California May Ban Conventional Lightbulbs

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - 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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc

:rofl: :spray:

I liked it. :rofl: :rofl:

you can buy these at the 99 cent store too.

I haven't been able to switch many, they are so expensive everywhere else.

Maine had $2 rebate on them (and a $12 rebate on LEDs).

I outfitted my parent's and brother's new homes this Christmas - cost me less tan $100 for both.

(Yes, I know but...)

This is a good thing

n/t

Out of a couple dozen that I installed at that time, only ONE has burned out.

My roomate bought some cheap spirals from costco and they burned out at the same time as regular about 6 months, but were more expensive.

I haven't tried other brands.

And it was in a fixture in a stairway that went on and off frequently for only short (30 sec) periods. That killed it pretty fast. I have a dozen other CFLs though are a few years old, though they do dim a bit over time. My parents have one they use for hours daily that is over a decade old.

haven't burned out yet.

Does anyone know if the soft-white ones are less offensive?

And, do they plug into regular sockets?

I see them so rarely around here, I haven't a clue about them... at all.

bulb sockets. I can actually see the current cycling. Which is why they are more efficient I think. (not sure)
I remember being in the library as a child. I'd get headaches under those lights and I didn't know why. We actually kept lights off most days in schools where I lived. We had lots of windows in the old buildings of our schools so it was okay. I cannot tolerate flourescents at all. I leave the grocery store with a headache.

I care about why they may be important to use, but they aren't a solution for me.

I've been switching-over (I don't have a problem with migraines etc.) but the little corkscrew bulbs are about a half inch too long for the room allowed in the shade and if I force it the tip breaks off. I like the globes on these lighting fixtures but in order to use the fluorescents, I'd have to change the globes to accommodate that little bit of extra length. I wanted to see if somebody had a solution to that problem. I would think they could make a collar or something that would give that bit of extra length to accommodate the bulb but I haven't found anything. Otherwise I would be switching-out all my bulbs. I like the fluorescents in that they don't have to be changed as often which is good for some people who have problems standing on chairs, etc. to change the bulb.

in NY, I'm going to be running on candlelight.

I won't even sit under flourescent lights at work. I get them unscrewed. I kind of like being in very dim light anyway.

A high Kelvin rating means very bright blue white light, like say 6,0000 Kelvin. A lower Kelvin rating means a less stark warmer yellow tinted light, say 2,700-3,500 Kelvin. Compact Flouros have a wide range of Kelvin ratings, from a very yellow late fall like 2,700K, to a stark white 9,000K.

Most flouros use a starker white rating of around 5,000+, these are the ones that cause headaches due to the unnatural extreme white/blue tinted light. Buy a flouro with a 2,700-3,000K rating and it will be the same yellow warm tinted light as an incandescent.

All you have to do is look for the Kelvin rating on the box. it's on every light bulb box. just choose a warmer color in the lower ranges than 4,000 Kelvin, and problem solved.

Bookmarking thread. :hi: This is such welcome information it may deserve its own thread! A lot of people have this problem.

I know people who get migraines from regular fluors, but not the compact ones. They don't flicker the way the regular ones do.

the buzzing and the light they emanated were annoying. After seeing AIT I vowed to start changing my bulbs when they burnt out and I did. The only difference I've noticed is that they take a nanosecond longer to come on when I flip the switch than conventional bulbs do. I don't hear buzzing, I don't have problems with the light either. Give one a try. If you still have a problem with them then at least you tried. If you don't have any problems you'll feel better about switching.

I love the compacts, but if you read the labels, they aren't good for every kind of light or lamp. Has this changed? It is my understanding you aren't supposed to use them for recessed lighting, and some lamps just don't work with them.

So if this passes, will we have to throw out any old lamps we have, and get an electrician to put in new lighting? That sounds expensive and wasteful.

and lots of styles and sizes to choose from these days...

When we moved here a few years ago I was going to go with all compact flourescents, but found that they weren't recommended for most of the light fixtures in my condo.

...to work?

Or people will be forced to get their appliance bulbs on the black market.

