Post by: Ben on January 30, 2007, 07:20:04 PM
-----------------------
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/sc_nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
By Bernie WoodallTue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET
A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.
"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."
Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.
If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.
Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.
Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.
While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.
"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."
Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.
About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.
A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.
Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.
California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.
While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.
"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.
Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 30, 2007, 07:24:20 PM
Quote
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.
A boneheaded piece of legislation, but you gotta give 'em credit for the name.
Post by: CAnnoneer on January 30, 2007, 07:40:37 PM
Should consumers resplace incandascent bulbs with fluorescent bulbs? Yes, if they are smart. Should the gov force them to do it? No, because it is a slippery slope. Next thing, they will ban refined sugar because it promotes obesity, and excessive salt because it is bad for your hypertension.
Post by: Perd Hapley on January 30, 2007, 07:46:30 PM
Post by: Sergeant Bob on January 30, 2007, 07:50:27 PM
Next will be a law mandating how many holes will be allowed in the top of a salt shaker, to regulate salt usage.
Post by: Declaration Day on January 30, 2007, 08:00:01 PM
However, I have to vouch for those fluorescent bulbs. I have them throughout my house, and have replaced only one since I've lived here. They've come way down in price, and they no longer flicker to life like they used to. Mostly, I like them for their long service life.
When you have a house with 4 people and 4 animals, ANY reduction in home maintenance is noticeable and welcome.
Post by: Monkeyleg on January 30, 2007, 08:15:59 PM
Well, Mr. Levine, state legislators were developed over 200 years ago, and you're a sign that there's been no major modifications or improvements since then.
What a maroon.
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on January 30, 2007, 08:24:06 PM
Post by: Eleven Mike on January 30, 2007, 08:25:01 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 30, 2007, 08:26:58 PM
Post by: AmbulanceDriver on January 30, 2007, 08:46:29 PM
http://www.fototime.com/93B82129E6A9D4E/standard.jpg
Post by: HankB on January 31, 2007, 04:24:45 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2007, 04:32:55 AM
Quote
"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications,"
Yeah, Mr. Legislator. Because an Edwardian loop-filament handblown bulb is just the same as an 4100 kelvin UV-filtered MR-16 halogen flood.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 31, 2007, 04:50:25 AM
I really like the twisted tube fluorescent lights, in our family of four people and 2 big dogs, my energy bill has benefited a goodly amount. I miss being able to use a dimmer on the light fixtures, but someday they'll figure out a way to do that, too.
And that's all the incentive people, even in Kalifornia, need to switch over. Smaller electric bills, rebates on the purchases of the fluorescent or LED bulbs, and maybe even fewer rolling blackouts. It shouldn't be illegal to own a couple halogen shop lamps or other high-wattage light sources, the owner is probably well aware that they're not efficient, regardless of legislation.
Post by: 280plus on January 31, 2007, 05:08:55 AM
And yet, harping back on another pet peeve, let's see them ban 1 person per car traffic jams. The biggest user of energy and polluter of the air there is is your car but instead they'll go after kight bulbs. I count my blessings now that I left Kali in 1980, I used to miss the place, now I'm glad it all worked out that way. OK, I still miss the beaches,,, and the surf.
Post by: Thor on January 31, 2007, 06:11:25 AM
Post by: Dave Markowitz on January 31, 2007, 06:12:22 AM
Light bulb smuggling, anyone?
That was my first thought.
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2007, 06:42:37 AM
they've had dimmable fluorescents for a bunch of years now.
They're becoming more common all the time.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2007, 06:47:26 AM
"I miss being able to use a dimmer on the light fixtures, but someday they'll figure out a way to do that, too."
they've had dimmable fluorescents for a bunch of years now.
They're becoming more common all the time.
they've had dimmable fluorescents for a bunch of years now.
They're becoming more common all the time.
I can't use them, because I can hear them. To my perception, the dimmers on those produce a loud buzzing whine that I can hear. I can also hear a no-signal CRT screen that's on anywhere in a house.
So no dimmable ones for me...they drive me nuts.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 31, 2007, 07:07:03 AM
Switching to LCD computer monitors and my new plasma HDTV have made life a lot more bearable.
