How many politicians does it take to screw you on light bulbs?
Daily Mail (UK);
The price of energy-saving light bulbs will treble as the final supplies of traditional bulbs dry up, industry experts have warned.
Well not for everyone, it won’t.
Remember – buy physical bulbs, not bulb manufacturer stock.
Via
Anything above 75watts is already banned in BC as of Jan 1 2011
I wonder if the centennial bulb will be the last incandescent light bulb, even though it’s been on for more than a century.
As of yesterday Co-op hardware here in Stoon had 4-packs of 60 and 100 watt bulbs for $0.88…
Anyone want some free CF bulbs? I’ve got a bunch of them…
My lightbulb collection is about twice that much.
Should be set for life.
AGW Progress Repolt: We are sclewed, as Mao Stlong said to his nephew Canadian Liberal leader Bob Rae.
The lights are out here, Bob.
AGW Progress Report: >>>> No progress to report.
>>>> “It is up to us to post in on numerous sites.”
Da proof is da proof is da* proof here …….
First Comment:
“Jeroen says:
January 3, 2011 at 7:14 am
I bet this data set will not reach MSM. It is up to us to post in on numerous sites.”
…-
RSS data: 2010 not the warmest year in satellite record, but a close second”
“The RSS data for Dec 2010 is out and available here, and I’m second in publishing it. The honor for being first goes to Lucia at the Blackboard here.
I used the same RSS lower troposphere data, but used a different plotting program than she did, Dplot, which provides for an automatically generated moving average. She computed the annual average as the average over Jan-Dec of each year and plotted each annual average, where I used a built in moving average generator in Dplot, set the moving average generator interval to 12 months, and came up with similar results as she did. The annotated plot is below:” (more)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/03/rss-data-2010-not-the-warmest-year-in-satellite-record-but-a-close-second/#comments
(*H/T Liberal Kyoto Chretien/Dionky)
http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2011/01/02/federal-election-2011/#comment-58221
Damn the public, full steam ahead with the agenda. We are winning the battles but losing the war. One of the cfl’s in my kitchen fixture blew up last night for no apparent reason, emmiting black smoke and carbon that coated the inside of the fixture. That newer once happened with regular bulbs.
Time launch a mail campaign with messages addressed to Gary Lunn, PM Harper & your local MP, letting them know what an idiotic initiative this is.
The energy savings from CFLs are vastly overrated.
CFLs give off minimal heat, so people have to turn their theromostats up during the winter months when interior lighting is at it’s maximal use. They also make people sick.
Next industry to reap the windfall of the eco-crappola are the folks who will be soon marketing CFL mercury bulb hazard clean up kits.
btw, what colour recycle box do you put those burnt out everlasting bulbs anyway?
LED technology is close but way too expensive at this point in time. (I can afford some 12volt LEDs on my boat but refitting the house is another matter, for now)
Posted by: wuberman at January 3, 2011 12:12 PM
Hope you cleared the room and opened a window and door or two. Those gases are to be ventilated for one half an hour, by law, so as to not get lung damage!!
Bet they never told you that in the MSM?
Consistency, people!
In a previous thread, people are saying that they avoid RSPs so that the government will not be able to figure out what they have. But then everyone here brags about how many incandescent light bulbs they have stashed away.
Bragging about your stashed bulbs is like not registering your guns and then bragging about all the ammo you have in your basement!
Yep, my laundry room cupboard is loaded up with nothing but old fashioned incandescents. No worries here about the cost of new bulb tech. By the time I need it one of two things will have happened.
1. This idiotic regulation will have been repealed.
2. The cost of new bulb tech will have dropped substantially.
I’m not banking on the first, that’s for damn sure.
For nine months of the year coinciding with maximum lighting demand, the heat given off by incandescent bulbs not available from the new mandated toxic bulbs will be replaced with an adjustment to thermostats increasing the “demon” carbon footprint, particularly where hydro/nuclear power provides the electrons but gas, coal or oil provides the BTUs attached to the thermostats. Thanks, with all due respect to the slimy, pandering, gutless, scientifically illiterate, eco-fascist whores that hold public office and agree that the type of light bulb we use can only be mandated by the state.
Calif just banned the 100watt light bulbs.
Nuts
About 20 years worth here.
In Canada, our homes require heating about 8 months of the year. The other months may see incandescent bulbs fighting the air conditioner but the lights are on so little during those long days that the conflict is negligible. So what’s the problem?