:crazy:

I wonder what the criminal penalty will be for Felony Light Bulb Smuggling.

"I know a guy", "there's a ship arriving tonight at the dock"

It's also the only thing BONGS work well with :shrug:

Still ten years removed, California is getting somewhere, but who knows where.

October 5, 1997
You Can't Get Here From There
Louis B. Jones travels back to hippie-era California of the 1970's in his new novel.
By WALTER KIRN
CALIFORNIA'S OVER
By Louis B. Jones.
329 pp. New York: Pantheon Books. $24.

From lava lamps to tie-dyed scarves to ant farms, the bric-a-brac of the 1970's appealed to a certain fascination with orderly chaos, structured flux. Gazing at backlit waves of colored jelly or trembling threads of intermingled ants was simultaneously soothing and surprising; it brought on the light, sub-psychedelic trance state that people back then considered so desirable and people nowadays find so quaintly futile. Consciousness in the 90's has things to do and places to go; with E-mail to read and a stock market to watch, mellow self-hypnosis isn't an option.
(snip)
http://www.nytimes.com/books/97/10/05/reviews/971005.05kirnt.html

I have yet to see a compact fluorescent that can withstand the heat of the interior of an oven, or rated to operate below 0 degrees Farenheit (as in a freezer).

My friend who has multiple sclerosis cannot stand to be under fluorescent lights. She can perceive the flickering, and it makes her nauseous. She's likely to be dead by 2012, so maybe it doesn't matter.

There are probably millions of existing lamps and fixtures that cannot accommodate a compact fluorescent due to space constraints. Will the state pay for their replacement, or provide a tax break, when it forces people to buy CFLs?

Last but not least, this bill would mean the death of a classic childrens' toy, the Easy-Bake Oven.

and peoplw will use them. I prefer reading with a conventional bulb, but like the others for hallways and such

Come on, JVS, we're talking about the California legislature here.

Standard procedure for dealing with any perceived problem is to criminalize it.

People like their authoritarian/progressive representatives, but voters also understand the problems created by single-party rule, and that's one big reason why we have a Republican governor.

In a reply down below, I suggest how this legislation
could actually be worded.

Tesha

Clearly CFLs require more petroleum to manufacture than do conventional bulbs, since their bases are made largely of plastics. I'd be interested to see how much carbon is used in manufacturing one type vs. the other. CFLs contain more toxic materials (i.e. the phosphors); what is the environmental impact of manufacturing and disposing of them?

Most importantly, how much net carbon savings would result at what ecomonic and environmental cost? I'm sure companies like COSCO and Wal-Mart will be delighted at the prospect of importing more CFLs from East Asia.

Don't hold your breath waiting for the author of the bill to provide that kind of work.

> Clearly CFLs require more petroleum to manufacture than do
> conventional bulbs, since their bases are made largely of plastics.

I'm not sure you can draw this conclusion.

One, you have to consider each CFL against about ten
ordinary incandescent lamps or 4-5 quartz-halogen
incandescent lamps because each CFL lasts about as
long as that many bulbs of the other type.

Two, the heat value represented by the plastics in
the CFL base is probably made up many times over in
the additional glass of the 10 (4-5) conventional lamps.
Remember, glass processing is energy-intensive.

Three, on an operational lifetime basis, the CFL
clearly causes the emission of far less carbon than
those conventional lamps; we're quite safe figuring
a factor of 4 or 5 reduction. Even if the CFL *DID*
take more petroleum (natural gas, whatever the
feedstock) to manufacture, it'd be hard to overcome
the advantage that it builds up during its operational
lifetime.

And remember, wherever air conditioning is being used,
you have the additional advantage of not being required
to remove the additional waste heat that would have
been generated by the conventional bulb.

Finally, shifting gears a bit, I don't think you'll
find that modern fluorescent lamp phosphors are
all that toxic. Decades ago, they used to be, but
that hasn't been the case for a long time.

And with regard to mercury (which you didn't mention
but we should consider anyway), the savings in coal-
fired electricity (with its consequent mercury
emissions) far outweighs the minor bit of mercury
in each CFL.

