The BIG LIE.

[pgriz]

There was no good reason the gov't needed to swoop in and outlaw tungsten bulb. not one*. and if you try to refute with efficiency/energy savings, then you really have no grasp on the issue.

Not so sure that I would agree with you. Considering how many bulbs there are across the country, and considering that the supply of energy requires building new power plants that are usually subsidized by the state, it makes sense for the government to try and reduce the consumption by almost any means possible. A 90% reduction in energy use for lighting is not going to be trivial on the national scale. Granted, GE probably did an excellent lobbying job on the committees and lawmakers that wrote this legislation, but the same imperative exists in promoting other sources of energy such as solar and geothermal, AND for enforcing energy standards for home heating/cooling, appliance efficiency and similar consumers of electricity.

If I look at the USA energy consumption budget (2012 numbers), roughly 70% of the total electrical energy consumption was in residential and commercial useage. The estimates are that about 60% of that are for heating and lighting. If we assume that lighting is at least 10% of that, then that represents about 160 TWh of energy use per year. The Hoover Dam has an average 4.2TWh capacity annually. So by reducing energy consumption of light by 90%, there exists the possibility of lowering the light portion of energy consumption to maybe 16TWh. That's a lot of generating capacity that won't have to be built.

Given that it appears that coal supplies 41% of the electrical energy and natural gas another 25%, this anticipates that reduction in generating capacity can be done in the most polluting and least efficient plants. I'm thinking that was certainly on the minds of lawmakers.

 

[Braineack]

But you're not considering how much energy is used to produce and recycle a CFL bulb over a halogon or tungesten. the savings are nulled--espeically when these bulbs aren't lasting 8 times longer like suggested.

 

[photoguy99]

Actually measuring the energy cost to make something is notoriously difficult. Simply using the retail cost as a measure isn't any less accurate than anything else.

So if the total lifetime costs of using the product are less, it almost certainly uses less energy over its lifetime.

 

[soufiej]

But you're not considering how much energy is used to produce and recycle a CFL bulb over a halogon or tungesten. the savings are nulled--espeically when these bulbs aren't lasting 8 times longer like suggested.

As indicated in this thread, if the lamps "aren't lasting 8 times longer like suggested" there's a good chance it is user error to blame. The media is just not lighting up with complaints about CFL's lifespan.

Recycling uses energy in a negative way? Now you've really been listening to Alex Jones too much. Just say it and hope everyone believes you.

 

[Braineack]

It's not user error when being a light bulb is a cause for failure.

• They fail from cycling of power on/off.
• They fail in humid areas.
• They fail with heat.
• They fail with cold.
• They fail on dimmer switches (even if they are dimmable).
• They fail with vibration.
• They fail because they are made with cheap parts.

And not only do they not live up to their lifespan estimates, they do not live up to their rated lumens (which degrades worse over time).

I have absolutely no problem with an alternative to incandescent light bulbs. I tend to use higher rated lumen bulbs in my rooms so an alternative to the fixture melting metering spinning bulbs was welcomed.

But I have a big problem being forced to switch to a product that's more expensive and does not give me the benefits I want from a light bulb. It didn't take an act of Congress to replace gas lighting with the Edison bulb--it shouldn't have taken an act of Congress to move to CFLs before the technology was ready, improved, and adopted by the market. I tried CFLs early on, and did not like them (nor did the market)--they had numerous issues. I was reluctant to move to them in 2012 but have generally been fine with them. It seems LED technology has come a long way in the last few years, but again, it shouldn't have been forced this way and the market should have worked naturally to get to this point.

 

[snowbear]

being forced to switch to a product that's more expensive and does not give me the benefits I want

. . . HDTV.

 

[pgriz]

As discussed elsewhere, the "free market" is quite distorted by the capital of the market makers, and with the short-term considerations of most of the participants. So for scenarios where the environment, or security of supply, or long-term trends are concerned, the "free market" usually doesn't work very well. The guidance for how to deal with the things the free market is not good at, sometimes comes from non-governmental organizations, but almost always they don't have the budgetary or legislative support to make much of a dent, so this comes back to government structures. Government structures are driven by government policy and budgets (much of this ideological, I might add), with a lot of influence from lobby groups, under-the-table arrangements and inherent self-protection that all bureaucracies have. It's a mess, but it's really the only one where the majority of citizens have some influence as far as the longer-term issues are concerned.

