The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

Thanks

techman41973 writes:

The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

The article is pretty clear, 120W is outside the range:

The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January
2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not banned.

--
Dan Espen

Not entirely clear. Some specialty bulbs are exempt.
it's not clear if outdoor flood lamps are or not.

On Sep 11, 11:59*am, wrote:
techman41973 writes:
The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...light_bulbs#Un...

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

The article is pretty clear, 120W is outside the range:

* The *efficiency standards will *start with *100-watt bulbs *in January
* 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. *Incandescent is not banned.

--
Dan Espen

"techman41973" wrote in message
...
The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

Thanks

The only bulbs being phased out starting 1/1/12 are the standard 100 watt
A-line types. PAR30 bulbs aren't on the exempt list, but PAR types aren't
mentioned in EISA except for the BPAR (blown glass) type along with R BR and
ER types.

There's a good summary at:
http://applications.nam.lighting.phi...molegislation/

Terry McGowan

In article , wrote:

tec
2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not banned.

But since it bans lights that don't make the efficiency standard and
incandescents by their nature (and physics and...) can't make the
efficiency standard, they are banning incandescent lights by any
definition of the word used outside of DC.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

No need to stock up on old technology, energy-saving
halogens to the rescue.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...-bulb-ban-0711

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_e...oducts&lang=en

All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James

"James" wrote in message
net...
All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when
the American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James

Why is requiring more efficient light bulbs any different than requiring
more efficient refrigerators or cars that get better gas mileage?

Terry McGowan

Our next Prez will be Demican. Oh, I mean Republicrat.

I had high hopes for GHWB, the tall Texan. Sadly, he's been,
and the next guys, been disappointing.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"James" wrote in message
net...
All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next
election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some
decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James

And, neither is a power delegated by the US Constitution.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"TKM" wrote in message
...

the American people tell Washington that they can make
some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James

Why is requiring more efficient light bulbs any different
than requiring
more efficient refrigerators or cars that get better gas
mileage?

Terry McGowan

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:32:27 -0400, "James"
wrote:

All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.


You and the others who like those old fashioned bulbs should just
stockpile some. Not hard to do.
http://www.bulbs.com/Incandescent_Bu...0bulbs&AffID=6

No law against stocking up.
Probably a few hundred bucks would get you 30 year's worth.
Lots of people did that with R12 when R134A became the standard.
Could get 10 bucks for a can you paid a buck for.
Whoa.
Just looked on eBay and there's 3 12-ounce cans bid up to 50 bucks
right now.
I just moved to 134A when it came along.
Converted the R12 on my '90 Corsica to 134A. Worked fine.
I don't want nothing to do with incandescent bulbs for common
lighting.
Haven't bought them for years, except tail light and china cabinet
bulbs. Think they'll still be available.
Never stocked up on carburetors either.
Prices on 4-barrel Holleys got outrageous.
I don't care now since that was 30 years ago and I moved to fuel
injection.
After my first 6 month cruise in the Navy I knew the one thing I
missed the most being at sea for a long time was Coca-Cola.
All my future trips I stocked up my steaming locker with cans of
Coca-Cola. It held about 15 cans.
I was offered up to 5 bucks for a can.
Understand that you could get a whore for 5 bucks then.
Never sold any. Gave a couple cans to mates.
Drank the rest myself. It was a real treat.
If I loved them incandescent light bulbs like I did Coca-Cola,
I'd be the same way.
Just buy some up for a supply, and keep them for my lonesome.
Might give one to a relative as a Christmas present.
I'm not heartless.

--Vic

On Sep 11, 7:32*pm, "James" wrote:
All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James

sure use more power who cares.

we can just build some more nuke power plants, they are perfectly safe.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear bulbs.

energy-saving halogens to the rescue.

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environ...-bulb-ban-0711

http://www.lighting.philips.com/us_e...oducts&lang=en


Halogens are great for some uses. I don't like them where the bulb is part of
the looks of the fixture, which almost all of mine are. They're blinding if
directly in the eyes. Shadows seem worse, too.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:34:53 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:32:27 -0400, "James"
wrote:

All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.