Mike, thanks for the heads-up. I'll keep an eye open for dimmable twisted-tube fluorescent bulbs, I'm heading off to Menard's this afternoon, as a matter of fact! Hopefully they don't squeal and whine like the others...
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2007, 07:14:04 AM
http://www.goodmart.com/products/bulb_compact_fluorescent_screw_in_base_dimmable.htm
Post by: Fudgieghost on January 31, 2007, 10:12:02 AM
As my friend, who's a local cop told me, "They can make all the laws they want, but if we don't have the funding and resources to enforce, it's pretty much an empty gesture". Or words to that effect.
On a more fundamental level, what is with this "banning" mentality? It's such a lazy, non-thinking way of dealing (or not dealing) with problems. Quite Orewellian if you ask me.
Oh, well,. . . . we're doomed.
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2007, 10:18:17 AM
They would shut off the sources, the same way that they've done with a lot of firearms in California.
Post by: roo_ster on January 31, 2007, 11:05:13 AM
I use the fluorescents in the garage, however, to reduce hte amount of heat in there in the summer and for some of my outdoor lighting.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 31, 2007, 11:06:53 AM
We've sunk very low to be discussing a LIGHT BULB ban.
Chris
Post by: 280plus on January 31, 2007, 11:10:39 AM
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 31, 2007, 11:14:09 AM
Post by: wingnutx on January 31, 2007, 11:19:52 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on January 31, 2007, 11:22:37 AM
Though maybe they'd restrict people to candles. Wait, no, that pollutes. Soy candles? Still smoke! Solar-charging lights? No, those use batteries that are toxic.
SIT IN DARK! That's it. Low-impact.
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2007, 11:25:53 AM
Think again...
In the 1960s California passed emissions standards where none existed Federally. The auto industry went ape, but the courts largely upheld California's requirements, and California has very successfully enforced its laws over the years, and in 1970 EVERY automobile manufactured for sale in California had to meet that state's emissions requirements.
No Federal legislation existed allowing California to do that, no Federal legislation existed that supported those actions.
States are perfectly capable of regulating the sale of commercial products inside their own borders, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways that California can enforce a ban on commercial sales of incandescent light bulbs if it comes to that -- ranging from pulling business licenses to issuing compliance fines to physically shutting down a store for violating state laws.
Post by: HankB on January 31, 2007, 11:27:08 AM
Quote
We've sunk very low to be discussing a LIGHT BULB ban.
Actually, I figured we were in serious trouble when I found out there was a Federal agency that had the power and the mission to ban toilets that used "too much" water per flush.Think about it - some 'crats, sitting around one day with nothing better to do, decided that they should start regulating toilet flushes!
I'm only surprised it took Kali this long to get on the light bulb bandwagon.
Quote
Someone needs to tell them that broken fluorescent bulbs release toxic material.
Mercury. Ban it. For the children.
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2007, 11:28:48 AM
Someone needs to tell them that broken fluorescent bulbs release toxic material.
California has adopted some pretty strict rules regulating the heavy metals and chemicals contained in fluorescent bulbs.
The state also mandates that fluorescent bulbs be disposed of at special disposal centers, NOT in the trash.
Post by: Ben on January 31, 2007, 11:55:10 AM
Quote
The state also mandates that fluorescent bulbs be disposed of at special disposal centers, NOT in the trash.
Oops.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 31, 2007, 11:59:41 AM
You don't think California could mandate such a law without the big, bad, Federal government to hold their hand?
Think again...
In the 1960s California passed emissions standards where none existed Federally. The auto industry went ape, but the courts largely upheld California's requirements, and California has very successfully enforced its laws over the years, and in 1970 EVERY automobile manufactured for sale in California had to meet that state's emissions requirements.
No Federal legislation existed allowing California to do that, no Federal legislation existed that supported those actions.
States are perfectly capable of regulating the sale of commercial products inside their own borders, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways that California can enforce a ban on commercial sales of incandescent light bulbs if it comes to that -- ranging from pulling business licenses to issuing compliance fines to physically shutting down a store for violating state laws.
Think again...
In the 1960s California passed emissions standards where none existed Federally. The auto industry went ape, but the courts largely upheld California's requirements, and California has very successfully enforced its laws over the years, and in 1970 EVERY automobile manufactured for sale in California had to meet that state's emissions requirements.
