These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Stock up on those 100W Incandescent Light Bulbs!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#21 - 2012-01-01 14:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Slade Trillgon
Citizen20100211442 wrote:
Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?


And you act like a Repbulican President would not have signed this bill.

And Herr it is righteous that you will label Democrats fascist without even thinking about all the fascist policies Republicans run their election platforms off of.

I will trade my light bulbs for a women's right to choose, gay marriage, legalization of drugs, and decriminalization of sex for money laws.

So a clue to you my friend, they all fascist. They all want to control you to, and currently the Democrats agendas are slightly less invasive in my moderately ignorant opinion.


Slade
Citizen20100211442
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-01-01 14:50:36 UTC
You want ****** marriage, and woman's right "to choose" ? Ok

But seriously why so many people falls into this illusion of democrat vs respublician bs?

This reminds me 100 year old cartoon :

http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Cartoon_LOL_01_Progressive_Republicans_vs_Progressive_Democrats_1912.png

To be, or not to be, that's the question.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-01-01 14:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
Citizen20100211442 wrote:
Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?


Why don't you make a new thread and link the part of the NDAA you think means that instead of hijacking a thread.

A ban on light bulbs takes more of your liberty than that bill did, and it's sad so many people who are actually willing to speak out on liberty are too easily distracted to see how it's really taken. Not that I think light bulbs are a big deal, but the fact that the government will make that decision for it's citizens should mean something to you. Instead, you're following baseless hype suggesting a constitutional law professor is taking all of your rights by signing one bill.

Charges Twilight fans with Ka-bar -Surfin's PlunderBunny LIIIIIIIIIIINNEEEEE PIIIEEEECCCCEEE!!!!!!! -Taedrin Using relativity to irrational numbers is smart -rodyas I no longer believe we landed on the moon. -Atticus Fynch
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#24 - 2012-01-01 16:05:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Instead of banning the manufacture or use of certain power ratings, they should simply tax them ALL out the wazoo (regardless of wattage) so that the incandescent ones become just as expensive as the other in just about every case.
It has the double benefit of allowing people who hate non-incandescents still use incandescents as much as they like (for a price) and brings more cash to the budget.
I'd call that a win-win situation.

My parents USED to hate the same things about non-incandescent bulbs, but slowly, using better quality ones, they got used to the idea.
The sale of incandescent lightbulbs is NOT banned in Romania and you can still get them just about anywhere, but a larger portion of the population is naturally switching to non-incandescents in increasing quantities.

The only place we still have incandescent lightbulbs in (that are actually used) is on the stairwell and in one of the two bathrooms.
There are a couple of incandescent ones on some switches we seldom ever use, so why bother changing them.
When the remaining incandescent ones burn out, they too will be replaced with non-incandescent ones, with one exception, the stairwell, where we'll always keep low-power incandescents (for reasons not worth going into).

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Selinate
#25 - 2012-01-01 16:10:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
VKhaun Vex wrote:
Citizen20100211442 wrote:
Barrack Obongo just signed NDAA, which lets imprison people "suspected by terrorism" in US without any trial, and you discussing this?


Why don't you make a new thread and link the part of the NDAA you think means that instead of hijacking a thread.

A ban on light bulbs takes more of your liberty than that bill did, and it's sad so many people who are actually willing to speak out on liberty are too easily distracted to see how it's really taken. Not that I think light bulbs are a big deal, but the fact that the government will make that decision for it's citizens should mean something to you. Instead, you're following baseless hype suggesting a constitutional law professor is taking all of your rights by signing one bill.


Being an American, I say this with some humility and annoyance, at the same time.

I've been watching many of the more ignorant Americans royally **** themselves into oblivion and take others' rights down with them at the same time for a long time now. Choice for women, an epidemic of obesity, lack of decent education, rampant and pointless wars, gay marriage, immigration (read, racism's in-the-closet brother), healthcare, etc. etc. etc.

And ffs, just as a side note, read the preceding paragraph and find all the things that shouldn't even be a ******* issue. Seriously, it's just religious nuts trying to impose their twisted ideals on the whole.

Back to the point, therefore, if congress and the president want to make Americans use more efficient light bulbs, you know what? I agree. If they want to impose more restrictions like this on idiots in this country, I agree. If it helps the idiots in this country make better decisions that make it better for everyone in the long run, I agree.

