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

[gatorback]

Yeah, well, I'm a pompous little antichrist that will probably abandon my desire for world DOMINATION before I have the chance to realize it.  While I waste gas just for the hell of it,  I use 1/4 of the lights in my house on a regular basis because I cannot afford these high priced high effiecency GE legal bulbs. Thank you.

[Charleston native]

...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.

Wow, I didn't come here for awhile, and this thread took off. First of all Jason, I can see that there IS an agenda to ban the SUV and "pollution-generating industry", whatever that means. So basically, you want to force your way of life and way of thinking on the economy.

...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.

Many people's utility bills are connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air. Switching to CFLs affects the ambient heat that remains in the home after lights are turned off and has negligible differences in power usage in comparison to incandescents. In the end, the power bill will not be greatly affected when using CFLs. As far as costs, the bulbs will cost more than incandescents and will be manufactured in China. So that's GREAT...we can pay more $ for a shitty product and reduce American jobs. Fantastic: [said in German accent] All for ze planet!

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.

Wow, there are alot of false statements, here. CFLs do not produce a higher quality light for home usage, and they do not provide warm ambiance for homes, restaurants, and other businesses. If they're so good, why do you think people still buy incandescents? These different types of CFLs are still different, and you just admitted that they're an imitation of the real thing. Here's another question: what do you do for historical structures that would require a complete electrical rewiring for these bulbs? Are we going to rip apart old ceilings and walls for it? Another false statement is about eye damage. Please read JAMA, AHA, and other publications because some reports are coming out now that confirm eye damage. However, there are far more reports about CFLs causing migraines and affecting epileptics. Like it or not, the fact is that CFLs are different from the industrial flourescent lights found in hospitals and office buildings. Plus, in a standard light outlet, you have THREE of these large tubes to adequately light a small section. One tiny CFL is going to be used on a lamp, and you actually expect me to believe it will apply the same lighting?

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...

Regardless if "sprawl" is disallowed, there are more people being born into this world every day, as well as older people living longer, so our population only stands to get much larger...and we're NOT going to expand a power supply?!?! Extremely shortsighted, IMO. All of these additional people will require electricity.

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...

This comparison is completely disingenuous. Apples to oranges. Abestos has been found to be a significant contributor to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses with clear proof from scientific research. Lead paint has irrefutable proof to cause brain damage in children when ingested. You can't possibly tell me (nor can most legitimate scientists) that Thomas Edison's invention is responsible for a global phenomenon that in itself is false and pure propaganda. Incandescents bulbs have posed no health problems in humans for the past 100 years. However, if you want to examine health side effects, I do know that CFLs contain considerable amounts of mercury. I don't think many of these bulbs will be properly disposed when broken or burnt out, so how healthy are we going to be as more mercury seeps into our ground, water supply, or even gets spilled on the carpet?

Face it, this bill was designed as a politically correct knee-jerk reaction. Lunican, this legislation's purpose was primarily as a knee-jerk reaction to glo-bull warming. It won't reduce our energy consumption, and there is no valid evidence to say it will...it was just a feel-good bill that accomplished what I mentioned in my earlier post: Make people buy a sub-standard, piss-poor product with lower quality and performance but higher costs for maintenance (for the bulbs, expensive cleanup if broken; for the cars, using cheaper, lighter materials and reducing the amount of steel to build the frames), package and market it as a thing that will "save the planet" or "reduce consumption", politicians vote for it to look better in the media to assure them another term in office, and eliminate manufacturing jobs and plants for the other products, i.e. eliminating costs.

It's all about the money. It's a damn scheme.

[Jason]

Wow, I didn't come here for awhile, and this thread took off. First of all Jason, I can see that there IS an agenda to ban the SUV and "pollution-generating industry", whatever that means. So basically, you want to force your way of life and way of thinking on the economy.

There is not an agenda to ban the SUV and other pollution-generating industry, just make them cleaner and more effecient.  And yes, I do support the plan to make these things more effecient because I do understand that the human race is quickly consuming every natural resource available and without movements like these we could run out.  This has nothing to do with global warming, just the fact that there is only so much matter on this planet available to sustain our way of life.  The SUV isn't going anywhere, its just going to use less gas or perhaps no gas at all by switching to hydrogen.  The lightbulb isn't going anywhere either, just becomming more effecient by using less energy.

