Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: roo_ster on January 03, 2011, 07:58:41 AM
-
Not particularly surprised.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1343554/Eco-bulb-cost-treble-Makers-cash-ban-old-style-bulbs-kicks-in.html
First, they used taxpayer monies to subsidize CFLs. Then, they use the threat of violence to enforce their use.
-
The story says the incadescent ban was imposed " . . . in an effort to meet climate change targets . . . "
The only "target" they're concerned about meeting is the amount of wealth transferred from the pockets of English subjects to the pockets of their betters.
Corrupt b@$t@rd$.
-
Yes, it's a scam. Even if it does happen, they'll cost a reasonable amount, save energy and last longer, saving the consumer money. I've pulled a bunch of three year old Philips CFLs out of my old flat today, should get another three years out of them. I've been ripped off, or something.
Still, I know what this is, it's easy to see from the way the comments on that Daily Wail article have been ranked by the Wail readers:
I bought a load from ASDA who were selling 3 for 33p - great deal and they last longer than the more costly, traditional bulbs
minus 33
Just another rip-off. We don't need eco-bulbs. Like all this Global Warming trash, its just lies and theft.
plus 449
Sad, but funny. Knee-jerk is truth, reasonable must be ranked out of sight. But wait, the mercury - it'll kill us all.
-
Yes, it's a scam. Even if it does happen, they'll cost a reasonable amount, save energy and last longer, saving the consumer money. I've pulled a bunch of three year old Philips CFLs out of my old flat today, should get another three years out of them. I've been ripped off, or something.
Regardless of the eco-reasoning behind the switch to CFLs, I've been using and loving them for a decade now. Prior to the wholesale switch to CFLs in my house, I was replacing incandescents piecemeal at least once a month. In every case, switching to CFLs ended that cycle. Some of those bulbs have been in place for upwards of 5 years. The ones in the ceiling fans don't last quite as long, but they still last a year or more easily (these are normal CFLs, not fan-specific).
The only incandescent bulbs we have left are the specialty ones that haven't failed yet (bathroom fixtures for example), the ones in the basement, and my work light in the garage.
I will say I hate the ones with white or bluish light. I look for ones with a warmer light. It's easier on my eyes.
Chris
-
I changed out all of my CFL's for incandescents last week. It was dang cold in AZ, and I actually WANTED the extra heat generated by the older bulbs.
I'll change back once the weather snaps back into a proper global warming pattern. ;/
-
. . . I've been using and loving them for a decade now. . . .
Making a choice is fine - I've been using CFLs in my yard light for years; longer lasting, about 1/4 the power, and I don't care about the quality of the light.
The problem I have is having the opportunity to choose removed by politicians and bureaucrats, especially when it's to address a phony problem.
-
Making a choice is fine - I've been using CFLs in my yard light for years; longer lasting, about 1/4 the power, and I don't care about the quality of the light.
The problem I have is having the opportunity to choose removed by politicians and bureaucrats, especially when it's to address a phony problem.
This right here ↑↑
Along with telling us what toilets and washing machines to buy.
-
Don't misread my post, I never said taking the choice away was ok, just that I'm very happy with CFLs.
Chris
-
I've waxed wroth about them in the past, but I'm coming around on them. My main problem with them was that they kept burning out --which voided out the benefit part of the cost-benefit relationship.
I guess once you get through the crappy ones, the rest seem to be OK.
My problem is, as stated above, the removal of the freedom of choice.
And frankly, I'm getting a little tired of companies making it a matter of law to use their product exclusively.
Let's face it, one of the tenets of free-market competition is to eliminate the competition.
Once that's done, the price = demand / supply equation goes all funny.
Or goes all tragic --your preference as to terminology.
Terry, 230RN
-
Yes, it's a scam. Even if it does happen, they'll cost a reasonable amount, save energy and last longer, saving the consumer money. I've pulled a bunch of three year old Philips CFLs out of my old flat today, should get another three years out of them. I've been ripped off, or something.
Still, I know what this is, it's easy to see from the way the comments on that Daily Wail article have been ranked by the Wail readers:
minus 33
plus 449
Sad, but funny. Knee-jerk is truth, reasonable must be ranked out of sight. But wait, the mercury - it'll kill us all.
I've had a number of them, from multiple manufacturers, blow out in under 6 months in INSIDE sockets now. So I bought a bulb that costs 10 times more which lasted ALMOST as long as the average incandescent IN THE SAME SOCKET.
How the frakking hell is THAT good for the environment, Iain?
Leaving aside the whole extortion aspect of the OP, that is.
-
I bought a cheap pack of 4 that was on sale at Lowe's a couple weeks ago. One of the bulbs burned out within 30 seconds of installing them. I returned those to the store and bought some that cost twice as much.
So far, so good. We'll see if they actually last the several years promised. These are in a kitchen light that's on probably 12-16 hours a day. I'd lose an incandescent bulb every 2 weeks or so. If I get at least a year out of these, I'll consider them a success.
-
Yes, it's a scam. Even if it does happen, they'll cost a reasonable amount, save energy and last longer, saving the consumer money. I've pulled a bunch of three year old Philips CFLs out of my old flat today, should get another three years out of them. I've been ripped off, or something.
Still, I know what this is, it's easy to see from the way the comments on that Daily Wail article have been ranked by the Wail readers:
Sad, but funny. Knee-jerk is truth, reasonable must be ranked out of sight. But wait, the mercury - it'll kill us all.
The greatest evil is "for your own good". It is easy to take a stand when something is obviously wrong. It's harder to do the right thing when you're defending something you personally disagree with. That is the true measure of a person.
CFLs are "better" under many/most circumstances. Banning incandescent is still wrong.
-
I've rethought the whole CFL thing since I had one go out with flames, yes folks, real honest-to-god fire that could have been catastrophic if I had not been right there when it happened. I'm buying a good supply of incandescents to store in the basement with my Y2K ammo and candles and stuff.
-
I'm just waiting on the LED lights to come down a bit more in price. Screw the CFL's.
-
I've rethought the whole CFL thing since I had one go out with flames, yes folks, real honest-to-god fire that could have been catastrophic if I had not been right there when it happened. I'm buying a good supply of incandescents to store in the basement with my Y2K ammo and candles and stuff.
Kingcreek, you aren't the only one. I had one that started flickering and then smoking, it was about to catch on fire.
CFLs are a load of *expletive deleted*it.
