What do you think about the ban on light bulbs

[Aisling]

The point I've been making is that your own personal preference not to be a contributor to making our society better isn't important enough to trump what is actually better for society. Focus on that.

MY point is that until I believe that it's better, with solid scientific backing unrelated to specific unscientific agendas, I will continue to oppose taking away my freedom of choice.

 

[bicker]

So again, you're putting your personal preference over the general consensus of the expertise of our society. No way you can paint that in a positive light. And no way I'm going to feel bad for you having to contribute to society even though you personally choose not to believe what you don't want to believe. Remember: All you need to do to refute that is show that a significant percentage of recognized experts in our society feel that there is more pollution caused by CFLs than by incandescent bulbs. The fact that you can't, or choose not to, highlights the lack of merit in what you're advocating afaic.

 

[Aisling]

So again, you're putting your personal preference over the general consensus of the expertise of our society. No way you can paint that in a positive light. And no way I'm going to feel bad for you having to contribute to society even though you personally choose not to believe what you don't want to believe.

Please don't assume what I want to believe. You're wrong.
I have many assumptions about you that are probably wrong, so I refrain from posting them.

 

[Colleen27]

Lighting is approximately 20% of the average household’s energy bill. NRDC estimates this law could cut our nation’s electric bill by more than $10 billion a year.

I don't have a baseline for my family because we've had CFLs in the ceiling fixtures since we moved to this house, but I've been floored by how much difference building design makes in lighting needs. Our house predates widespread electrical lighting. Because of the floor plan and orientation on the lot we don't need any artificial lighting during daylight hours, and even though this house is about twice the size of our old one, our electric bills didn't go up at all. In fact, our summer bills went down because the same layout that allows for great natural light catches the breeze so well that we didn't bother with air conditioning last summer either.

 

[Aisling]

Remember: All you need to do to refute that is show that a significant percentage of recognized experts in our society feel that there is more pollution caused by CFLs than by incandescent bulbs.

I believe the bolded part. What I do not believe is that the more pollution caused by CFLs is actually detrimental to society.

 

[bicker]

What I do not believe is that the more pollution caused by CFLs is actually detrimental to society.

All I can say is that I'm glad we have processes in place in our civilization to fairly and peaceably reconcile disagreements, such as with regard to what you've said here versus what I believe, and that this time society seems to be making what I feel is the right decision.

It was interesting chatting with you about it, though.

 

[Colleen27]

With regard to the low water use toilets; they often consume more water because they often require two flushes.

I've often heard this said but seldom have I seen it first hand. My grandmother had one of the first-generation low flow toilets in the mid-90s and that one did often require two flushes, but over 10 years, 3 homes, and 4 bathroom remodels, we've never had one that was a problem. Yes, the mandate went into effect before the technology to support it was perfected, but would that technology have advanced without the "push" from the change in law?

 

[moburg]

Thanks for the info, and the reminder (with regard to how we've already done for toilets and shower heads what we're going to be doing with regard to light bulbs) that our society has long-held that when individuals in society fail to voluntarily refrain from irresponsible actions, that government has an obligation to either apply taxes on, or place limitations on, interstate commerce, in order to effect changes in the marketplace to reduce the incidence of irresponsible actions.

Yes comrade!!

 

[moburg]

So again, you're putting your personal preference over the general consensus of the expertise of our society. No way you can paint that in a positive light. And no way I'm going to feel bad for you having to contribute to society even though you personally choose not to believe what you don't want to believe. Remember: All you need to do to refute that is show that a significant percentage of recognized experts in our society feel that there is more pollution caused by CFLs than by incandescent bulbs. The fact that you can't, or choose not to, highlights the lack of merit in what you're advocating afaic.

It's called FREEDOM!

Can't have any of that, now can we?

 

[Colleen27]

MY point is that until I believe that it's better, with solid scientific backing unrelated to specific unscientific agendas, I will continue to oppose taking away my freedom of choice.

But there IS solid scientific backing for conservation efforts. Climate change is a matter for debate (and not only due to political pressure; there's a lot we still just don't know about our planet's heating/cooling mechanisms), but there's no debate over the other detrimental effects of the wasteful use of energy.

There's no question that coal-fired plants pollute, not just in ways that could potentially contribute to climate change but in other, more immediate ways. They produce mercury, lead, sulfur, arsenic, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide, all of which have health and environmental effects on their surroundings. Natural gas is somewhat less damaging, but emits the same basic pollutants in different proportions. Coal accounts for 30% of our electrical supply; natural gas makes up 39%.

There's no question that nuclear energy produces highly dangerous waste products for which there is no safe disposal capacity. Nuclear accounts for 10% of our electrical supply.

That's 80% of our electrical supply coming from power sources that produce known, accepted, undebatable ecological hazards. And that's not even taking into account secondary sources of pollution and environmental degradation like coal mining, natural gas extraction, transport, etc.

The need to conserve does not arise solely from the unstable foundation of global warming/climate change, and it shouldn't be dismissed simply because you doubt that one piece of the bigger picture.

 

[Aisling]

I'll definitely read more about this. I'm really not a reckless person who doesn't care about our environment.