No Federal legislation existed allowing California to do that, no Federal legislation existed that supported those actions.
States are perfectly capable of regulating the sale of commercial products inside their own borders, and there are dozens, if not hundreds, of ways that California can enforce a ban on commercial sales of incandescent light bulbs if it comes to that -- ranging from pulling business licenses to issuing compliance fines to physically shutting down a store for violating state laws.
The difference is that to operate an auto on Cali roads, you have to jump through several hoops (licensing, taxes, inspection, etc). That makes it more difficult to own/operate a non-mandated car on Cali roads. Until Cali starts checking homes for rogue incandescents, there's no way they can enforce this ban against end users. As for stores, they only have power against stores located inside california. Since there's no residency check when you buy light bulbs (unlike guns), a person can simply go to Oregon or Nevada, buy their bulbs and go home. Cali doesn't yet have border security between it and other US states. That was my entire point. Since there's no law regulating bulbs on a federal level and because California isn't yet checking house to house for rogue bulbs, there's not much they can do other than ban the sale of such bulbs internally.
Chris
Post by: wingnutx on January 31, 2007, 12:08:33 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on January 31, 2007, 12:16:07 PM
They'll just enforce it against retailers.
I thought that's what I said twice. But only against retailers in Ca. Without a background/residency check for lightbulb purchases nationwide, a Nevada retailer won't know if the purchaser in front of them is a Nevada resident or Cali resident (and wouldn't care either way). Cali resident buys bulbs from Nevada and drives home in their Cali-approved vehicle of choice.The reason the gun ban and cali-emissions thing worked was because of registration of the item in question.
Chris
Post by: K Frame on January 31, 2007, 12:24:14 PM
Please tell me where in the write up on the proposed law that the end user/consumer would be targeted?
I don't see that being in there, and I sincerely doubt if that's the case at all.
Why?
Because California has passed similar legislative packages in the past, and they have NEVER solely targeted the end user, not even with firearms.
The proposed law will target retail outlets that sell the bulbs in California -- the SOURCE of the product, not the end user. I have no clue why you're talking about the end user.
This is exactly how California enforced its emissions control standards in the 1960s and 1970s.
They didn't walk around the state and tell individual drivers (end users) "hey, that car isn't compying get out we're taking it," they told the auto manufacturers (source) and the thousands of dealerships (source) in the state that after 1970 if they didn't comply with California emissions laws the California market would be closed to them, and if I remember correctly the state market DID close to several manufacturers -- AMC being one of them -- until the new cars were available.
Tell me, do you really think that were California to pass this law that Wal Mart or Safeway or any of the thousands of other chain stores would pull out of the state?
No. They'd stop selling the bulbs because incandescent bulbs are a miniscule part of a store's profit structure.
Of course people can go out of state to buy their bulbs, but how realistic do you think it would be that everyone in the state would simply pick up on a Saturday, drive anywhere from a few, to a few hundred, miles, simply to buy light bulbs?
Even if some people did that, the number of incandescent bulbs that would be removed from the state would be enormous.
Even if California were suggessful in removing only 50% of the incandescent bulbs in the state, and the other 50% were maintained by people doing mail order or going out of state, the savings would be monumental, and all for very little money invested by the state.
This isn't rocket science.
California has done this very thing with at least cars and aerosol products, and they've always targeted the source, not the end user. And it's been incredibly effective.
Post by: wingnutx on January 31, 2007, 12:28:10 PM
How many people have high-flow toilets smuggled in from Canadia? I can only think of one.
Post by: 280plus on January 31, 2007, 12:45:55 PM
Quote
I really don't think most people are attached enough to one make of lighbulb to start buying them out of state.
This all reminds me of the low flow shower head episode on Seinfeld. "Low flow? I don't like the sound of that." Quote
and in 1970 EVERY automobile manufactured for sale in California had to meet that state's emissions requirements.
How well I remember having to put the emmisions kit on my 1971 351 4V before going to emissions in Kali, and then taking it back off after the inspection. Now that I'm thinking of it one of the things was you disconnected the vacuum advance and capped the hose off. The thing ran like a dog like that.
Post by: wingnutx on January 31, 2007, 12:48:13 PM
Post by: 280plus on January 31, 2007, 12:48:35 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on January 31, 2007, 12:51:51 PM
I really don't think most people are attached enough to one make of lighbulb to start buying them out of state. Most people will buy whatever is most convenient. Nobody is likely to care a whole lot if there is a small group of people using lighbulbs from Arizona.