IMO, the “problem” is politicians and some business are always dreaming up ways to shake money out of the consumer’s pockets. Gotta keep the economy going, ya see – after all, consumers are 70% of all economic activity. And besides, if the people do not spend their money they will become rich. The Ruling Class does not want rich, independent subjects. Obedient, beholden is their objective.
No way would the people have tolerated a tripling of old bulb prices but impose green-guilt and most will embrace the new expensive bulbs. A feel-good thing that also helps the economy.
People will gradually catch on to the green ploy as they did other ploys. Fashions dictated out of Paris – short heels, high heels short skirt … Drastically altered “new” automobiles ever year – long fins, short fins, wider, lower … it created a ‘pecking-order’ society and induced economic activity. Gotta keep up with the Jones.
Wind and solar at four times the price. Biofuels forcing food cost higher. Using ozone to reap new A/C costs. Y2K was a huge economic boost for business while draining the middle class of excess cash.
The sick part in all this is media complicity – a key component of The Ruling Class.
There are many, many ways to be a Con-Artist – right Al Gore?
Am I wrong?
Ok, I have to call you guys on the “we have to turn up the heat because the CFCs don’t generate enough heat” thing. You are kidding, right?
I always thought that was a joke. Are you seriously saying that you can feel the temperature difference in a room where you’ve switched out the incand. bulbs for CFCs? Really?
My light fixtures are mounted on the ceiling, so most of the heat generated from the incand. bulbs is going straight up into my attic, and not down into the room. Sitting in a typical room, I don’t notice any radiated heat from a ceiling-mounted fixture.
I’ll accept that the heat from a table or floor lamp is probably more noticeable, but only if you’re sitting very close to the thing.
I’ll also accept that the heat from specialized lighting — light high-intensity track lighting, spotlights, and halogen lighting — can make a significant difference in a room. But normal, everyday incand. bulbs in ceiling fixtures and one or two table lamps in a room? I don’t think so.
I agree that the whole CFC thing is a crock, but saying that you need to turn up the heat to compensate for the chilliness caused by the mandated bulbs seems to me to weaken the argument.
As I’ve said repeatedly, the government is simply ignoring the fact of AGW being questionable,and is proceeding to become even more invasive.
I’ve been stocking up on Edison’s bulbs for about two years now,but wonder if we’ll see the day SWAT teams break down the door and arrest people using them. (Facetious remark there)
I bought a case of the incandescents at the co-op.
The cf’s don’t make sense here in winter as the light can trigger depression, migraines, and seizures.Extra heat is always welcome
How can I keep my doghouse heated without them.
Lickmuffin
The replacement heat wouldn’t be 100% (due to heat loss as you stated) but unless you have no insulation and all heat is evacuated from the incandescent bulbs you don’t have to touch your thermostat to increase the automatic cycling increase required to hold the same temperature. Most people without programmable thermostats adjust to comfort at whim which would make any change an unconscious effort.
I wager that there will be a federal election in Canada before the incandescent bulbs are banned here in 2012.
The nanny state, when you can’t be trusted to buy the government approved light bulb. Incandescent bulbs
are made illegal.
Okay, you have grandfathering rights until the current ones burn out.
What a concept, the government allows your rights to burn out. I wonder if that will be their election slogan.
Another piece of journalistic genius
“Many jurisdictions around the world have recently moved toward banning standard incandescent bulbs, which lose most of their energy as heat.”
The energy is not “lost”. In northern latitudes there is a lack of daylight hours during winters. (especially in Europe, where a huge population lives above 50 N.) Therefore in cooler months, the little extra heat is just fine, thank you. And not wasted one iota.
(don’t get your bun in a knot, of course, it is not the main heat supply in your house. But neither is it wasted or lost energy)
As to your heat going out your attic, what kind of fixture are you using?
Forget lightbulbs. I’m stocking up on rice and beans.
Take those twisty idiot bulbs and smash a couple of them on government office door steps and other public places then call 911 for ‘required’ hazmat clean up.
Eventually the outcry from the meek regarding mercury poisoning in the ‘the children’ will make our idiot leaders crazier than they already are.
Mail a few broken ones to specific AGW promoters as well. According to Snopes these broken mercury bulbs aren’t that big of a deal, but most people in our present day society are afraid of their own shadows.
Raise some hell, it’s works for the left.
If you don’t fight back, more repression will follow and you know it.
Lickmuffin- Wow!…just wow.
Heating an area takes x number of calories. Any amount supplied by incidental sources will mean that less will be required from the main heating source. It’s not a huge amount, but it’s not insignificant either.
Of course it doesn’t mean you have to turn up your thermostat to compensate for these cfl bulbs, or if there were no bulbs, for that matter; it just means your thermostat will be on for just a little shorter time, every time.