Many people's utility bills are connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air. Switching to CFLs affects the ambient heat that remains in the home after lights are turned off and has negligible differences in power usage in comparison to incandescents. In the end, the power bill will not be greatly affected when using CFLs. As far as costs, the bulbs will cost more than incandescents and will be manufactured in China. So that's GREAT...we can pay more $ for a shitty product and reduce American jobs. Fantastic: [said in German accent] All for ze planet!

Everybody's utility bill is "connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air".  As far as the power company is concerned, a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour.  It doesn't matter how they are used, just how much of them are used. 

Answer me this, if there is no gain to be had by switching to CFLs why would power companies (JEA for example) be airing commercials that recommend switching to save money?  JEA is a publically traded utility.  Do you think they stand to gain more money?

Two of the three largest light bulb manufacturers (Sylvania and GE) are base in North America.  Philips (the largest) is based in the Netherlands.  All three manufacture about every type of lightbulb under the sun and will not be losing money or laying off workers by manufacturing more CFLs than incandescents.  And your statement that we would have to pay more for a "shitty product" is unresearched and false.  Currently CFLs are more expensive but are getting cheaper by the day.  As more of the market makes the switch the prices will continue to drop and will eventually cost as much as a standard incandescent.

Wow, there are alot of false statements, here. CFLs do not produce a higher quality light for home usage, and they do not provide warm ambiance for homes, restaurants, and other businesses. If they're so good, why do you think people still buy incandescents? These different types of CFLs are still different, and you just admitted that they're an imitation of the real thing. Here's another question: what do you do for historical structures that would require a complete electrical rewiring for these bulbs? Are we going to rip apart old ceilings and walls for it? Another false statement is about eye damage. Please read JAMA, AHA, and other publications because some reports are coming out now that confirm eye damage. However, there are far more reports about CFLs causing migraines and affecting epileptics. Like it or not, the fact is that CFLs are different from the industrial flourescent lights found in hospitals and office buildings. Plus, in a standard light outlet, you have THREE of these large tubes to adequately light a small section. One tiny CFL is going to be used on a lamp, and you actually expect me to believe it will apply the same lighting?

Wow, there are alot of false statements, here.

I have yet to cite a single false statement and have backed up everything I've stated.

If they're so good, why do you think people still buy incandescents?

For the same reason people still buy standard televisions versus plasma or LCD, the cost!!

These different types of CFLs are still different, and you just admitted that they're an imitation of the real thing.

They are not an imitation, they can be made to produce the same temperature rating as an incandescent.  Is "different" a bad thing?

Here's another question: what do you do for historical structures that would require a complete electrical rewiring for these bulbs? Are we going to rip apart old ceilings and walls for it?

You do NOT need to rewire old structures to support flourescent lighting because it uses less power.  The wiring system is designed to accomodate a certain electrical load and as long as that load is not increased, no changes are necessary.  Besides, most commercial, institutional, and public buildings built in the last 50 years already use fluorescent lighting.  Also, any light fixture that uses a standard medium base incandescent A-Lamp will work with a screw-in CFL so you don't even need to replace the fixture.  They're built for that purpose.

Please read JAMA, AHA, and other publications because some reports are coming out now that confirm eye damage. However, there are far more reports about CFLs causing migraines and affecting epileptics.

I will look up the information you've suggested.

Like it or not, the fact is that CFLs are different from the industrial flourescent lights found in hospitals and office buildings.

I'm not sure what you mean by "industrial fluorescents".  A standard 2'x4' fluorescent fixture that sits in an acoustical tile ceiling system uses a 4' long fluorescent tube lamp.  Yes, that lamp is different in size, however, it still produces the same type of light and is not more "industrial" than a CFL.  An "industrial" designation is reserved solely for the fixture itself and how that fixture is built.  You would be hard pressed to find an incandescent light anywhere inside a hospital save some low-voltage accent lighting.

