Compact Fluorescent Bulbs Increase "Greenhouse Gases"

Liberalism always seems to achieve the exact opposite of it's stated intent and here's another example. Not only do compact fluorescent bulbs contain mercury which is extraordinarily toxic to pretty much everything that lives, they actually increase the emission of so called "greenhouse gases" in colder climates.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2009/03/04/mb-light-bulbs.html
http://www.vancouversun.com/Technology/Energy+efficient+bulbs+increase+greenhouse+gases+Hydro/1297203/story.html

I don't care. They save me money on my electric bill and cut down our use of foreign oil. If even only a bit, the less money I give to the likes of the Saudis and Chavez the better.

I can't wait for LED technology to be ready for prime time. That will really save me some $ when they have good product out at a reasonable price.

Stupid enviro weenies!

There are several sides to the CBC story.

1- it's focused on Canadians. So I don't care.
2- it's focused on people who live where it's cold. So that's their problem.
3- In nicer climates where we use AC in the summer the CFL is a huge benefit because it doesn't give off the heat of an incandescent.
4- Wasn't any of that obvious before this article? I'd figured out all of that years ago. Duh!

Edwin D Gill wrote:I don't care. They save me money on my electric bill and cut down our use of foreign oil. If even only a bit, the less money I give to the likes of the Saudis and Chavez the better.

We could eliminate the use of all foreign oil by drilling and refining our own oil and taking advantage of existing liquid coal technology. Throw in allowing power companies to build new nuclear power plants and the US will not only have enough energy for our own needs, but we would become the world's largest exporter.

Edwin D Gill wrote:I can't wait for LED technology to be ready for prime time. That will really save me some $ when they have good product out at a reasonable price.

LED tech was ready for household use 20 years ago. A good question to ask would be; who's palms are getting greased to force florescent lighting down our throats?

I use them for their longevity and LEDs are way overdue for home use

Guys, you're all wrong about LED technology. It's still not ready for home use in the quality we demand. Up until just a few years ago you could get an led in any color you wanted, as long as it was red, green or amber. Then came blue and white. But they were and are more expensive to make. The white LEDs get better by a generation or two nearly every year. It's amazing progress. But the color and 'temperature' of the white light is still not where it would be pleasant in the home, at a power that would be enough, at a cost that would be desirable. I think we're about 2-3 years away from really great quality LED home lighting for everyone. The stuff out there now that works is too expensive.

Walmart has some 40 watt LED arrays in light globes (the form factor you'd find in a vanity/bathroom mirror light) They coust around $15 a piece. That's just not competetive.

For now the CFL is the best way to go. I don't worry about the mercury the way the nutjob extremists do. How often do you break CFLs? Besides, FLs, with mercury, have been around for 30 or 40 years or more. I don't recall any massive cases of mercury poisoning. When they are trashed, they go to landfills, which are sealed environments. It's not big deal.

Sorry if I sound like a know it all. I run a business converting homes, offices, etc. to more energy efficient and green technologies. Not because I'm an econut, but because it's good business and people can save hard earned money by using good technology - sometimes.

Auschlander88 wrote:Guys, you're all wrong about LED technology. It's still not ready for home use in the quality we demand. Up until just a few years ago you could get an led in any color you wanted, as long as it was red, green or amber. Then came blue and white. But they were and are more expensive to make. The white LEDs get better by a generation or two nearly every year. It's amazing progress. But the color and 'temperature' of the white light is still not where it would be pleasant in the home, at a power that would be enough, at a cost that would be desirable. I think we're about 2-3 years away from really great quality LED home lighting for everyone. The stuff out there now that works is too expensive.

Walmart has some 40 watt LED arrays in light globes (the form factor you'd find in a vanity/bathroom mirror light) They coust around $15 a piece. That's just not competetive.

For now the CFL is the best way to go. I don't worry about the mercury the way the nutjob extremists do. How often do you break CFLs? Besides, FLs, with mercury, have been around for 30 or 40 years or more. I don't recall any massive cases of mercury poisoning. When they are trashed, they go to landfills, which are sealed environments. It's not big deal.

Sorry if I sound like a know it all. I run a business converting homes, offices, etc. to more energy efficient and green technologies. Not because I'm an econut, but because it's good business and people can save hard earned money by using good technology - sometimes.

Even if everything that you wrote is correct, it still does not justify government trying to force the people to use it's choice of lightbulbs on people.

If those bulbs are $15 a piece now, I wonder how much that they were when I saw them on TechTV about 10 years ago?

The government should not force anyone to do any of this shit.

But switching to CFLs, when you're old school bulbs burn out, is just good sense if you ask me. With rising costs of electricity, and the coming Obama enviroregulations on the energy producers, you'll need to save everywhere you can.

iluvfreebeer wrote:The government should not force anyone to do any of this shit.

