"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL

On Dec 16, 6:01*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL

all congress bills should stand alone, not tied to anything else.....

this is one of the problems with congress, reps sell their votes to
the highest bidder and play way too much politics.

kinda like firemen playing cards at the station while a neighborhood
burns

On 12/16/2011 6:01 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL



The whole ban is a bunch of bull****. People will be using specialty
type bulbs (candelabra and other) in place of the standard ones. The
real kicker is that most all of the specialty types are less efficient
than the ones being banned! Check out the watts/lumen.

On 12/16/2011 6:01 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL



question type="rhetorical"

There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

Yep!

One effect of the "ban" had caused a lot of CFLs and LED lamps to become
available. I dare say that most folks who have tried out the
alternatives to incadescents have come to prefer them.

The main problems associated with the alternatives:

1) Many can't be run off a light dimmer or even some electronic switches.

2) CFLs don't reach full brightness for a few minutes.

3) It's hard to find a "bulb" that really gives the equivalent of a 40
watt incadescent that will fit inside a fan light.

But the future is NOW. LEDs are getting more reliable and are starting
to become available in larger sizes.

Speaking for myself, I think I don't have ANY incadescent bulbs INSIDE
the house with the exception of some older Christmas lights. Outside,
the "flood lights" are still old style.

On Dec 16, 1:14*pm, John Gilmer wrote:
There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

Yep!

One effect of the "ban" had caused a lot of CFLs and LED lamps to become
available. * I dare say that most folks who have tried out the
alternatives to incadescents have come to prefer them.

The main problems associated with the alternatives:

1) *Many can't be run off a light dimmer or even some electronic switches.

2) *CFLs don't reach full brightness for a few minutes.

3) *It's hard to find a "bulb" that really gives the equivalent of a 40
watt incadescent that will fit inside a fan light.

But the future is NOW. * LEDs are getting more reliable and are starting
to become available in larger sizes.

Speaking for myself, I think I don't have ANY incadescent bulbs INSIDE
the house with the exception of some older Christmas lights. * Outside,
the "flood lights" are still old style.

Just curious...why are the flood lights still "old style", which I
assume means incandescents?

I switched to CFL floods a while back and am quite satisfied. They do
take a little while to warm up, but that hasn't been an issue so far.
The "early light" is enough if I'm just going to be out there for a
little while. For times when I'm working outside for a longer period,
they get bright soon enough.

As far as dimmable, my front floods are CFL floods controlled by X10
switches, so I can dim them when I don't need full brightness.

On Dec 16, 5:01*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL

Saving energy is worthwhile, of course, but in some cases there is a
safety issue that is overlooked or disregarded. The nearly point
source of incandescent lighting produces sharper defined edges (to
better see cutting tools) and lacks the possible stroboscopic effect
of other illumination. Ask any journeyman tool and die maker or talk
to a professionally qualified industrial safety engineer for insight.
This why in my shop the tool illumination is well placed incandescents
as well as the small entry lights. General lighting with conventional
fluorescents works out OK.

Joe

On Dec 16, 1:14*pm, John Gilmer wrote:
There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

Yep!

One effect of the "ban" had caused a lot of CFLs and LED lamps to become
available. * I dare say that most folks who have tried out the
alternatives to incadescents have come to prefer them.

The main problems associated with the alternatives:

1) *Many can't be run off a light dimmer or even some electronic switches.

2) *CFLs don't reach full brightness for a few minutes.

3) *It's hard to find a "bulb" that really gives the equivalent of a 40
watt incadescent that will fit inside a fan light.

But the future is NOW. * LEDs are getting more reliable and are starting
to become available in larger sizes.

Speaking for myself, I think I don't have ANY incadescent bulbs INSIDE
the house with the exception of some older Christmas lights. * Outside,
the "flood lights" are still old style.

