Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

It's kind of interesting...

One of the "little things" I found really interesting about spending a month in Germany late last year was the high availability of LED-based light fixtures, and at a cost which was not nearly so high as what you see here in the US. At both OBI (compare to Home Depot) and Kaufland (compare to Super Walmart) there were probably as many LED-based fixtures on the shelves as incandescent, and the price was maybe 1/2 to 1/3 what we'd pay in the US, which is doubly noteworthy when you consider that, on average, most regular consumer goods seemed to cost 20-30% more on average.

I'm sure there's probably a good theory about why this is a conspiracy supported by American energy producers and light bulb manufacturers, along with Greenpeace and the EPA (because if the environment were pristine, they'd have nothing to complain about / regulate.)


Does anybody actually use 100w light bulbs? I ask this in all seriousness. So far as I can recall, I only have a few incandescents at my house in the first place, and they're all fairly low-wattage:

1: 1x Ceiling-mounted in living room, on dimmer (60w)
2: 4x fan-mounted in bedroom, on dimmer (maybe 25w each?)
3: appx 6x in bathroom vanity (fairly small- maybe 20-25w each?)
4: 1x in oven
5: 1x in fridge
6: 1x inside microwave oven, 1x below (as range light)

And that's pretty much it. All of the garage lighting is either CFL or tube (including the light in the garage door opener) as is the lighting in the kitchen (both ceiling and under-cabinet), the main lighting in the bathroom and the outdoor lighting.


Ok, so it's evil on general principle that "the gubment" is taking away our freedom to choose our primary illumination source. Gubment took away my right to choose to run leaded gas in my '59 Mercury, too.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I have have 6 lights in my apt:

1 - 150watt bulb.
2 - 100watt bulbs
2 - 100watt bulbs
2 - 100watt bulbs
1 - 100watt bulb.
1 - 50/100/150 bulb

Low wattage is for trolls and mole people.

Joe, keep in mind that the alternative is full of lead and mercury...

Ben

iTrader: (33)

Yes I have standard 40, 60, and 100 watt bulbs all over my house. I also have dimmers everywhere, and I use them. The 100's are rarely at 100%. Regular 100 watt bulbs dim well and are cheap. CFL's don't dim and create harsh lighting. LED still provides poor value compared to elcheapo incandescent.

Garage and kitchen are florescent tube. Outdoor are all CFL.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I use 100 or 150 (if I can find them) in the garage as I don't have proper lighting in there yet. Almost everything in the house is moved to CFL more for the convenience of not having to change them as often as I did the incandescents versus greenery or energy efficiency.

After our first batch of CFLs a few years ago, we definitely try to pay more attention to the "lumens" listing versus just the equivalent wattage.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

I prefer wax/wick technology for my lighting needs.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

The problem is, without an incandescent Braineack can no longer use his Easy-Bake oven.

Seriously though, the caparison that Joe made makes a lot of sense.

Seefo

iTrader: (5)

we use halogens and CFLs in the house. CFL light has come a long way over the last year or two. The regular white ones actually look normal, although I did have a roommate in college who complained about the cool white ones (I don't blame him really, weird to see blue-ish light all the time at night).

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

So is it wrong for entrepreneurs to market incandescent bulbs as "heat *****"? Would it be a legitimate use of government power to stop the legal sale of heat *****?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Can we then call CFLs "mercury bombs?"

hustler

iTrader: (6)

In this crüe.

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

In all seriousness, I have to ask the following:

Is the implied undertone of this thread

A: That the government does not have a right to regulate certain consumer behavior where said regulation has the objective of improving the general welfare of its citizenry as a whole, or

B: Is it specifically an assault on the idea that the particular act of regulating the availability of certain types of light bulbs does not advance the aforementioned goal?

hustler

iTrader: (6)

B. This is clearly an example of making rules to demonstrate protectionism.

wayne_curr

iTrader: (8)

My only gripe with CFLs is that they claim to last forever compared to incandescent yet they barely seem to last me as long as an incandescent. They are dirt cheap around here though, I pay between 1 and 3 dollars for a pack. They are heavily subsidized here.

If you pay attention to the light temperature you're buying then they aren't bad at all. I have a daylight temperature in my living room lamp for doing homework and the rest are warm temperature bulbs just like incandescent.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

I wanted us to be clear about what we're actually saying here, so I added the implied conditional clause in bold text.

So you take our government's word on it that all factors taken into consideration (energy use, upfront cost, environmental concerns including mercury content, ease of safe disposal, etc.), the relative advantage of eliminating incandescent bulbs to society as a whole is worth the cost of government yet again interfering with a private citizens' economic decisions?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

mgeoffriau, the emboldened text which you added into A was the whole point of my choice B.

The point of choice A was simply to ask whether it is OK for the government to regulate domestic commerce with the aim of enhancing the quality of life of all citizens. Some (or even all) of these regulations may be imperfect in design or implementation, however such deficiencies are tertiary in nature to the underlying concept.

As an example, the federal government requires that all automobiles sold in the US must be equipped with headlights and turn-signals. Obviously some consumers are unfamiliar with the proper use of these devices, and they certainly add cost and complexity to the vehicles. However I feel that the benefit of every car being equipped with these features outweighs the trespass on my personal freedom to choose to buy a car without these onerous add-ons.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

I didn't add that text to option A in order to turn choice A into choice B, only to point out that choice A cannot be considered as stated. It's impossible to judge that statement as written. One cannot evaluate whether government has the right to "enhance the quality of life of all citizens" without noting that by necessity that goal involves government bureaucrats deciding according to their own priorities what constitutes an "enhanced quality of life" and using the government's threat of violence to enforce this decision on private citizens who may have an entirely different set of priorities.

Now, having noted that, we can talk about whether that calculation of competing priorities is beneficial or detrimental to actual citizens, not simply with regard to this specific case of light bulb sales (Choice B), but in general (Choice A).

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Three facts:

GE is the most heavily invested stock in Congress (94 members in 2010)...

GE makes really expensive, really dim, CFL bulbs.

The light bulb laws have employed enormous amounts of Chinese at the cost of American jobs.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

I think your being a bit paranoid. This law was probably written by a do-gooder and enacted b/c it sounded like a good idea.

Also, does the fact that the goberment makes a regulatory law automatically make that law a bad idea?

Joe Perez

iTrader: (8)

And that summarizes quite well the most significant reason that I take umbrage with discussions such as this.

It is quite easy to mistake ignorance for conspiracy.

I genuinely believe that the vast majority of regulations such as this are written for one of two reasons. Either the individual proposing the regulation genuinely believes it to be of benefit (whether or not this belief is well-informed and supported by "good science"), or the individual believes that the regulation will gain them political support.

Neither of these count as conspiracy in my book. Altrusim and greed are both perfectly normal and common human desires. But neither are evidence of a Secret Cabal tasked with enslaving humanity.



So, was that a "yes" or a "no"?