Tesha

Glass furnaces stay hot.

The raw material is silica (sand).

That's why glass bulbs are tried and true cheaply made.

Anyone could make them.

Plastic use increases carbon and fuel consumption on a 1-to-1 basis.

Each CF bulb uses more glass and more chemicals, and
must be engineered more than a simple vaccuum tube
which is all a regular bulb consists of.

There are tradeoffs to both of them. But to paraphrase
the Dead Kennedys, "California Uber Alles" says "ban it".

The early Progressives of Pasadena and Palo Alto
had a similar attitude towards liquor 100 years ago....

> Marginal increase in glass use does not increase carbon consumption

Nonsense. You don't build a glass furnace and leave it idle,
you build a glass furnace and run it at maximum capacity.
And if you need more glass, you build another furnace
(and the new furnace needs the same energy supply as
the old furnace).

If you're goingto try to snow us, you'll have to veil
your snowjob better than that.

Tesha

:hide:

With the intent of using a 50-watt Halogen bulb as a spot light. It's great, I love it.

I wonder if halogens would be banned. They aren't exactly conventional.

We shouldn't ban them or conventional bulbs.

But since halogens are so "new" and "high tech"
they will get off easy.

I turn on the 50-watt spot only when I am doing food prep or washing dishes. I think it's important that I am able to see optimally during those critical tasks.

And hey, it's only 50 watts.

Perfect example. We will be forced to change, one way or another.

After the summer of "rolling blackouts".

At the time, the cost did not make conversion a no-brainer. I did it partly because it would reduce my power bills, partly because they last much longer then incandescents, and partly because it was the right thing to do.

globe bulbs at the bathroom vanity.

Please don't tell me I have to stick some of those coiled things in there! I've got my limits. Why don't they make vanity CFLs???????

LED light bulbs have even better efficiency than CFLs do, and they're even longer lasting too. Plus, LED bulbs can be shaped much like standard incandescent bulbs. They have 1.5W LED bulbs which have the same light output as a 25W incandescent.

to look at, but they don't actually CAST much light. They don't ILLUMINATE well.

Or am I mistaken?

I have LEDs where I can use them but they are not (yet) bright enough for general illumination.

Rumor has it they are working on a new paint which fluoresces brighter than the LEDs.

You can get CFL "globe" bulbs too.

Our local shopping mall has hundreds and hundreds
of them; they swapped-out all the globe-shaped
incandescent lamps probably a decade ago.

Tesha

I am so excited! Who makes them? If I know the manufacturer then I can find a local supplier. I am in Los Angeles so I should be able to find them someplace (though I have looked a little and never seen any).

Lowes, Home Despot and Chinamart have a lot to choose from.

My local Ace hardware carries them. I have them in my vanity lights, and they work great. The vanity ones aren't even that purplish icky that most fluorescents are -- they're pinkish in light.

and am now confused by your post. Come on, man. Or woman.

http://www.1000bulbs.com/

http://www.1000bulbs.com/category.php?category=360

http://www.bulbs.com/

http://www.bulbme.com/




I used to have others but clobbered my bookmark file a while back. In the meantime, google is there. Use it.

CFL's seem to be WAY over the top on the internet. My local Home Depot or Walmart has them for about $1.50 - 2 for bulb.

I think they will start to settle down, as people no longer consider them 'new', and realize they aren't that hard to find. Until then, it's whatever the market will bear.

The prices on the net are 2-4x any store I've ever been to.

Then only outlaws will have conventional lightbulbs...

Or something like that...

:argh:

The law, on its face, sounds silly, but people have proven,
over and over and over again that they will not change,
even when the change has immediate and direct benefits to
them. People keep doing the same ol thing over and over
again.

So if it takes a law that says, for example, "No new incandescent
fixtures shall be installed if an equivalent compact-fluorescent,
LED, high-intensity discharge, or other fixture of equivalent
efficiency could be used instead", then I guess I'm for it.

Because people can really be dim bulbs.

Tesha

Like ones who say that conserving energy always results in suppliers increasing rates.