 

[Braineack]

Not HDTV, but digital TV in general and I didn't like that either. The market was full of low-quality overpriced flat TVs there for a while. And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market.

The guise there was better quality TV for consumers. The truth was the gov't was selling now available bandwidth (which is way it was part of the deficit reduction act).

Ironically, Pres-Elect Obama spoke out against the deadline saying consumers wouldn't be ready for the switch

Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know.

 

[Braineack]

It's a mess, but it's really the only one where the majority of citizens have some influence as far as the longer-term issues are concerned.

Dont worry, we have a thing called executive orders to take care of that

 

[soufiej]

It's not user error when being a light bulb is a cause for failure.

• They fail from cycling of power on/off.
• They fail in humid areas.
• They fail with heat.
• They fail with cold.
• They fail on dimmer switches (even if they are dimmable).
• They fail with vibration.
• They fail because they are made with cheap parts.

And not only do they not live up to their lifespan estimates, they do not live up to their rated lumens (which degrades worse over time).

I have absolutely no problem with an alternative to incandescent light bulbs. I tend to use higher rated lumen bulbs in my rooms so an alternative to the fixture melting metering spinning bulbs was welcomed.

But I have a big problem being forced to switch to a product that's more expensive and does not give me the benefits I want from a light bulb. It didn't take an act of Congress to replace gas lighting with the Edison bulb--it shouldn't have taken an act of Congress to move to CFLs before the technology was ready, improved, and adopted by the market. I tried CFLs early on, and did not like them (nor did the market)--they had numerous issues. I was reluctant to move to them in 2012 but have generally been fine with them. It seems LED technology has come a long way in the last few years, but again, it shouldn't have been forced this way and the market should have worked naturally to get to this point.

You make a lot of claims and offer no proof. I have an email which indicates you had posted, " ... helmet laws have increased medical costs." You must have realized how ignorant that claim was since I can't find it in the thread now. Just do some basic research, "helmet laws increase/decrease medical costs"; Freakonomics Fewer Helmets Higher Healthcare Costs

You just post stuff. You think people will believe what you post when it's absolutely absurd BS that you are making up as you go along. Every "reason" you give for failure of CFL's is made up BS. Prove just one of them. You simply can't. For every reason which might cause a CFL failure, the same reason might cause an incandescent failure.

You cannot have it both ways.


"Not HDTV, but digital TV in general and I didn't like that either. The market was full of low-quality overpriced flat TVs there for a while. And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market.

The guise there was better quality TV for consumers. The truth was the gov't was selling now available bandwidth (which is way it was part of the deficit reduction act).

Ironically, Pres-Elect Obama spoke out against the deadline saying consumers wouldn't be ready for the switch

Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."



I was selling high end audio and video at the time HDTV, or more correctly "digital" standards were introduced and I can tell you once again your ideas are simply BS. Deficit reduction act? Pleeease! Read this; "The Deficit Reduction Act includes provisions to complete the conversion from analog to digital television. The legislation takes part of the bandwidth spectrum currently used by television stations and makes it a dedicated new spectrum for public safety communications, performing a vital public service and fulfilling a critical recommendation of the 9/11 Commission."; Project Vote Smart - The Voter s Self Defense System

Like most "deficit reduction" proposals, the DRA focused on cutting social programs first and foremost. I suppose, if you look at anything from a perspective that government is always bad and always has its jack bootted heel on your throat, you can even find a way to believe the idea of providing first responders with radio frequencies shared by all services is still a bad idea. If you don't remember, Alan Greenspan warned of paying down the deficit too quickly back in the late 1990's. Then we had a change in administration. The rest is history and a debt we must live with for a very, very long time.