-
Globe brand by any chance? All the internet stories refer to this particular brand - http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/household/cflbulb.asp I'll bet faulty incandescents have started the odd fire in the last century. I remember a few Ford Explorers caught fire - the internal combustion engine is a load of something, or perhaps there was a fault with the Ford Explorer.
The face of the global warming scam, mercury, fire, dim light - the devils own lightbulbs it seems.
As ever, a lack of support for a knee-jerk reaction is construed as support for that which is being reacted to. In the dim light of a burning out CFL, I'll paint half my face blue and practice my cries of Freedom!
-
was NOT Globe brand but was mfg'd in China like all of the CFLs.
-
I have and use both. The cfl's are in the hallway, living room, and kitchen where lights may stay on for hours, my primary use for incandescent bulbs is in the garage where I'm only going to be in there for a minute or so, and in the winter it takes longer than that for the cfl's to put out enough light to be useful. I've already laid in a stock of 100w incandescent bulbs specifically because of that. Sounds like I might have to get a bunch of cfl's too.
-
The greatest evil is "for your own good". It is easy to take a stand when something is obviously wrong. It's harder to do the right thing when you're defending something you personally disagree with. That is the true measure of a person.
CFLs are "better" under many/most circumstances. Banning incandescent is still wrong.
Revdisk is correct, as he often is.
-
I've had a number of them, from multiple manufacturers, blow out in under 6 months in INSIDE sockets now. So I bought a bulb that costs 10 times more which lasted ALMOST as long as the average incandescent IN THE SAME SOCKET.
How the frakking hell is THAT good for the environment, Iain?
Leaving aside the whole extortion aspect of the OP, that is.
The hidden cost is in the electric bill, which most people gripe about in aggregate, but few people attempt to itemize. At $.10/kWh, replacing a 100w incandescent with a 25w (actual) CFL, on 4 hrs a day, is 75W * 4 hrs/day * 30 days = 9kWh = $.90 per month. After six months you've probably saved well over the cost of a CFL unless it's a very high-end one. My last pack of 4 100 watt-equivalent CFLs at home depot was about $7.
Even if it weren't substantially cheaper, how much is it worth to you not to have to change bulbs as often? Were your incandescents lasting 6 months?
The environmental impact of mercury from CFLs is frequently overstated. The long average lifespan of CFLs and the small amount of mercury in them, makes them a minimal contributor to environmental mercury pollution (compared to mercury from other consumer and industrial waste) even if everyone threw them out rather than recycling them. Second, if you get your electricity from coal, more mercury is released from the differential power requirements of an incandescent bulb for the avg lifespan of a CFL than would be released by powering and then breaking that CFL.
Life expectancy of CFL bulbs decreases with increased temperature. Are your light fixtures particularly cramped where the CFLs have been burning out?
-
Mine was a Sylvania CFL.
And incandescent bulbs have never started to smoke and catch fire in my house, but a CFL has. But, you know, I'm an idiot for not thinking much of CFLs.
-
Were your incandescents lasting 6 months?
Actually, I still have incandescents that have outlasted several cfl's.
-
Going on three years now with all CFL's in every fixture.
I live very close to train tracks and standard bulbs failed fast and furiously. 6 months would be doing good.
In three years now I've replaced one CFL.
Between replacement costs and energy savings I figure I'm ahead now.
Even so, I'm opposed to making it a law you have to use them.
-
When I run incandescents in auto-dimming fixtures that run them for most of their lives at a wattage below their rating, they last a LONG time. Like, a year or more in my auto-on at sunset (dimmed) motion-sensing (then goes hot to full wattage) fixture at the door to my back yard. Good thing, since no CFL I have ever come across has been rated for dimming and motion-sensors in an enclosed fixture. Last time I asked, the guy at Lowes laughed.
Most CFLs I have used don't last as long as they claim. A grand total of three have lived up to or past their claimed longevity.
As for fires, I have noticed most my burned-out CFLs have scorch marks. Not exactly confidence inspiring.
And how about the OP: subsidizing CFLs and then dropping the subsidy when the become law, thus tripling the cost?
Oh, I also just toss the dead CFLs in the trash. I'm not going out of my way for a flipping light bulb.
-
The hidden cost is in the electric bill, which most people gripe about in aggregate, but few people attempt to itemize. At $.10/kWh, replacing a 100w incandescent with a 25w (actual) CFL, on 4 hrs a day, is 75W * 4 hrs/day * 30 days = 9kWh = $.90 per month. After six months you've probably saved well over the cost of a CFL unless it's a very high-end one. My last pack of 4 100 watt-equivalent CFLs at home depot was about $7.
Even if it weren't substantially cheaper, how much is it worth to you not to have to change bulbs as often? Were your incandescents lasting 6 months?
More. I'd replaced a few at that point which had come with the house - which we'd moved into 8-9 months previously. I also still have one left (about another 8-9 months later) which has outlasted multiple CFLs in multiple fixtures. The extended lifespan of CFLs is what made me willing to give them a shot. That extended lifespan was, apparently, a lie. I do not plan to buy more, and will continue to stock up on incandescents to replace the CFLs I *DID* buy until LEDs come down enough to start making those viable. I've LOST money on my trial with CFLs, and don't like 'em for other reasons to boot.
The environmental impact of mercury from CFLs is frequently overstated. The long average lifespan of CFLs and the small amount of mercury in them, makes them a minimal contributor to environmental mercury pollution (compared to mercury from other consumer and industrial waste) even if everyone threw them out rather than recycling them. Second, if you get your electricity from coal, more mercury is released from the differential power requirements of an incandescent bulb for the avg lifespan of a CFL than would be released by powering and then breaking that CFL.
Life expectancy of CFL bulbs decreases with increased temperature. Are your light fixtures particularly cramped where the CFLs have been burning out?
Far from it. And what you're saying (what I'm hearing, at least) is that CFLs don't work right when it's warm OR when it's cold. So, remind me again - what frakking good are overly-expensive "long life" bulbs which burn out in less than a tenth the stated lifetime, put out light which many (including my wife) object to, don't work right apparently under any given temperature conditions, and add extra mercury (over and above what the local power plants are responsible for) into the environment? Oh yes - and which must be disposed of as hazmat rather than being tossed out in the regular trash.
Pass.
-
I'm just waiting on the LED lights to come down a bit more in price. Screw the CFL's.
SWMBO and I are doing the same thing. We're constantly looking at LEDs at Home Depot, Lowes, etc. We want to try them in a few limited applications at first as decent ones become available. We'll probably have a few in service before May is done.