But I am fundamentally opposed to the government using force to get people to change, when the undesirable behavior is really only hurting themselves.

heard of global warming lately?

Atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases have been at the current level only four times in the last 420,000 years. Human activity is contributing to the present increase.

But there are surely natural process in play as well, and I question whether California banning conventional incandescent bulbs would have any effect on it at all.



As I noted in reply #16, I've already done my part in switching to CFLs wherever possible.

We show the way, by doing it, then show everyone else how to do it.

California will show other states how to do it. There will be challenges that come up. Some they will do well, some they'll need to improve on. We can learn from them... and so on, and so on. Once more states do it, it WILL make a difference. It all adds up.

It is tough. But tough shit on us. Nothing's going to be perfect, but the alternative is UNACCEPTABLE.
Just my opinion.

now everybody knows they should, and some actually do. :)

Many people will resist change because staying with what they know is just easier.

They are not hurting you.

I thought that was what "liberals" loved about the so-called "free market"
as opposed to us non-mainstream types. People making their own decisions.

> What if they don't WANT to change?
>
> They are not hurting you.

Global Climate Change and pollution from electrical
power generation harms everyone. Here in New England,
we suffer quite noticeably from the pollution plume
emitted by midwest coal-burning power plants. Reducing
electrical consumption would help alleviate that.

Tesha

Especially in LA.

Most evironmentalists are (unfortunately) hypocrites who rely on the car to go everywhere because "I live in a suburb, I have no choice".

The few that don't should be proud, they are the leading edge.

The rest will continue to tinker around the edges with "lifestyle legislation"

manufacturing plant in CA? Also will it work in my oven? What about the bulbs in my brake lights? I have not found a CFL for my flashlight yet will these be banned also?

:nuke:

> Is there a CFL manufacturing plant in CA?

Probably not, but I'll betcha there's no incandescent
light bulb plant there either.


> Also will it work in my oven?

Ahh, one place to keep using an incandescent. Of course,
the point of the oven is to make heat.


> What about the bulbs in my brake lights?

Haven't you noticed? Everyone's switching to LEDs.


> I have not found a CFL for my flashlight yet will these be banned also?

Same answer: everyone's switching to LEDs for better battery life.

Tesha

That it doesn't make it out of the California legislature. There are people out there who, due to eye injuries or defects, simply can't take the light spectrum emitted by CFLs. I know, I know,the energy benefits are fantastic. But they do not emit the same light spectrum as incandescents, and there are some people whom they hurt. My wife had an injury to her right eye a few years back, and it is permanently, partially dialated due to scarring. This makes her incredibly light sensitive. We tried a CFL in our house(thank goodness we had the foresight to not do a massive changeout) and almost immediately the CFL started giving her massive headaches and affecting her vision.

She has problems with regular fluorescents also, and has to wear sunglasses inside if she is in the presence of any such lighting.

I personally would not like to see this become a nationwide trend, for I really don't want to have my wife wearing sunglasses around the house all the time, nor do I want her to suffer from headaches and bad vision in our own house.

There are plenty of good reasons not to ban incandescents.

A much better way to decrease the use would be an increase taxes on them. Though I hate taxes it's not that hard to envision the feds being able to gut the law through the commerce clause. Then the contemptible politicians could say " see we did it but but the feds overruled us". Bastard lawyers turned politicians are legendary in their shifting of blame.

Especially since there are no suitable alternatives for my household. Why should my wife's medical condition force us to pay more taxes?

I am quite sure in a round about way, each and everyone of us is antithetical to each other in ways that is hard to realize. My only real thinking when government is trying make something hard to get or use often it only makes people want to use it more :shrug:

If many of the illicit drugs were legalized many people would find it hard to justify a life in the shadows trying to get a hold of the stuff.

All the science is not in and them florescent light bulbs are not the end all to anything. Hell, if they wanted to get things efficient they would be making way for L.E.D. lights in households

The Future of Light

A flick of a switch at home can set a handful of lightbulbs aglow. Open the car door, or the refrigerator door, and a light comes on. City streets are illuminated by overhead lights, stores brightly advertise their presence through light. Lighting accounts for twenty percent of all energy use in the US. All this light, however, comes at a cost; producing the electricity creates pollution from power plants and greenhouse gas emissions. Reducing energy needs from lighting even just by half could save billions of dollars and help wean us off our dependence on oil.