You and the others who like those old fashioned bulbs should just
stockpile some. Not hard to do.
http://www.bulbs.com/Incandescent_Bu...0bulbs&AffID=6

I used 1000bulbs.com. Saved a bunch of money, too.

No law against stocking up.
Probably a few hundred bucks would get you 30 year's worth.
Lots of people did that with R12 when R134A became the standard.
Could get 10 bucks for a can you paid a buck for.
Whoa.

I should order more bulbs. I figure 10:1 shouldn't be too hard there, either.

Just looked on eBay and there's 3 12-ounce cans bid up to 50 bucks
right now.
I just moved to 134A when it came along.
Converted the R12 on my '90 Corsica to 134A. Worked fine.
I don't want nothing to do with incandescent bulbs for common
lighting.
Haven't bought them for years, except tail light and china cabinet
bulbs. Think they'll still be available.
Never stocked up on carburetors either.
Prices on 4-barrel Holleys got outrageous.
I don't care now since that was 30 years ago and I moved to fuel
injection.
After my first 6 month cruise in the Navy I knew the one thing I
missed the most being at sea for a long time was Coca-Cola.
All my future trips I stocked up my steaming locker with cans of
Coca-Cola. It held about 15 cans.
I was offered up to 5 bucks for a can.
Understand that you could get a whore for 5 bucks then.
Never sold any. Gave a couple cans to mates.
Drank the rest myself. It was a real treat.
If I loved them incandescent light bulbs like I did Coca-Cola,
I'd be the same way.
Just buy some up for a supply, and keep them for my lonesome.
Might give one to a relative as a Christmas present.
I'm not heartless.

;-)

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.


If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. ;-)

Kurt Ullman writes:

In article , wrote:

tec
2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Also note that these are efficiency standards. Incandescent is not banned.

But since it bans lights that don't make the efficiency standard and
incandescents by their nature (and physics and...) can't make the
efficiency standard, they are banning incandescent lights by any
definition of the word used outside of DC.

Keep up with the news:

http://tinyurl.com/44yad47

Philips Lighting (NYSE: PHG) is launching a new line of incandescent
light bulbs designed to meet federal energy efficiency standards that
will take force in the US over the next few years.

--
Dan Espen

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.


If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. ;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:32:27 -0400, "James"
wrote:

All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James


America is now being run by communists. No matter who gets elected,
if they are either democrat or republican, they will be commies.
Unless people vote outside these parties, we can all kiss America
goodbye. Whats next, a ban on toilets, or maybe a ban on anything and
everything that burns fuel. Hell, maybe these commies will ban
everyone from living after they reach the age of 60, to solve the
Social Security problems. There are European countries that have more
freedoms than we now have in America.

And if you think you can order your light bulbs from a foreign country
over ebay, I'm sure the US govt will start a program to arrest or even
imprison people caught by the postal workers who will use detectors to
detect packages with light bulbs. If you think this is too far
fetched, think again. They are already doing this sort of thing with
people who import tobacco to try to avoid the outrageous taxes they
put on tobacco products now.

Just wait till they begin putting "chips" in all newborn babies so
they can track every movement they make in life, via GPS..... YES,
THIS IS COMING! Mark my word.....

On 9/11/2011 1:35 PM, techman41973 wrote:
The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over 100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30 flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive lighting
fixtures.

Thanks

posted often at a.h.r
http://www.donklipstein.com/incban.html

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.


If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for
electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. ;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't
ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

With the exception of the oven, refrigerators and the dryer,
I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.

On 9/12/2011 12:22 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.


If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. ;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

LOL! Not as *UGLY* as your electric bill.

On Sep 12, 12:35*am, wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 19:32:27 -0400, "James"
wrote:

All of these restrictions will be reversed after the next election, when the
American people tell Washington that they can make some decisons for
themselves, including their choice of a lightbulb.