How many people have high-flow toilets smuggled in from Canadia? I can only think of one.
I have a high-flow toilet!!! You can take my toilet when you pry it from my cold, dead... ummHow many people have high-flow toilets smuggled in from Canadia? I can only think of one.
Post by: wingnutx on January 31, 2007, 12:53:21 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on January 31, 2007, 12:58:46 PM
I never made the claim that they wouldn't target in-state vendors. And I never claimed venders would leave the state. My only point was that the folks that want incandescent bulbs will be able to get them elsewhere and California can't do a thing about it. Will folks drive hundreds or even tens of miles? Probably not, but the folks that live right on the border or travel out of state regularly and want those bulbs will get them. Folks do stranger things for personal taste every day.
Dunno what I was thinking about the car thing. I conveniently forgot about the millions of classic autos that still exist there.
Quote
How well I remember having to put the emmisions kit on my 351 4v before going to emissions in Kali, and then taking it back off after the inspection
Every time I get my 4Runner inspected, I have to put covers on the offroad lights and remove the bars protecting the headlights. This last time, I had to remove some non-functioning fog lights (they sit right behind the brushguard uprights!) even though they've been installed and non-functional for 3 years.Chris
Chris
Post by: cosine on January 31, 2007, 01:08:25 PM
have a high-flow toilet!!! You can take my toilet when you pry it from my cold, dead... umm
That provoked quite an unpleasant mental image...
As for California, what will they try to do next? Geez.
Actually, on second thought, I don't want to know.
Post by: Gewehr98 on January 31, 2007, 01:39:43 PM
I thought it was hilarious when they had to refund me $300.00+ for the environmental impact fee they charged for my non-Kalifornia vehicle. I protested at registration because the vehicle had the same emissions equipment as those sold there, as do all vehicles after 1997. (ie, no more "49 state" vs. Kalifornia specs)
Smog Check II implemented dynamometer testing for smog testing of Kalifornia vehicles. They also tried having spectrometer sensors check tailpipe emissions at those regulated interstate on-ramp stop lights. They coupled a camera with the spectrometer, and vehicles not passing tailpipe tests would get a letter in the mail. I hit the choke on my Harley and purposely gave them a good sample - it had Wisconsin registration, I waited for the postcard... The legislation was planning to crack down on a lot of the older classics, until a certain senator discovered his Packard Straight Eight was in jeopardy.
That state runs in spite of itself.
Post by: DJJ on January 31, 2007, 03:42:08 PM
Post by: Car Knocker on January 31, 2007, 04:11:45 PM
Post by: Tallpine on January 31, 2007, 04:54:44 PM
Quote
And how, exactly would they enforce this ban?
SWAT teams busting down your door to inspect your light bulbs, of course!
Post by: Thor on January 31, 2007, 05:21:50 PM
Most of the low-flow showerheads at Home Depot have a little insert in them, with a label that says "Don't remove this or it won't be low-flow anymore, nudge nudge hint hint"
I ALMOST always remove that insert. I've found that on some of them I had to increase the orifice size, easily accomplished with the proper sized drill. One of the "low flow" toilets, I had to replace the flapper valve. For some reason, during that repair, a razor knife found it's way inside the tank and mysteriously cut out that plastic insert.
Post by: Fudgieghost on January 31, 2007, 06:08:08 PM
Quote
Sounds like a potentially nice business to set up, say, in Reno or Lake Tahoe, or boosting sales in the typical Ace Hardware. Folks will want their high-wattage halogens, sewing machine lights, and 4 watt hallway nightlights.
Yeah, can't you just see all the gas-station quickie marts near the Cali border with big signs "We have incand. light bulbs!" There'd be crates of them around the store and the pumps---like they have now when they have a sale on Pepsi or Coke. . .
Ah, yeah. Oh I forgot to mention. . . . . we're doomed.
Post by: 280plus on February 01, 2007, 12:49:40 AM
Quote
For some reason, during that repair, a razor knife found it's way inside the tank and mysteriously cut out that plastic insert.
Yea, you gotta keep an eye on those pesky razor knives.
