Comments on: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/ General interest observations and true web-log. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 00:19:31 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Mixedupalot http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-1363625 Mixedupalot Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:51:00 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-1363625 Dunno about you but I converted most of our home lighting to CF but one spot never worked satisfactorily. I'm in Montreal and here we have cold winter. CF don't work well in sub-zero temperatures. They just give a dimm yellow ghost of a light even after hours of use. I tried many models and brands, some very expensive without anyimprovement. So I'm against a total ban on incandescent as long as there is no replacement for every situationa nd use. GGC Dunno about you but I converted most of our home lighting to CF but one spot never worked satisfactorily.

I’m in Montreal and here we have cold winter. CF don’t work well in sub-zero temperatures. They just give a dimm yellow ghost of a light even after hours of use.

I tried many models and brands, some very expensive without anyimprovement. So I’m against a total ban on incandescent as long as there is no replacement for every situationa nd use.

GGC

]]> By: Frank IBC http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-608379 Frank IBC Fri, 27 Apr 2007 16:53:15 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-608379 Why must "the numbers...be much higher" now? On what basis do you assume that? Why must “the numbers…be much higher” now? On what basis do you assume that?

]]> By: Misanthropic Scott http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-608124 Misanthropic Scott Fri, 27 Apr 2007 14:41:57 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-608124 #45 - Mike, Sorry, I just noticed your comment about the age of the report. There are some updates to it on their site. You can google them if you like. I think the '98 report is the most complete, so I continue to use it. But, you make an excellent point. The numbers must be much higher now. #45 – Mike,

Sorry, I just noticed your comment about the age of the report. There are some updates to it on their site. You can google them if you like.

I think the ’98 report is the most complete, so I continue to use it. But, you make an excellent point. The numbers must be much higher now.

]]> By: Frank IBC http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-608006 Frank IBC Fri, 27 Apr 2007 13:06:09 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-608006 ECA - Steam doesn't heat itself. You need a fuel such as coal or wood. And a steam (AKA "<i>external</i> combustion") engine is a <i>much</i> less efficient means of converting heat into kinetic energy. And much dirtier, too. And bulkier. That's why cars didn't become practical until the gasoline and diesel engines were invented. ECA -

Steam doesn’t heat itself. You need a fuel such as coal or wood. And a steam (AKA “external combustion”) engine is a much less efficient means of converting heat into kinetic energy. And much dirtier, too. And bulkier. That’s why cars didn’t become practical until the gasoline and diesel engines were invented.

]]> By: Misanthropic Scott http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-607914 Misanthropic Scott Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:51:28 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-607914 #53 - TJGeezer, Well said. I'd add that the current Republican Party platform is also not fiscally conservative and hasn't been for many years. At least since GHWB and possibly Reagan, depending on your opinion of Gush Up Economics, the prior values of the Republican Party are long gone. <strong>Under GHWB, the national debt went from 2 to 4 trillion bucks, in just four years.</strong> That's not fiscally conservative. The "tax and spend liberals" are more fiscally conservative than the "borrow and spend republicans" in recent years. At least we recognize that the money has to come from somewhere. #53 – TJGeezer,

Well said. I’d add that the current Republican Party platform is also not fiscally conservative and hasn’t been for many years. At least since GHWB and possibly Reagan, depending on your opinion of Gush Up Economics, the prior values of the Republican Party are long gone.

Under GHWB, the national debt went from 2 to 4 trillion bucks, in just four years.

That’s not fiscally conservative. The “tax and spend liberals” are more fiscally conservative than the “borrow and spend republicans” in recent years. At least we recognize that the money has to come from somewhere.

]]> By: Doug M http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-607299 Doug M Fri, 27 Apr 2007 01:39:36 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-607299 #15 (Mark), yes Canada's conservative is still left of US centre. But no, we have not banned gun ownership. All firearms are registered, but far from banned. And while we do have a universal healthcare system, it is not state run. It is run by each individual province. People pay for it though. In some provinces you pay for it with your tax return while others separate it but all base it on your income bracket. Only the dirt poor pay nothing. Plus most people also have group health through their employers that they contribute to. So it is hardly socialist. #15 (Mark), yes Canada’s conservative is still left of US centre. But no, we have not banned gun ownership. All firearms are registered, but far from banned. And while we do have a universal healthcare system, it is not state run. It is run by each individual province. People pay for it though. In some provinces you pay for it with your tax return while others separate it but all base it on your income bracket. Only the dirt poor pay nothing. Plus most people also have group health through their employers that they contribute to. So it is hardly socialist.

