These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#61 - 2012-01-02 14:22:00 UTC
Tobias Sjodin wrote:
I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.

The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes.
But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too?

I use CFLs because I hate changing light bulbs, but the light produced by CFLs is horrible compared to a good incandescent. There's also the fact that flourescent lights have been found to cause all sorts of problems for people who have difficulties with learning disorders.

Quality LED bulbs aren't available in the local (rural) market due to cost. There just aren't enough people around here willing to invest the money now to get future savings. And I don't like the idea of ordering LEDs online without seeing what kind of light they actually produce. It would cost hundreds of dollars to convert my house and I'd be stuck with a bad set of lights for quite a while.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
#62 - 2012-01-02 17:07:44 UTC
Here are the EPA instructions for cleaning up after a broken CFL lightbulb:

http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup-detailed.html

Thanks, but I'll take my chances with the old style bulbs. Too much government can be fatal.

Name a shrub after me.  Something prickly and hard to eradicate.

Sarpadeon
Rebirth Industries
#63 - 2012-01-02 19:34:31 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Tobias Sjodin wrote:
I guess Obama is really awesome if the issue of lightbulbs is this big of an issue over there.

The rest of the civilized world are using LED-lamps and low energy lightbulbs that have longer lifetimes.
But I guess you're all mad about no longer using typewriters too?

I use CFLs because I hate changing light bulbs, but the light produced by CFLs is horrible compared to a good incandescent. There's also the fact that flourescent lights have been found to cause all sorts of problems for people who have difficulties with learning disorders.

Quality LED bulbs aren't available in the local (rural) market due to cost. There just aren't enough people around here willing to invest the money now to get future savings. And I don't like the idea of ordering LEDs online without seeing what kind of light they actually produce. It would cost hundreds of dollars to convert my house and I'd be stuck with a bad set of lights for quite a while.


so dont be stupid by ordering a whole bunch to start with, order a single one to test, and THEN decide if you want to go LED or wait for the halogen incandescent bulbs to hit local stores.
Squidgey
Perkone
Caldari State
#64 - 2012-01-02 22:28:17 UTC
Live in the US.


Haven't seen a 100W incandescent bulb in years. Hell, my bedroom is florescent. Ant not CFL either.
SpaceSquirrels
#65 - 2012-01-03 00:21:31 UTC
Lol I love the mercury scare. The actual amount of mercury is so god damn minimal. Don't people remember not to long ago people use to play with mercury in science class? Use to roll that **** around on their bare hands! (HOLY ****! CALL A HAZMAT TEAM!) Somehow that generation survived... And managed to reproduce semi salient off spring. (Course I suppose that's a matter of opinion or point of view).

Then again these are the people that believe sticking sugar water up your ass will prevent brain tumors, Vaccines == the devil (MMR outbreaks in France be damned!) and the same folks that hate seat belt laws. (Though if retards really dont want to wear em who the hell am I to say no? I just dont feel like paying for their stupidity. Me I'll continue to wear mine having been in an accident or 2)

In which case why am i arguing with these people? But honestly can't you make the whole "Slippery slope" argument for anything? You BAN X, Y, Z pretty soon you'll be banning books! or the interwebs!... Or Speech!...or babies... Technically they're not banned btw.
Taedrin
Virtues Corporation
#66 - 2012-01-03 01:59:00 UTC
Encouraging the use of CFLs is nice and all, but banning incandescents is the wrong way to go about it.

I am actually pretty fond of Akita T's idea myself.
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#67 - 2012-01-03 02:11:42 UTC
Alpheias wrote:
I hear American citizens die all the time.


That's just dirty North Korean propaganda

"Little ginger moron" ~David Hasselhoff 

Want to see what Surf is training or how little isk Surf has?  http://eveboard.com/pilot/Surfin%27s_PlunderBunny

Endeavour Starfleet
#68 - 2012-01-03 03:00:28 UTC
The reason to mandate higher standards is to get us on the right track.

BTW it isn't about just the greenies. Look at the US power grid. It is so old, overloaded, and in dire need of work that a single event on a high use day can knock out an entire region of electrical power.

It is not just one 100W bulb its the millions that get left on for no reason during the day that causes us to produce far more energy than needed and tax our lines to the fullest.

The goal here has to be the mass adoption of LED based lighting. That simply wont happen when clueless people think the 100W edison bulbs that are barely better than the 50s will go on forever. They will get the bulb then complain when they don't save 20-30 USD a year per bulb.

Then we can get away from this "soft white" bs. That is NOT a normal spectrum. Daylight is
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-01-03 03:09:38 UTC
OP is a total moron.
VKhaun Vex
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-01-03 07:15:55 UTC  |  Edited by: VKhaun Vex
SpaceSquirrels wrote:
But honestly can't you make the whole "Slippery slope" argument for anything? You BAN X, Y, Z pretty soon you'll be banning books! or the interwebs!... Or Speech!...or babies... Technically they're not banned btw.


Yes, but that's because any time the government tries to tell you what to do it IS a slippery slope. Forcing you to move on for ecological reasons COULD lead to banning books.