Nice that it's worked for you. However, those shortcomings
are real and significant. And to the list, I'd add another one which
is that the light quality from CFL and LEDs is just not suitable for
all
applications. And another one which is that the CFLs frequently
fail in a year or two, despite the packaging claims that they last
9 years. You think I'm gonna shell out $40 for an LED one?
Yes I use CFLs where I find they are appropriate.
I hope the repeal bill goes through. Just one more example of a
big govt trying to force crap down our throats. Why can't we
just be free to choose?

Aparently, the enemy is within the gates. And within the elected offices.
Freedom is no longer.

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

wrote in message
...

Just one more example of a
big govt trying to force crap down our throats. Why can't we
just be free to choose?

On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:12:11 -0500, rod blagojevich
wrote:

On 12/16/2011 6:01 AM, HeyBub wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL



question type="rhetorical"

There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

Yep, just received an order for another 100, 100W frosted ones. I only have
two in the house (in the garage), so that should last a while. I have 300 or
so 60W clear bulbs, but the law doesn't affect them for a while yet. Still
more time to order.

A fool and his money are soon parted.


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:12:11 -0500, rod blagojevich

wrote:

question type="rhetorical"

There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

Yep, just received an order for another 100, 100W frosted
ones. I only have
two in the house (in the garage), so that should last a
while. I have 300 or
so 60W clear bulbs, but the law doesn't affect them for a
while yet. Still
more time to order.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
On Dec 16, 5:01 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb
efficiency
standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the so-called ban
on
incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources tell POLITICO the
final
omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the Energy Department's standards
for traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy
efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL

Saving energy is worthwhile, of course, but in some cases there is a
safety issue that is overlooked or disregarded. The nearly point
source of incandescent lighting produces sharper defined edges (to
better see cutting tools) and lacks the possible stroboscopic effect
of other illumination. Ask any journeyman tool and die maker or talk
to a professionally qualified industrial safety engineer for insight.
This why in my shop the tool illumination is well placed incandescents
as well as the small entry lights. General lighting with conventional
fluorescents works out OK.

Joe

I've had a garage door opener fail and the self diagnoses check that I went
through with Genie said that the circuit board failed. They would send me a
new board for $68.
We have a home warranty policy ($75 deductible) so I called in a claim and
they sent a company out and they declared the unit unfixable and replaced
it. The unit was an older Genie, and I had been using CFL bulbs.
He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes from the
bulbs can short out the circuit boards.

Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.

No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.

On 12/17/11 04:49 pm, Joe J wrote:

I've had a garage door opener fail and the self diagnoses check that I
went through with Genie said that the circuit board failed. They would
send me a new board for $68.
We have a home warranty policy ($75 deductible) so I called in a claim
and they sent a company out and they declared the unit unfixable and
replaced it. The unit was an older Genie, and I had been using CFL bulbs.
He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes from
the bulbs can short out the circuit boards.

Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.

No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.

I have no idea whether spikes from CFLs would cause failure of the
garage-door-opener circuitry, but garage door lights usually are on for
such a short time that I cannot see CFLs being cost-effective -- same
with our bathroom lights.

Perce

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:22:59 -0500, "Nymshifting Top-poster"
wrote:


A fool and his money are soon parted.

The real fool top posts.

You may run afoul of the anti hoarding laws. Did you register those bulbs
with the EPA? Get the necessary permits and such?

--

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

wrote in message
...


question type="rhetorical"

There are people still using incandescent light bulbs?

/question

Yep, just received an order for another 100, 100W frosted ones. I only have
two in the house (in the garage), so that should last a while. I have 300
or
so 60W clear bulbs, but the law doesn't affect them for a while yet. Still
more time to order.

Man, that really is profound. So, so true.

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

"Nymshifting Top-poster" wrote in message
...

A fool and his money are soon parted.



Yep, just received an order for another 100, 100W frosted
ones. I only have
two in the house (in the garage), so that should last a
while. I have 300 or
so 60W clear bulbs, but the law doesn't affect them for a
while yet. Still
more time to order.