Plus, in a standard light outlet, you have THREE of these large tubes to adequately light a small section. One tiny CFL is going to be used on a lamp, and you actually expect me to believe it will apply the same lighting?

Again, I'm sure about your terminology.  I think you're confused.  A single CFL will not replace 3 of the large tubes you speak of.  Those tubes are already fluorescent and are already effecient.

Regardless if "sprawl" is disallowed, there are more people being born into this world every day, as well as older people living longer, so our population only stands to get much larger...and we're NOT going to expand a power supply?!?! Extremely shortsighted, IMO. All of these additional people will require electricity.

Right, there are more and more people everyday being born into this world which is a great reason to do whatever it takes now to increase our effeciency and reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to provide everyone with power.  There is only so much on this planet available for consumption and it needs to be preserved.

This comparison is completely disingenuous. Apples to oranges. Abestos has been found to be a significant contributor to lung cancer and other respiratory illnesses with clear proof from scientific research. Lead paint has irrefutable proof to cause brain damage in children when ingested. You can't possibly tell me (nor can most legitimate scientists) that Thomas Edison's invention is responsible for a global phenomenon that in itself is false and pure propaganda.

In my following statement I recognized that the comparison was not entirely accurate.  Here is my previous statement....

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".

Incandescents bulbs have posed no health problems in humans for the past 100 years. However, if you want to examine health side effects, I do know that CFLs contain considerable amounts of mercury. I don't think many of these bulbs will be properly disposed when broken or burnt out, so how healthy are we going to be as more mercury seeps into our ground, water supply, or even gets spilled on the carpet?

Finally, a legitimate argument that has some substance.  The mercury found in fluorescent lighting is a concern and needs to be addressed.  But know that fluorescent lighting is not something new.  It has been around for decades and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  If disposed of properly there is little threat but the average consumer is not likely to do so.

[gatorback]

Everybody's utility bill is "connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air".  As far as the power company is concerned, a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour.  It doesn't matter how they are used, just how much of them are used. 

Are you sure about that Jason?  ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT!??  My a/c bill is connected to my water bill.  The Domain uses water chilled at the, you guessed it, Pickle Research Center, you know, the center that is putting in the Hydrogen Fuel station.  When I turn on my A/C there's a rush of water to my exchanger that's it.  Sorry in advance for you being so magnificently incredibly wronger on this issue. 

[Jason]

I'm talking about electric utilities.  Where did I mention the first thing about water?

[Lunican]

Apparently some have come to the conclusion that global warming is a myth and therefore energy efficiency and pollution are non issues. I guess smog is a myth as well.

[second_pancake]

Apparently some have come to the conclusion that global warming is a myth and therefore energy efficiency and pollution are non issues. I guess smog is a myth as well.

That can go on record as the first understatement of the year, lol.  Funny how when you can give scientific fact to back-up every claim you make, and even have someone in the forum who is an expert on the subject, working with electricity and all facets thereof for a living, you can still have people who absolutely REFUSE to face facts.  Que cera, cera.  At least they're being true to who they are and their way of life: When facts outweigh your claim, ignore them and develop faith, lol. 

The mercury found in fluorescent lighting is a concern and needs to be addressed.  But know that fluorescent lighting is not something new.  It has been around for decades and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  If disposed of properly there is little threat but the average consumer is not likely to do so.

Isn't it true that the mercury in CFLs is no more than the amount contained in a standard thermometer?

[Jason]

I can't believe I'm about to say this and may regret it before its over, but here goes nothing...

Arguing technical issues with non-technical people is like debating politics with a first grader.  Until you guys understand the definitions of the things I'm discussing you'll never understand what I'm talking about.  I'm not going to argue medicine with a doctor, or law with RiversideGator because I know very little about these subjects and they are very educated in them.