Post by: Firethorn on February 01, 2007, 02:19:54 AM
Those of you complaining about the light, have you tried any of the CFLs recently? I know there's likely to be a number of the nasty older ones out there, especially given their long life span, but the modern ones are much better. Their solid state electronic ballast kicks the frequency up from 60 hz up into the thousands, which also helps take care of any noise problems. My house is an older one, and the previous owner has some big tube ones up that flicker. This means that I need to replace the ballast.
As for the toilets, I agree with you. Still, many cities are having water problems, doing a full flush every time is wasteful. I wish they'd come out with the two lever flush systems I saw in europe. For simple needs use the small flush, for the big ones use the large flush. I've also read that many of the problems came from poorly designed low-flow toilets, and many poor ones are still installed simply because they're cheap. Then again, it noted that some of the expensive ones performed poorly too, so finding reviews might be a good idea.
Look at it this way. You're much more likely to be able to go 'off grid' and live independant of utilities with CFLs and low flow toilets than without.
Post by: CNYCacher on February 01, 2007, 05:03:12 AM
What are the REAL savings in a home that is being actively heated. . . especially if that home uses electric heat? Sure, you are spending more money on running the lights, but i bet that means you are spending less on your heating.
If you built two sealed insulated rooms inside a large cold room, and in each room placed an electric heater run on a thermostat, and place an incandescent bulb in one room and a flourescent bulb of similar light output in the other room, I bet the energy use will be very similar, and you won't see anywhere near the projected savings.
Post by: roo_ster on February 01, 2007, 05:10:25 AM
I really don't think most people are attached enough to one make of lighbulb to start buying them out of state. Most people will buy whatever is most convenient. Nobody is likely to care a whole lot if there is a small group of people using lighbulbs from Arizona.
How many people have high-flow toilets smuggled in from Canadia? I can only think of one.
You willing to give up the source to an interested customer? PM me at THR if'n you are.How many people have high-flow toilets smuggled in from Canadia? I can only think of one.
I have a high-flow toilet!!! You can take my toilet when you pry it from my cold, dead... umm
I feel the same way. My current house was built in 1959 and both toilets have the full 3.5gal of flushing power, as G-d and Thomas Crapper intended. We have remodeled one bathroom, taking tender loving care to preserve the near-irreplacable porcelain marvel.
I do worry about new(er) construction, though. If I ever build my own house, I'll have to find a source for 3.5gal toilets.
Let us just say that guys over 6' and 200lbs aren't well-served by the currently mandated low-power toilets.
Post by: mtnbkr on February 01, 2007, 05:25:18 AM
Let us just say that guys over 6' and 200lbs aren't well-served by the currently mandated low-power toilets.
Are you trying to tell us you're full of Chris
Post by: crt360 on February 01, 2007, 10:23:57 AM
I have a high-flow toilet!!! You can take my toilet when you pry it from my cold, dead... umm
I feel the same way. My current house was built in 1959 and both toilets have the full 3.5gal of flushing power, as G-d and Thomas Crapper intended. We have remodeled one bathroom, taking tender loving care to preserve the near-irreplacable porcelain marvel.
I do worry about new(er) construction, though. If I ever build my own house, I'll have to find a source for 3.5gal toilets.
Let us just say that guys over 6' and 200lbs aren't well-served by the currently mandated low-power toilets.
I agree, what's the benefit of the low-flow/volume toilet if you have to flush it several times per use? I think they must be for really small people who eat grass and poop like a rabbit.
As for the lightbulb thing, I have always hated fluorescent light. I hate the flicker, I hate the buzz, I hate the glare, and they've always been too damn bright, but I bought some of the newer twisty looking kind and they're alright. They don't buzz or flicker, they're not too bright and they actually put out a warmer light than the incandescents they replaced. I think they ought to be recommended and maybe promoted with discounts - the city could send out coupons with the water bill - but not required by law.
Now, to find a cheap LED desk lamp.
Post by: CAnnoneer on February 01, 2007, 10:45:14 AM
1) If your car wipers are on, your headlights should be on too.
2) No spanking of kids 3 years old and below.
Battery disposal is an old law and is still massively ignored.
Post by: Manedwolf on February 01, 2007, 10:53:28 AM
California has two other new laws:
1) If your car wipers are on, your headlights should be on too.