Yah don't say?

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

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 16:22:59 -0500, "Nymshifting Top-poster"
wrote:


A fool and his money are soon parted.

The real fool top posts.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 17:10:14 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 12/17/11 04:49 pm, Joe J wrote:

I've had a garage door opener fail and the self diagnoses check that I
went through with Genie said that the circuit board failed. They would
send me a new board for $68.
We have a home warranty policy ($75 deductible) so I called in a claim
and they sent a company out and they declared the unit unfixable and
replaced it. The unit was an older Genie, and I had been using CFL bulbs.
He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes from
the bulbs can short out the circuit boards.

Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.

No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.

I have no idea whether spikes from CFLs would cause failure of the
garage-door-opener circuitry, but garage door lights usually are on for
such a short time that I cannot see CFLs being cost-effective -- same
with our bathroom lights.

Same with living room lights, bed room,... But the government knows what's
good for us better than we do.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:08:52 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

Yah don't say?

Can't you read? I *did* say. ;-)

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:07:10 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You may run afoul of the anti hoarding laws. Did you register those bulbs
with the EPA? Get the necessary permits and such?

Of course not. When they outlaw light bulbs, only outlaws will see.

That's a bright thing to say, pardner. You're pretty fast with them twisted
cliches. Matter of fact, I'm wondering if them cliches are yours? I'm the
Net Nanny in these here parts. You done got a bill of sale for them? I might
have to challenge you to a cliche Quickdraw at the OK corral, at high noon.
Folks say I'm pretty quick with a cliche.

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

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:07:10 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You may run afoul of the anti hoarding laws. Did you register those bulbs
with the EPA? Get the necessary permits and such?

Of course not. When they outlaw light bulbs, only outlaws will see.

On 12/17/11 06:10 pm, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I've had a garage door opener fail and the self diagnoses check that I
went through with Genie said that the circuit board failed. They would
send me a new board for $68.
We have a home warranty policy ($75 deductible) so I called in a claim
and they sent a company out and they declared the unit unfixable and
replaced it. The unit was an older Genie, and I had been using CFL bulbs.
He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes from
the bulbs can short out the circuit boards.

Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.

No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.

I have no idea whether spikes from CFLs would cause failure of the
garage-door-opener circuitry, but garage door lights usually are on for
such a short time that I cannot see CFLs being cost-effective -- same
with our bathroom lights.

Same with living room lights, bed room,... But the government knows what's
good for us better than we do.

No doubt it depends on one's lighting needs, Our living-room, bedroom,
kitchen and family-room lights are on for long enough that we use CFLs
there. The dining-room lights are on a dimmer, and dimmable CFLs are
still expensive enough that we still use incandescents (reflector bulbs,
which are not affected by the ban).

Moreover, if I understand the situation correctly, incandescents will
still be available, but they will be halogen ones giving more light per
Watt than the old-fashioned ones -- but still less efficient than CFLs.

It's possible that many of these regulations would never have been
imposed if you didn't have members of Congress that have been bought by
some corporation or other organization.

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they
have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using
CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.

Perce

Yah, us top-posters tend to be a cut above the rest. ;-)

"Stormin Mormon" wrote
in message ...
Man, that really is profound. So, so true.

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

"Nymshifting Top-poster" wrote
in message
...

A fool and his money are soon parted.



Yep, just received an order for another 100, 100W frosted
ones. I only have
two in the house (in the garage), so that should last a
while. I have 300 or
so 60W clear bulbs, but the law doesn't affect them for a
while yet. Still
more time to order.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 19:28:29 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

That's a bright thing to say, pardner. You're pretty fast with them twisted
cliches. Matter of fact, I'm wondering if them cliches are yours? I'm the
Net Nanny in these here parts. You done got a bill of sale for them? I might
have to challenge you to a cliche Quickdraw at the OK corral, at high noon.
Folks say I'm pretty quick with a cliche.