Please do me a favor.  Google the terms below, read what you find, and then build your argument.  Hell, you might even come to your own conclusion that what I have been saying since my first post in this thread is not a load of B.S.

utility
watt
kilowatt-hour
lamp (light-bulb)
lumen
lumen per watt
fluorescent
compact fluorescent
incandescent
mercury vapor
metal halide
high pressure sodium
LED
HID
power consumption
temperature rating
light spectrum
heat generation
efficiency


Man, I hate to sound pompous but, personally, I believe that you have to have at least a basic knowledge of what your debating before you can accurately and effectively debate it.  I work with power and lighting every day, its my job.  I don't know everything but I have been in this industry long enough to have developed a firm understanding of it.  Understanding these terms will likely save a lot of back and forth banter and limit any misconceptions or confusions.  I have every manual, code book, catalog, and guideline available on this subject and every fact that I have stated on this subject can be cited and proven. 

[Jason]

Isn't it true that the mercury in CFLs is no more than the amount contained in a standard thermometer?

Yes, it is true.

http://www.dem.ri.gov/topics/pdf/epabulb2.pdf

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

http://www.nema.org/gov/ehs/committees/lamps/cfl-mercury.cfm

[Charleston native]

There is not an agenda to ban the SUV and other pollution-generating industry, just make them cleaner and more effecient.  And yes, I do support the plan to make these things more effecient because I do understand that the human race is quickly consuming every natural resource available and without movements like these we could run out.  This has nothing to do with global warming, just the fact that there is only so much matter on this planet available to sustain our way of life.  The SUV isn't going anywhere, its just going to use less gas or perhaps no gas at all by switching to hydrogen.  The lightbulb isn't going anywhere either, just becomming more effecient by using less energy.

Jason, I'm all for efficiency and cleaner forms of energy, but only if they have the same amount of power quality or even better than current forms.

Everybody's utility bill is "connected to both the electricity they use and their heating/air".  As far as the power company is concerned, a kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour.  It doesn't matter how they are used, just how much of them are used.

Not everybody's and gatorback pointed out an example of how. However, keep in mind that ambiant heat given from having the lights on can make a difference of 1-2 degrees in a home. Take away that ambiant heat, and I guarantee you there will be a few more people who turn their thermostat up. Let's not forget businesses like restaurants and hotels, either.

Answer me this, if there is no gain to be had by switching to CFLs why would power companies (JEA for example) be airing commercials that recommend switching to save money?  JEA is a publically traded utility.  Do you think they stand to gain more money?

Two of the three largest light bulb manufacturers (Sylvania and GE) are base in North America.  Philips (the largest) is based in the Netherlands.  All three manufacture about every type of lightbulb under the sun and will not be losing money or laying off workers by manufacturing more CFLs than incandescents.  And your statement that we would have to pay more for a "shitty product" is unresearched and false.  Currently CFLs are more expensive but are getting cheaper by the day.  As more of the market makes the switch the prices will continue to drop and will eventually cost as much as a standard incandescent.

Jason, are you purposely not reading the last part of several of my posts? It's ALL about the money. Do some research on where these CFLs are being made, and you will find that it isn't in the US. Incandescent bulb factories remain in this country, but they won't be when this ban is made. Those plants are expensive to run and maintain because of labor costs, state health fees, and EPA regulations. It's more cost effective for those light bulb manufacturers to make a less effective, lower quality product, sell it at a higher price, and have it manufactured outside of this country. The analysis isn't false. Currently, CFL bulbs cost $3.00 as to an incandescent that costs 50 cents. Your argument ignores the basics of economics: taking out the competitor price isn't going to magically reduce the price of CFLs. Why decrease the price when people HAVE to pay for it if they want lighting? A great example of this is the gas prices.

For the same reason people still buy standard televisions versus plasma or LCD, the cost!!

Another apples to oranges comparison. The government is artificially creating demand. In the cases of tapes to CDs, VHS tapes to DVDs, and regular TVs to flat screen LCDs, ALL of those changes were created by the market without government intervention. Consumers proceeded to buy products that got better in quality, durability, and practicality over time. With the bulbs and the cars, the market is being forced to accept these products as the market standard. We are being forced to accept products that WE DON'T WANT!

They are not an imitation, they can be made to produce the same temperature rating as an incandescent.  Is "different" a bad thing?

You just said in an earlier post that the CFL "mimicked" incandescent lighting. I've seen these lights, and they do nothing of the sort. The warmth and feel of a room/house/restaurant/hotel will be significantly altered.