But switching to CFLs, when you're old school bulbs burn out, is just good sense if you ask me. With rising costs of electricity, and the coming Obama enviroregulations on the energy producers, you'll need to save everywhere you can.

If you do it by choice, it is one thing. If you do it because it was government mandated, well that is something totally different.

Bitch about the government and the AlGore eco nuts, not the technology and use of CFLs.

Clubtender wrote:

Auschlander88 wrote:Guys, you're all wrong about LED technology. It's still not ready for home use in the quality we demand. Up until just a few years ago you could get an led in any color you wanted, as long as it was red, green or amber. Then came blue and white. But they were and are more expensive to make. The white LEDs get better by a generation or two nearly every year. It's amazing progress. But the color and 'temperature' of the white light is still not where it would be pleasant in the home, at a power that would be enough, at a cost that would be desirable. I think we're about 2-3 years away from really great quality LED home lighting for everyone. The stuff out there now that works is too expensive.

Walmart has some 40 watt LED arrays in light globes (the form factor you'd find in a vanity/bathroom mirror light) They coust around $15 a piece. That's just not competetive.

For now the CFL is the best way to go. I don't worry about the mercury the way the nutjob extremists do. How often do you break CFLs? Besides, FLs, with mercury, have been around for 30 or 40 years or more. I don't recall any massive cases of mercury poisoning. When they are trashed, they go to landfills, which are sealed environments. It's not big deal.

Sorry if I sound like a know it all. I run a business converting homes, offices, etc. to more energy efficient and green technologies. Not because I'm an econut, but because it's good business and people can save hard earned money by using good technology - sometimes.

Even if everything that you wrote is correct, it still does not justify government trying to force the people to use it's choice of lightbulbs on people.

If those bulbs are $15 a piece now, I wonder how much that they were when I saw them on TechTV about 10 years ago?

As for what Auschlander88 wrote, That's is all very accurate. I invested in an LED lighting company and boned up pretty well on the technology. I'm hoping it pans our sooner than 2-3 years so I can get paid back.


http://www.earthtechproducts.com/energy-saving-led-light-bulbs.html

Edwin D Gill wrote:As for what Auschlander88 wrote, That's is all very accurate. I invested in an LED lighting company and boned up pretty well on the technology. I'm hoping it pans our sooner than 2-3 years so I can get paid back.


http://www.earthtechproducts.com/energy-saving-led-light-bulbs.html

If government doesn't kill LED before it grows to protect florescent lighting, you seem to have a piece of the future of lighting.

President Obama's stimulus plan includes incentives for progressive thinking companies that are pursuing technologies like solar, wind, LED and bio-fuels. I think your investment will work well as the economy is now well positioned to recover.

Government using taxpayer money to subsidize anything in the private sector is wrong on any level. It's wrong when Republicans do it and it is wrong when Democrats do it.

Clubtender wrote:Government using taxpayer money to subsidize anything in the private sector is wrong on any level. It's wrong when Republicans do it and it is wrong when Democrats do it.

What about when they subsidize the giant military/aerospace companies? This has been going on for 80+ years? We wouldn't have the military we have now if we didn't subsidize the likes of Boeing, Lockheed, etc. Those companies can't afford all the R&D on their dime. It's too expensive and too risky.

When we had competitions for major aircraft we subsidized the competing companies. Even if they lost, they got more than enough money to recoup their costs. That's a subsidy. A form of corporate welfare.

The problem with the government providing incentives to move technology in a certain direction is that .gov is full of lawyahs, not scientists, and it takes the free market out of the equation.

Technology should be driven by dreamers, scientists, geniuses, customers and consumers. Take any of those out of the equation and you will have problems.

GD2GO wrote:

Clubtender wrote:Government using taxpayer money to subsidize anything in the private sector is wrong on any level. It's wrong when Republicans do it and it is wrong when Democrats do it.

What about when they subsidize the giant military/aerospace companies? This has been going on for 80+ years? We wouldn't have the military we have now if we didn't subsidize the likes of Boeing, Lockheed, etc. Those companies can't afford all the R&D on their dime. It's too expensive and too risky.

When we had competitions for major aircraft we subsidized the competing companies. Even if they lost, they got more than enough money to recoup their costs. That's a subsidy. A form of corporate welfare.

i concur

I like CFLs. They save me a lot of money in my electric bill (along with other 'green' things I have done.) But I use them purely for economic reasons, not for any phone 'green' intentions.

I do it for the same reasons Scout

Obama Rulz wrote:President Obama's stimulus plan includes incentives for progressive thinking companies that are pursuing technologies like solar, wind, LED and bio-fuels. I think your investment will work well as the economy is now well positioned to recover.

You're either a fucking moron, or a total buffoon...