Light Bulbs to be outlawed in the USA on 1/1/14

[Pix]

I'm not sure what to think about the new bulbs, but I am sure that the governments of the world are doing it because they're bribed to, at least in the USA (and given how the world politicians were obviously screwing over the environment in obvious ways while meeting to discuss it in Amsterdam I don't think that sort of corruption & callousness is restricted to the US)...are mandating the shift for environmental reasons but for sophisticated bribery (sometimes called "special interest money"). That has a long tradition that I'm sure reaches back into prehistory. And something many forget is that Bush was actually a tougher champion of the environment than Gore back in the 2000 election with him wanting to sign the Kyoto Treaty but that was because he was Enron's bitch who stood to make billions in just a few years if it were signed...once Enron collapsed then Bush's views "evolved" to no longer believe in global warming. (Btw, I don't believe Gore gives a damn about the environment either or even believes his own words.)

Whether CFLs are more friendly to the environment probably doesn't even factor into it. I can understand the argument that they are (though that's not why they're mandated) because it saves on energy and makes less bulbs for the landfills, and yet...mercury. They're supposed to be disposed of a certain way but too many people are throwing them into the garbage like regular bulbs, and worse, I've seen some smashed in parks and streets. And mercury is a cumulative toxin, that is to say it's true a single bulb breaking isn't worth worrying about, but mercury builds up and that which is in nature can get into the ecosystem (once it's in the animals then it can eventually wind up coming back to our food) and more importantly I'm wondering what a million of CFLs with mercury in the landfill (where they're technically not supposed to go) will do? Of course I can hope the bulbs will be perfected so it's not an issue but the pattern is the corporations won't go to the expense unless forced to.

[Eth21]

I don't even remember the old ones tho I won't lie it is annoying that lights have to 'warm up' before they reach there full brightness... But I guess it's just one of those things that ppl jus don't like change.

[Chase]

Don't worry about this law. I know, I know, I work in the power industry so when this law goes in effect people everywhere will buy less electricity from the power company. But don't worry, we'll just jack the price of electricity up on everybody, so it should be fine.

I wonder if I can by stock in that light bulb company that will be selling all the legal light bulbs once people can't buy the old illegal ones. Better act fast.

.

[MisterTinkles]

A hundred times more?
From what I've seen, ten times more at most on initial purchase, and cheaper in the long run.
Better for the environment too.
If it wasn't for being more expensive on purchase, this would be a complete no-brainer.

I can buy a 4 pack of standard "old fashioned" light bulbs for $1.00, that is .25 cents a bulb. Those new bulbs cost anywhere from $10 to $50 EACH, and MORE!

I tried one of these "energy saving" bulbs before.....it was SO dim, I couldnt see shit!!
And it was the same wattage as the standard bulbs I buy!! It was worthless. I dont care what the wattage is on these new bulbs, it takes 2-4 of them to equal the same light output as ONE standard bulb. And on TOP of that....the damned thing BURNED out after 3 weeks of use!!!!

Most of my standard bulbs have been going for 5 years or more!

So ONE pack of standard bulbs are not only CHEAPER, they last LONGER than ONE of those crappy, government scam bulbs!

[MisterTinkles]

Its a shame things that are good should always be more expensive, apart from the best things which are free

Thats the other part of it......it costs the SAME to produce these "energy efficient" bulbs, as it does the standard ones, but yet they are charging a hell of a lot more for them!!!

Just another government scam to screw more money out of people.

And IF they DO save money, it is negligible. SUPPOSEDLY these new bulbs are supposed to last 10-20 years.......the government CLAIMS that just using ONE of these bulbs will save you $50 over the life of the bulb. Thats only about $5 a year, probably a lot less!!! That is NOT a significant enough savings to be forcing people to use these things.

As I said, its just another government scam to screw more money out of people who already cant afford it.

[MisterTinkles]

Don't worry about this law. I know, I know, I work in the power industry so when this law goes in effect people everywhere will buy less electricity from the power company. But don't worry, we'll just jack the price of electricity up on everybody, so it should be fine.

I wonder if I can by stock in that light bulb company that will be selling all the legal light bulbs once people can't buy the old illegal ones. Better act fast.

.

The price of electricity goes up every year, so it doesnt matter. Ive been trying to get a job in the utilities industry for years.


As far as buying stock....thats a good idea!!!!!
How do you buy stock?

[southbiochem]

The price of electricity goes up every year, so it doesnt matter

*Sigh*....you just made me think about this:

the less water available and the more expensive oil gets...yep...electricity will be high accordingly...

and the choice is what? tear forests down to have bioethanol instead?..and once we run out of forests, oil and everything else?..

things like this make me not want to think...

on the other hand we could work avidly in less expensive friendly ways to use non-exhaustible energy sources....all that sun UV is being all but wasted on skin cancer....