Certainly I have a bill of sale. I bought them over the Internet (tax free).
You still might have time to order from 1000bulbs.com, before the nanny state
starts throwing people into Gitmo for selling illicit lightbulbs. ;-)

"Pssst! Wanna see?"

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

wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 18:07:10 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You may run afoul of the anti hoarding laws. Did you register those bulbs
with the EPA? Get the necessary permits and such?

Of course not. When they outlaw light bulbs, only outlaws will see.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2011 20:03:20 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 12/17/11 06:10 pm, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I've had a garage door opener fail and the self diagnoses check that I
went through with Genie said that the circuit board failed. They would
send me a new board for $68.
We have a home warranty policy ($75 deductible) so I called in a claim
and they sent a company out and they declared the unit unfixable and
replaced it. The unit was an older Genie, and I had been using CFL bulbs.
He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes from
the bulbs can short out the circuit boards.

Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.

No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.

I have no idea whether spikes from CFLs would cause failure of the
garage-door-opener circuitry, but garage door lights usually are on for
such a short time that I cannot see CFLs being cost-effective -- same
with our bathroom lights.

Same with living room lights, bed room,... But the government knows what's
good for us better than we do.

No doubt it depends on one's lighting needs, Our living-room, bedroom,
kitchen and family-room lights are on for long enough that we use CFLs
there. The dining-room lights are on a dimmer, and dimmable CFLs are
still expensive enough that we still use incandescents (reflector bulbs,
which are not affected by the ban).

Nope. Tried them. They took longer to come up to brightness than the things
were typically on.

Moreover, if I understand the situation correctly, incandescents will
still be available, but they will be halogen ones giving more light per
Watt than the old-fashioned ones -- but still less efficient than CFLs.

I have some halogens. They're good for some applications but the light is
quite harsh and they tend to throw shadows, more than a standard incandescent.
It's possible that many of these regulations would never have been
imposed if you didn't have members of Congress that have been bought by
some corporation or other organization.

No, just too many do-gooders with too much time on their hands. No need for a
conspiracy theory when good old incompetence explains it all.

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they
have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using
CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.

Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants
didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.

"Joe J" writes:

He said absolutely do not use CFLs in the openers. Voltage spikes
from the bulbs can short out the circuit boards.

Is he right? I don't know. But I stopped using them in the openers.

No proof to back this up that I can find, but I'm just throwing it out
there. He does it for a living.

I can't find anything either.

He installs garage door openers and makes up stories for a living.

--
Dan Espen

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company.

Accounting for CFL savings gets pretty muddy when the power company
overcharges you for electricity so that they can underwrite "giving away"
bulbs below the cost of production. The bottom line is that you paid full
price for those bulbs by paying your inflated electric bill.

--
Bobby G.

HeyBub wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb
efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the
so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources
tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the
Energy Department's standards for traditional incandescent light
bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL

Here's a thought:

While it's true the Congress passed a bill (and I think the president signed
it) that removed funding for the enforcement of the ban, the ban is still in
place.

What this means is this: If you manufacture, transport, or sell 100-watt
incandescent bulbs, no agency of government has the wherewithal to sanction
you.

Yet.

But what if a future Congress restored the funding for prosecution? The EPA,
CPSC, Department of Boogers, or whoever is in charge of this business pulls
out their files - and believe me, they'll be keeping track - of offenders
for the past five years and heads to court.

I can see it now: Millions upon millions of dollars flow into the treasury,
suitably ear-marked for promotion of renewable energy! Companies that
manufacture whale-oil lamps get grants (whales are a renewable resource).

Shouts are heard across the land.

Percival P. Cassidy wrote:

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if
they have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing
demand; using CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.


Electricity is going to cost more, period. When the new EPA rules go into
effect in January, a significant number of power plants will have to be shut
down. I can't find the number for Texas (I remember 17), but various reports
use the term "many."