I'm not sure what you mean by "industrial fluorescents".  A standard 2'x4' fluorescent fixture that sits in an acoustical tile ceiling system uses a 4' long fluorescent tube lamp.  Yes, that lamp is different in size, however, it still produces the same type of light and is not more "industrial" than a CFL.  An "industrial" designation is reserved solely for the fixture itself and how that fixture is built.  You would be hard pressed to find an incandescent light anywhere inside a hospital save some low-voltage accent lighting...

...Again, I'm sure about your terminology.  I think you're confused.  A single CFL will not replace 3 of the large tubes you speak of.  Those tubes are already fluorescent and are already effecient.

Jason, have you seen how much light only one of those 2X4 tube lamps emits? By itself, it's pretty dim. So, a CFL will have the same light as one of those tubes. That's pathetic. One 60 watt incandescent is brighter than one 2X4 flourescent tube. That's a fact.

Right, there are more and more people everyday being born into this world which is a great reason to do whatever it takes now to increase our effeciency and reduce the amount of fossil fuels used to provide everyone with power.  There is only so much on this planet available for consumption and it needs to be preserved.

Hence, my reasoning for more nuclear plants, which is the cleanest and most reliable source of energy available. But why the emphasis on fossil fuels, Jason? Again, you seem to want to follow the global warming crowd in your motivation for change, especially in agreeing with this BS bill. I'm all for alternative energy, but for different reasons, mainly energy independence.

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...

Extreme or not, it's not a legitimate comparison. How much power do you think your computer (among other millions of them) sucks out of the grid? TV sets? Stereos? Microwaves? (Why don't we just ban them with all the radiation concerns and tell people to cook on the stove again?) Ceiling fans? Incandescent lighting is chump change to the power grid and our wallets. What is apparent is that your approval of this bill means you give alot of credence to the pseudo-science of global climate change. And this bill will accomplish nothing in terms of "changing" the effects on the globe. It's a feel-good POS legislation. It makes politicians and companies look like they're concerned with the environment...continuing the self-destructive behavior that is political correctness.

Finally, a legitimate argument that has some substance.  The mercury found in fluorescent lighting is a concern and needs to be addressed.  But know that fluorescent lighting is not something new.  It has been around for decades and isn't going anywhere anytime soon.  If disposed of properly there is little threat but the average consumer is not likely to do so.

Well, I think that majority of the arguments are pretty legitimate, but at least we can agree on something.

2nd pancake, you mention facts. Please do not make me laugh. Tons of scientists have debunked these "facts"...it seems that the one "faith" you do have is in the Goracle. Have fun with that one. Oh yeah, please don't insult my intelligence by saying we deny that smog exists, Lunican. Again, as RG pointed out, man can affect the environment locally. But to say that man is powerful enough to change the climate of the planet is vanity.

[Lunican]

Charleston, you're really not making any sense. A CFL puts out more lumens per watt than an incandescent, period. This means that you will use less energy lighting up your house with them. New CFL's have a temperature rating close to or equal to incandescents, making them look more yellow than harsh white or blue. Maybe you should just stock up on incandescent bulbs before this light bulb atrocity comes true.

[Jason]

Jason, I'm all for efficiency and cleaner forms of energy, but only if they have the same amount of power quality or even better than current forms.

How many times do you need to hear that fluorescent light uses half of the power to produce the same amount of light.  That, my friend, is efficiency.

Not everybody's and gatorback pointed out an example of how. However, keep in mind that ambiant heat given from having the lights on can make a difference of 1-2 degrees in a home. Take away that ambiant heat, and I guarantee you there will be a few more people who turn their thermostat up. Let's not forget businesses like restaurants and hotels, either.

What I've been trying to get across is that using your lighting to gain the 1 or 2 degrees of ambient heat consumes more power than simply turning up the thermostat.  You are costing yourself more money by using your lighting to help heat your home.