"Digital" television was first deadlined to become the broadcast standard for the US many years before it actually came to pass. The US was really the last major industrialized nation to switch to a digital broadcast standard. The delay was due to many factors, not the least of which was the major networks which were feeling the shrinking market effects of cable and satellite television, simply putting off investing in a technology which had little to offer them from a profit standpoint. They weren't investing in new equipment which meant they weren't broadcasting in digital. However, the market for high end video is largely driven by a small contingent of techies who were adapting the higher resolution formats of Laser Disc and later DVD. And looking at the rest of the world and asking why the US was lagging behind all others. The rest of the industry was dragged kicking and screaming along with the inevitable switch to HDTV. When the broadcast frequencies for standard definition television were vacated, the FCC sold - as is the FFC's mandate - broadcast frequencies which included the growing cell phone and radio frequency operated devices which were becoming significant players in the market.

Once again, the government did not stand in the aisles of the electronics stores - I would have bumped into them daily if they had - and forced anyone to make the switch to digital television. You can still run a standard def TV set through a converter and view the major network broadcasts in low def. You can use one of the many internet providers for TV material and ignore all broadcast and cable/satellite providers all together. Check the smaller broadcasters in your local market, usually the UHF channels. They were not mandated to fully make the switch and you can still see their output in standard definition quality. The FCC controls the broadcasts frequencies because these belong to the people of the United States, they are what we call "commons".

(The commons is a new way to express a very old idea—that some forms of wealth belong to all of us, and that these community resources must be actively protected and managed for the good of all; About the Commons On the Commons

If you truly object to the FCC, then you must surely also object to the FDA which keeps unsafe drugs from being sold to the public. Or any other federal, state or local agency which says the public good is of value over the profits at all costs free market. If so, once again, Alex Jones is missing you.

*

To tie these two statements together in the same argument shows how poorly you've reasoned the issue ...

"And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market."

"Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."

Of course we wouldn't have had 4k TV's 5-10 years ago. First, no one is broadcasting in 4k. No one is even producing hard copy material in 4k. 4k TV is not an existent commodity for 99.9% of the public. Why would we have 4k TV if 99.9% of us can't have it? If you are in the small percentage of the populace who do not even own a computer, you would have no access to 4k TV as it now exists. When the vast majority of us can't make use of it? When 99.9% of us would be "forced" to spend money for something we don't want, don't need and can't use. 4k TV is not a universal right as is the right to live a healthy and prosperous existence.

Digital TV technology was phased in gradually and people could make use of higher def TV's long before the final switch was thrown and standard def broadcasts largely became a matter of history. It took decades to make digital TV a reality. There are no plans for 4k TV broadcasts. It's not government's job to chase down every sales pitch made by a sinking business plan industry.

The available bandwidth for 4k wasn't commercially available ten years ago.

And, most importantly, 4k exists because 3-D was a bust for the video industry. People got tired of buying new copies of The White Album every time a new audio format came to market. They also got tired of replacing their entire video collection every time a new video technology was proclaimed to be the hottest and greatest invention yet. The US buying public has rather recently replaced most of their televisions with flat screen technology after the prices plummeted due to the growing over supply of flat screen TV's produced by the Asian manufacturers. The US buying public seems unwilling to go out and invest in yet another technology which has proven itself to be transitory in nature. They've seen their old video and audio devices become obsolete too quickly and too often. Sales are slumping for new televisions and the manufacturers must constantly have a new reason to invest in new technology. 4K is this year's gambit.

It is, however, a bizarre twist to say no one was broadcasting in HD when HD was introduced - they were if they wanted their product to be seen - yet we could have 4k now if only the government hadn't been involved.

You can't have it both ways.

More BS with no proof is what I expect from you. Proof is all in your mind and you, and the few like you, who see government as "tyrannical", will always have an irrational reason to believe what you prefer to believe. Proof is merely what you make of it and truth is not important when it comes to believing.