-
CFLs are "better" under many/most circumstances. Banning incandescent is still wrong.
Even so, I'm opposed to making it a law you have to use them.
How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?
Were your incandescents lasting 6 months?
More...
I've LOST money on my trial with CFLs, and don't like 'em for other reasons to boot.
Clearly you were unlucky, or you turned those CFLs on and off all the time which is known to kill CFLs, or the particular CFLs you got were crap. CFLs do last longer under most normal conditions. I don't know what else to say. The last couple sets I've gotten have a stated minimum start-up temperature of -20 degrees F. Won't work in cold climates during winter, but other than that they should work just about anywhere. (There are cold-weather ones designed to work in colder environments, but I live in TX and half the city would migrate south before it dropped below the -20 degrees F spec of my CFLs.)
Nevertheless, have you run the numbers based on your power costs? I still doubt you lost money unless you got expensive CFLs or you were using lower-power (like 60W) incandescents, in which case the power differential was less so the power savings was less.
Next time you get bulbs at a hardware store ask them about the warranty, particularly if it's a larger chain like HD or Lowe's. The Ecosmarts (a Home Depot brand) I get are rated for 10k hours. That's over a year of 24/7 use. You could ask them, if the CFLs die within a year, whether they'll replace the CFLs no questions asked. That, plus the energy savings, will save you significant $ over incandescents.
Recycling: Home Depot and Lowes both accept CFLs. Just take the old ones in when you buy new ones. See http://earth911.com/ (CFL works for item type) and http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/home-garden/home-improvement/hardware-building-supplies/lightbulbs/cfls/overview/cfl-ov-.htm (second question).
I'd much prefer LEDs, but supply is too thin and selection is horrible. Still, they seem to be about the same cost right now, based on claimed lifetimes and power consumption. I see one LED 100W-equiv screw-in bulb that's rated for 50k hours, consumes 13W (vs 23W of the 100W-equiv CFLs I use, rated for 10k hours). The LED bulb is $50. My CFLs are $7.50 or so for 4. Let's round to $10 for 5 of them. 50k hours at 13W = 650kWh or about $65, compared to 50k hours of 23W = 1150kWh or about $115 (both assuming an energy cost of $.10/kWh). With the bulbs, that's $115 for the LED solution vs $125 for the 5-CFL solution over the same time period.
-
How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?
You know, not everything needs to have a government solution...
For lightbulbs, it should be consumer choice. CFLs came on the market and sold without government mandate and that should be good enough.
-
I remember a few Ford Explorers caught fire - the internal combustion engine is a load of something, or perhaps there was a fault with the Ford Explorer.
It was the cruise control switch. Somehow it was shorting and causing a fire. IIRC it has only happened on a few Explorers; less than two dozen or so. They recalled every single Explorer that had that style of switch, though.
I haven't heard of any recalls on CFLs.
In any case, while I like and use CFLs, I see no reason to ban incandescents. Incandescents work better in certain applications, and some folks simply like them better. If they want to pay more for energy, that's their priority.
How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?
Incandescents don't waste that much energy. And there are certain cases where using incandescents is entirely green, such as when the power source is either solar or wind. A person with solar roof panels and a windmill could use incandescents and still generate excess energy into the grid. So really, it's not the incandescents that are the problem, but the energy source.
-
And there are certain cases where using incandescents is entirely green, such as when the power source is either solar or wind.
Also in the winter, when the "waste" heat is beneficial in keeping the house warm. I'm also in the likes-and-uses-CFLs-but-doesn't-think-banning-incandescents-is-right-camp. CFLs are worthless as motion-activated spot-lights (especially in the winter), don't work well in frequent on-off applications, and even dimmable CFL bulbs powered by a CFL-specific dimmer switch are inferior for the application to incandescents.
-
CFLs are worthless as motion-activated spot-lights (especially in the winter), don't work well in frequent on-off applications, and even dimmable CFL bulbs powered by a CFL-specific dimmer switch are inferior for the application to incandescents.
That's yet another reason why I'm holding out for LED's. They can be used in blinking applications, and are great for dimmer switches. They also don't suffer the warm up time in cold weather. They're just too expensive right now. Yeah, I know one of the people above did calcs that in the run they're cheaper. But that short term cost is still a barrier.
-
As ever, a lack of support for a knee-jerk reaction is construed as support for that which is being reacted to. In the dim light of a burning out CFL, I'll paint half my face blue and practice my cries of Freedom!
;/
Yes, it is a minor thing. However, both of our countries are in their current problems due to several thousand equally minor "concessions". They do add up, Iain.
Had Americans taken your stance on CFLs on something like RKBA, we'd be lucky to have parity with UK on firearm rights. A thousand "reasonable infringements" brought us to our lowest point during the AWB. By "painting half our face blue and practicing our cries of Freedom!" on quite a number of honestly petty issues, we have not only halted the erosion of RKBA but actually made moderate improvements.
Within my lifetime, the Hughes Amendment will be overturned. Probably not NFA, but who knows. We shall try.
-
All I'm rolling my eyes at is the reaction to this sort of legislation, the reaction that says that CFLs are rubbish, hence my Ford Explorer comment - no-one would reasonably declare the car a worthless piece of technology because of the Explorer fires, or the Toyota brake problems, or even the large numbers of road deaths. And see those comments from the Wail article I initially quoted, I find it bizarre that one of the lowest ranked comments is a mildly worded reasonable statement about how inexpensive CFLs actually are. I don't particularly support the legislation, although tyme raises a serious point, but I and millions like me have no problem with CFLs.
The energy companies have sent me a half a dozen CFLs in recent years, I don't think I've actually bought one. Part of that is govt subsidy and part of that (having spoken to my brother who works in energy infrastructure) is that they're spending billions on up-grading power infrastructure, and if we keep demanding more and more power they'll have to spend billions more.
-
How bad do the environmental or resource-squandering consequences (or health consequences, e.g. for certain foods or ingredients) of something have to be before a law against it is ethically justified?
Is the problem incandescent bulbs or the powerful lobbies that have slowed to nearly a full stop the building of new nuclear power plants?
-
Yes, it is a minor thing. However, both of our countries are in their current problems due to several thousand equally minor "concessions". They do add up, Iain.
Exactly - if you don't sweat the small stuff, the big stuff will creep up on you. Rudy Giuliani put quite a dent in New York's crime rate when he was mayor by cracking down on ALL criminals - even the squeegee guys. So we should be vigilant and stop even minor erosions of liberty, lest we wake up one day and find we no longer have any.
