FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It

[gatorback]

oh man I can't believe I was tricked by liberals from New York again!

Let's go back to high school physics, shall we?  Force = Mass x Velocity.

In an accident you want the force to be as low as possible. SUV's have changed the equation by increasing the mass and therefore increasing the force. So now people driving around in regular cars are getting in accidents with large SUV's and dying.

I guess the only solution is to drive an SUV... if you want to live.

Try getting T-boned by a toyota camery in say a honda civic.  Bet you'd rather have been in an Excursion or even better that new Caddy Escallade Pick Up Truck huh.

Plus, with the coming of the water don't you want to be up off the ground?

[Lunican]

Try getting T-boned in an Excursion by an Excursion. That wouldn't be pretty either.

or this...

http://www.youtube.com/v/Gtv14ZM8DNI

[Lunican]

Interesting website.  It looks like it is a private website belonging to some liberal New York couple:

Very credible.   

Sorry RG, I couldn't find any Jacksonville Conservative writings on this subject.

[second_pancake]

second_pancake:  did you change your avatar because of what that lady said to you?  I hope not.  I like whatever avatar you have as long as it’s you.  Mine of course is all me! 

I went to UF.  I was the gatorback my freshmen year.  The title is given to the fastest cyclist in the bicycle class that term.  I love to ride.  I blog to educate people on the benefits of cycling.  I bike to work given good weather.

I own a 2000 model year P38.  That's the top of the line Range Rover.  It's almost 3 tons of British steel, aluminum, leather wood, etc.   It's so nice to drive.  It says what I want to say(we can still do that, it's America).  Yes, it gets 13 miles per gallon at best.  It's safe with like 8 airbags and anti-locking breaks, and Stability Control.   The car even starts humping itself (actuating the air-suspension) when it thinks it getting stuck.  The SUV's you're talking about are old without these new safety features and mostly the problem we got into trouble with was underinflated tires.  If you lowered the tire pressure, the ride was better.  That smooth ride cost a lot of people their life.

With the safety features of my Range Rover I can get anywhere.  I know most SUVs don't see more then the side of a soccer field but not mine.  I'm an out doors kind of guy.  I've never gotten stuck on my way to the lake house or off-roading with friends.  People still do that you know.

During the storms in Florida with the fallen trees, branches, and debris I was glad I had my range rover.  If somebody needed help I could offer it without worrying if the road conditions were ideal.  I'm not a doomsdayer, but get real, you better prepare youself for the future coming of the storms!


PS P38's are LEVs.  My car polutes the same amount as an LEV Honda Civic. 

LOL.  Ok, you caught me.  Yes, I changed my avatar when I read her response, but I'm not sure it's for the reason you think.  I have a lot of avatars that are "me" and this is just another of many.  I changed the avatar because the subject matter was very much inline with the discussions between she and I...religion and my "agenda", lol. 

I think it's very cool that you actually use your SUV for its intended purpose!  If everyone did that, there would be fewer actually driving around on the streets.  Since you're a bike guy you'll understand this analogy; riding an SUV around on city streets is the equivalent of riding a full-suspension carbon-frame moutain bike with tubeless knobbies on the sidewalk. What's the point?  Anyway, what I REALLY want to know is, what's your OTHER ride?

Btw, I walked out this morning and quickly realized there isn't enough gear in my closet to even begin to think about riding in 28 degree weather.  Brrrr!!!

[Jason]

Wow, where did this thread go?  I've been away far too long and have some catching up to do.


Charelston, my response to your rebuttal:

Jason, the fact is that the government is creating an intrusive, pseudo-bandaid for a problem that will continue as long as people procreate. The government is also interfering with "freedom of choice" that so many people want in their lives.

You're right, the government is creating a pseudo-bandaid for a much larger problem, however, movements like this are the first step toward the ultimate goal of living more effeciently.  We can't outlaw SUVs, coal-fired power plants, and pollution generating industry in one fell swoop.  It takes baby steps.  The information I provided on page one is a great way for the consumer to do their part.

This bill will actually create more energy problems rather than solving them. The light bulb mandate is absolutely stupid, because it refuses to look at the other intangibles. First, incandescent bulbs generate more heat, so people who live in the colder climates will be affected. When they all convert to CFLs, they will have to run their heater more, thereby consuming more energy!!  Second, CFLs do not produce the best lighting for reading, so people's vision will be affected, resulting in more burdens to health care. River has addressed the car mandate in the bill rather well, so I won't go into that. However, it demonstrates how more problems will be created with this bill.

Ok, an incandescent lamp (light bulb) creates a fraction of the heat that your own body does and in the home plays an extremely small role in the heating of said home.  Besides, when heat is most necessary (at night) the lights are turned off.  The energy produced by lighting in the home really only affects your utility bill.  And if you use your lighting to help heat the house you will only be doing more harm to your utility bill by significantly increasing it.  If you leave all of the lighting in your home on all day you will consume more energy than running your heat full blast.  However, if you switch to CFLs you can run both much much cheaper.