Many now see light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, as the potential solution to the problem.

Our current system of light is tremendously inefficient; incandescent bulbs waste 95 percent of the energy flowing through them as heat. Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient, but their harsh color has prevented them from fully penetrating the lighting market.
(snip)
http://www.loe.org/series/LED.php

> Many now see light-emitting diodes, or LEDs, as the potential
> solution to the problem.
>
> Our current system of light is tremendously inefficient;
> incandescent bulbs waste 95 percent of the energy flowing through
> them as heat. Fluorescent bulbs are more efficient, but their harsh
> color has prevented them from fully penetrating the lighting market.

The Jury's still out. While Nichia claims to have achieved 113 lumens/Watt
(which slightly bests the best fluorescents at about 110 L/W), I wouldn't
make the claim that White LED lighting has a Color Rendering Index that
even *APPROACHES* the best modern fluorescent lamps; I've found White
LED lighting to be pretty damned pathetic in that area. And most White
LEDs are about half as efficient, clocking in at around 50 L/W, less
efficient than *ANY* fluoresecent lamp.

Much as we might complain about the environmentalism of the manufac-
turing process for fluorescent lamps (or even incandescent lamps),
the manufacturing process for LEDs (as with any semiconductor devices)
is far worse, and the technology lies completely out of the reach of
all but the most highly-industrialized nations.

In the long run, LEDs will probably win, but I think the "crossover"
day (considering efficiency and Color Rendering Index) is still a
ways out in the future.

Tesha

I just kind of know L.E.D. lights are kind of in their infancy. If it pans out then great but whatever. I just love those little things because as a truck mechanic i have had to change thousands of the incandescent bulbs trough the years. The L.E.D.s are kind of expensive initially but they last and last so they pay for themselves actually pretty quick when you just consider the cost of labor changing them.

As for architectural use who knows. There are lot of competing forces out there and maybe someone comes up with something a whole lot better even next week

> I just love those little things because as a truck mechanic
> I have had to change thousands of the incandescent bulbs
> through the years.

Oh, on motor vehicles the jury's in! :) The LEDs win.

Two things I don't like about them:

o The "pulse width modulators" that drive them (dim
them for dim tail-lights versus bright brake lights)
are too slow on many vehicles and you can see the LEDs
flicker as your eye sweeps across the traffic ahead
of you.

o The "instant-on/instant-off" aspect of LED turn
signals is harderto locate than the "brightening/
dimming" aspect of incandescent lamp turn signals.

But I'm hoping both of these problems will be resolved
as the designs get more sophisticated and in every other
way, LED taillights and marker lights are far superior
to bulbs.

Tesha

for all that MASS TRANSIT that we need :-)

High maintenance and high energy use in man made inventions are much like other natural forces using the same operandi, short lived. In the old days lighthouses were used by boats to plot course. In a lesser extent i see lighting on automotive applications the same way. Defensive driving teaches one to be prepared and anticipate other drivers actions before they act. Observing the actions of several cars in front of the one you are following allows one to prepare for whats ahead. If you use the tail lights of the car front of you for your only clue on when to react that could lead to trouble. If you use them lights for the confirmation on what action is taking place then you will be much more prepared.

Maybe one of the other reasons some might have objections to L.E.D. lighting is they are not accustomed to it. That would make sense to me. I work mostly at night and use a rechargeable battery operated 13 watt florescent. It took me a year or two to start liking the aspects of that light too.

I will probably pick me up another rechargeable L.E.D. portable work light soon. They are lightweight and last a long time on a charge. The last one I had left one i had on a truck i was working on (opps). Unlike the old days there is no cord connecting to wall. So if the thing runs out a charge and you leave it hanging on a wire or a edge overnight it might go out the door without you the next day :-)


http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/museum.htm

As told, the invention of the L.E.D. was mostly a accident then we have other little other accidents like this

Accidental Invention Points to End of Light Bulbs
By Bjorn Carey
http://www.livescience.com/technology/051021_nano_light.html

thanx for the info....