-
I use and like CFLs. I've even found some that have an initial startup bright enough to work well as bathroom lights. They do suck as dimmer bulbs, and the ones I tried that are supposedly made for it for my chandelier thingy over the dining room table all died within six months, and that was just keeping the dimmer switch set to full blast, because the bulbs are only 15 watt equivalent output in a lamp that had 40 watt incandescents. I have yet to replace any of my other CFLs and it's going on four years now for many of them.
I am in complete agreement on forced use. This is the same as all the other "we know what's best for you" crap, like what car to drive and what food to eat. The nanny staters just don't get that with a solid block of Americans, their nanny laws have the opposite effect. As much as I like CFLs, when someone tells me I HAVE TO use them, I'm inclined to replace them all with incandescents.
Rev hit the nail on the head. There is still, I think, a (barely) majority of Americans that know these, "hey, it's just a little thing, it barely affects you" laws add up. But I am seeing that majority slowly drop as more people become complacent, apathetic, or actually embrace the nanny-ism.
The way things are going, if the US falls into socialism, it won't fall kicking and screaming with a last mighty roar. It will be with a whimper, as we lay on the floor bleeding out from a thousand small cuts.
-
As much as I like CFLs, when someone tells me I HAVE TO use them, I'm inclined to replace them all with incandescents.
This is exactly what I don't understand. This sort of reaction (writ much larger in comments here and on the Wail article) doesn't exactly make anyone see your position as a reasonable one.
Buying incandescents or trashing CFLs out of some sort of spite achieves what? It's the 'Sean Penn is a rubbish actor' phenomenon.
-
This is exactly what I don't understand. This sort of reaction (writ much larger in comments here and on the Wail article) doesn't exactly make anyone see your position as a reasonable one.
Buying incandescents or trashing CFLs out of some sort of spite achieves what? It's the 'Sean Penn is a rubbish actor' phenomenon.
It's the American way, we're allergic to being told what to do. I will stock up on incandescents for the same reason that I just bought another Coleman gas lantern. I can make light with them in a variety of ways that don't depend on stable metered power from somewhere else. Meanwhile I am quite happy with my LED desk lamp, I previously ran 2 incandescents to make my eyes not feel strained when sitting at the computer.
-
This is exactly what I don't understand. This sort of reaction (writ much larger in comments here and on the Wail article) doesn't exactly make anyone see your position as a reasonable one.
Buying incandescents or trashing CFLs out of some sort of spite achieves what? It's the 'Sean Penn is a rubbish actor' phenomenon.
I can only explain it as a distinctly cultural difference. Most of us here from the US can't understand why anyone would happily roll along with it.
I DON'T like sitting in a smoke filled restaurant. Banning smoking in restaurants (in my state) is good for me, and I like being in a smoke free restaurant. However, I despise the law. If a restaurant owner wants to make their eatery smoke free, they should be able to. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, they should be able to. People should then go to whichever restaurant they prefer.
-
The only thing distinctive about the viewpoint is the over-reaction. I'm not in favour of a ban particularly, if I felt strongly I would sign a petition, if I thought it was the thing to do I'd go on a march, or even riot if it was that or the death of liberty. I'm not going to take up smoking because they keep putting up the tax on tobacco, or start drink driving because I decide that the Libertarian Alliance (http://www.libertarian.co.uk/news/nr077.htm) are right about drink driving laws.
I don't think it is a specifically American thing, judging by the comments on that article, or that I've seen elsewhere. Going back to the Daily Mail - Well a shop here sells them fo 30p each so this won't really break the bank. - that comment has a net ranking of minus 160. It's not rude, or false, it's just not in step with the weird lashing out that is the mood over there.
-
if I felt strongly I would sign a petition, if I thought it was the thing to do I'd go on a march, or even riot if it was that or the death of liberty.
Hence a distinctly cultural difference. There are certainly Americans that would go on a march or riot, but I would guess the percentage of American APS members that would do so is extremely small.
-
None of you considered going on the NRA march last April? This will derail the thread I guess, but you can't imagine a circumstance where you might riot? It's a bit less extreme than armed insurrection, for those pesky middle of the road problems when overthrowing the government is going a tad too far.
-
I stand corrected. They would likely attend a peaceful NRA rally. Another cultural difference in word meanings. Marches, such as "peace marches" and "anti-war marches" are often not peaceful. I cannot foresee any situation that would cause me to riot and destroy other people's property.
-
None of you considered going on the NRA march last April?
I've been to rallies before, but mainly smaller, local ones. Having to attend a job to support myself, however, tends to cut into my time available to travel to larger regional or national events.
but you can't imagine a circumstance where you might riot?
I'm not fan of riots because riots tend to be very out of control and hurt innocent people and damage people's property. Rioting is an excuse to burn cars, loot stores, and attack innocents. I'm the kind of person that will shoot rioters.
Armed insurrection would be going after actual elements of an out of control government, not attacking innocents.
-
I've been to rallies before, but mainly smaller, local ones. Having to attend a job to support myself, however, tends to cut into my time available to travel to larger regional or national events.
I'm not fan of riots because riots tend to be very out of control and hurt innocent people and damage people's property. Rioting is an excuse to burn cars, loot stores, and attack innocents. I'm the kind of person that will shoot rioters.
Armed insurrection would be going after actual elements of an out of control government, not attacking innocents.
Yes, all of this.
-
When incandescent bulbs are banned, what incentives have the CFL manufacturers to produce a CFL that outlasts the (now non-existent) incandescent bulb?
-
Yes, all of this.
In hindsight the Poll Tax is now seen as a very inequitable tax that was defeated by a popular public protest, which included rioting, there were no deaths but there was destruction of property. Very blunt weapon rioting, and comes with it's attendant problems of looting and indiscriminate violence.
Are we pretending innocents don't get killed in armed insurrections, or that the violence is actually any more focused? Human nature being what it is, any breakdown of law and order is an opportunity to loot, destroy and settle old scores.
The circumstances that justify either are very rare, and nearly never respectively.
-
When incandescent bulbs are banned, what incentives have the CFL manufacturers to produce a CFL that outlasts the (now non-existent) incandescent bulb?
PHHHHHHHHHWWWW.
Who cares about the effects of competition? Incandescent bulbs are PURE EVIL and must be banned.
CFL are butterflies and rainbows. There will never be anything bad about them.
In fact, we need to FREE the CFL bulbs from the evil of the market so their unicorns and gumdrops can finally be realized!!!