Now, CFLs produce a higher quality and more effecient light than almost all incandescent lamps, period.  As I said before, there are many different types of CFLs that mimic the light spectrum of an incandescent lamp and are virtually undetectable unless you look at the lamp.  There has been no research done that I know of that suggests that fluorescent lighting causes eye damage.  A truer, more "white" light allows for much easier reading and fine detail work because the color spectrum in more complete, which is what fluorescent lighting does very well.  Why do you think office buildings, hospitals, kitchens, and other places where detailed tasks are done every day are all utilizing fluorescent lighting?  Trust me, fluorescent and LED lighting is far superior and much better for all of us.  Its my job to stay up to date on the latest lighting and power technologies so I do know what I'm talking about.

Jason, the bottomline is that the current power grid needs to be expanded and updated with nuclear power. That is a long-term, proven solution that will benefit everyone, plus it sets the energy industry standard, which will eventually make coal plants obsolete.

I partially disagree.  The power grid does NOT need to be expanded.  The current grid is sufficient and JEA is able to handle peak demand without buying power from our neighbors.  Development should be encouraged within the reaches of the current grid and sprawl should be disallowed.  Now I do agree with you on the necessity to upgrade to nuclear but that would be best discussed in another thread.

This bill is a means of government to change the lifestyles of people in the privacy of their own home. People still have the option to recycle...it's not mandated. This bill goes beyond that...changing the products that people use rather than giving them a choice to do so.

So tell me this, would you continue to use lead paint if it were allowed?  How about asbestos?  Asbestos would likely help with making your house much more energy effecient because of its fantastic insulating qualities.  Let's face it, the human race is lazy.  Without laws like these we would all still be using products that are known to harm those that use it and even those that chose not to use it.  I'm not a fan of the government having to protect people from their own bad choices, however, without the government's interference our lives and environment would be much less healthy and likely much shorter.  Now don't paint me as a tree hugger either.  I am a realist that has realized that our environment is the key to mankind's survival and if it goes, then we all do as well.

[gatorback]

So tell me this, would you continue to use lead paint if it were allowed?  How about asbestos?  Asbestos would likely help with making your house much more energy effecient because of its fantastic insulating qualities.  Let's face it, the human race is lazy.  Without laws like these we would all still be using products that are known to harm those that use it and even those that chose not to use it.  I'm not a fan of the government having to protect people from their own bad choices, however, without the government's interference our lives and environment would be much less healthy and likely much shorter.  Now don't paint me as a tree hugger either.  I am a realist that has realized that our environment is the key to mankind's survival and if it goes, then we all do as well.

Lead paint in the right applications sure.  I wouldn't want it below 4 ft where there a babies but, and you know it's a mess to remove that stuff so leaving it where it already is is probably a good idea.

Asbestos got a bad rap.  In fact the asbestos industry is sueing the cigarette industry to recover some of the damages that was really due to smoking.  Those 9" sq. tiles are now no longer consider asbostos containing materials.  Those tiles never wear out.

Government is the key?  I think free market got us there with a little help Uncle Sam.

[Lunican]

Freon has been banned in the United States since 1996.

[Jason]

Lead paint in the right applications sure.  I wouldn't want it below 4 ft where there a babies but, and you know it's a mess to remove that stuff so leaving it where it already is is probably a good idea.

Asbestos got a bad rap.  In fact the asbestos industry is sueing the cigarette industry to recover some of the damages that was really due to smoking.  Those 9" sq. tiles are now no longer consider asbostos containing materials.  Those tiles never wear out.

Government is the key?  I think free market got us there with a little help Uncle Sam.

My examples may be a bit extreme when compared to the impact of outlawing incandescent lighting but the principle is the same.  Sure lead paint, asbestos, freon, DDT, etc all have their uses but without the government's stance we would still be suffering these products negative side effects be those effect health related or other.  The side effects of incandescent lighting are that they produce an unneccessary strain on our power grid and our wallets.  Sure the free market will eventually move toward more efficient forms of lighting, however, a large step forward is necessary to help hurry the process along and move our nation toward being the proactive example as we used to be versus being the last to react to methods and processes being implemented by countries considered "third-world".

[Jason]

I didn't buy that strained eye cost point either.  A watt is  a watt is true and you get the energy savings from.... but if you don't have enough light you will hurt your eyes in the long run.  To not go blind you need illumination and you need it in the range of human vision. 

What's really funny here is that she could have compared the LED to the arc lamp and found the same visual light/illumination  with 1/100 the power. Wanna not go blind?  Use an arc lamp.   

The wattage of the lamp has little to do with the light output.  Different technologies have different capabilities.  The "lumens-per-watt" I mentioned earlier shows that certain technologies emit more light using the same amount of power.  For example, the common 75W A-Lamp (incandescent) emits approximately 1,100 lumens of light, whereas, a it only takes a 20W CFL to emit the same amount of light.  Less than a third of the wattage for the same amount of light.  To add to it,  CFLs last about 10 times as long and they also suffer a lower "maintenance factor" which means that over the life of the lamp there is very little change in the amount of light it emits as it ages.  The common incandescent A-Lamp will lose nearly 50% of its output capabilities before it finally burns out.  LED lamps are even better still.  Also, CFLs in their natural form emit a truer more natural light that is about as close as you can get to natural sunlight.  When considering which light is best for reading, the temperature rating of the lamp is very important.  A higher temperature rating means the lamp is closer to natural sunlight thereby allowing for better contrast and color rendition.  It takes less of a higher quality light for reading or other detailed tasks than it does for a lower quality light.  Finally, the higher quality lighting I've been talking about (CFLs, LEDs, and others) again takes less energy to do the same job, and it even does it better.