James

America is now being run by communists. *No matter who gets elected,
if they are either democrat or republican, they will be commies.
Unless people vote outside these parties, we can all kiss America
goodbye. *Whats next, a ban on toilets, or maybe a ban on anything and
everything that burns fuel. *Hell, maybe these commies will ban
everyone from living after they reach the age of 60, to solve the
Social Security problems. *There are European countries that have more
freedoms than we now have in America. *

And if you think you can order your light bulbs from a foreign country
over ebay, I'm sure the US govt will start a program to arrest or even
imprison people caught by the postal workers who will use detectors to
detect packages with light bulbs. *If you think this is too far
fetched, think again. *They are already doing this sort of thing with
people who import tobacco to try to avoid the outrageous taxes they
put on tobacco products now.

Just wait till they begin putting "chips" in all newborn babies so
they can track every movement they make in life, via GPS..... *YES,
THIS IS COMING! *Mark my word.....

yep that law requiring seatbelts and air bags wasnt necessary, nore
the fuel economy standards for vehicles

On Sep 12, 5:34*am, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:
wrote in message

...





On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. *I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.

If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for
electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. *;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. *CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't
ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

With the exception of the oven, refrigerators and the dryer,
I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's fine if the light and operating charecteristics are
OK with you. Me, I use CFL where they make sense.
And that sure isn't all over my house. They just do not
produce light that is acceptable in all environments.
I figure that most people are smart enough to figure
out where to use them to save money where appropriate
and don't need the govt forcing them on us where they
don't belong.

I'll predict right now that some time next year, this
phase-out of most incandescent light bulbs will come
back to bite Congress big time. It will be one
more example of what the people don't want, which
is more govt running their lives. The consequences
will be it will help make Obama a one term president
and cost the Dems more seats in Congress.

On Sep 12, 9:28*am, "
wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:34*am, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. *I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.

If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for
electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. *;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. *CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't
ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

With the exception of the oven, refrigerators and the dryer,
I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's fine if the light and operating charecteristics are
OK with you. *Me, I use CFL where they make sense.
And that sure isn't all over my house. *They just do not
produce light that is acceptable in all environments.
I figure that most people are smart enough to figure
out where to use them to save money where appropriate
and don't need the govt forcing them on us where they
don't belong.

I'll predict right now that some time next year, this
phase-out of most incandescent light bulbs will come
back to bite Congress big time. *It will be one
more example of what the people don't want, which
is more govt running their lives. *The consequences
will be it will help make Obama a one term president
and cost the Dems more seats in Congress.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

have you seen the republican partys ideas.

elminate the minimum wage completely

end medicare as we know it

end social security as we know it for anyone not currently collecting
benefits

cut taxes on the super wealthy, including dropping the capital gains
tax rate to zero.

all of these will put more tax burdens on the middle class

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:34:21 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.


If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for
electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. ;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't
ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

With the exception of the oven, refrigerators and the dryer,
I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.

Whoopie! I'm positively green with envy.

On Sep 12, 9:38*am, bob haller wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:28*am, "
wrote:





On Sep 12, 5:34*am, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. *I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.

If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for
electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. *;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. *CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't
ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

With the exception of the oven, refrigerators and the dryer,
I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's fine if the light and operating charecteristics are
OK with you. *Me, I use CFL where they make sense.
And that sure isn't all over my house. *They just do not
produce light that is acceptable in all environments.
I figure that most people are smart enough to figure
out where to use them to save money where appropriate
and don't need the govt forcing them on us where they
don't belong.

I'll predict right now that some time next year, this
phase-out of most incandescent light bulbs will come
back to bite Congress big time. *It will be one
more example of what the people don't want, which
is more govt running their lives. *The consequences
will be it will help make Obama a one term president
and cost the Dems more seats in Congress.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

have you seen the republican partys ideas.

elminate the minimum wage completely

end medicare as we know it

end social security as we know it for anyone not currently collecting
benefits

cut taxes on the super wealthy, including dropping the capital gains
tax rate to zero.

all of these will put more tax burdens on the middle class- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Typical. You've taken every concept you don't agree
with from God knows which Republicans, then in most
cases totally distorted what they actually said, and
packaged it into one convenient strawman.

