Republicans and Lightbulbs

citizenthom · Mar 9, 2011

Supreme said:
Why are Republicans trying to pass a law on lightbulbs? Isn't this an insult for taxpayers? Politicians aren't elected to make laws on lightbulbs.

I've never in my life known anyone who cares about lightbulbs to the extent they'd pass a law involving light bulbs.

It's a strange world.

The bill would in fact repeal previous legislation, passed by the Democratic Congress. Republicans didn't start this crazy train; they're just trying to stop it.

SithDoughnut · Mar 9, 2011

citizenthom said:
Wherefore this presumption that free market conservative= anti- drug crusader?

There isn't. My whole point with bringing this up to start with was to ask exactly where government control should be. Should the markets control everything? Should the government have a veto, or even total control? Should it be split? If so, who decides how it is split?

The lightbulb thing is a bit silly, but it leads on to a much more interesting topic.

Supreme · Mar 9, 2011

citizenthom said:
The bill would in fact repeal previous legislation, passed by the Democratic Congress. Republicans didn't start this crazy train; they're just trying to stop it.

So Republicans are trying to stop it... by bringing it up and passing another law against it.

Weird method of stopping the crazy policies on light bulbs.

chris4243 · Mar 9, 2011

citizenthom said:
Because it's an undue and preposterous burden on the poor to quintuple the costs of light bulbs with truly minimal societal gain.

Nobody said the new light bulbs are a universal evil; but forcing people to buy them when there is a substantially cheaper alternative is.

But the more energy efficient lightbulbs are the cheaper solution. Why burden the poor and uneducated with letting them buy seemingly cheap things that in the end cost them more and harm the environment besides?

However, my opinion is that there should have been a tax on inefficient lightbulbs rather than a ban. This would allow greater freedom while still pushing toward greater efficiency. And there are places an incandescent might be better, and some people just like the color better.

Oh, and even if you don't believe CO2 harms our planet, mercury most certainly does. Every bit of electricity you use, at least in the US where most of it is from coal, mercury is released into the environment.

How much mercury is emitted per unit of electric energy?

Wisconsin, like the Mid-Atlantic region, relies most heavily on coal-fired electricity generation, except during rare summer peaks. In a report2 for the State of Wisconsin, Table 1-3 shows emissions of about 0.05 pounds of mercury per gigawatt hours (GWh) (1,000,000 kilowatt hours [kWh]). Using common conversion tables, this is equivalent to 0.023 milligram (mg) per kWh. This electrical generation also produces other pollution such as oxides of sulfur and nitrogen and global-warming gases. A coal-fired generating station emits about two pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2), the most common global-warming gas, for each kWh of electricity. We can also choose higher-cost electricity produced from alternative energy, such as wind.

How much mercury do CFLs and conventional lamps contain?

In an article entitled “Mercury Use in Lighting,”3 Table 2 shows that 66 percent of CFLs contain 0 to 5 mg of mercury, 30 percent contain between 5 and 10 mg, and 4 percent contain between 10 and 50 mg. Assuming that each lamp in its cluster has the middle level of mercury, the level computes to 5.1 mg of mercury.
The two examples below provide a comparison between a CFL and a conventional lamp. (An mg is 1/1000 of a gram. A microgram is 1/1000 of an mg.

Ten 100-watt conventional lamps have a lifetime equal to one CFL.

Each conventional incandescent lamp lasts 1,000 hours. The 10 lamps then consume 1,000 kWh (100w x 10,000 hours) over their lifetimes. To supply these lamps, power plants will emit about 23 mg of mercury and 2,000 pounds of CO2. A consumer will spend $5 to buy these lamps (50¢ each) and $100 in energy costs to power them at 10¢ per kWh for a total of $105. The light output is 1,500 lumens or about 15 lumens per watt. Note: Conventional bulbs may contain lead solder, and lead is a powerful toxin as well.

One 23-watt CFL has the equivalent output of a 100-watt incandescent lamp.
The lamp lasts 10,000 hours and consumes 230 kWh over its lifetime. To supply that lamp, power plants will emit about 5.2 mg of mercury and about 460 pounds of CO2. Improper disposal of the lamp (for example, if it is consumed in a municipal incinerator) will result in 5.1 mg of mercury entering the environment. In this case the total emissions will be 10.3 mg mercury or about half of the emissions using conventional lamps.

Click to expand...

Andy S. Wright · Mar 9, 2011

Someone invented a longer burning lightbulb?

Was it this guy?

citizenthom · Mar 9, 2011

Supreme said:
So Republicans are trying to stop it... by bringing it up and passing another law against it.

Weird method of stopping the crazy policies on light bulbs.

That's how statutes ar repealed. I fail to see what is "weird" about it.

Andrew Ryan · Mar 9, 2011

citizenthom said:
The bill would in fact repeal previous legislation, passed by the Democratic Congress. Republicans didn't start this crazy train; they're just trying to stop it.

I don't really see how this legislation is "crazy," or why on Earth Republicans would want to change it.

chris4243 said:
However, my opinion is that there should have been a tax on inefficient lightbulbs rather than a ban. This would allow greater freedom while still pushing toward greater efficiency. And there are places an incandescent might be better, and some people just like the color better.

I support an outright ban, period. I think this whole argument of "freedom of choice for light-bulbs," is simply absurd. As in most cases nowdays, I ask, freedom for whom? To do what? To use an inefficient and ultimately costly source of lighting simply because they like the color better or want to oppose anything the opposite party wants to put into action which ultimately is a burden upon the State's coffers and the citizenry as a whole? I mean, it's ridiculous to me.

Further, the company or companies that just came out with said light-bulbs just came out with a bulb that is off white, I assume, similar to the traditional incandescent. I also, think it's absurd that the main arguments against this is shape and color. Like that is a valid reason to oppose such things and to to further put a strain on the economy and harm to the environment.