-
When incandescent bulbs are banned, what incentives have the CFL manufacturers to produce a CFL that outlasts the (now non-existent) incandescent bulb?
LED bulbs.
CFL's will be a flash in the pan. Especially when the LED manufacturers achieve price parity (or a reasonable difference) and provide better illumination... and can market that THEIR bulbs don't require a $25k hazmat cleanup when you break one, and don't contain mercury, and don't start house fires.
-
Making LED "bulbs" which are made to screw in to existent fixtures is fail upon fail.
If you NEED to sell a fixture that runs on 110VAC, they should be selling light fixtures with permanently-integrated LED illumination where "bulb" would normally go, and a power transformer / voltage regulator somewhere in the body.
The whole idea of taking 110VAC all the way to the "bulb", stepping it down to 3VDC to feed an LED array is obnoxious.
Even better, new houses should be built with centrally-switched low-voltage wiring for all illumination sources, and they should all be LED.
I know LED's are sometimes given a predicted life of 50k hours, but that is just someone doing CYA. They used to say "Over 100k hours". LEDs simply do not burn out when fed the proper power.
-
In hindsight the Poll Tax is now seen as a very inequitable tax that was defeated by a popular public protest, which included rioting, there were no deaths but there was destruction of property. Very blunt weapon rioting, and comes with it's attendant problems of looting and indiscriminate violence.
Are we pretending innocents don't get killed in armed insurrections, or that the violence is actually any more focused? Human nature being what it is, any breakdown of law and order is an opportunity to loot, destroy and settle old scores.
The circumstances that justify either are very rare, and nearly never respectively.
Private property is not done by nameless third persons, but by individuals who decide, in their infantile way, that destruction of some innocent person's property is fun and/or profitable.
I will not willingly destroy an innocent person's private property, which is one of the characteristics of a riot. Others have different opinions & values.
Any who want to riot near myself or my neighbors had best be advised that we don't take kindly to seeing our property damaged and (having discussed this with several neighbors) would use our firearms to protect each others' property from rioters.
The law (as in written law and as practiced by local DAs) is on our side in this matter.
-
I can only explain it as a distinctly cultural difference. Most of us here from the US can't understand why anyone would happily roll along with it.
I DON'T like sitting in a smoke filled restaurant. Banning smoking in restaurants (in my state) is good for me, and I like being in a smoke free restaurant. However, I despise the law. If a restaurant owner wants to make their eatery smoke free, they should be able to. If a restaurant wants to allow smoking, they should be able to. People should then go to whichever restaurant they prefer.
Pass a law banning smoking from public restaurants and while it aggravates smokers, they can't blame individual establishments for banning it because the ban wasn't voluntary, so they have no reason to boycott.
In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant, there would have to be more non-smokers willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment than there were smokers willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment. That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out". It could very well be that at a point in time, banning smoking will hurt profits.
It could be that some restaurant owners will ban smoking on principle anyway, but that would be in opposition to the free market principle of maximizing profits, so at best you can say that psychological quirks allow a free market solution to work even when that solution flies in the face of rational capitalistic decisions. That is not the same as saying that the free market always works in the end.
-
Pass a law banning smoking from public restaurants and while it aggravates smokers, they can't blame individual establishments for banning it because the ban wasn't voluntary, so they have no reason to boycott.
In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant, there would have to be more non-smokers willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment than there were smokers willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment. That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out". It could very well be that at a point in time, banning smoking will hurt profits.
It could be that some restaurant owners will ban smoking on principle anyway, but that would be in opposition to the free market principle of maximizing profits, so at best you can say that psychological quirks allow a free market solution to work even when that solution flies in the face of rational capitalistic decisions. That is not the same as saying that the free market always works in the end.
It works, but may not come up with the solution you'd prefer.
-
In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant, there would have to be more non-smokers willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment than there were smokers willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment. That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out". It could very well be that at a point in time, banning smoking will hurt profits.
You apparently don't understand markets.
In order to have business success, you have to have enough of a client base to turn a profit. There don't have to be more non-smokers interested 1 in a smoke free establishment. There just have to be enough non-smokers who wants to go to a non-smoking restaurant to justify the restaurant. The numbers of one versus another make no difference. If there are no "non-smokey" restaurants, there's a HUGE market for a non-smokey restaurant.
Let me change your statement to illustrate your error:
In order for it to make more economic sense to run a voluntarily smoke-free restaurant shotgun company, there would have to be more non-smokers shotgunners willing to boycott a smoke-filled establishment rifle company than there were smokers riflemen willing to pass over a smoke-free establishment shotgun company. That is a sociological question, not a question of "make the market more free and everything will work itself out".
Obviously people who shoot shotguns might also have rifles. People who enjoy smoking might actually prefer a smoke-free environment for eating, too. People who aren't smokers might not mind or even like the smell of cigarette smoke.
The beauty of the market isn't that it is a either/or choice. That's government bans. Without the government bans you get smoke-free restaurants, smoke-filled restaurants and restaurants that have sections for each.
Now, to take it back to this stupid incandescent ban: the CFL's are not superior in every way. They have benefits and drawbacks. BANNING incandescents because you think the drawbacks of that bulb are so bad they cannot outweigh the benefits is the height of foolishness. If CFLs are generally superior, they will eventually be the majority of bulbs. Trying to accelerate their adoption by the majority by banning their main competitor is foolish and will cause unintended harm (much of it unknown currently, though some have already pointed out consequences of this stupidity).
(1) Not "boycotting" smokey establishments. Even a small preference for smoke-free over smokey would be enough, all other things equal, to make people chose the smoke-free establishment. Look up some of the behavioral economics on the effects of even small preferences.
-
Take a specific restaurant. Are you saying that banning smoking could never cause a restaurant's profits to go down because non-smokers will always seek out that restaurant? Non-smoking is not the main product/service that such restaurants offer. They offer food and sometimes social interaction. Even if the restaurant tried to advertise heavily to capitalize on its non-smoking policy, sociological factors and/or a local penchant for smoking could undermine that, and the restaurant could still lose money -- and a major advertising campaign would alienate even more smokers. The economic consequences are entirely dependent upon tendencies of the local population.
With CFLs there's a similar irrational choice going on, but for different reasons. The opaque nature of electric bills and the cheap cost of incandescents frequently cause consumers to overlook the long-term economy of CFLs. Publicity campaigns explaining the economics reaches some people, but not others. People are not entirely rational agents. Traditional economics depends on their being rational, in particular being able to exert arbitrary amounts of analysis looking into everyday problems to choose optimally.