 

[Braineack]

Light bulb Facts

Highlights:

Can I turn my CFL on and off frequently?
Turning a CFL on and off frequently can shorten its life. To take full advantage of the energy savings and long life of CFLs, it is best to use them in light fixtures you use the most – lights you leave on for at least 15 minutes at a time.

regular use of light bulbs shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

Can I use Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) in the bathroom?
You can use CFLs in bathrooms; however, high humidity can shorten the life of CFLs. To avoid moisture problems, control humidity in your bathroom by running your ventilating fan or opening a window during and 15 minutes after showers and baths.

regular use of them in bathrooms shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

Does temperature or humidity affect the life of a CFL? For example, would a CFL work in extremely cold temperatures, or extremely wet climates?
Extreme temperatures can affect CFLs. Some CFLs can be used outside in temperatures down to –10 degrees Fahrenheit and up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, though when it is very cold they may take longer to reach full brightness. There are some CFLs that are weatherproof and can be used outside where exposed to rain, so check for “weatherproof” models before installing it in your outdoor spot light.

Can I use my CFL in a totally enclosed fixture?
Before using a CFL in a totally enclosed fixture, you should consult the product packaging. CFLs that are not designed for totally enclosed fixtures will state that on the package. Because totally enclosed fixtures do not allow air to circulate around the lamp, it causes heat to build up, which can lead to performance issues.

use in "extreme" atmospheres shortens the lifespan of the light bulb and affects performance.

from GE: FAQ Lighting Information GE Lighting North America

Can I use a CFL in applications involving vibration such as a ceiling fan or garage door opener?
Generally it is not recommended to use CFLs in vibrating environments. Vibration can cause the electronics in the CFL to fail. There is one CFL bulb (FLE11) that is available for use in a ceiling fan. Check the package for this application.

regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

I think that addresses all my bullet points; I didn't make any of it up.

2 seconds in google found me this: CFLs Are Your New Bulbs Burning Out Light Bulbs for Home

pretty much the exact bullet list I posted. There are limitations to CFL bulbs that should be considered.

 

[Braineack]

To tie these two statements together in the same argument shows how poorly you've reasoned the issue ...

"And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market."

"Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."

does it?

The first statement suggests that the technology was still very new and the early adopters were just testing it out. I had HDTV back in like 2004, I remember having about 10 HD channels (which I paid extra for) and maybe 1/50th of the new programming was actually filmed in HD. My plasma TV has 4:3 bars burned into it.

The second statement merely suggests that it's possible that the law actually slowed innovation of the HD technology.

Together they suggest that it's possible that without the law it's possible that the technology could have naturally advanced, faster, to the point it is today as companies had to focus on complying with the current standards and put less focus on advancing.

 

[soufiej]

Light bulb Facts

Highlights:

Can I turn my CFL on and off frequently?
Turning a CFL on and off frequently can shorten its life. To take full advantage of the energy savings and long life of CFLs, it is best to use them in light fixtures you use the most – lights you leave on for at least 15 minutes at a time.

regular use of light bulbs shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

Can I use Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs) in the bathroom?
You can use CFLs in bathrooms; however, high humidity can shorten the life of CFLs. To avoid moisture problems, control humidity in your bathroom by running your ventilating fan or opening a window during and 15 minutes after showers and baths.

regular use of them in bathrooms shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

Does temperature or humidity affect the life of a CFL? For example, would a CFL work in extremely cold temperatures, or extremely wet climates?
Extreme temperatures can affect CFLs. Some CFLs can be used outside in temperatures down to –10 degrees Fahrenheit and up to 120 degrees Fahrenheit, though when it is very cold they may take longer to reach full brightness. There are some CFLs that are weatherproof and can be used outside where exposed to rain, so check for “weatherproof” models before installing it in your outdoor spot light.

Can I use my CFL in a totally enclosed fixture?
Before using a CFL in a totally enclosed fixture, you should consult the product packaging. CFLs that are not designed for totally enclosed fixtures will state that on the package. Because totally enclosed fixtures do not allow air to circulate around the lamp, it causes heat to build up, which can lead to performance issues.

use in "extreme" atmospheres shortens the lifespan of the light bulb and affects performance.

from GE: FAQ Lighting Information GE Lighting North America

Can I use a CFL in applications involving vibration such as a ceiling fan or garage door opener?
Generally it is not recommended to use CFLs in vibrating environments. Vibration can cause the electronics in the CFL to fail. There is one CFL bulb (FLE11) that is available for use in a ceiling fan. Check the package for this application.

regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

I think that addresses all my bullet points; I didn't make any of it up.