Most power companies offer FREE CFL bulbs to their customers. Only an idiot would be unaware of this, or someone who gets their science facts from the foreign tabloid cited here
Mark Steyn has been making fun of the 10+ steps needed to clean up after a “Curly Fry Lightbulb” and suggests that whenever one breaks the “harmless” remnants be mailed to one’s elected representative.
State of Maine’s 1 page PDF on CFL clean-up procedures.
There’s so much idiocy in the notion of changing lightbulbs to save x amount of anything, I don’t even know where to start or to state clearly what ought to be done without breaking to bits the rule #2 in Kate’s Comment Policy.
And what really pisses me off, is that ALL viable alternatives to the current crop of “conservatives” are worse, much worse.
Who to vote for in the probable late in 2011 federal election? Someone that promises all variety of “good government”? Who do we vote for, that will give us LESS Government? Not better, Not improved, Not “good”. I want LESS. In all cases of improved government, it has meant more, with more costs, and more government public service alliance and more government funded pensionable people. Who, will give us, LESS?
And I don’t see anyone offering that.
On the main floor of my 2-level house, were I to run conventional incandescents to achieve the desired illumination, my power consumption would be about 1000 W. I’ve cut this by half by using fluorescents where appropriate. I’ve still got 400 W of incandescents that it is not cost-effective to replace. I figure I could get down to about 200W if I wanted to spend the money to get the same lighting effect.
That means I am missing 800W. That is roughly the low setting on a conventional electric space heater. Assuming this contribution is missing for 12 hours per day(about 10kWh), for 6 months of the year (about 1750 kWh), and assuming the heat is replaced by heating oil (energy content about 10 kWh/litre), that means I need about 175 EXTRA litres of heating oil.
Since heating oil costs me 86 cents/litre, I need to shell out an extra $150 per year.
Conclusion: the “lost heat” argument has merit.
Disposing of the new “twirley” light bulbs when they expire, is a problem. Solution: Send them (postage free, of course) to your MP in Ottawa. Let your MP look after the problem for you!
Mississauga Matt: I’ve told plenty of people that same thing, mail the broken / burnt out twisty bulb to your MP, postage free with the constituency office address for a return address. NO POSTAGE STAMP.
Jack wrote —
As to your heat going out your attic, what kind of fixture are you using?
I probably over-simplified things when I said that the heat from my fixtures goes up into the attic. My house is of typical wood-frame construction. Pretty much every room has a ceiling fixture — so there’s a metal electrical box secured to a ceiling joist, and the open end of the box sits flush with the ceiling drywall. Most fixtures are enclosed dome-shaped lights, with a brass mounting rim and a decorative frosted glass dome. The heat from the bulb inside the fixture is pretty contained — I suspect that most of it goes to heat the fixture itself and the drywall immediately above the fixture. Thus my statement that my fixtures probably put more heat into the attic that into the room which they illuminate. The ceiling is, of course, insulated, so don’t imagine that it is a steamy tropical paradise from all the heat from my lights 🙂
Some rooms have suspended fixtures where the bulbs hang down and away from the ceiling (either one ceiling fans or on hanging lamps). There is more opportunity for the heat from those fixtures to radiate into the room, but again I would argue that there’s not enough output there for it to be really noticeable.
Snagglepuss wrote —
Lickmuffin- Wow!…just wow.
I am very pleased that you are impressed.
Heating an area takes x number of calories. Any amount supplied by incidental sources will mean that less will be required from the main heating source
Your home must be a very tightly closed system for your lights to make that much of a difference!
I understand what you’re saying, but unless your thermostat is settable to three or four decimal places, I don’t think that incandescent lighting is going to make much of a difference. Or perhaps I should clarify: in my experience, with the number of lamps in my particular home, and my typical lighting habits, I don’t think it makes any difference.
I accept that there will be a difference if:
* you have very small rooms
* you have a lot of normal lights in a room
* you have specialized lighting, like high-intensity track lights, spotlights, multiple pot lights, or high-wattage task lighting
I accept that the above will make a difference.
I don’t believe, though, that what I consider to be “typical” lighting — a single 60 W bulb in a ceiling fixture, and a 60 W bulb in a table or floor lamp — will make a significant difference to the perceived temperature of a room, or the cycling of the whole-house thermostat.
But we’re sort of missing my whole point here: arguing against CFCs on the basis of increased home heating costs just makes us sound like cranks, and it weakens our anti-statist argument — it’s really no better than the green argument that CFCs will stop global warming.