If this sort of law comes to your state, make sure it has exceptions for people who can't comply for health reasons.

The law should be compassionate.

With no such waiver provision and then we would be screwed. In addition, this would be a definite cramp in both of our social lives. Going over to friends' houses? Out of the question except for short visits. My wife and I love to play pool. All of those incandescent table lights, poof, now CFLs, no more pool for us. Even the simple pleasure of going out to eat where there is lowered, mood, incandescent lighting. Ooops, it's CFL now, and our meal is ruined.

A waiver for our house is fine, but the trouble is this law would make my wife a prisoner in our house. I really don't want this to happen.

Rather than switching light bulbs, let us switch the source that powers them to say, oh, solar or wind:shrug: Then we could go out at night, have fun, and continue to enjoy our social life. Is that too much to ask?

You don't know me, but I would hate to advocate someone be seriously inconvenienced this way.

At the same time, we know energy is a really serious issue that is effecting everyone. At this point, I don't think there is a single solution.

Yes, we should be using other sources of power such as solar and wind (not or, and). But I don't think these will be enough. They must be combined with higher efficiency devices.

Obviously you're closer to this than I am. Have you heard of any possibility that these bulbs can be manufactured to avoid the problem?

We all should be able to use alternative sources, higher efficiency devices, and still go out at night and have fun. Is that too much to ask?

It depends on where the lighting is, whether it is night or day, and what the intensity is. I generally do the night driving, for while my wife can drive, having to deal with the various flashing lights cause her pain. Neon lights at night damn near killed the first time she was driving in a large city after her injury and recovery. She doesn't drive in large cities at night now(luckily we're in a fairly rural area).

I have no idea whether these bulbs can be manufactured in such a way as to not effect her, but I strongly suspect they can't.

But we can provide all of our electrical needs with wind and solar. In 1991 the DOE did a survey on America's harvestable wind energy. Much to their suprise they found that there is enough harvestable wind energy in Kansas, Texas and N. Dakota to fulfill all of our electrical needs, including growth factor, through the year 2030. And this is with '91 tech. We've come a long way since then, and there is much more wind to be harvested than in those three states. All across the plains states and the midwest you can harvest wind. In fact there really aren't any states that you can't put up a turbine and get electricity. I think that it's about time we started doing so:shrug:

Yes, we need to start practicing more conservation, and we do our part. But if this issue ever comes to my state, I will oppose it. Sure, that might be selfish, but gee, I think I'll make up for it with the wind turbine I've got out on my back forty;)

I'm in the same boat.

And I really hope this law doesn't become popular. I know that this is pretty unscientific, but on this thread we've now had four people for whom CFLs would cause major problems. Out of a thread of sixty posts. That's a pretty hefty percentage that this law would be adversely affecting.

because those of us whom it would adversely effect are complaining loudly! :)

But, yeah, I do think the percentage is going to be high. I already have to limit my time in public spaces that are fluorescent lighted. Including my doctor's office!

I have received skin lesions (non scarring) from sitting under these lights for 3+ hours even though I was wearing factor 36 sunscreen. I get glare sensitive/headaches/nausea and severe joint swelling from UV exposure.

If everybody switches to this type of lighting I am, as they say, screwn.

Their "flicker" rate is a migraine trigger. I always have the maintenance guys take them out over my desk at my office.

where the fuck are we going to be able to go? I'll need a burka made out of Coolibar fabric.

Just as we can still get untaxed cigarettes. I buy most of my firearms and ammunition and tools and car parts that way. It saves a whole lot of money.

Not until you see the actual bill text.

Most of our new laws have to go through several revision cycles to get most of the bugs ironed out.

Frankly I think criminalizing incandescents would be a retarded way to go. Much better to use economic incentives to get people to do the right thing, than to threaten them with fines or imprisonment.