I get tired of hearing "Obamo the Clown" or other twisted versions of Obama's name where morons think they're being clever.
The real clowns are the Americans who have proven time and time again that they're not capable of making reasonable decisions themselves, and therefore don't deserve the right.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#26 - 2012-01-01 16:17:33 UTC
Also, those so hung up on liberties and such, how come you weren't raging about having smoking banned in some public places ? I mean, raaawgh, liberties taken away and such...

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
Selinate
#27 - 2012-01-01 16:18:28 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Also, those so hung up on liberties and such, how come you weren't raging about having smoking banned in some public places ? I mean, raaawgh, liberties taken away and such...


Because it was done at the state level and not at the federal level, and the state level doesn't always have a Democrat in office to blame.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#28 - 2012-01-01 16:26:19 UTC
I still say taxing those suckers would have been a more gratifying move :P

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
SpaceSquirrels
#29 - 2012-01-01 16:49:58 UTC  |  Edited by: SpaceSquirrels
If you're seriously butt hurt enough over ******* light bulbs to write a post...over ******* old light bulbs. You need to reevaluate a few things.

Once again who the **** cares? They're light bulbs! I can't even believe congress wasted energy (pun intended) debating this. This is why **** can't get done because tards debate over light bulbs.

It's odd it's like the lights still work in my house.
Slade Trillgon
Brutor Force Federated
#30 - 2012-01-01 17:38:27 UTC
Citizen20100211442 wrote:
You want ****** marriage, and woman's right "to choose" ? Ok

But seriously why so many people falls into this illusion of democrat vs respublician bs?

This reminds me 100 year old cartoon :

http://dont-tread-on.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Cartoon_LOL_01_Progressive_Republicans_vs_Progressive_Democrats_1912.png


That was basically the point of my last sentence. The point of the first part of my post was that Republicans tend to flock towards the more invasive forms of denial of personal choice.

To Akita, those of us that mostly understand the concept of personal liberty said that establishments should be given the right to chose to be smoking or non-smoking. Unfortunately those that tend to hold power forget that the diversity of smoking and non-smoking establishments would actually increase the public's expenditure in such establishments. Hell I would bet that if clubs could choose to be smoking that a majority of women, that do not smoke, would choose to go to the non-smoking establishments. Guess what would happen then? Most guys, smokers or not, would then flock to the non-smoking establishments because that is where the ladies are at. Unfortunately not many States saw it from this angle and decided to say all places had to be smoke free.

VKhaun Vex wrote:


Why don't you make a new thread and link the part of the NDAA you think means that instead of hijacking a thread.

A ban on light bulbs takes more of your liberty than that bill did, and it's sad so many people who are actually willing to speak out on liberty are too easily distracted to see how it's really taken. Not that I think light bulbs are a big deal, but the fact that the government will make that decision for it's citizens should mean something to you. Instead, you're following baseless hype suggesting a constitutional law professor is taking all of your rights by signing one bill.


There is the fact that there is no clear cut definition of what a terrorist is and those in power could define it any way they see necessary to lock down any dissidents they choose to. So you are correct that the NDAA bill is not a clear cut violation of personal liberties in of itself, but the fact that it is very vague keeps the door cracked for massive violations of individual liberties.


Slade
Lumiukko
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-01-01 18:41:26 UTC
in response to those who are mocking this thread, saying that the newer CFL's (most common energy saving bulbs) are better and therefore banning the older incandescent bulbs isnt an issue, and that anyone who disagrees must therefore be an idiot, let me shed some light on this subject (boom boom)

firstly, i am an optician, so i have a pretty good idea about what im saying. I see on average 2 or 3 elderly patients a week these days who say that while they can read perfectly well in my practice, they take their glasses home and they cant read the paper, or a book, or in some cases cant see well enough to look after themselves at home, while in the practice they can see perfectly well enough to do normal EDLT's (every day living tasks).