Texas is but one of a couple dozen states facing the consequences of this
new rule on sulfur dioxide emissions.

On Sun, 18 Dec 2011 10:53:24 -0600, "HeyBub" wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
"The shutdown-averting budget bill will block federal light bulb
efficiency standards, giving a win to House Republicans fighting the
so-called ban on incandescent light bulbs. GOP and Democratic sources
tell POLITICO the final omnibus bill includes a rider defunding the
Energy Department's standards for traditional incandescent light
bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1gh6osdCL

Here's a thought:

While it's true the Congress passed a bill (and I think the president signed
it) that removed funding for the enforcement of the ban, the ban is still in
place.

What this means is this: If you manufacture, transport, or sell 100-watt
incandescent bulbs, no agency of government has the wherewithal to sanction
you.

Yet.

But what if a future Congress restored the funding for prosecution? The EPA,
CPSC, Department of Boogers, or whoever is in charge of this business pulls
out their files - and believe me, they'll be keeping track - of offenders
for the past five years and heads to court.

I can see it now: Millions upon millions of dollars flow into the treasury,
suitably ear-marked for promotion of renewable energy! Companies that
manufacture whale-oil lamps get grants (whales are a renewable resource).

Shouts are heard across the land.
^^^^^^ Shots

On 12/18/11 02:17 am, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they
have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using
CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.

Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants
didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.

So why is the same utility also advertising subsidies for its customers
to replace their old refrigerators and air conditioners by
more-efficient new ones? According to your logic, they should want
people to keep using old, inefficient units that use more power.

Perce

On 12/21/2011 10:54 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:
On 12/18/11 02:17 am, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they
have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using
CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.

Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants
didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.

So why is the same utility also advertising subsidies for its customers
to replace their old refrigerators and air conditioners by
more-efficient new ones? According to your logic, they should want
people to keep using old, inefficient units that use more power.

Perce

because the local corp commission is making them? also this slows down
the rise of generating capacity they need to build.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 10:58:58 -0700, chaniarts
wrote:

On 12/21/2011 10:54 AM, Percival P. Cassidy wrote:



Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants
didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.

So why is the same utility also advertising subsidies for its customers
to replace their old refrigerators and air conditioners by
more-efficient new ones? According to your logic, they should want
people to keep using old, inefficient units that use more power.

Perce

because the local corp commission is making them? also this slows down
the rise of generating capacity they need to build.

They are making money now. If they have to add new power plants, they
will not be making money as it is expensive and nearly impossible to
get the permits. Mention the word "power plant" and entire towns are
up in arms to keep them out.

It is far better to keep existing facilities operating and sucking up
the existing revenue than to invest billions to increase capacity.

On Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:54:08 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 12/18/11 02:17 am, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BTW, we have a good collection of CFLs that were only a dollar or two
for a six-pack thanks to an instant rebate at Costco from the utility
company. I imagine that electricity is going to cost a lot more if they
have to build new power plants to meet the ever-increasing demand; using
CFLs will postpone or eliminate that need.

Nonsense. More generation also means more revenue. The existing plants
didn't magically appear. No one is losing money delivering energy.

So why is the same utility also advertising subsidies for its customers
to replace their old refrigerators and air conditioners by
more-efficient new ones?

Easy question: government interference.

According to your logic, they should want
people to keep using old, inefficient units that use more power.

We already know you really are that stupid, so you don't have to keep proving
it.

building new power plants cost big bucks. its in everyones best
interest to conserve power......

because ultimately the consumer must pay for all the added costs

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
building new power plants cost big bucks. its in everyones best
interest to conserve power......

because ultimately the consumer must pay for all the added costs

Consumers must also pay for the cost of remediation. If mercury pollution
keeps climbing, we're going to have some serious clean-up costs to face.
The problem may not even have a reasonably priced solution.

http://www.startribune.com/sports/ou.../39748472.html

says: The concentration of mercury in walleye and northern pike has shown
an unexpected long-term rise in lakes throughout Minnesota, and scientists
believe the problem has global causes and consequences . . .
A Minnesota Pollution Control Agency study released Tuesday after being
published last week in the journal Environmental Science & Technology showed
an unexpected rise in mercury concentrations in fish collected from 845
Minnesota lakes. The finding, from an analysis of records kept over 25
years, is a concern because methylmercury, the form of mercury that
contaminates fish, is toxic to humans and wildlife.