In my opinion, this is just some stupid way Republicans can oppose yet another thing that the Democrats have put into place which is why I am done with left-right American partisan politics. It's stupid and is ruining this country. This is like epitome of what I feel is wrong with modern American politics today, this stupid crap right here.

Wolseley · Mar 9, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
This is where we disagree, I believe that private businesses should ultimately serve the interests of the State.

Hmmm....now when I was in school, we called that "fascist corporatism". It flourished in Europe under guys like Benito Mussolini and Albert Speer, neither of whom, as I recall, has ever been seen as heroes of humanity.

Andrew Ryan · Mar 9, 2011

Wolseley said:
Hmmm....now when I was in school, we called that "fascist corporatism".

Good to see you learned something.

Andy S. Wright · Mar 9, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
This is where we disagree, I believe that private businesses should ultimately serve the interests of the State.

Have you completed the construction of your undersea utopia yet or do I still have time to work in some cardio before the revolution begins?

Gotta be in shape for the apocalypse...

Andrew Ryan · Mar 9, 2011

Andy S. Wright said:
Have you completed the construction of your undersea utopia yet or do I still have time to work in some cardio before the revolution begins?

My city is already complete, at the moment, we're just getting rid of some of the chaff of the city, namely that looney Lamb and that thug Fontaine. As well as correcting our city's problem with careless splicing and the like.

Andy S. Wright · Mar 9, 2011

Andrew Ryan said:
My city is already complete, at the moment, we're just getting rid of some of the chaff of the city, namely that looney Lamb and that thug Fontaine.

That's cool. Would you kindly save some for the rest of us. Hate to think all this exercise is going to waste...

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

Wolseley said:
Not to mention mercury. If you drop one of those pigtail bulbs and smash it, it is recommended that you ventilete the room for a half hour before re-entering. You never had to do that with an incandescent light bulb, I'll tell you that. Typical liberal solution of solving one problem while they create three more that are worse than the original problem to begin with.

Typical conservative fearmongering.

I get the low-mercury light bulbs, which contain 1 mg of mercury. By comparison, the fluorescent lights in my office have 9 mg. And these are low-mercury fluorescent lights; others can get even higher.

Fluorescent lights have been around for decades now, and if you haven't been complaining about the mercury in them, you look pretty silly complaining about CFLs now.

Honestly, this bruhaha over CFLs sounds more and more like a bunch of surly teenagers shouting You're not the boss of me! with every passing day.

Ayersy · Mar 10, 2011

mandyangel said:
Its a mud slide towards socialism if you get the government telling you what you can and cannot have in your house.

WAHEY!

citizenthom · Mar 10, 2011

TheManeki said:
Fluorescent lights have been around for decades now, and if you haven't been complaining about the mercury in them, you look pretty silly complaining about CFLs now.

Until now, no one has been forcing people to buy them for their homes, or more specifically barring them from buying cheaper bulbs.

Honestly, this bruhaha over CFLs sounds more and more like a bunch of surly teenagers shouting You're not the boss of me! with every passing day.

Except these are.grown adults participating in a valid democracy.

craigerNY · Mar 10, 2011

citizenthom said:
Until now, no one has been forcing people to buy them for their homes, or more specifically barring them from buying cheaper bulbs.

Then perhaps the appropriate counter would be that the government shouldn't be telling us what kind of lightbulbs to use because it isn't the government's place. To argue that the government shouldn't tell us what kind of lightbulb to use because there is mercury in the one they are telling us to use is a silly counter.

The right argument is one based upon this being an over reach by the government. The wrong argument is for those opposed to start pretending they care about mercury content of lighting systems.

chris4243 · Mar 10, 2011

citizenthom said:
Until now, no one has been forcing people to buy them for their homes, or more specifically barring them from buying cheaper bulbs.

But why are they complaining about the mercury in the CFL and not complaining about the mercury in the fluorescent tubes that we've had for decades without any problems? And why are they not complaining about the mercury released into the environment by using the old-fashioned light bulbs?

Schneiderman · Mar 10, 2011

It DOESN'T MATTER what the merits of the new lightbulbs may or may not be. The federal government has NO PLACE to regulate my lightbulbs. If they are really that much better, I'll buy them. And actually, yes, I do like them and all the bulbs in my house are CFL's. But it's none of the government's business!

TheManeki · Mar 10, 2011

chris4243 said:
But why are they complaining about the mercury in the CFL and not complaining about the mercury in the fluorescent tubes that we've had for decades without any problems? And why are they not complaining about the mercury released into the environment by using the old-fashioned light bulbs?

Exactly. Even before there was a push to ban incandescent bulbs, people who had no problem with standard fluorescent bulbs were whining about mercury. The mercury issue is just a feeble attempt to distract from the underlying reason -- a bratty "you can't tell ME what to do!" (Perhaps with a side of "I'm automatically against anything those environmental types are for.")

Schneiderman · Mar 10, 2011

TheManeki said:
a bratty "you can't tell ME what to do!" (Perhaps with a side of "I'm automatically against anything those environmental types are for.")

They CAN'T tell me what to do, at least when it comes to lightbulbs.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

Republicans and Lightbulbs

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

The Agnostic, Ignostic, Apatheistic Atheist

British

Advocate of Truth

Hiding In Plain Sight

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

I like any king that can reign with his fist

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

I like any king that can reign with his fist

Hiding In Plain Sight

I like any king that can reign with his fist

Hiding In Plain Sight

Christian Humanist

Friendly Neighborhood Nihilist

I'm not sayin'. I'm just sayin'.

I bring nothing to the table

Advocate of Truth

Senior Veteran

Christian Humanist

Senior Veteran

Similar threads