The reason is very very simple, since the EU (or whoever, i dont give a damn about the politics) banned the production of the 100 W incandescent light bulbs, retirement homes / sheltered accommodation and a good number of private residences have transitioned to CFL's, believing blindly that the claims on the packaging which says something along the lines of 11w CFL = 60w incandescent in terms of brightness. In fact, they offer somewhere between 50%-60% of the Lumen output of a 60W incandescent bulb, and there is no CFL bulb which comes even close to the performance of a 100W bulb.

this Lumen count is essential for viewing, in low light conditions, our eyes rely on the rods to provide vision, but rods are found around the edges of the eye and not in the center (this is why if you try to find something small in low light, its easier to look out the corner of your eye than to look straight at it, and why in really low light looking straight at something makes it vanish).

the end result is that when you try to read, you look directly at the page. If the lumen count is too low, your ability to see small text is reduced. For even a young totally healthy eye with 6/6 (20/20) vision or better, reducing lighting will result in a reduction in measurable distance vision to potentially 6/12 (20/40), meaning you need to be twice as close to the object to see it as well. For near vision this is more noticeable, however a healthy young eye with 6/6 vision will still be able to read in lower lumen light, so the energy saving bulbs work fine for you and me, but elderly patients with general vision reductions, people with ARMD, cataracts, severe glaucoma or other visual defects simply cannot see properly in lower light conditions.

the changes to the law in europe at least say you cannot produce the bulbs, you can still sell them, so i have a stock of about 250 100w bulbs and over 300 60w daylight simulation bulbs, which i sell to patients who come in with these symptoms, and without fail all of them have returned to say it worked fantastically.

so i say that stopping their use wont save the planet, but it will ruin the lives of many elderly and visually impaired people. Im sure they will all enjoy the few pounds they save on the energy bill they cant read each quarter.

TLDR: optician says that CFL energy saving bulbs suck if you want to be able to read in your old age.
Reiisha
#32 - 2012-01-01 19:10:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Reiisha
Banning lightbulbs that use more power than a laptop is probably a good idea tbh.

Unless you like wasting money and then come back here to complain about not having money, which some Americans seem to like to do ;p

Lumiukko wrote:


I do see your point though. Still, there's much less energy intensive lights available that give roughly the same amount of light. Especially if you're sporting more than 1 100w bulb, you will very much notice how much you're saving tbh.

Banning them is a little much though, i admit, even after my previous statement. I didn't realize the implications untill Lumiukko pointed them out. However - People who don't NEED 100w bulbs shouldnt use them, in the same way that people who don't need a 800w power supply for their PC shouldn't buy one either, or people who don't need to leave their lights on even when on vacation, or having a multi-KW christmas decoration hanging around while not being around to enjoy it....

Saving energy is a good thing, because if you add all the little things together you might suddenly notice you've got more than enough leftover for a trip to Fanfest for example.

My parents are freaks, sort of, as far as this is concerned, but their efforts paid off - They're saving 600-1000 euros(!) a year in energy costs since they started looking at what they do or do not need to run or have running a few years ago. If anything people need to at least realize how much money they can save by not wasting energy.

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#33 - 2012-01-01 19:42:51 UTC
Lumiukko wrote:
in response to those who are mocking this thread, saying that the newer CFL's (most common energy saving bulbs) are better and therefore banning the older incandescent bulbs isnt an issue, and that anyone who disagrees must therefore be an idiot, let me shed some light on this subject (boom boom)

firstly, i am an optician, so i have a pretty good idea about what im saying. I see on average 2 or 3 elderly patients a week these days who say that while they can read perfectly well in my practice, they take their glasses home and they cant read the paper, or a book, or in some cases cant see well enough to look after themselves at home, while in the practice they can see perfectly well enough to do normal EDLT's (every day living tasks).

The reason is very very simple, since the EU (or whoever, i dont give a damn about the politics) banned the production of the 100 W incandescent light bulbs, retirement homes / sheltered accommodation and a good number of private residences have transitioned to CFL's, believing blindly that the claims on the packaging which says something along the lines of 11w CFL = 60w incandescent in terms of brightness. In fact, they offer somewhere between 50%-60% of the Lumen output of a 60W incandescent bulb, and there is no CFL bulb which comes even close to the performance of a 100W bulb.

this Lumen count is essential for viewing, in low light conditions, our eyes rely on the rods to provide vision, but rods are found around the edges of the eye and not in the center (this is why if you try to find something small in low light, its easier to look out the corner of your eye than to look straight at it, and why in really low light looking straight at something makes it vanish).