[MisterTinkles]

*Sigh*....you just made me think about this:

the less water available and the more expensive oil gets...yep...electricity will be high accordingly...

and the choice is what? tear forests down to have bioethanol instead?..and once we run out of forests, oil and everything else?..

things like this make me not want to think...

on the other hand we could work avidly in less expensive friendly ways to use non-exhaustible energy sources....all that sun UV is being all but wasted on skin cancer....

Well, you can blame the oil/gas/electric and global corporations for these problems.

Anytime anyone has ever developed or tried to produce anything that is "waste free", solar driven, or made from recycled garbage......the governments look "the other way" so these satanic corporations can kill, maim, and destroy those who would attempt to put them out of business.

And for those of you who need "proof" ----

From Wikpedia:
Garrett electrolytic carburetor
Charles H. Garrett allegedly demonstrated a water-fueled car "for several minutes", which was reported on September 8, 1935, in The Dallas Morning News. The car generated hydrogen by electrolysis as can be seen by examining Garrett's patent, issued that same year. This patent includes drawings which show a carburetor similar to an ordinary float-type carburetor but with electrolysis plates in the lower portion, and where the float is used to maintain the level of the water.

Other "water engine" designers that got kicked down by the oil industry:
Stanley Meyer
Dennis Klein


Back in the early 1980's a man developed a washing machine that cleaned clothes with 1/4 of the water used by standard machines, and used NO detergents of any kind. He was FORCED by what he called "detergent magnates" to destroy his work, his records, his notes, and never practice inventing again, otherwise "something" would happen to his family.
This was a program that was on the Discovery Channel back then. The program was about all these types of inventions that corporations "disappeared" because they were afraid it would put them out of business.
I looked for this program online, Youtube, and even Discovery Channel.com, but I didnt find it. I guess its been too long, and so far back now, that even the story has been "disappeared". I will contact Discovery Channel though, to see if they have this show in their archives....but I doubt it, the corporations probably saw fit to "disappear" the show too.

Another guy that was on the same show had to be interviewed in the dark, with his voice distorted. He had developed a solar powered vehicle that did not need oil, gas, or a battery (except for starting it up). He claimed the "Big 3" (Ford, GM, Chrysler) sent "men in black" to his home, burned it to the ground while him and his family watched....and told him if he ever ever built this vehicle again or told anybody about it for development, his family would get "burned" next.

Make no mistake..........government is a product of greedy, egocentric, conglomerates.
It has been since the 1950's, if not before.

Things have only started to change for the "greener" now, because that is what the consumer is screaming for, and all the "green" organizations are fighting for. Sometimes the conglomerates have to "give in" on some things, but they make it where THEY will benefit from it, anyway it goes.

Moral of the story:
"Green" energy technology has been around since the 1930's, if not earlier. Government, which is bought and paid for and ran by conglomerates, have made sure that this kind of technology gets "discovered" when THEY see fit. And when THEY see "fit" is when THEY will make the most money off of it.

[EvenOlderButWiser]

Most of my standard bulbs have been going for 5 years or more!

Not switching them on doesn't count ;-)

ObW
x

[nfisher1226]

Both CFL's and LED bulbs are significantly more complicated than the venerable incandescent bulb. So one can expect higher cost and a higher failure rate.

The mercury problem is sickening. The government knew damn well people weren't going to be disposing of the CFL's in the recommended manner. They're all going to be just thrown in the landfill.

LED holds much higher promise, but the complexity is a huge drawback. Each bulb must essentially have it's own power supply if we are to continue to use screw base bulbs. This issue could be designed around quite easily, by making new fixtures specifically for LED lights that incorporate their own power supply and doing away with the screw base for those fixtures. Putting a cluster of LED's into a screw base "bulb" is really pretty dumb when the fact that you're using LED's means the little lights could be arranged in almost limitless ways. There's a whole world of design possibilities that are not even being explored because .... well who knows why? People lack creativity maybe.

Generally, any time government mandates technology they fuck it up because the people making the laws don't understand the technology. Rather than understand the technology, they take the advice of "experts" who are by and large employed somewhere that stands to make a fortune. Outlawing the incandescent bulb pretty much goes against every principle of freedom and a free market economy, too.

The trucking industry is another example of this sort of problem. They're now resorting to urea injectors in diesel engines in order to meet emission standards. So basically, we have piss injected truck engines.

The layers of technology that are mandated by the government create a lot of other problems nobody is talking about. The more complex the machine, the less reliable it will be over time. I don't give a fuck how fuel efficient a new car is compared to an old car when the old car could stay on the road for 40-50 years reliably if well maintained, compared with a maximum realistic figure of maybe 10 years for a new car. Anyone care to guess how much energy is expended in the manufacture of a new car? Basically it kind of negates the entire energy savings of the higher efficiency newer car.

Speaking of cars, I think we crossed a rubicon when air bags were mandated. It's one thing to madate seat belts, which are basically a couple fasteners and a nylon belt. Not much can go wrong in the manufacture of a seat belt, and over it's life span the distinct lack of moving parts or fragile electronics means it's not likely going to wear out. It's another to mandate the complexity of an air bag. Anyone care to guess how reliable a 20 year old air bag system might be?