Let's take one example. The current front runners
in the Republican race are Romney and Perry by a
huge margin. So they must represent the views
of most Republicans.
Show us where Romney or Perry, the front runners
by a wide margin, have a plan of cutting the captial
gains tax to zero for super wealthy Americans, putting
more burden on the middle class.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 06:38:31 -0700 (PDT), bob haller wrote:

On Sep 12, 9:28*am, "
wrote:
On Sep 12, 5:34*am, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:





wrote in message

.. .

On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. *I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.

If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for
electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. *;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. *CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't
ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

With the exception of the oven, refrigerators and the dryer,
I don't have a single incandescent bulb in the house.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That's fine if the light and operating charecteristics are
OK with you. *Me, I use CFL where they make sense.
And that sure isn't all over my house. *They just do not
produce light that is acceptable in all environments.
I figure that most people are smart enough to figure
out where to use them to save money where appropriate
and don't need the govt forcing them on us where they
don't belong.

I'll predict right now that some time next year, this
phase-out of most incandescent light bulbs will come
back to bite Congress big time. *It will be one
more example of what the people don't want, which
is more govt running their lives. *The consequences
will be it will help make Obama a one term president
and cost the Dems more seats in Congress.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

have you seen the republican partys ideas.

elminate the minimum wage completely

Excellent idea, though you know as well as I that it's not going to happen.

end medicare as we know it

Excellent idea. It *will* end, as we know it. It's better to control how it
ends.

end social security as we know it for anyone not currently collecting
benefits

A lie, but see the above.

cut taxes on the super wealthy, including dropping the capital gains
tax rate to zero.

Excellent idea! However, Romney wants to drop it only on those making $200K.

all of these will put more tax burdens on the middle class

You're nuts.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:54:53 -0400, Ted tedjackson@compuserve.... wrote:

On 9/12/2011 12:22 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 23:04:23 -0400, "Michael Angelo"michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 18:27:36 -0400, "Michael Angelo"
michael@angelo wrote:

No need to stock up on old technology,

Too late. I've already piled up about 400 60W clear
bulbs.


If you pay 10 cents/kilowatt and get 1000 hours life per
bulb, those 400 bulbs will cost you $2,400 for electricity.
Personally I'd use CFL or LED bulbs and pocket the $1,800
savings....but that's just me. ;-)

Absolutely irrelevant. CFLs are *UGLY* and LEDs ain't ready for primetime
(not that CFLs are, for that matter).

LOL! Not as *UGLY* as your electric bill.

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric bill.

" wrote in news:c53f39c8-
:

Let's take one example. The current front runners
in the Republican race are Romney and Perry by a
huge margin. So they must represent the views
of most Republicans.

Those are polls done recently. Even the primaries are way in the future.
Neither of these have any chance of getting elected, even against Obama
(with Romney probably having a way better chance than Perry).

I wish the Republicans would come to their senses and start talking
something better than way out ultraright fanaticism. I'm not that fond of
Obama anymore, but more because of stupid tricks and pandering to Boner
than because I didn't like Barack's ideas.

This is usenet, and my opinion. YMMV

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion. Fridge and A/C are most important, then other
appliances. Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very
nicely. While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sep 12, 10:33*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in news:c53f39c8-
:

Let's take one example. *The current front runners
in the Republican race are Romney and Perry by a
huge margin. * So they must represent the views
of most Republicans.

Those are polls done recently. *Even the primaries are way in the future. *

They are, but my point was that Romney and Perry
obviously represent the views of far more Republicans
than do someone like Ron Paul or Herman Cain.



Neither of these have any chance of getting elected, even against Obama
(with Romney probably having a way better chance than Perry).

Watch what happens in Nevada and NYC tomorrow.
The last poll in NYC showed the Republican 6 points
ahead in the race for Anthony SeeMy Weiner's
district. And that district is 3:1 Democrat, with the
Dems holding that seat forever. That is one the
Dems should win easily. Ed Koch has even endorsed
the Republican because he's ****ed off at Obama.
Nevada is all but done too.

Obama's response to his declining fortunes is to
offer up more of the same, packaged with indignation.