the end result is that when you try to read, you look directly at the page. If the lumen count is too low, your ability to see small text is reduced. For even a young totally healthy eye with 6/6 (20/20) vision or better, reducing lighting will result in a reduction in measurable distance vision to potentially 6/12 (20/40), meaning you need to be twice as close to the object to see it as well. For near vision this is more noticeable, however a healthy young eye with 6/6 vision will still be able to read in lower lumen light, so the energy saving bulbs work fine for you and me, but elderly patients with general vision reductions, people with ARMD, cataracts, severe glaucoma or other visual defects simply cannot see properly in lower light conditions.

the changes to the law in europe at least say you cannot produce the bulbs, you can still sell them, so i have a stock of about 250 100w bulbs and over 300 60w daylight simulation bulbs, which i sell to patients who come in with these symptoms, and without fail all of them have returned to say it worked fantastically.

so i say that stopping their use wont save the planet, but it will ruin the lives of many elderly and visually impaired people. Im sure they will all enjoy the few pounds they save on the energy bill they cant read each quarter.

TLDR: optician says that CFL energy saving bulbs suck if you want to be able to read in your old age.



Huh... so you stock 60 W daylight simulation bulbs for people who can't get enough lumen from a 20 watt CFL? Question

Am i missing something here?
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-01-01 20:03:26 UTC
As someone else already posted incandescent light bulbs where taken off the shelves in the UK a while back. I doubt a lot of people even noticed, the government, local councils and the EU had been giving out millions of energy saving bulbs and CFL bulbs where not much more expensive than Incandescent bulbs. CFLs cost between £2-4 and the old bulbs where 80p to £1.50p, no idea where OP gets his 10x the price.

Once you have replaced every bulb for CFLs you really begin to see a difference in your electric bill. Back in 2005 I swapped my CRT TV for a LCD one and had changed all the bulbs, I was shocked how much difference it made. The only thing in my house that eats electricity now is my PC because I buy energy saving appliances.

Sure the US government is being a bit extreme making them illegal, they could handle it better by subsidising or incentivising CFL or LED lighting. The US will see benefits in the long run though, imagine how much energy and carbon output a country the size of the United States would save just by modernising lighting.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#35 - 2012-01-01 20:41:44 UTC
Jhagiti Tyran wrote:
As someone else already posted incandescent light bulbs where taken off the shelves in the UK a while back. I doubt a lot of people even noticed, the government, local councils and the EU had been giving out millions of energy saving bulbs and CFL bulbs where not much more expensive than Incandescent bulbs. CFLs cost between £2-4 and the old bulbs where 80p to £1.50p, no idea where OP gets his 10x the price.

Once you have replaced every bulb for CFLs you really begin to see a difference in your electric bill. Back in 2005 I swapped my CRT TV for a LCD one and had changed all the bulbs, I was shocked how much difference it made. The only thing in my house that eats electricity now is my PC because I buy energy saving appliances.

Sure the US government is being a bit extreme making them illegal, they could handle it better by subsidising or incentivising CFL or LED lighting. The US will see benefits in the long run though, imagine how much energy and carbon output a country the size of the United States would save just by modernising lighting.


Well, do you see the OP? Would you let that kind of guy determine how many countries will you have to mess with to feed them with the resources needed to sustain their wasteful old uses? P
Sarpadeon
Rebirth Industries
#36 - 2012-01-01 21:45:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Sarpadeon
seriously? this again?

they arent banning incandescent bulbs, they are simply requiring them to meet higher efficiency standards. they arent even pulling them off store shelves, simply requiring ones made after the date to meet the new standards, so stores can sell off all the old styles ones.

IE they will still make incandescent bulbs, but they are more energy efficient halogen incandescent bulbs, ie less wattage for the same luminance, 72w halogen = 100w old type etc. ive seen them compared side by side, the light was the exact same shade/brightness.

thats not even considering LEDs which have none of the downsides that CFLs have.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#37 - 2012-01-01 23:38:12 UTC
Sarpadeon wrote:
seriously? this again?

they arent banning incandescent bulbs, they are simply requiring them to meet higher efficiency standards. they arent even pulling them off store shelves, simply requiring ones made after the date to meet the new standards, so stores can sell off all the old styles ones.