1. Lack of information. ("Where is the nearest smoking or non-smoking restaurant that meats my desire for X type of food?" for instance. That's easier today, but still not everyone has a smartphone and familiarity with restaurant info websites.)
2. Lack of willingness to process information about the market area in question - the best example of this is voting, where issue ads and attack ads litter the political field with so much garbage information that people are not willing to expend the energy of sorting out worthless information from important information in order to make the best, most rational decision.
3. Social network effects. If my friends are going to a smoke-filled restaurant, I'll probably go there even if I hate smoking.
-
In my experience, where smoking is legal in restaurants, most restaurants will have a smoke-free section. It was that way in Nevada before the state .gov dropped the ban hammer.
-
Take a specific restaurant. Are you saying that banning smoking could never cause a restaurant's profits to go down because non-smokers will always seek out that restaurant? Non-smoking is not the main product/service that such restaurants offer. They offer food and sometimes social interaction. Even if the restaurant tried to advertise heavily to capitalize on its non-smoking policy, sociological factors and/or a local penchant for smoking could undermine that, and the restaurant could still lose money -- and a major advertising campaign would alienate even more smokers. The economic consequences are entirely dependent upon tendencies of the local population.
With CFLs there's a similar irrational choice going on, but for different reasons. The opaque nature of electric bills and the cheap cost of incandescents frequently cause consumers to overlook the long-term economy of CFLs. Publicity campaigns explaining the economics reaches some people, but not others. People are not entirely rational agents. Traditional economics depends on their being rational, in particular being able to exert arbitrary amounts of analysis looking into everyday problems to choose optimally.
1. Lack of information. ("Where is the nearest smoking or non-smoking restaurant that meats my desire for X type of food?" for instance. That's easier today, but still not everyone has a smartphone and familiarity with restaurant info websites.)
2. Lack of willingness to process information about the market area in question - the best example of this is voting, where issue ads and attack ads litter the political field with so much garbage information that people are not willing to expend the energy of sorting out worthless information from important information in order to make the best, most rational decision.
3. Social network effects. If my friends are going to a smoke-filled restaurant, I'll probably go there even if I hate smoking.
1) If there are no other smoke-free restaurants, the profits of that restaurant will go up so long as people actually have a preference for smoke-free restaurants, even a small preference.
2) If CFL bulbs are superior, they will eventually become the majority. If they are actually (a) longer lasting and (b) more energy efficient, people will eventually move to mostly CFL bulbs, low initial price of the incandescent notwithstanding.
3) Economics doesn't require people to be rational. It only requires that people act rationally. It also doesn't require that people have full or complete information. IF a product is "superior" (including a good bargain), it will win out. Period. Enough people will research which bulb is better. Being that people love to brag when they've found a bargain and are saving money, others will try out the "superior" product. If it is truly a superior product, it will become the majority.
That's the beauty of the market. I don't have to know everything about every potential item I will buy. Knowledge is dispersed and is aggregated by the economy.
It won't happen overnight which is what make statists angry. They know what's better so we'll just force people to do it. Nevermind that it isn't better in every situation, we'll still force it's acceptance.
-
1) If there are no other smoke-free restaurants, the profits of that restaurant will go up so long as people actually have a preference for smoke-free restaurants, even a small preference.
2) If CFL bulbs are superior, they will eventually become the majority. If they are actually (a) longer lasting and (b) more energy efficient, people will eventually move to mostly CFL bulbs, low initial price of the incandescent notwithstanding.
3) Economics doesn't require people to be rational. It only requires that people act rationally. It also doesn't require that people have full or complete information. IF a product is "superior" (including a good bargain), it will win out. Period. Enough people will research which bulb is better. Being that people love to brag when they've found a bargain and are saving money, others will try out the "superior" product. If it is truly a superior product, it will become the majority.
That's the beauty of the market. I don't have to know everything about every potential item I will buy. Knowledge is dispersed and is aggregated by the economy.
It won't happen overnight which is what make statists angry. They know what's better so we'll just force people to do it. Nevermind that it isn't better in every situation, we'll still force it's acceptance.
1. Not if the restaurant is already frequented by smokers and only a smaller non-smoking clique would descend on the restaurant if it went non-smoking-only.
2. There are no objective criteria for superiority. Some people like incandescents (and a particular brand and type at that) because they're used to a very specific color temperature or because they've always gotten a certain type of bulb for the past 10 years. I'm sure you've encountered people like that, who adamantly refuse to change their habits based on no rational thought process other than resistance to change.
3. I understand that being rational and acting rationally are different, but you're relying on social effects to enforce rational behavior in a population that isn't very rational. Social effects can just as easily lead people down the wrong path to some other local optimum, or a population can be split into groups, each following a different path to a local optimum based on the facts as they perceive them. That might not happen in the case of CFLs, because the rational issues -- while most people don't consider them at first -- are fairly straightforward: 1. energy cost; 2. bulb cost; 3. bulb life; 4. color temp. The general question modern liberalism poses is this: are you willing to bet the future of Earth's natural resources and the future of the environment that people will be smart enough to suss out true facts about issues from the metric gigatons of noise on the interwebs and in the news? And are you willing to bet that social effects will spread those facts until they dominate public discussion of an issue?
Not everyone is affluent enough to listen to perspectives outside their small social community.
You only have to look at politics to see masses of people being lead astray based on rhetoric and skewed "facts" that are sometimes difficult to distinguish from more objective facts. I'm not talking about political decisions and laws made by lawmakers (which are obviously not free-market-based, but rather constructed by interest groups and cabals without the benefit of free market forces), but rather the political opinions of individuals -- which are subject to the free market (of ideas).
Is the problem incandescent bulbs or the powerful lobbies that have slowed to nearly a full stop the building of new nuclear power plants?
Both. But politics won't give us more nuclear power plants next year, or the year after that.
I'd rather find some solution other than a ban or tax on incandescents; is there a way to rig things so that people who are not really looking for one type or another of bulbs end up picking CFLs (and soon LEDs) instead of incandescents, while keeping incandescents available? Because right now people who wouldn't know CFLs from LEDs go into hardware stores, see a $7 or $10 pack of 4 CFLs, see a 4-pack of incandescents for <$2, and make a decision based on that. And unless you confronted them about it, they'd probably think their decision was rational.
-
1. Not if the restaurant is already frequented by smokers and only a smaller non-smoking clique would descend on the restaurant if it went non-smoking-only.