[RiversideGator]

Ok, I demand you take down my wedding picture right this instant;)  Kidding of course.

GatorB, I can't support your love of SUVs, for any reason.  It's not a truck, it's not a van, it's not a station wagon.  It hardly ever actually goes off-road for "sport", and it's not utilitarian...most of them are lined with plush carpet and expensive upholstery.  I just don't get it.  Ok, so they're pretty and you can pack a lot of people in there, and when you drive down to the local Town Center, you can load up the back with all sorts of pretty packages, but really, why can't you do that with a car?  Seems like a whole lot of excess to me, and from my point of view (a cyclist) they are VERY dangerous.  I was hit by one on my bike while riding in St. Augustine and have close calls everyday....close calls that I don't have with a car because the vantage point for a driver in a car is much better for me than an SUV.  Let's just be up front and say the real reason why having SUVs is being defended.  It has nothing to do with the safety of one over the other, cause if everyone drove small cars and there were no SUVs, using your "physics" formula, we'd be safer and there would be fewer per accident fatalities. It's about want versus need and what we think we're entitled to.  The SUVs are there and are being sold.  They are big and give the illusion of safety when we're inside of them.  They make us feel good and therefore we want them.  It wouldn't matter if there were a study put out today that says all SUVs will roll-over and you will eventually be stranded and injured or dead on the side of the road, we'd still buy them and put 26's on them, and cute little stick-figure family stickers on the back window.

Btw, weren't we talking about lightbulbs, lol.  Funny how the subjects shift.

1)  SUVs provide a much better field of vision so I find it less likely that a person driving an SUV would hit a biker than would someone driving a car.
2)  I actually do need my SUV.  I use it to haul construction materials to my apartments when they are being rehabbed.  I also need the space for the family.  And, I am pretty tall and have a real hard time fitting into little cars.
3)  As for safety, I am first concerned with the safety of myself and my family.  Also, not all car accidents involve 2 car collisions. SUVs are also safer in single car collisions.
4)  As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives.  So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.

[RiversideGator]

oh man I can't believe I was tricked by liberals from New York again!

It certainly isnt the first time and likely not the last time.   

[RiversideGator]

Interesting website.  It looks like it is a private website belonging to some liberal New York couple:

Very credible.   

Sorry RG, I couldn't find any Jacksonville Conservative writings on this subject.

Maybe post something from a credible source of any kind then.  A private website with personal pictures = not credible.  In any event, the "facts" they cite are easily refuted.

[second_pancake]

4)  As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives.  So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.

There is much evidence supporting global warming and the effects of mankind's way of living on the environment.  To say we have no impact on our climate and the world around us when we outnumber any species on the planet we share, have the power to literally knock-down a mountain, empty a lake, divert a river, and create landmasses in the middle of the ocean where there were previously not any, is what is  truly "asinine".

I don't think anyone needs to worry about the death of the SUV or lightbulbs.  If there's one thing we know about the human race is that we are nothing short of inventive, and we always find a way to adapt to our environment.  And, as I noted above, when our environment doesn't comply, we develop the technology to create a new one.

My prediction is that not only will there not be any car companies going out of business over this bill, but there will be radically new and innovative SUVs on the market that will give the economically fuel-efficient "small cars" a run for their money.

[Lunican]

4)  As for the light bulb discussion, the reason why the cars vs. SUV debate crept in is that the same asinine bill that banned incandescent bulbs requires car makers to raise the fuel efficiency for new cars in 12 years thereby probably putting some car makers out of business and costing Americans jobs and reducing the availability of SUVs thereby costing some Americans their lives.  So, we are being significantly inconvenienced and even hurt and killed because of a total hoax - global warming.

Well, the fuel efficiency rating is for all cars, not just American built cars. All auto manufacturers will remain on a level playing field with the new requirement. Are you suggesting that American auto manufacturers don't have the engineering ability to produce a fuel efficient car?

Also, the Japanese have built their auto manufacturing empire by selling small cars in America. Toyota and Honda appear to be outperforming Ford, GM, and Chrysler.

[gatorback]

Freon has been banned in the United States since 1996.

I love freon.  The problem with freon is it escapes into the atmosphere but freon doesn't eat up my automobile's a/c system as the new refrigerant does.

And let's not for get good old chlordane and aldrin.  Treat once, that's it!  My home in Avondale was treated with chlordane in 1975 the year before it was banned I think.  Some guy told me it would be at least 2050  before I'd need another application.

You can now buy asbostos containing tiles for that kitchen remod!  They'll never wear out.

I agree the bill is asinine for several reasons mostly that I just don't think it was thought out completely.
I think Washington DC wanted to show things are getting done in our nations capital before Iowa.