The CFL issue is not about carbon emmisions,but about poor infrastructure planning by governments. The greatest power consumption is not by electrical lighting devices, but by rotary equipment. The overtaxed are expected to bear the brunt of governents poor planning while the bureaucrats profit from their inactions.
Lickmuffin – see my comment above.
What’s the difference between Jews in Nazi occupied Europe and tungsten bulbs in Canada?
Keep Jews in the attic but hide the tungsten bulbs in the basement.
Not to make light of the holocaust but jeez if you’ve got them tucked away,you’ve surrendered to the world being run by crazy people.
Lickmuffin, It does if close enough to the thermostat. In our living we have a 40 W incandescent light bulb in a lamp 20 inches from our furnace thermostat. It creates just enough heat to affect the thermostat and I believe so do bodies sitting in the chair by that light.
Even the new CFLs do not work well in -10 or lower temperatures in unheated garages or machine sheds.
We have enough 100 Watt bulbs to last us and even to pass on in our will.
Lund has also bought into the AGW nonsense. The CFLs are a bigger hazard to society than the old incandescent ones.
Maybe the LEDs will be a better answer.
Lickmuffin, you can build a lumber dryer with a dehumidifier and some 100 watt bulbs for heat.
That said, propane is cheaper than electricity. I know because we had an -electric- furnace here at Chez Phantom when we moved in. On rural hydro, natch. Oh baby, the electric bills!
I’m hoping the LED tech comes down soon, but I’m stocking up on incandescents for reading lamps and such. I have no inherent hate on for twisty bulbs used in area lighting, but they suck for reading and they don’t come on fast enough for my taste. I turn on a light I want it ON, not wheezily coming to life, clawing its way to visibility like a steam engine trying to build enough pressure for its first chuff.
Tenebris wrote —
Since heating oil costs me 86 cents/litre, I need to shell out an extra $150 per year.
Conclusion: the “lost heat” argument has merit.
Using the calculator here —
http://www.hydroone.com/MyHome/SaveEnergy/Tools/calc_main.htm
— we select “Lighting Task Light (100 watts), select 8 of them, and select 12 hours per day. That gives us 288 kWh per month, at $35.05 per month (no idea if that includes the line-loss adjustment, taxes, delivery, and other costs).
Multiplied by six months, that’s 210.30.
Heating your home with heating oil, rather than your lights, will save you sixty bucks!
Abortions are still legal though right?
Lickmuffin with due respect you are mistaken.
Indeed there was a research paper published by two professors in Canada pointing out that the energy savings from CFL bulbs are not nearly as great as expected in cold climates. The reason is that the heat generated by incandescent bulbs is not wasted in a well-insulated home. I’ll see if I can dig it up.
It doesn’t matter whether the bulb is 60W, or 600W, it supplies additional heat to the room which means roughly equivalent less heat from the furnace is required. Law of thermodynamics.
Note too that in northern climates, more light is needed in the winter than in the summer, precisely in those months when it is cold, so incandescent bulbs work in our favour. When you factor in climate the payback on a CFL bulb can be decades.
Then of course there is the matter of the horrible light produced by CFL bulbs. In my own view that is reason enough not to use them.
I keep wanting to write an article on this whole subject (I have an electrical engineering degree) because the CFL bulb is one of the greatest scams seen in the last 100 years, the government is supporting it, and the taxpayer is being forced to cover the bill!
Re Lickmuffin’s comment, already much maligned; heat from lighting is a major factor in commercial and multi-residential heating/AC calculations.
What gets lost in the discussion is that ‘heating’ is the replacement of heat loss. As has been mentioned previously, a few 100watt bulbs supply light AND heat to a given area. Electric (or any other) dedicated heat source supplies heat only; you still have to supply the light from a separate source. Not terribly cost effective.
My workshop has 10 mag. ballasted fl. fixtures…excellent light levels and all the heat I need in the shop if left on for a couple of hours. Electronic ballasts are excellent, but little or no heat…so drag out the 1500Watt portable heater and watch the meter go crazy.
“I always thought that was a joke. Are you seriously saying that you can feel the temperature difference in a room where you’ve switched out the incand. bulbs for CFCs? Really?”
Absolutely not, I don’t see how this can make any difference. However the old style bulbs definitely offset other power usage.
For example if you have 10 100 watt lightbulbs on, and say they’re 25% efficient. The other 75% is heat. So that’s 250 watts light 750 watts of heat.
That 750 watts of heat offsets your furnace usage, whether it’s natural gas or electricity. If it’s electricity you’re just moving sideways, no actual change in your electrical bill during the cold months. However during the warm months it would make a difference, but we have such long days you’re not using lights much anyways.