IE they will still make incandescent bulbs, but they are more energy efficient halogen incandescent bulbs, ie less wattage for the same luminance, 72w halogen = 100w old type etc. ive seen them compared side by side, the light was the exact same shade/brightness.

thats not even considering LEDs which have none of the downsides that CFLs have.



Ok, I'm going to mandate that all registered automobiles in the USA get at least 300 miles per gallon of gasoline.

No, no - I'm not banning the gasoline automobile - I'm just requiring they meet higher efficiency standards.

However, the practical effect of this 'efficiency standard' would be to force everyone into electric cars overnight.

Its a 'de facto' ban via higher standards.

I'm faulting Democrats and also calling them hypocrites. They scream bloody murder when evangelicals are 'forcing their beliefs on them' by setting up a Nativity scene at the local Fire Station, yet have no problem imposing their inane eco-nut consumer preferences on the rest of us, even if we don't subscribe to that particular belief system.

Oh, and halogens are next on the hit list.

I'm all for increased efficiency. But not if it costs more and reduces performance. I'm willing to buy slightly more electricity and make that tradeoff.

I get a higher quality light product that I desire. (higher quality light, dimmable, non-toxic, instantly on, even in cold conditions)
I pay very little for the bulb, and am not relying on it to last for years to get my money's worth. (though they often do)
I pay marginally higher electricity bills, however electricity isn't all that expensive.
Of course, that 'wasted electricty' becomes heat - which heats my home - so I get some of that back in slightly reduced heating bills.

Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think we just have a lot of people here who buy into the eco-propaganda that we are spoon-fed by corporations and government agencies.

And last I checked at Walmart, you could get 4x 'soft white' 100W bulbs for $1.59.
A dimmable CFL, producing inferior quality light costs anywhere from $7-$12 dollars each (20-30x more)
A non-dimmable CFL, producing the same inferior light, costs 5x as much as the 40 cent incandescent.
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
#38 - 2012-01-02 00:54:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Akita T
Lumiukko wrote:
a good number of private residences have transitioned to CFL's, believing blindly that the claims on the packaging which says something along the lines of 11w CFL = 60w incandescent in terms of brightness. In fact, they offer somewhere between 50%-60% of the Lumen output of a 60W incandescent bulb, and there is no CFL bulb which comes even close to the performance of a 100W bulb.

The fact that you just don't get the same "illumination" feel from a 11W fluorescent compared to a 60W incandescent is sadly true, but that's where your statement's accuracy starts declining.

Yes, even after fully "powering up" after a few minutes of use, a 11W CFL one is nothing like a 60W filament bulb, and sure, it might be around 50%-60% or so just after powering up, but NOT after warming up.
I would say the typical CFL reaches as good as peak in 7-8 minutes, but 2-3 minutes of use give a light level pretty close to peak already, and there are some that have an even faster warm-up curve (but are usually slightly more expensive... like the 24W one I have in the middle of the kitchen ceiling which I say lights it up about the same as a 100W incandescent, if not better (its CLAIMED equivalent lighting level is about that of a 120W incandescent, which I do agree, it doesn't quite match).

I've had various bulbs on the same fixture on different power switches and I can tell you a typical fully warmed up 11W CFL DOES light up the room better than a 40W incandescent but not better than a 60W one, however a typical (fully warmed up) 18W CFL is clearly much better than a 60W incandescent. I would say that on average, you use about 25% of the power for the same illumination level instead of the usually box-claimed 20% after warming up, and the only time your 50%-60% light level statement applies (or, translated, about 30-33% power usage for same light level) is very soon after being powered up only.

EVEN IF the extreme of your claim of only about 33% power usage might actually be accurate, that still voids your statement of no CFL bulb even coming close to a 100W incandescent... not only because in my personal opinion a 24W CFL already matches it, but because I can buy 30W CFLs in stores around here which have a box-claimed equivalent rating of a 140W incandescent bulb, but in reality they're probably closer to 120W incandescents, and even using your metric they're still just about on par with 100W incandescents.
Either way, according to me, better than 100W incandescents even seconds after being powered up, and at two thirds energy saved MINIMUM... and only getting better within minutes after being powered up.