Findings like the one above make me uncomfortable because with billions of
CFLS we're putting a lot of mercury into areas that didn't have much of it
before because those areas used hydro or nuclear power. Yes, I know of the
alleged "offset" - that using CFL's causes less net mercury to enter the
ecosystem but . . . I suspect that dubious set of equations was put into
play by power plant owners not wanting to spend money on adding mercury
recovery systems to their powerplants, the *right* way to clean up mercury.

Not very many people include the cost of dealing with babies with mental
retardation and birth defects from mercury in their "mercury offset"
equations. Birth defects and mercury poisoning (it's what mad the Mad Hatter
mad) are serious problems currently facing China's mercury mining and
processing operations. They could easily become our problems after a decade
or two of people failing to recycle the used bulbs properly. And yes, I
know that big fluorescent tubes have been around for years but industrial
lights are far more likely to be recycled than a homeowner's few CFL bulbs.
The change from incandescent bulbs to CFL's has resulted in billions of
bulbs containing trace amounts of mercury entering the ecosystem. Even
micrograms add up when multiplied a billon times. High levels of mercury
have already been found in the bottoms of garbage trucks and the roadways
leading to waste processing/dumping stations. At one time asbestos was the
miracle material turned murderous pollutant. I fear that it will mercury
that is the bane of our generation(s).

--
Bobby G.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:58:06 -0800 (PST), bob haller wrote:

building new power plants cost big bucks. its in everyones best
interest to conserve power......

Stupid, more electricity = more income. The problem, as always, is
government.

because ultimately the consumer must pay for all the added costs

Yes, and have a better life.

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 22:33:40 -0500, "
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 04:58:06 -0800 (PST), bob haller wrote:

building new power plants cost big bucks. its in everyones best
interest to conserve power......

Stupid, more electricity = more income. The problem, as always, is
government.


While generally true, in the case of power plants, it is not always
so. Apply for a permit for a nuke plant and see how many years to
process is and how much it will cost. The payback is rather poor.

Meantime, if you run the present equipment at 85% or so, you can still
make piles of money and fuel the family yacht.

On 12/22/2011 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
....

... Apply for a permit for a nuke plant and see how many years to
process is and how much it will cost....

Nuclear vs fossil really has almost no bearing on the difficulty in
permitting/licensing any more.

Our local generation co-op has been trying for 10 years now to build a
new coal-fired station and has had one obstacle after another placed in
way. Even though initial plans included a demonstration "green"
algae-based biomass project and the plant contains the highest level
(even exceeding latest EPA emission standards) there's simply no
satisfying the naysayers...their objective isn't clean progress; it's to
stifle any development at all.

--

On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:45:17 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/22/2011 10:57 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
...

... Apply for a permit for a nuke plant and see how many years to
process is and how much it will cost....

Nuclear vs fossil really has almost no bearing on the difficulty in
permitting/licensing any more.

Our local generation co-op has been trying for 10 years now to build a
new coal-fired station and has had one obstacle after another placed in
way. Even though initial plans included a demonstration "green"
algae-based biomass project and the plant contains the highest level
(even exceeding latest EPA emission standards) there's simply no
satisfying the naysayers...their objective isn't clean progress; it's to
stifle any development at all.

So if you have lots of bucks rolling in and lining your pockets, it is
easier to just keep everyone happy with present generation instead of
trying to build more capacity. Thus the push for conservation.