Jason, are you purposely not reading the last part of several of my posts? It's ALL about the money. Do some research on where these CFLs are being made, and you will find that it isn't in the US. Incandescent bulb factories remain in this country, but they won't be when this ban is made. Those plants are expensive to run and maintain because of labor costs, state health fees, and EPA regulations. It's more cost effective for those light bulb manufacturers to make a less effective, lower quality product, sell it at a higher price, and have it manufactured outside of this country. The analysis isn't false. Currently, CFL bulbs cost $3.00 as to an incandescent that costs 50 cents. Your argument ignores the basics of economics: taking out the competitor price isn't going to magically reduce the price of CFLs. Why decrease the price when people HAVE to pay for it if they want lighting? A great example of this is the gas prices.

I know where CFLs are being manufactured.  As I stated before, two of the three largest light bulb manufacturers are located in the US.  The third is in the Netherlands with multiple plants in the US, therefore, the majority of CFL light bulbs are manufactured in the US, not China.  The competition between these companies will dirve the cost of the lamps down long before this bill goes into effect.  Besides, even if the price holds at three dollars per bulb you will still come out ahead by paying less on your power bill and replacing bulbs less often.  The three dollars spent on a CFL will be returned to you in about a year and a half (man i'm sounding like a broken record here) in the form of savings.  An incandescent light bulb does nothing but cost you money and has absolutely no payback whatsoever.  Why would you not accept something that will save you money an be virtually undetectable?  I have a trained eye for lighting types and am not able to tell the difference between an incandescent bulb and a properly selected CFL.

You just said in an earlier post that the CFL "mimicked" incandescent lighting. I've seen these lights, and they do nothing of the sort. The warmth and feel of a room/house/restaurant/hotel will be significantly altered.

In layman's terms yes, that's what I said.  CFL can be built to produce the same light spectrum of an incandescent lamp and are readily available on every Wal-Mart shelf in America.  They are made that way to reduce the impact on the consumer by limiting the noticeability factor.  People are afraid of changing things they have grown fond of and are accustomed to.  If the light looks the same but saves them money then its a win-win.

Jason, have you seen how much light only one of those 2X4 tube lamps emits? By itself, it's pretty dim. So, a CFL will have the same light as one of those tubes. That's pathetic. One 60 watt incandescent is brighter than one 2X4 flourescent tube. That's a fact.

That is not a fact. 

One 60W incandescent A-lamp (shown below) produces approximately 850 lumens of light.




A standard 32W T8 fluorescent light tube (shown below) produces approximately 2,800 lumens of light.




A 20W self-ballasted compact fluorescent light bulb (shown below) produces approximately 1,100 lumens of light.





Note that the fluorescent light bulbs shown above use 50% or less of the power (wattage) that a 60W incandescent and produce more light!

Hence, my reasoning for more nuclear plants, which is the cleanest and most reliable source of energy available. But why the emphasis on fossil fuels, Jason? Again, you seem to want to follow the global warming crowd in your motivation for change, especially in agreeing with this BS bill. I'm all for alternative energy, but for different reasons, mainly energy independence.

I have yet to state a stance on either side of the global warming debate.  I simply said that there are only so many fossil fuels on this planet to be consumed and when they run out we won't be getting them back.  I also told you before that I agree with the necessity for a conversion to nuclear partially because of the limitations on quantities of fossil fuels and the clean power aspect of the nuclear.

Extreme or not, it's not a legitimate comparison. How much power do you think your computer (among other millions of them) sucks out of the grid? TV sets? Stereos? Microwaves? (Why don't we just ban them with all the radiation concerns and tell people to cook on the stove again?) Ceiling fans? Incandescent lighting is chump change to the power grid and our wallets. What is apparent is that your approval of this bill means you give alot of credence to the pseudo-science of global climate change. And this bill will accomplish nothing in terms of "changing" the effects on the globe. It's a feel-good POS legislation. It makes politicians and companies look like they're concerned with the environment...continuing the self-destructive behavior that is political correctness.

Technology does consume a lot of energy from the grid, hence the need to make these devices more effecient.  I don't feel that this legislation is an end-all to the problems we are and will continue to face.  It is in my opinion a good solid step forward into the 21st century and an example for other nations to follow.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Lunican]

At the risk of making some even more furious, here is an article about an even more efficient bulb:

New LED Puts Incandescents, Fluorescents to Shame



Seoul semiconductor has created a light emitting diode that emits roughly 240 lumens and claims the highest efficiency (amount of electricity to amount of light) of any light source. Fluorescents hit 70 lumens per watt, incandescents max out at 15, but this new LED emits roughly 100 lumens per watt. The results, if and when this technology gets cheap enough for the mass market, will be smaller, more efficient light sources, and lights that can exist in far different form factors than the current bulb or tube shapes. The devices also have applications in consumer electronics, specifically LCD back lights and projectors.