2) No spanking of kids 3 years old and below.
Battery disposal is an old law and is still massively ignored.
1) If your car wipers are on, your headlights should be on too.
2) No spanking of kids 3 years old and below.
Battery disposal is an old law and is still massively ignored.
I'm surprised they've not yet mandated Canada-like Daytime Running Lights required on cars.
My Accord, a 2, turns the lights off and on when I want them to be off and on. I'd noticed some other brands of cars now have the lights on if the car's on. O_o
Post by: Gewehr98 on February 01, 2007, 11:30:12 AM
Now if they just did something about the smacktards who feel they can either drive at night with no headlights, or just the parking lights, or aftermarket fog/driving lamps, leaving their taillights and side marker lights dark and generally being a liability to themselves and others.
Post by: wingnutx on February 01, 2007, 12:07:48 PM
Quote
You willing to give up the source to an interested customer?
Al Bundy.
Post by: Thor on February 01, 2007, 12:24:18 PM
I feel the same way.
My current house was built in 1959 and both toilets have the full 3.5gal of flushing power, as G-d and Thomas Crapper intended. We have remodeled one bathroom, taking tender loving care to preserve the near-irreplacable porcelain marvel.
I do worry about new(er) construction, though. If I ever build my own house, I'll have to find a source for 3.5gal toilets.
Let us just say that guys over 6' and 200lbs aren't well-served by the currently mandated low-power toilets.
My current house was built in 1959 and both toilets have the full 3.5gal of flushing power, as G-d and Thomas Crapper intended. We have remodeled one bathroom, taking tender loving care to preserve the near-irreplacable porcelain marvel.
I do worry about new(er) construction, though. If I ever build my own house, I'll have to find a source for 3.5gal toilets.
Let us just say that guys over 6' and 200lbs aren't well-served by the currently mandated low-power toilets.
We just built a new house and moved in a year ago. We had Toto toilets installed. They do the job pretty danged well AND are low water use toilets, which is an added benefit when one is on well water. (less electric used to pump the extra water) BTW, I'm 6'5" and 250
I just went out and spent $32 on four 200 watt equivalent fluorescent bulbs today for the garage. I had 600 watts of incandescent bulbs in there and at a power usage of 40 watts per fluorescent, I've cut my consumption in excess of 2/3rds. I just absolutely HATE government mandates!!
Post by: Declaration Day on February 01, 2007, 12:45:55 PM
Post by: MechAg94 on February 01, 2007, 03:19:44 PM
In my experience, I read better with bright white fluorescent light than incandescent lights anyway. That is what reading lamps are for.
I do hate govt mandates though. If they really want to cut power use, why don't they just start taxing Californians by the KW used? I guess they would lose their jobs if they did that. I wonder why.
Post by: 280plus on February 02, 2007, 12:21:37 AM
I wish I could remember the "brand name" of Al Bundy's toilet but I DO remember the line, "Step up to the bowl and make it a double!"
Post by: Firethorn on February 02, 2007, 02:10:48 AM
Now, to find a cheap LED desk lamp.
It's probably not going to be cheap or as effective as a fluorescent. One of the things about a LED is that it's actually naturally a bit like a spot light. With a desk lamp you generally want a wide even throw of light, with not much distance to do it over. I'd really suggest finding a good lamp with an electronic balast to try out. You might find you're pleasantly suprised.
White LED's used to be only about as efficient as an incandescent, but with the added advantage of virtual indestructability. They have improved this, I think the best at this point throw about twice as much light per watt than incandescent.
Red LED's are very efficient, blue not so much, but a white LED is a blue one with a phosphor coating to add more spectrum to make white, and the phosphor costs efficiency.
Post by: mtnbkr on February 02, 2007, 03:39:48 AM
What would it take to install one of those industrial toilets like you see at public restrooms. You know, the ones without a tank and all the chrome piping...
Chris
Post by: crt360 on February 02, 2007, 09:07:06 AM
Now, to find a cheap LED desk lamp.
It's probably not going to be cheap or as effective as a fluorescent. One of the things about a LED is that it's actually naturally a bit like a spot light. With a desk lamp you generally want a wide even throw of light, with not much distance to do it over. I'd really suggest finding a good lamp with an electronic balast to try out. You might find you're pleasantly suprised.