2. There are no objective criteria for superiority. Some people like incandescents (and a particular brand and type at that) because they're used to a very specific color temperature or because they've always gotten a certain type of bulb for the past 10 years. I'm sure you've encountered people like that, who adamantly refuse to change their habits based on no rational thought process other than resistance to change.
3. I understand that being rational and acting rationally are different, but you're relying on social effects to enforce rational behavior in a population that isn't very rational. Social effects can just as easily lead people down the wrong path to some other local optimum, or a population can be split into groups, each following a different path to a local optimum based on the facts as they perceive them. That might not happen in the case of CFLs, because the rational issues -- while most people don't consider them at first -- are fairly straightforward: 1. energy cost; 2. bulb cost; 3. bulb life; 4. color temp. The general question modern liberalism poses is this: are you willing to bet the future of Earth's natural resources and the future of the environment that people will be smart enough to suss out true facts about issues from the metric gigatons of noise on the interwebs and in the news? And are you willing to bet that social effects will spread those facts until they dominate public discussion of an issue?
You only have to look at politics to see masses of people being lead astray based on rhetoric and skewed "facts" that are sometimes difficult to distinguish from more objective facts. I'm not talking about political decisions and laws made by lawmakers (which are obviously not free-market-based, but rather constructed by interest groups and cabals without the benefit of free market forces), but rather the political opinions of individuals -- which are subject to the free market (of ideas).
Both. But politics won't give us more nuclear power plants next year, or the year after that.
I'd rather find some solution other than a ban or tax on incandescents; is there a way to rig things so that people who are not really looking for one type or another of bulbs end up picking CFLs (and soon LEDs) instead of incandescents, while keeping incandescents available? Because right now people who wouldn't know CFLs from LEDs go into hardware stores, see a $7 or $10 pack of 4 CFLs, see a 4-pack of incandescents for <$2, and make a decision based on that. And unless you confronted them about it, they'd probably think their decision was rational.
1. Some restaurants would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule. How does it then follow that EVERY restaurant would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule?
2. As I've said many times, CFLs aren't superior in every way. Some people will simply prefer the light from an incandescent. However, how many people will persist in that preference if using a CFL is truly cheaper? I don't see any indication that some vast majority of people are so irrationally opposed to a cheaper lightbulb that we need the government to force it on them for their own good.
3. I'm not relying on social effects, I'm relying on the dispersal of knowledge. Further, I am FAR more willing to bet the earth's resources on the market than I am on government. Government will get captured by special interests and political fads. Irrationality is punished by the market. Irrationality is rewarded in politics.
Your statement of people voting irrationally and ignorantly is PRECISELY why these should not be decided by politics. Again, politics rewards irrationality, the market punishes it.
As for politics not giving us more nuclear power plants next year, that is true. However, politics has for the past 40 years ensured that there will be no new nuclear power plants this next year. Politics can't drive progress, but it SURE does a good job stopping or impeding it.
-
In my experience, where smoking is legal in restaurants, most restaurants will have a smoke-free section. It was that way in Nevada before the state .gov dropped the ban hammer.
Only once did I go into a pub/bar that had a no smoking section and the air conditioning to make it more than a gesture. Probably more common over there.
roo_ster - not sure what you're trying to achieve in this conversation. I'm a latent destroyer of property, or perhaps I'm someone who can forsee an extreme circumstance where I would take to the streets and resist attempts to be broken up, corralled, arrested, beaten or driven over by a tank, because after all that's what most who get labelled rioters are actually doing. I see that as a less extreme possibility than initiating a holy civil war. For whilst both of us were being holy in the name of our cause, hangers on would be looting and shooting.
-
Only once did I go into a pub/bar that had a no smoking section and the air conditioning to make it more than a gesture.
Now relevant for this thread. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ)
-
I will say I hate the ones with white or bluish light. I look for ones with a warmer light. It's easier on my eyes.
AHHHH! I can't say how much I agree with you. I replaced the lights in my room with CFL's and had to swap em out after about a month because they just annoyed the crap out of me. I can't say why exactly, I just don't like them and shouldn't be forced to buy what I feel is an inferior product.
(Don't care about the $ or energy savings the lights piss me off for some reason so their an inferior product to me.)
-
1. Some restaurants would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule. How does it then follow that EVERY restaurant would be stupid to enact a non-smoking rule?
2. As I've said many times, CFLs aren't superior in every way. Some people will simply prefer the light from an incandescent. However, how many people will persist in that preference if using a CFL is truly cheaper? I don't see any indication that some vast majority of people are so irrationally opposed to a cheaper lightbulb that we need the government to force it on them for their own good.
3. I'm not relying on social effects, I'm relying on the dispersal of knowledge. Further, I am FAR more willing to bet the earth's resources on the market than I am on government. Government will get captured by special interests and political fads. Irrationality is punished by the market. Irrationality is rewarded in politics.
Your statement of people voting irrationally and ignorantly is PRECISELY why these should not be decided by politics. Again, politics rewards irrationality, the market punishes it.
As for politics not giving us more nuclear power plants next year, that is true. However, politics has for the past 40 years ensured that there will be no new nuclear power plants this next year. Politics can't drive progress, but it SURE does a good job stopping or impeding it.
1. Some would ban smoking, and would be successful at it. However, that wouldn't help a non-smoker visitor to London in 1990 who wants to find a smoke-free place to eat. It would not help a coworker who hangs out with mostly smokers who frequent a restaurant that allows smoking. The market has failed those people. Not everyone can choose where to live based on where restaurants can profit by banning smoking. And why should someone have to choose between hanging out with work colleagues vs being anti-social just to escape smoke-filled restaurants? Or is someone's health not worthy of being considered an externality?
2. I guess we won't know. Like in most areas of social policy, it's impossible to set up good, controlled, scientific experiments without violating people's rights.
3. I consider dispersal of knowledge to be a social effect. Regulatory capture is obviously an ever-present concern. However, on the issue of CFLs, is there any real doubt that banning incandescents, forcing people to buy CFLs (or LEDs) would, overall, 1) save money and 2) reduce electricity demand? Some people who have lighting needs that don't fit well with CFLs would not get the same benefits from CFLs, but even if CFLs had slightly shorter average lifetimes in those unusual use cases, those people would still come out ahead based on decreased electricity costs. Very few people would lose money, and as illogical as it might seem, leaving CFLs on for longer periods rather than turning them off and on frequently would probably end up moving those outlier customers from the "losing money from CFLs" category into the "saving money from CFLs" category with everyone else.