I wish the Republicans would come to their senses and start talking
something better than way out ultraright fanaticism.

What exactly is ultra-right fanatic about Romney or
Perry?



*I'm not that fond of
Obama anymore, but more because of stupid tricks and pandering to Boner
than because I didn't like Barack's ideas.

Which is why he's going to lose to the Republican
candidate. The only way the Republicans can lose
is if they nominate a total nut case, eg Ron Paul.




This is usenet, and my opinion. *YMMV

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

" wrote in
:

On Sep 12, 10:33*am, Han wrote:
" wrote in
news:c53f39c8-
:

Let's take one example. *The current front runners
in the Republican race are Romney and Perry by a
huge margin. * So they must represent the views
of most Republicans.

Those are polls done recently. *Even the primaries are way in the
future. *

They are, but my point was that Romney and Perry
obviously represent the views of far more Republicans
than do someone like Ron Paul or Herman Cain.

Agreed, but even that ignores more moderate or liberal Republicans.

Neither of these have any chance of getting elected, even against
Obama (with Romney probably having a way better chance than Perry).

Watch what happens in Nevada and NYC tomorrow.
The last poll in NYC showed the Republican 6 points
ahead in the race for Anthony SeeMy Weiner's
district. And that district is 3:1 Democrat, with the
Dems holding that seat forever. That is one the
Dems should win easily. Ed Koch has even endorsed
the Republican because he's ****ed off at Obama.
Nevada is all but done too.

I will be watching!!! I'm just wondering whether Democratic political
stupidity can trump (pun intended) Republican idiocy.

Obama's response to his declining fortunes is to
offer up more of the same, packaged with indignation.

It seems to be difficult for him to embrace compromise (a must!!) with
adhering to his earlier views. It's disgusting, but I'm holding my nose
....

I wish the Republicans would come to their senses and start talking
something better than way out ultraright fanaticism.

What exactly is ultra-right fanatic about Romney or Perry?

Perry is definitely way out there. Un electable. And Romney has big
problems in his "old" state of Mass, where he is pretty much hated,
despite his Obamacare-like health program that in general is doing as
well as can be expected. So Romney will get it from both sides, left and
right - ergo, he's unelectable as well.

*I'm not that fond of
Obama anymore, but more because of stupid tricks and pandering to
Boner than because I didn't like Barack's ideas.

Which is why he's going to lose to the Republican candidate. The only
way the Republicans can lose is if they nominate a total nut case, eg
Ron Paul.

Totally agree, but he's a populist very similar in a sense to Ross Perot
or Ralph Nader. Repubs should go left quite a bit (without relinquishing
fiscal responsibility), and kill off third party candidates.

This is usenet, and my opinion. *YMMV

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion.

Wrong. On standby it's next to nothing. When it's on (a significant part of
the day) it's around 100X the power.

Fridge and A/C are most important,

You forgot hot water and heat.

then other appliances.

Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very
nicely.

A couple of bucks a month. Maximum.

While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any better
for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've laid in a
lifetime supply of incandescents.

" wrote in
news
On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric
bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion.

Wrong. On standby it's next to nothing. When it's on (a significant
part of the day) it's around 100X the power.

Fridge and A/C are most important,

You forgot hot water and heat.

Hot water and heat should be gas, not eletric grin.

then other appliances.

Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very
nicely.

A couple of bucks a month. Maximum.

Fine, but it makes a difference in an incremental way

While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any
better for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've
laid in a lifetime supply of incandescents.

Sorry. But thanks for investing in a dying industry.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sep 12, 1:46*pm, Han wrote:
" wrote innews




On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
m:

You're 100% wrong. *Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric
bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion.

Wrong. *On standby it's next to nothing. *When it's on (a significant
part of the day) it's around 100X the power.

Fridge and A/C are most important,

You forgot hot water and heat.

Hot water and heat should be gas, not eletric grin.

then other appliances. *

Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very
nicely.

A couple of bucks a month. *Maximum.

Fine, but it makes a difference in an incremental way

While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any
better for omnidirectional fixtures. *That's the primary reason I've
laid in a lifetime supply of incandescents.