2 seconds in google found me this: CFLs Are Your New Bulbs Burning Out Light Bulbs for Home

pretty much the exact bullet list I posted. There are limitations to CFL bulbs that should be considered.

No, it does nothing of the sort. For every "bullet point", the same conditions apply to any lamp.

"regular use of light bulbs shortens the lifespan of the light bulb."

The more you shock the filament of an incandescent lamp, the sooner it will burn out. No great mystery there.

"regular use of them in bathrooms shortens the lifespan of the light bulb"

How is this different than the same conditions met with an incandescent lamp? Moisture? Condensation? Lamps of all sorts are sealed envelopes and what affects one will also affect others. Is this truly a mystery to you?

Read what you've posted, specialized lamps exist for specialized conditions. That applies to all lamp technologies.

"use in 'extreme' atmospheres shortens the lifespan of the light bulb and affects performance."

You have absolutely no knowledge of how lamps operate, do you? Put any lamp in an enclosed fixture and it will limit its life. Heat builds up and causes pre-mature failure. If the user mis-uses a lamp, it is not the fault of the technology that is the problem here. You are going out of your way to find issues which don't exist only in CFL's.

"regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb."

It's not the socket that matters. If the socket is experiencing vibration, all lamps will fail early unless you use "ruggedized" lamps. All lamps have these same restrictions. All lamps.


"regular use of them in a common socket shortens the lifespan of the light bulb.

I think that addresses all my bullet points; I didn't make any of it up."


But you did make up the idea this only applies to CFL's. That someone can look at facts and be so irresponsible in their take away is really sad.

 

[soufiej]

To tie these two statements together in the same argument shows how poorly you've reasoned the issue ...

"And the majority of broadcasters weren't even filming in HD yet, as again, it was still early in the market."

"Had the law not passed, it's possible that we'd of had 4K TVs 5-10 years ago, but we'll never really know."

does it?

The first statement suggests that the technology was still very new and the early adopters were just testing it out. I had HDTV back in like 2004, I remember having about 10 HD channels (which I paid extra for) and maybe 1/50th of the new programming was actually filmed in HD. My plasma TV has 4:3 bars burned into it.

The second statement merely suggests that it's possible that the law actually slowed innovation of the HD technology.

Together they suggest that it's possible that without the law it's possible that the technology could have naturally advanced, faster, to the point it is today as companies had to focus on complying with the current standards and put less focus on advancing.

So, it's the fault of who or what when you had to pay for "pay" TV?

So, it's who or what's fault that you burned 4:3 bars into your TV monitor? You made the choice to set the monitor, no one else. No jack booted whatever was standing there making you set the TV. Can you not accept fault for anything YOU actually do on your own?

No, the "law" - which isn't a "law" at all - did not slow 4k technology. 4k exists because 3-D failed. Time to move to another reason to buy a new TV. That's the free market in case you can't recognize it when you refer to it. You just keep making up more and more BS and hoping someone with no common sense actually believes you. Government did not "control" technology. Technology already existed in other countries and in the manufacturer's products before the FCC came to a conclusion on the acceptable standard for US broadcasts. You really shouldn't talk about things when you obviously do not know a wit about the subject and you are obviously so unwilling to actually read up before you post.

"Together they suggest that it's possible that without the law it's possible that the technology could have naturally advanced, faster, to the point it is today as companies had to focus on complying with the current standards and put less focus on advancing."

HUH???!!! They wouldn't have had to focus on current technology if they were foscused on advancing technology? You have got to be kidding!

The manufacturers were not focusing on "current technology". They already had the technology in other countries and the US was the only major market where they weren't already selling the technology. Manufacturers were actually quite happy when the US entered the market and they no longer were required to produce "special technology" only for the US market, which was and remains the single largest sales market for darned near any product. Again, don't say anything if you don't know what you are talking about. Technology is several years ahead of production. Is that really a surprise to you?

 

[tirediron]

Geezzzzzzzzzzz... go outside and take some pictures you two! Either that, or get a room!