 

[moburg]

Perhaps you missed the earlier part of the discussion. The problem with incandescent bulbs is that they use so much additional energy that they cause more mercury emissions (for example) than improper disposal of CFLs. So even if people do fail to recycle CFLs, and just throw them away, they are still better for the environment than incandescent bulbs.

I think that would be good, but it isn't the issue.

I had to double check before calling BS on that particular line. The line of thinking is that a coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL.

So its not the light bulb itself, but the source of the electricity. And since my power source is a nuclear plant, the CFL's I use are a higher mercury pollutant (since CFL's contain mercury) than the incandescents (no mercury) I use. So I should just stick with the incandescents!

 

[bicker]

Yes comrade!!

You don't know who you're referring to. I'm very well-known here as a strong advocate of business and capitalism.

It's called FREEDOM!

No, it's called self-centeredness, as in "... I use" ... "So I should". The government is obligated to make decisions that works best overall, not just for you specifically.

 

[bicker]

So its not the light bulb itself, but the source of the electricity. And since my power source is a nuclear plant, the CFL's I use are a higher mercury pollutant (since CFL's contain mercury) than the incandescents (no mercury) I use. So I should just stick with the incandescents!

That's just you, though. The fact is that until we're all using nuclear energy exclusively, the harm to our descendants stems from excessive, unnecessary energy use from incandescent bulbs. By ridding the marketplace of them, the pollution problem is addressed. You don't get a special exemption, because that's not worth it to society. It is just as well for you to use CFLs.

 

[Colleen27]

I had to double check before calling BS on that particular line. The line of thinking is that a coal-fired power plant will emit 13.6 milligrams of mercury to produce electricity required to use an incandescent light bulb, compared to 3.3 milligrams for a CFL.

So its not the light bulb itself, but the source of the electricity. And since my power source is a nuclear plant, the CFL's I use are a higher mercury pollutant (since CFL's contain mercury) than the incandescents (no mercury) I use. So I should just stick with the incandescents!

Well yeah, if mercury is the only pollutant you're worried about. Personally, I think that little problem with nuclear waste disposal is a pretty major hole in your reasoning...

 

[Hoodie]

Count me as a hoarder.

Mainly because there are several lights in the house that don't fit a CFL.Until they can make CFLs in the exact shape of all current incandescents, we'll be building our private stash.

 

[bicker]

Well yeah, if mercury is the only pollutant you're worried about. Personally, I think that little problem with nuclear waste disposal is a pretty major hole in your reasoning...

But we can let our descendants worry about it... right?

 

[moburg]

And to answer my own question (of course, as soon as I say I CAN'T find the info, then I definitely WILL find the info)

This is from Energy Star's website... (not the government, but pretty darn official)
http://energystar.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/energystar.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=4913

Question
I hear CFLs will be required by 2012. Is that true?

Answer
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (the “Energy Bill”), signed by the President on December 18, 2007 requires all light bulbs use 30% less energy than today’s incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The phase-out will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, a Tier 2 would become effective which requires all bulbs to be at least 70% more efficient (effectively equal to today’s CFLs).

It’s not entirely correct to say "CFLs will be required" or “incandescents will be phased out” because the standards set by the bill are technology neutral, and by 2012, a next generation of incandescent bulbs could satisfy the 30% increased efficiency. There are also other lighting technologies, such as halogen and LEDs that will be able to meet the new requirements and are expected to both increase in performance and drop in cost over the next few years.

Lighting is approximately 20% of the average household’s energy bill. NRDC estimates this law could cut our nation’s electric bill by more than $10 billion a year.

There are many types of incandescent bulbs that are exempt from this law:
--any kind of specialty light (ie. bulb in refrigerator)
--reflector bulbs
--3-way bulbs
--candelabras
--globes
--shatter resistant
--vibration service
--rough service
--colored bulbs (i.e. "party bulbs")
--bug lights
--plant lights

The law applies to the sale of bulbs, not the use of existing stock of bulbs.



Now I'm on the hunt for the other stuff... Wish me luck.

Count me as a hoarder.

Mainly because there are several lights in the house that don't fit a CFL.Until they can make CFLs in the exact shape of all current incandescents, we'll be building our private stash.

Check out the above link. I won't have to stock up on as much as I thought. I have tons of regular 40 and 60 watts, the ones I replaced with CFL's where it made sense and it worked. But it looks like I won't have to worry about the globes, chandeliers, 3-ways, reflector, etc.

 

[woodkins]

As my dh is an electrician we have discovered that many of the higher end dimmers dimmers (especially the ones with the led lights in them-not the standard toggle up down dimmers) do not work with the CFL lights. Dh just did 2 new construction homes and ran into this problem on both. The homes were using a "green consultant" to make their homes energystar compliant in order to receive tax breaks and the consultant had no idea either.

 

[C.Ann]

With regard to the low water use toilets; they often consume more water because they often require two flushes.

I have this problem here at the lake since my Dson-in-law installed my new toilet last year.. I have a gravity-fed well - without a lot of pressure - and the new toilet definitely takes at least "two flushes"..

That can be problematic here because on occasion, my well has gone dry in the past..

One of these low-water-use toilets in my DD's house often requires two flushes as well.. Their water is supplied by the town - and has terrific pressure..