Sorry. *But thanks for investing in a dying industry.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The vast energy and large supply chain of parts that goes into a CFL
negates the savings. An incandescent has 5 parts. A CFL can have a
hundred parts each of which needs a deep global supply chain, mining,
and manufacturing of those complex electronic parts, not to mention
the toxic phosphors, gasses and mercury. An incandescent has no toxic
components and uses argon a harmless inert gas some glass, tungsten
wire, aluminum, solder and brass. This story is much like the ethanol
story, it takes more energy and pollutes more just to make the ethanol
(a low btu fuel that gets fewer mpg to boot). But a farm lobby that
keeps the boondoggle going in a few corn states.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:54:53 -0400, Ted
tedjackson@compuserve.... wrote:

LOL! Not as *UGLY* as your electric bill.

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my
electric bill.

Yah, I suspect your air conditioners run 24/7/365 trying to
pump all that hot air out of your house.

On 12 Sep 2011 18:46:30 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
news
On 12 Sep 2011 14:36:41 GMT, Han wrote:

" wrote in
:

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my electric
bill.

If you leave your TV on standby when not watching, then that is a
significant portion.

Wrong. On standby it's next to nothing. When it's on (a significant
part of the day) it's around 100X the power.

Fridge and A/C are most important,

You forgot hot water and heat.

Hot water and heat should be gas, not eletric grin.

Not when the only alternative is LP and electricity is cheap (heat pumps
making it even cheaper).

then other appliances.

Light may be a small portion, but CFL's do cut that part very
nicely.

A couple of bucks a month. Maximum.

Fine, but it makes a difference in an incremental way

Nonsense. I lose more change out of my pocket.

While incandescant bulbs may have a slightly nicer light, we have
gone to CFLs wherever we can.

CFLs will always be ugly and I'm not convinced that LEDs will be any
better for omnidirectional fixtures. That's the primary reason I've
laid in a lifetime supply of incandescents.

Sorry. But thanks for investing in a dying industry.

China thanks you for investing in them.

On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:25:09 -0400, "Michael Angelo" michael@angelo wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 05:54:53 -0400, Ted
tedjackson@compuserve.... wrote:

LOL! Not as *UGLY* as your electric bill.

You're 100% wrong. Light is an *INSIGNIFICANT* part of my
electric bill.

Yah, I suspect your air conditioners run 24/7/365 trying to
pump all that hot air out of your house.

I suspect there is a constant sucking sound coming from your ears.

RickH writes:

On Sep 12, 1:46Â*pm, Han wrote:
The vast energy and large supply chain of parts that goes into a CFL
negates the savings. An incandescent has 5 parts. A CFL can have a
hundred parts each of which needs a deep global supply chain, mining,
and manufacturing of those complex electronic parts, not to mention
the toxic phosphors, gasses and mercury. An incandescent has no toxic
components and uses argon a harmless inert gas some glass, tungsten
wire, aluminum, solder and brass. This story is much like the ethanol
story, it takes more energy and pollutes more just to make the ethanol
(a low btu fuel that gets fewer mpg to boot). But a farm lobby that
keeps the boondoggle going in a few corn states.

85% of the worlds supply of tungsten comes from China.
There is an estimated 140 year supply remaining on the planet.

CFLs last a lot longer than incandescent.
Make sure to include that factor in any cost and pollution
considerations.

The bulbs should be recycled so that the tiny amount of mercury
in the bulb can be recovered.

I put CFLs in our bathroom vanity mirror.
Just the tips stick out and when lit,
they look great.

--
Dan Espen

Strange. I don't remember seeing "energy efficiency" as one
of the powers delegated to the Fed by the Constitution.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"techman41973" wrote in message
...
The federal government is banning incandescent bulbs over
100 watts
this January
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-o...#United_States

Does anyone know for sure if flood lamp bulbs (such as
PAR30) used in
outdoor light fixtures will be exempt?
I'd like to know if I need to stock up on the 120watt PAR30
flood
bulbs that are used in some outdoor motion sensitive
lighting
fixtures.

Thanks