Out of Pod Experience

First, converting to Pounds, a 100W incandescent would cost about 25-30 P, if Brits were still allowed to buy them.
That means a non-dimmable CFL would have about 7x the cost. Where did you get confused? Was it the multiplication that stumped you?

Second, someone from a nation that insulates their homes as poorly as the UK, is hardly is in a position to lecture others on energy efficiency. (Yes, I've lived there, seriously its like R-16 fiberglass and extruded polyurethane had never been invented.)

Third, I REALLY like payoff in the second statement. Window into the mind of the Greens and people who think like them.

"If people won't voluntarily change their ways, they are going to have to be forced."

LOVE IT. Never stop posting.

I wasn't aware that typewriters had been banned.
When did that happen? Can you show me where along the line typewriters were banned in favor of word processors?

To the best of my knowledge, anyone is free to buy, sell or manufacture a typewriter in the US.

You obviously aren't understanding the concepts being discussed here.

ah yes, here we are in the first days of 2012, complaining about lightbulbs.

My point was that once new, more environment-friendly, more efficient technology appears the good thing is to adapt. The fact that the 100W incandescent lightbulb is banned is a sanity-check more than anything (just like the healthcare reformation).

But feel free to keep on with your ad hominem type-arguments.

My other point was that this is a pretty lame ass thing to get worked up about. If the point is that "your freedom" is somehow being taken away, then there are far greater examples of that in the U.S. other than lightbulbs that would at least make me extremely pissed off if I lived there. For example: SOPA, Marijuana legislation, New York state still having a ban on MMA, the fact that censorship is extremely prevalent, and that politics are so heavily influenced by private businesses/ventures that people with money can opt out of a lot of legal ****.

But hey! Let's worry about lightbulbs! I'm sure that is empowering to some people.

'Fact' he says. But then can't quote anything. This is what happens when people read panic articles instead of the bill itself. No, you can not apply this bill to any citizen. Not even CLOSE. Note the careful and explicit wording 'belligerent', 'direct', 'substantially'. If you can fit those, you're supposed to.

Do you have a science degree to back up your statements? First you state that energy sources are going to run out, according to publications we have enough coal and natural gas (possibly oil too) here in the united states to last for the next 200-1000 years and that includes population growth. We also have several thousand years worth of uranium ore that could be mined for powerplants.

Hydrogen cell do not work, they are not practical in any way shape or form and they are definitely not "only need the investment to take over". They are mainly shackled by the low power production per volume of the cell and they also require heavy pressurized tanks to store hydrogen. Also it should be asked on where hydrogen comes from, right now the most efficient in terms of cost AND energy usage is the natural gas/steam method. Energy is produced at an efficiency cost, then is used in the chemical process at an efficiency cost, and then go into distribution at an efficiency cost. Other fuels have only minor chemical and distribution costs and almost no input energy cost.

I have high hopes for fusion, but i do not think it will become reality, its just too harsh to get it to work, you quite literally need the core of a sun to make it work. NIF, or national ignition facility at Livermore labs has a big machine to make fusion happen, but word on the street is that it is really an excuse to develop lasers for the military.

Deciding what lights are best for *you* is the final point here. I agree with Akita though that taxing them into non-existence would have been better than an outright ban (direct or implied).

For example, I've worked overnight for over a decade now, and have to admit that 'Full Spectrum' CFLs are much better than their incandescent counterparts.

The first few winters were pretty hard on me, as I was unable to get enough 'natural' light and was prone to seasonal depression and lack of vitamin D. I've used both Halogens and CFLs over the years (and also own two Ott-Lights for common work areas). I refuse to get one of those 'light tables' - they're just huge. Far better to just replace most or every light I'll be near with Full-Spectrum CFLs, it's worked well for me.

Would I prefer 'normal' lights? Probably, but I've become accustomed to the whiter light that a CFL can generate. I'm watching LED developments but they rarely sell those in Full-Spectrum.

Edit - I just checked, I currently use 14W in pairs on a 4-bulb fan light, the other two are using 'Reveal' bulbs because this place is old wiring and did not like all four as CFLs. At the old place there was only a couple of lights, so they were 26+W (usually 150W equiv).

To be fair, there is indeed no impending terminal energy crisis (as in "running out of very soon and nothing else is available").
What we are however facing is a slow but steady supply/demand shift which will cause a PRICE increase for energy in a lot of forms, but more importantly, a price increase for energy used as vehicle fuel.

Whatever oil there is, it's getting harder (and more expensive) to bring out and refine to an usable form, even if there is plenty of it in various places.
Coal might still be somewhat cheap, but it doesn't exactly lend itself for use in internal combustion vehicles.
Electric vehicles are not exactly "there" yet either and the price of materials for rechargeable batteries is not getting any lower.
Hydrogen is still a pretty "lossy" energy storage technique and is not exactly as safe to use as gasoline yet (not that gasoline is completely safe either) and requires a more expensive infrastructure.

The current (high) quality of life experienced by most people in the civilized world is linked to the availability of CHEAP energy.
So, in a manner of speaking, NOT getting cheap energy IS a sort of crisis, because it will lead to a decline in living standards - more expensive almost everythings (but mainly food and consumables), negligible additional income, stuff like that.

It's only a matter of what exactly does qualify as an energy crisis.
For some people in the USofA, gas prices going from US levels (3-3.5$/gallon) to European levels (7-8$/gallon) alongside a similar hike in utility bills (regardless of the continued availability of service) would already constitute a pretty major crisis.
Definitions are a b**ch.

India, China and south Americas demand for energy will double in the next 5 years alone and all of the easy supplies are just about gone. It is going to cost more and more to get it out of the ground and need more and more energy to do it.

both are right.

there is no looming energy shortage for the foreseeable future, but the cheap, easy to extract oil/gas is dwindling fast.

this will make everything more expensive, and considering that the cheap oil and gas is mostly on the OPEC, in all honesty, I can expect these countries to fall into a crisis due to the fact that their economy is mostly based on oil exportations.


TL;DR, there's still quite a huge ammout of petrol, it's just that it'll be harder, and thus more expensive to extract, and the end of the "cheap energy" era will bring economical, and thus social, upheval to the, already war-battered near and middle east, if not the entire world.