I just noticed that Ikea is going to stop selling incandescents. http://solar.coolerplanet.com/News/800322723-ikea-to-discontinue-sales-of-incandescent-bulbs.aspx
What is a free market capitalist to do when foreign governments ban things, and international corporations stop selling those products in this country because of those foreign laws? :)
-
Now relevant for this thread. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JizGkM6gbvQ)
Yes. The world of "I want, I want I want". I want to be able to go into pubs at all, because smoking pubs are no go zones for people with chronic lung disease. Doesn't mean I support the smoking ban particularly either. Funny thing life, full of compromise.
What did you make of the the Libertarian Alliance press release I linked to earlier? Drink driving laws as prior restraint? I knew that such view points were out there, but man, they are really out there. You probably won't view it that way, but I'll pass on Sean's world where a man can drink a bottle of whisky and drive a car, as long as he doesn't do so dangerously (his example). That's living in the real world right there.
-
Funny thing, this compromise.
It's always people arguing for people like me giving up slices of freedom. It's always people talking about how there's a completely non-regulated market in X, so we need to ban X, or control X, or be scared of X.
So because of this 'compromise', tomorrow I need to submit three pages of forms and documents and travel to a different city.
Because, you see, I cannot receive the knife I paid good money for until I provide these forms. No, I kid you not.
As for repealing drunk driving laws: frankly, that goes in the same department as anarcho-capitalism, seasteading, and armed airline passengers. Maybe it's a good idea. MAybe it's not. I certainly don't think people who argue for it are automatically wrong or stupid (unlike, say, people who argue for an abolition of private property, or racial segregation), but it seems to me the stuff of libertarian seminars, not political reality. It's not that I believe it's entirely unrealistic, I just feel it's unrealistic in the present discourse.
Sean, of course, is one of the brightest individuals in England. His writings on class politics (and his early 90's stuff on pornography) are very incisive.
-
LEDs simply do not burn out when fed the proper power.
Not entirely correct. High power LEDs suffer from diminished light output over time. They suffer from a higher incidence of failure once they lose, IIRC, about 30% of their output.
This is a well known and understood phenomena, and is something that is factored into the lifespan prediction.
It is an especially important consideration when LED light sources are used as specialized illumination sources.
-
And why should someone have to choose between hanging out with work colleagues vs being anti-social just to escape smoke-filled restaurants?
Life is filled with such choices. My wife cannot in good conscience patronize restaurants that serve alcohol. This leads to much the same situation for her. She does not demand that the law crack down on restaurants that don't meet her own personal standards. Neither should anyone else.
Or is someone's health not worthy of being considered an externality?
If a restaurant were serving poison to unsuspecting diners, that might be the restaurant's problem, and a matter for legal involvement. Second-hand smoke is not the same situation. But that should be obvious.
-
Not entirely correct. High power LEDs suffer from diminished light output over time. They suffer from a higher incidence of failure once they lose, IIRC, about 30% of their output.
This is a well known and understood phenomena, and is something that is factored into the lifespan prediction.
It is an especially important consideration when LED light sources are used as specialized illumination sources.
It's my understanding that the "high power" LEDs are ridiculously overdriven in order to create a high output PER LED. You see it in LED flashlights where there is a single LED being driven at 5 watts! Since you aren't constrained for space in a light fixture like in a flashlight you don't need to drive 5 LEDs at 5 watts each. I don't see why you can't make a light fixture with 100 or more properly-driven LEDs which will last as long as the LED display on my clock radio, which has been plugged in for 22 years.
-
That might not happen in the case of CFLs, because the rational issues -- while most people don't consider them at first -- are fairly straightforward: 1. energy cost; 2. bulb cost; 3. bulb life; 4. color temp.
Missed a big one; warm up time. Even the best CFLs don't come up to full power right away. For example, our bedroom hall light has gone back to being a 32W incandescent for the simple reason that it's rarely on for more than the 10-15 seconds it takes to traverse the hallway. We use a fair number of CFLs, but that one would never get to full output, and even with a 27W (actual) 100W equivalent CFL in there, it rarely exceeded the light output of the incandescent that use a whole 5W more than the CFL did.
That's another issue that's rarely addressed; excessive light output in areas where it's just not needed. I'd be hard pressed to guess the wattage of that bulb if I didn't already know. In a 4ft wide, white walled hallway, it looks just as bright as the total effect of the 5 50W bulbs in the bedroom fixture. (I'm not a darkness junkie either; my bedside lamp is a 3-way 150W max, and my desk lamp is a 100W equivalent daylight CFL.) I suspect most people could reduce their power consumption pretty dramatically just by taking a more sensible approach to the specific needs of each area in their home.
That issue compounds itself badly, too; an excessively bright light in one area makes another area appear too dark, which lead to most people putting more wattage into the perceived dark area. One of the nicest features of that hall light is that, even though it seems quite bright, I do notice that it doesn't hurt my eyes when I wake up and turn it on to go check on our toddler. Turning on the 250W bedroom overhead is pointless at those times, since it renders me incapable of keeping my eyes open.
-
I don't see why you can't make a light fixture with 100 or more properly-driven LEDs which will last as long as the LED display on my clock radio, which has been plugged in for 22 years.
Get 99 more clock radios, hang them from the ceiling, and read a book. Amazingly, it won't even have to be a book about photometry or LEDs for you to find the answer in it under those conditions.
-
It's my understanding that the "high power" LEDs are ridiculously overdriven in order to create a high output PER LED.
Again, not exactly correct. There are true "high power" LEDs, designed to operate continuously at higher power levels. They have been around for quite some time, often used in specialty industrial illumination applications.
Do a little research on them, you'll probably find it interesting.
-
My apartment is heated with electric, so there is no efficiency difference between CFLs and incandescents in the winter time, and incandescents are obviously superior in every other way.
-
Been looking into the LED's a bit. Seems like, right now, the break even time is still too long for the average light bulb. Average seems to be around 4 hours of use per day. If one has a particular light that's on nearly 24/7/365 they'd pay back in about a year. But to do a whole house that would average out to more like a 6+ year break-even. That's just too long. If they can cut prices in half and solve a few of the more common problems (some don't work well with dimmers, the light tends to be more focused than incandecants or CFL, comparitive brightness, and some color issues - all of which have been improving) then they'll be ready for prime time. And the non-cost issues aren't really even showstoppers anymore.