White LED's used to be only about as efficient as an incandescent, but with the added advantage of virtual indestructability. They have improved this, I think the best at this point throw about twice as much light per watt than incandescent.
Red LED's are very efficient, blue not so much, but a white LED is a blue one with a phosphor coating to add more spectrum to make white, and the phosphor costs efficiency.
You're right. The ones I've seen certainly weren't cheap, and they probably don't put out quite as much light. I'm looking for "just enough" light without the cheap, bulky housing that most of the fluorescent desk lamps seem to have. If I can find one that I like enough, I might end up trying one of the fluorescents anyway. Thanks.
Post by: Brad Johnson on February 02, 2007, 10:22:00 AM
Quote
Now, to find a cheap LED desk lamp.
There's more for your life at Sears...
http://www.sears.com/sr/javasr/product.do?cat=Electrical+Shop&pid=03473903000&vertical=TOOL&subcat=Work+Lights&BV_UseBVCookie=Yes
Brad
Post by: crt360 on February 02, 2007, 01:35:43 PM
Post by: Sindawe on February 02, 2007, 02:06:42 PM
Quote
Now, to find a cheap LED desk lamp
Perhaps you could retrofit an existing lamp with an LED bulb?http://www.ledtronics.com/
I have CF in the majority of the light fixtures in my home. Great for the bath in the mornings since they take a few warm up and come to full brightness, thereby eliminating the nuclear blast of light to darkness adapted eyes. Now if I can just find some that are dimmer compatible.
Mandating their use however is [Art's Grandma].
Post by: crt360 on February 02, 2007, 03:33:05 PM
Post by: Fly320s on February 04, 2007, 10:43:19 AM
Every time I fly at night near a major city (LA, NYC, Dallas) I think that I should be in the light bulb business. Or at least the electricity business. There are millions of lights on all night long in a big city. Seems like a waste to me.
Post by: Firethorn on February 04, 2007, 10:52:07 AM
Perhaps you could retrofit an existing lamp with an LED bulb?
The problem with this is that a LED bulb is tiny. A 12 watt bulb is, relativly speaking, a massive one. Add in the tendency to act like a spotlight and you end up having to parallel bulbs in order to get a usable amount of light. After that, it's more usefull to get a lamp designed for them.
Quote
I have CF in the majority of the light fixtures in my home. Great for the bath in the mornings since they take a few warm up and come to full brightness, thereby eliminating the nuclear blast of light to darkness adapted eyes. Now if I can just find some that are dimmer compatible.
They have some, though they have to be used with a special kind of dimmer. I don't know the details.
Quote
Mandating their use however is [Art's Grandma].
Agreed.
Quote from: Fly320s
Every time I fly at night near a major city (LA, NYC, Dallas) I think that I should be in the light bulb business. Or at least the electricity business. There are millions of lights on all night long in a big city. Seems like a waste to me.
They already have enough problems with crime and accidents, don't they?
Still, I'd imagine turning off even 10% of them would save enough juice to make the switch from incandescents moot.
Post by: grislyatoms on February 04, 2007, 11:12:14 AM
"If you need light bulbs (or insert other mundane household item here) just come on down to the Kalifornia State Lightbulb Store (one conveniently located in every city) for new light bulbs. Be certain to bring your Kalifornia Lightbulb license, your Realid, your birth certificate, SSN, military service record, mortgage loan papers, copy of your latest, notarized utility bill, make sure your bar code tattoo is legible and we will get your light bulbs to you in 2-3 weeks.
Remember, it's easy, and it's the LAW!"
A public service announcement paid for by the Kalifornia Commission for Oppressive and Bloody Stupid Laws
Post by: Fly320s on February 04, 2007, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: Fly320s
Every time I fly at night near a major city (LA, NYC, Dallas) I think that I should be in the light bulb business. Or at least the electricity business. There are millions of lights on all night long in a big city. Seems like a waste to me.
They already have enough problems with crime and accidents, don't they?
Still, I'd imagine turning off even 10% of them would save enough juice to make the switch from incandescents moot.
[/quote]
True, but most accidents are from stupidity and poor driving, not lack of lighting. Plenty of crime during daylight hours.
Post by: Limeyfellow on February 04, 2007, 11:37:43 PM