce electricity use, huh. There are about 1,000,000 better ways to get people to reduce electricity use. First off would be real progressive rate structures, that reward the small user... quite the opposite of the retarded regressive Midwestern model where the small EFFICIENT users subsidize the SLOBS by paying far more per kwH.

Progressive rate might work for some other would just pay thinking the couldn't do anything to affect it. Just like at the pump. One that bother me on my bill is the account fee. It adds between 5% and 15% to my bill.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

And of course the government could stop paying people to reproduce.

The tax structure is in favor of families as opposed to individuals while families use more resources.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

A billion less consumers should alleviate the pressure on resources of all sorts.

No argument here.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I have applications for lights where the heat is a desired "byproduct" in fact so much so that the heat is the product and the light is the byproduct.

Uh, that would be a high-wattage resistor (sorry, no light byproduct, however)...found at your local Radio Shack (wink,wink)

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by nemo

This is not true. Some of your choices are LED, CFL, LED, and Halogen-Incandesent What was mandated was how many watt can be used to create a certain level of light output. Some bulbs were exempted for the standard like 3 way and rough service.

Can I buy a standard incandescent bulb any more? No, I can't because effectively it's been outlawed.

You are saying I have other choices, but in actuality my choice has been eliminated. I don't mind there there are other types of bulbs now available (as I said, I do use them in other applications). But let's not pretend that my personal preference for a standard incandescent bulb hasn't been taken away by governmental action.

I'm with Frank on this one. I too am in a cold climate and when I sit at my desk I use a 60W incandescent work lamp for several reasons: not only does it give warm light but I use it as a hand warmer in winter. The light from a fluorescent gives me eye strain when doing close work. It will literally give me headaches.

For me, the technology of a standard, old-fashioned bulb that was doubly useful to me has been eliminated. It was done to promote an ideological and political ideal, not to mention the benefit to producers of the higher costing new bulbs.

When I heard of the forthcoming ban on incandescent bulbs, I bought several cases of them while they were still available. Fortunately, stored light bulbs don't go bad. Forewarned is forearmed.

[Xist]

When 100W bulbs became outlawed, I thought "So, instead of having three 100-watt bulbs in a room, I will need four 75-watt ones?"

I also wonder about people who visit Mexico. Might I as well pick up a case of light bulbs to go with my jug of vanilla?

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Xist

I also wonder about people who visit Mexico. Might I as well pick up a case of light bulbs to go with my jug of vanilla?

Or you could talk to someone like me. I have a box of old incandescents sitting on a shelf in the garage, from when I replaced all my frequently-used lights with CFLs. Mostly 60W, but I'd let them go at a reasonable price...

[jjackstone]

Here's a funny story. I asked one of the guys at the local hardware store how long he thought it would be before incandescents would be off the shelves. He said it would still be a while because although the standard wattage bulbs had been banned(100W,60W, etc.) Wattages such as 95W and 58W are not banned. That may have changed with the New Year. But as far as I know incandescents have not been completely banned.

JJ

[jamesqf]

Stopped by Home Depot, and there are still plenty of incandescents on the shelves.