There was an article in the WFP about this.
About a year ago all R&D on CFL’s has moved big into LED technology. This is the future and the competition is big. GE, Phillips, Sylvania, etc., are all selling LED lighting. It isn’t cheap – yet. You can get big deals in places like Costco and even in places like Home Depot, prices are coming down. LED’s are much more durable than incadescant or CFL’s (they have obscene warrantee’s like 15 and 20 years, etc.), use less energy and can meet any lighting need without needing the same sort of circuitry and trickery as CFL’s with the mercury or without wasting the energy like incadescents. So forget about CFL’s, it’s been obsoleted just like incadescents.
Lickmuffin there are other details you are missing.
For example, you cannot dim CFL bulbs. This puts the at a huge disadvantage, especially for any type of artistic lighting design.
Many of the main lights in my house have dimmers because I rarely need them running at full blast.
If you regularly dim an incandescent bulb you can extend it’s lifetime by a factor of 5X or more.
I have bulbs in my house that cost me $0.80 and have lasted 5 years even though I use them almost daily.
So the cost argument for CFLs is weak. The light is terrible. And the energy savings are grossly exaggerated.
Sigh…does someone want to explain conservation of energy to lickmuffin?
Lickmuffin – the $210 cost per year you give is what it would cost to REPLACE the MISSING heat provided by incandecent bulbs as a byproduct IF one were to use an electrical baseboard heater. The cost to replace the heat using oil (which is what I have) is $150. If you have a natural gas furnace (I don’t), it would cost you about $100.
cconn the LED bulbs will be a good substitute if and only if the manufacturers make good quality phosphors for them, and if and on if they use a fully rectified supply (they will flicker otherwise). These will both add to the cost of the bulbs.
The beauty about the incandescent bulb is that it is pretty hard to make a bad bulb. Even if you use cheap components etc. the bulb will still generally emit a very nice black body radiation spectrum. It is one of those rare cases where a couple of cents gets you a very nice electrical component.
I do agree with you however that CFLs are more or less dead on arrival.
The government, is going to tell you which light bulbs, you are allowed to purchase, and which light bulbs, you can use, In Your House. IN YOUR HOUSE.
How important is it, whether your light bulbs are placed near the ceiling? Or if you want heat in your attic? Like what good is heat in your attic?
This energy use doesn’t seem to enter into the picture when talking about those new wide screen flat Tv’s…
Do people really, Really want the government telling them what they can do in the living rooms/kitchens/bathrooms of the nation? or is it just the bedrooms they don’t want to know about…?
When the government installs your light bulbs and ceiling fan.
http://www.break.com/index/ceiling-fan-mount-fail-1976396
Good Lord, people.
I understand what you are all saying, and I understand the freakin’ physics and thermodynamics involved. I believe I mentioned this above, but I’ll say it again: in my own experience, in my own home, with my own family’s habits and requirements, I’ve not seen CFCs or incand. bulbs make a difference in heating costs or requirements.
I have every utility bill I have ever paid, and I track costs and usage to a degree that makes people who know me somewhat nervous. We replaced bulbs with CFCs and did not see any impact on our costs or usage — in my specific example, I did not see the “CFCs are cooler and thus increase your heating costs” argument play out. I suspect that will be true for most typical households, so why make that particular argument to rail against the statism of mandatory CFCs?
Frig!
We will at some point need to set up a smuggling operation, to supply our bulb needs from a less enlightened country. There’s a ton of money to be made here, folks: any “ban” instantly creates a black market for the banned (but still wanted) product.
One last clarification: I’m not advocating CFCs by any means. When I say we replaced bulbs with CFCs, we did so just to try them out — and we found all the same problems that have been mentioned here: sluggish turn-on time, undimmable, crappy light, and so on. End result: we went back to bulbs where needed, and kept CFCs only for outdoor utility lighting where they stay turned on for extended periods.
Just wanted to mention that.
“…why make that particular argument to rail against the statism of mandatory CFCs?”
Because all ammo is good ammo, particularly if you steal it from the opposition. Most if not all the “argument” used to support this farce has been the conservation issue, so its perfectly reasonable to undermine that in any and all available ways.
Besides, greenies never hear anything unless it involves green-ness, so this is how to make that point. CFLs are not green, this is just more Cloward/Piven BS designed for frack up our industrial capacity and ship our money to China.
Somebody hands me a rock I throw it, I don’t ask if its igneous or sedimentary, know what I mean? ~:D