Such as outdoors during an upper mid-west winter or in a fixture with a dimmer (I know that they now make dimmable CFLs, but the cost is outrageous.) I replaced all of the bulbs in my basement with CFL models. Instead of seven 60-watt bulbs I now have twelve 17-watt. In the bathroom I used to use two 75-watt incandescent bulbs, I now use five 17-watt CFLs. On the enclosed porch I replaced four 75-watt bulbs with eight 17-watt CFLs. In each case the lighting is now more even, but not as bright, which is more bothersome as I get older.

I really like the CFLs for rough duty such as garage door openers where motor vibration is so hard on incandescent bulbs, but again, the cold make them very dim. During the winter I change the outside lights and the barn lights back to incandescent because of the lack of light from the CFLs.

During the winter what I really enjoy is one of my small infernal lamps, but it frightens the hell out of people and animals, so I only get to play with them while home alone. Truly an energy waster, but tons of fun, and how I do love the smell of ozone, burning insulation, and boiling oil on a cold January night.



Regards, Mugu

I light my whole house with LED's from a single 12volt battery charged up with a small
solar panel (and a charger that plugs into the wall socket when the weather is
un-cooperative).
I have marginally poor eyesight but can read paperbacks outdoors in the sunshine
and under an LED reading light without the aid or spectacles and couldn't do that
with incans or CFL's, although I haven't tried any of the 'full spectrum' CFL's and they
are touted to be flicker free and of the right light for us oldsters with fading eyes.

Store bought, ready to use:
http://www.ccrane.com/lights/led-light-bulbs/index.aspx#chart


If you are a gearhead, tinkerer roll your own kinda place:
http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_lighting_leds.html

There are many more sites that offer them. google-up LED

that I have set up with LEDs for emergency lighting. They’re just too expensive yet for general use and I personally don’t like their color (of the ones that I've seen.) But there’s no doubt that their day is coming soon and everybody will forget about CFLs.

Regards, Mugu

also some boat lighting where the boat uses 110 volt AC or any lamp that has to endure temperature of vibration extremes. The electronics on CFLs and some LEDs just can't take it.

but I was constantly replacing the garage door opener light when using incandescent, but have used the same CFL for longer than I can remember.

Regards, Mugu

So far this winter, my CFL lights that I installed outside next to the Front door, Side door, and Kitchen Door all have performed rather well. Installed them this summer. The one by the front door was really problematic, incandescent bulbs always burnt out because of the steel door, and the vibration was just too much.

I live in Missouri, and so far suffered a rather severe ice storm, and temps for the past two weeks bare reach up to the mid 20s, most of the time well below that. The only difference is that the bulbs take about 5 minutes to reach full illumination, but once "warmed up" they are fine.

(Can't go outside w/o sunglassess and hat.)

Yet I have a CDL in an antique standing lamp next to my computer. It does not bother my eyes at all.

I would love to put CDLs in all of my overhead lights, but a recent memo from the building manager stated from that date on, we had to change lightbulbs ourselves. And we are forbidden from using the building's ladder.

My ceiling is 11'. I am in a wheelchair. The majority of my neighbors are elderly. We are all poor.

Is there anything we can do before our building goes dark?

it's your exposure to UV. That light may cause your lupus to flare. ANY exposure to UV makes me ill. I wear sunscreen under my clothes or I wear special clothing.

As to your idiot building manager, are there renter's laws in your state?

then why do my eyes hurt? (I take it you know about Lupus?)

Where do I go to find out about renter's rights in Oregon? This isn't the 1st time she's done something idiotic. Moreover, she will not tell any of the tenets who her "boss" is.

to treat your lupus, the drugs make you extremely glare/light sensitive. They also make you itch.

The drugs can also damage your eyes necessitating regular visits to an opthomologist.

The inflammation of lupus could also make your eyes hurt.

UV exposure is very, very dangerous and you should very carefully apply sunscreen (even under your clothing), where 4"+ brim hats or carry parasol/umbrellas. Non scarring skin lesions and disease flares result from UV exposure.

It looks like I'm doing the right things, i.e. wear sun glasses, gloves and a (well recognized) wide brim hat. People have said to me, I saw you on tv last night! When actually they recognized my hat and assumed I was beneath it. lol

The only thing I can take for my Lupus is Diphenhydramine Hydrochloride, so no fear of itching.