LEDs with similar efficiencies have been produced at universities, but this is the first time a corporation has begun creating these superefficient LEDs. Seoul Semiconductor says that, while this advancement is significant, they're moving forward with even more efficient LEDs. They expect, for example, a 145 lumen per watt LED by 2008, which would double the efficiency of standard compact fluorescents. We just have to wait and see how expensive they are.

[Charleston native]

Charleston, you're really not making any sense. A CFL puts out more lumens per watt than an incandescent, period. This means that you will use less energy lighting up your house with them. New CFL's have a temperature rating close to or equal to incandescents, making them look more yellow than harsh white or blue. Maybe you should just stock up on incandescent bulbs before this light bulb atrocity comes true.

I just may do that. What is being created is another form of Prohibition, and we all know how well that turned out. My point is that with the CFLs that I've seen, I truly believe the color and ambiance they give off is different. But that's not my main reason for hating this bill. It is government intrusion at the same level as Prohibition.

How many times do you need to hear that fluorescent light uses half of the power to produce the same amount of light.  That, my friend, is efficiency.

I'm talking about sources of power. The sources of power is what is important, and it shouldn't effect the standards that millions of households have in their equipment. Again, as I'm also repeating myself here, the intentions of this bill is to force people to use a product that many do not want. If the government wants to make power more efficient and cleaner, mandate innovations in power creation. Note that the bill did not address anything like that. My message to our government (including GWB, who I'm tired of defending and will not anymore): quit screwing with the average citizen.

...Besides, even if the price holds at three dollars per bulb you will still come out ahead by paying less on your power bill and replacing bulbs less often.  The three dollars spent on a CFL will be returned to you in about a year and a half (man i'm sounding like a broken record here) in the form of savings.  An incandescent light bulb does nothing but cost you money and has absolutely no payback whatsoever.

I'm sorry, this is unproven. I'll believe it when I see it...then again, I can't really trust media sources anymore.

Technology does consume a lot of energy from the grid, hence the need to make these devices more effecient.  I don't feel that this legislation is an end-all to the problems we are and will continue to face.  It is in my opinion a good solid step forward into the 21st century and an example for other nations to follow.  I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I guess so. I think it is a step backward in the 21st century, IMO. At least we can agree on the "nuclear option".

[jaxnative]

While this technical discussion has been quite interesting, the fact remains that this so-called energy bill should have been returned to Congress with a request to craft a REAL energy bill.

This bill will do nothing to enhance effieciency or even begin to solve our energy supply problems.  There is nothing in the bill to increase domestic energy production, streamline the nuclear power development process, or provide incentives for refinery construction.  The first version of the bill from the House even included a provision for increasing taxes on suppliers which would have further increased the prices of an already artificially high commodity. Every alternative fuel at this point provides nowhere near the efficiency of current fossil fuel products.  And if you think the magical alternative is going to show up in the next 20 or 30 years I have a bridge I would like to sell you unless you've found the efficient catalyst to crack hydrogen from seawater.

More efficient lighting = drop in the bucket.  Smaller cars = better gas mileage = more miles driven(unless gov't plans on controlling that also) = no gain.  Ethanol = lower efficiency = higher fuel prices = higher food prices = waste of resourses.

As has been correctly stated, this is government interference at it's most unproductive level.  They have outdone themselves.  Not content with interference on the supply side they have started to hit the demand side as well.  You can't get any more efficient at creating an even larger problem.

The present administration and Congress seem content to wait for disaster to strike.  Considering the current price spikes caused by speculators manipulating risk factors and the inaction of government to take any concrete steps to so improve energy matters, a single major disruption in supply will cause major problems for our economy and security.  Unfortunately, I believe this will have to happen before there is enough of an outcry to take constructive action.