EDIT--
Stupid censor.
Marijuana below refers to 'weed'.
---


Marijuana is a good example. The government has tried to tell the citizens that they can use some drugs like tobacco and alcohol but not others. Marijuana is used, grown, 'imported' and socially accepted. Like most issues many people ignore or even misrepresent facts and blindly love or hate the weed and cliques have formed but the majority are with it overall. The government buckles in all directions with high felony minimum of fifty kg or fifty plants and zero to short minimum sentences for non felony infractions. Citizens continue push. Glass industry, small growers, media acceptance.

I'm not saying it's a 'good' situation or making a statement one way or another on the issue of Marijuana. I'm just citing an example on the edge of that slippery slope when the government tells people what they can do or not do, and what it looks like to fight back. It doesn't involve shooting anyone or tearing down government buildings, it involves LOTS of people continuing to do what they will and the government being forced to cope.

The precedent to see is that prohibition was lifted, and marijuana still has people going to jail.
Behold the slippery slope. The government does not give in to the people as easily or openly as in the past.

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

Zedic
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#71 - 2012-01-03 08:48:40 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:
lots of tears about Democrats.


There there,, you're among friends now. Show us on the doll where progress touched you. Lol
Thomas Gore
Blackfyre Enterprise
#72 - 2012-01-03 13:46:18 UTC
Akita T wrote:
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.


That would be much too smart for an American goverment to decide.

Selinate
#73 - 2012-01-03 18:15:51 UTC
Thomas Gore wrote:
Akita T wrote:
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.


That would be much too smart for an American goverment to decide.



No, it would be a democrat raising taxes, which would blow up in said democrat's face because republicans HATE it when democrats raise taxes.

However, it's so strange that republicans can raise taxes on the working class without even batting an eye lash and their party members don't ***** at all...
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#74 - 2012-01-03 18:26:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
I only stocked up on said bulbs so I can resell them, I already swapped over to the new gen CFLs they got them in the 100+ wat range already.

And I am waiting on the LEDs.

Takes about 50 hrs of CFL opertating time to outpace the Incadesent also CFLS have mercury then again most fish do as well.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Darrow Hill
Vodka and Vice
#75 - 2012-01-03 20:41:10 UTC
Lithalnas wrote:
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.


http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/

I rather enjoy this blog on the topic written by Tom Murphy, associate physics professor UCSanDiego.
Iosue
League of Gentlemen
The Initiative.
#76 - 2012-01-03 20:45:01 UTC
just do what i do, buy halogen. that way you spend more on the bulb and power costs; it's the best of both worlds. hey, you want nice light? gotta pay to play...
Herr Wilkus
Aggressive Salvage Services LLC
#77 - 2012-01-04 10:00:15 UTC


I still fail to see anyone addressing my point:

If CFLs and LEDs are so great, why is a ban required?


I see post after post asserting how 'superior' the new bulbs are....but very little evidence in terms of sales numbers and market share.

Explain to me why isn't the public buying them? Incandescent bulbs were obviously entrenched - but this doesn't explain how US market share for incandescent bulbs is actually increasing in the last few years, as consumers reject CFLs.

Why is their market share actually going backwards in the United States - if the 'new bulb' is so self-evidently better?

Answer: Because its not. The new bulbs trade energy use for lower quality and increased cost - and most consumers aren't willing to make that trade off.

Its about as intelligent as banning expensive 4-ply toilet paper - forcing people to use the 'green' alternatives that come apart in your hand when you wipe (and then you use twice as much)

Essentially what the green pro-ban people are saying, is screw consumer choice - because of our fairy tale green religion, we have to ration energy use and we will, despite obvious consumer preferences to the contrary. These are the same idiots who talk about how great Electric cars are - but are confused as to why the public doesn't fall over themselves to buy them....instead of the Ford F-150.

Their Solution: Ban the Ford F-150. (or at least, ban the engines that make them a popular choice)

They are no better than those social conservatives that supposedly want to ban books and set up shop in your bedroom in the name of other religions.

Shivus Tao
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2012-01-04 10:22:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Shivus Tao
Your original posts reeked of neocon propaganda and rage. However your hatred of our faux green religion and apparent hatred of the far right has caused me to reevaluate your overall message.

A like for you.
Shadowsword
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2012-01-04 10:46:39 UTC
Herr Wilkus wrote:

...stuff...


Dude, I honestly think you could use some psychological attention. You're making a lot of irrationnal generalisations (like claiming that intelligent people are against the ban, and so implying that all "leftists", you you also claim are all for it, are idiots) to support your hatred of Obama and "leftists". It is borderline fanatical reasonning, and much more harmful to your country that a ban on obsolete lighting tech ever will.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#80 - 2012-01-04 10:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Herr Wilkus wrote:


I still fail to see anyone addressing my point:

If CFLs and LEDs are so great, why is a ban required?




Because of stupids like you.

Quote:


Their Solution: Ban the Ford F-150. (or at least, ban the engines that make them a popular choice)



"Ford has announced that the 302-horsepower 3.7 will serve up 16 miles per gallon in the city and 23 on the highway in rear-wheel drive models, the latter figure making it the most fuel-efficient full-size pickup on the market. Stepping up the next rung to the 5.0-liter V8 will get you 360 horses and a fine 15 city, 21 highway EPA fuel economy rating, another best-in-class figure."

Jesus **** thats horrid. No wonder people over there are losing their homes, all their cash is getting burned up with these things.