Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
Goodbye 100w, 75w Incandescent Lamps
The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love. Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave). Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on the black market. I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door. I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence. On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light. However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a minute or two. With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case. The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy. All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter. We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. That's B.S. How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power generating stations on-line within ten years? We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)? Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska? Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting? Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're wrong now. CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap. We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Banning incandescent lamps? | Metalworking | |||
Incandescent lamp resistance (from sed} - incandescent.pdf | Electronic Schematics | |||
O.T. Making clear lamps into amber lamps | Metalworking | |||
Spotlight bulbs: R63 100W? | UK diy | |||
100w spotlights in multiple-light fitting - desperately sought | UK diy |