P.S. Found the number to call for renter's rights.

for renter's help/info:

http://www.oregoncat.org/

Thanks again!

They need to come up with something that is energy saving and, at the same time, not as depressing as fluorescent bulbs.

:kick::kick::kick::kick:

they are very similar in lighting to incandescent...soft/yellow/calm lighting.

when they work w/ dimmer switches and don't vibrate. blech.

They are now brighter, no "vibrating", and come in soft incandescent-like tones.

fixtures and bulbs. Way to go, apartment management! To me they look exactly the same as incandescent ones, as far as the light goes. We don't pay for electricity, so they're also saving themselves some money.

This makes me SO happy.

When I was working property management we installed a super-efficient water heater that was projected to save $10k in five years. That for a $4k install cost on a water heater slated for replacement anyway was a great deal.

The energy efficiency of the nations millions of rental units needs to be addressed. These are the poorest people who are living in some of the least efficient housing.

:-)

It may seem rough on first look because compact flouros cost much more, on average $3-4 bucks each. Yet In the end it cost much less. I buy 1 compact flouro and she lasts about 5 years, and runs on a 1/4 less energy. By comparison i changed incandescent lights burnt out every couple months, and used 3 x's as much power. On the long term you save a load, have less trouble, and have much more choice in bulb color(kelvin rating.}

Honestly i can't see why most folks have not switched on their own.

lightbulbs were really small space heaters that gave of a small amount of light as a byproduct. His point was that the heat-to-light ration was terribly inefficient if light was the point.

we replaced everything a while ago. They actually had compact fluorescent lightbulbs on sale at Albertsons, 4 for $1 and we stocked up. They also seem to last way longer than the incandescent bulbs.

I think it is a great idea.

edit for incorrect price - yes they were really $1 for 4 bulbs

to produce heat AND light. :) Other than that, I'm cool with it.

*edit*
And of course for the medical reasons mentioned above... yeesh, didn't even think of that. :\

it's object lesson time

the only problem then there'd be a good argument to be made but there's lots of stuff that could be changed to reduce CO2. Think of the number of things in each home that never totally shut down, even when off, like microwaves, TVs, PCs, phones, chargers. Why not go after these culprits? Rather than signaling out one thing why not give people financial incentive to cut power. Why not give people a huge reduction on their electrical bill if they use an infinitesimally small amount of electricity? Consumers of electricity would then incentive to get creative about cutting electrical usage.

Just a very small portion of the population is bothered by them, and even for them the risks are minimal.

Global Warming poses a health risk for all of us.

In 2001, lighting accounted for 101 billion kWh (8.8%) of U.S. household electricity use. Incandescent lamps, which are commonly found in households, are highly inefficient sources of light because about 90% of the energy used is lost as heat. For that reason, lighting has been one focus of efforts to increase the efficiency of household electricity consumption.

Energy-efficient light bulbs use up to 67% less energy that traditional light bulbs, with no loss in light. They also last 8 to 10 times longer, delivering up to seven years of light.
This campaign has been established in order to illustrate that it is possible to tackle our energy and climate problems by using technological solutions which already exist, work well + save money.

However, in order to kick-start this change we must begin to turn fine words and good intentions into action. Hinting at possible solutions, but not being prepared to introduce the new laws and taxes or the binding targets necessary to guarantee the delivery of far greater energy-efficiency, has not worked.

Switching to energy-efficient light bulbs is something that we could all do, quickly and simply, without any serious loss in our quality of life. We would also save ourselves approximately £7 per bulb per year!

An average American home has about 30 light bulbs, 3 of them burning for 5 hours or more per day. If all American homes replaced just 3 of these bulbs with long-lasting bulbs, Americans could save electricity equivalent to the output of 11 fossil-fuel-fired power plants. In turn they would eliminate about 23 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year - and save about $1,800,000,000.
ref: Natural Capitalism by Hawken, Lovins and Lovins.
***
more: http://www.banthebulb.org/