I bet you that after sale of incandescents will be banned, you'll start seeing a wider selection of decent CFLs, and even some with power ratings over 30W. But honestly, a 24W one will generally do just fine.
If in doubt, you can always just slap on a COUPLE of smaller-powered ones... and if you do that, I would recommend pairing some of different color temperatures for a more even light spectrum spread.

...

UNRELATED, Herr Wilkus does have a point.

Even if I personally prefer CFLs, there is very little point in outright BANNING incandescent bulbs, because there are certain situations where they are indeed superior from just about every possible angle (except power use during times when you set your AC on "cold").
In my personal opinion (which MIGHT be wrong) the drawbacks of CFLs are usually overstated by people who simply haven't gotten used to them yet, and thanks to the much cheaper incandescents, without SOME form of government regulation "the market" will still heavily favour incandescents, which also delays the motivation for faster technological advances in non-incandescent lighting.

That being said, I actually like the light from CFLs better than the light from incandescents, but have not met any other people who have the same tastes yet. I find the color spectrum more pleasing, and prefer the more diffuse shadows they make.
I also LOVE the fact that they don't turn on to full illumination instantly, and actually prefer the ones who light up slowly, because it makes my eyes adapt with less strain to the additional light levels.
Oh, and I've broken quite a few incandescent lightbulbs in my life in many creative ways, but I have yet to actually break a CFL in spite of the fact statistically speaking I should have broken at least a couple already. I don't know whether they actually handle slightly rougher handling or I am just more careful with them, and I am not exactly horrified by the possibility of releasing 2-3 mg of mercury into my room (I also have not one but TWO mercury-filled thermometers in my room).
In other words, for me, most of the touted CFL drawbacks are actually advantages, and I am not bothered by the rest of the drawbacks.

Akita T evewiki profile | | | Build your own EVE-ready PC
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#39 - 2012-01-02 01:27:59 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:


Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. I think we just have a lot of people here who buy into the eco-propaganda that we are spoon-fed by corporations and government agencies.

And last I checked at Walmart, you could get 4x 'soft white' 100W bulbs for $1.59.
A dimmable CFL, producing inferior quality light costs anywhere from $7-$12 dollars each (20-30x more)
A non-dimmable CFL, producing the same inferior light, costs 5x as much as the 40 cent incandescent.


I can pick one up for less than £2 and gives out the same light. Perhaps you should shop around more.


As for the eco-nut comments. The world is quickly steaming towards an energy crisis which will bring us to our knees and if people wont voluntarily change their ways they are going to have to be forced.
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#40 - 2012-01-02 01:52:38 UTC

Hey, Akita prefers fluorescent light, I happen to prefer incandescent light. Thats fantastic.
I'm not clamoring for (or trying to justify) bans on LEDs and CFLs.

I just wish that leftists would quit meddling in the name of their 'big green sky daddy', and let the natural forces of the marketplace and technology do its work, in its own time.

All types of bulbs can coexist in the market place, and as new technologies improve and become more cost-competitive, I have no doubt they would eventually gain acceptance in the market.

Sell a CFL for 40 cents, that provides a warm light quality, uses less energy, AND lasts 5 times as long?
I guarantee you people would buy them, and incandescent market share would shrink, while still allowing most of us the liberty of voting (with our dollars) for the best product.

Unfortunately, iike many unsuccessful green products - the savings in energy come at a cost in performance - which is a deal breaker for most American consumers.

Its an unsatisfactory compromise between 'being green' and 'works well'.

Because I don't really give a flip about 'being green', I simply tend to prefer my products simply work well.

Its why I drive older American vehicles - cheap, high-torque engines that last forever - LONG after geewhiz high-compression fast revving, turbocharged European engines are on their third set of rings and burning quarts of oil. I don't want to screw with computers. I'll pay for the extra fuel, and actually enjoy driving - as a bonus.

Its why I have a Plasma TV instead of an LCD. Higher picture quality, 33% more energy usage. I'll take the sharper picture every time. Thanks for asking.

I'm not a child - I can weigh the pros and cons of marginally increased energy usage. American consumers do it every day. Leftists and greenies are just butthurt that intelligent people don't share their values and make different choices. Then they go fascist and use government regulations to quietly remove your choices from the marketplace.

I simply call it what it is. Authoritarian BS in the name of a religion I don't accept and never will accept.