]]> By: Smartalix http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-607201 Smartalix Thu, 26 Apr 2007 23:59:19 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-607201 We should wait for solid-state lighting tech to mature a little more. We should wait for solid-state lighting tech to mature a little more.

]]> By: TJGeezer http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-607105 TJGeezer Thu, 26 Apr 2007 22:41:26 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-607105 34 - god - You're right, but only because of how screwed up our political labels have gotten. I think people who want to constantly tinker with the U.S. Constitution (how many amendments have been proposed for short-term political gain by the Republicans in the last decade?) are revolutionaries. Conservatives are those who want to keep the Constitution intact, including a Bill of Rights the founders considered so important they listed them separately from the main process document itself. That makes me a conservative, but I sure ain't no neo-con. And thinking about the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity and the drug war enforcement bureaucracies can make me feel sick to my stomach. That makes me a patriot as well as a conservative. The way people throw "liberal" and "conservative" around in this forum goes beyond silly and well into the absurd sometimes. It seems to me pretty consrvative to want to end the subsidies we pay to Big Oil and transfer those costs directly to the pump so consumers can at least see them. Calling that a "liberal" tactic is either silly or stupid. Either way, it's wrong-headed. 34 – god – You’re right, but only because of how screwed up our political labels have gotten. I think people who want to constantly tinker with the U.S. Constitution (how many amendments have been proposed for short-term political gain by the Republicans in the last decade?) are revolutionaries. Conservatives are those who want to keep the Constitution intact, including a Bill of Rights the founders considered so important they listed them separately from the main process document itself. That makes me a conservative, but I sure ain’t no neo-con. And thinking about the Dept. of Homeland Insecurity and the drug war enforcement bureaucracies can make me feel sick to my stomach. That makes me a patriot as well as a conservative.

The way people throw “liberal” and “conservative” around in this forum goes beyond silly and well into the absurd sometimes.

It seems to me pretty consrvative to want to end the subsidies we pay to Big Oil and transfer those costs directly to the pump so consumers can at least see them. Calling that a “liberal” tactic is either silly or stupid. Either way, it’s wrong-headed.

]]> By: Frank IBC http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606983 Frank IBC Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:52:26 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606983 And since toilet paper causes global warming, the true cost of toilet paper must be a dollar a wad. And since toilet paper causes global warming, the true cost of toilet paper must be a dollar a wad.

]]> By: ECA http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606961 ECA Thu, 26 Apr 2007 20:21:57 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606961 40, YOU GOT IT.... 44. I want you to understand something... YOU DONT NEED A SMALL CAR.....GOD, Iv said it before... I have a 86 OLDMOBILE, it gets 30MPH+ STILL after 20 years... This thing gets GREAT milage even at 70+mph... It has a V6...NO TURBO... And it AINt going to do 0-60 in 5 seconds...6-7 maybe... WE HAVE tech that DOES NOT require alot of changes...ONLY for us to LOOK at it, as THINGS HAVE CHANGED sence the STOPPED using the OLD tech... Think of a steam powered car, THAT dont use water....And then takes the material and recondences IT...It dont need to EXPLODE FUEL.. 40,
YOU GOT IT….

44.
I want you to understand something…
YOU DONT NEED A SMALL CAR…..GOD, Iv said it before…
I have a 86 OLDMOBILE, it gets 30MPH+ STILL after 20 years…
This thing gets GREAT milage even at 70+mph… It has a V6…NO TURBO… And it AINt going to do 0-60 in 5 seconds…6-7 maybe…

WE HAVE tech that DOES NOT require alot of changes…ONLY for us to LOOK at it, as THINGS HAVE CHANGED sence the STOPPED using the OLD tech… Think of a steam powered car, THAT dont use water….And then takes the material and recondences IT…It dont need to EXPLODE FUEL..

]]> By: Mike http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606922 Mike Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:35:02 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606922 I also find it somewhat humorous that this paper wants to add things like sprawl into their true cost of gasoline. Sprawl comes about from people's desire to move away from highly dense population centers (for any number of reasons such as crime, better schools, claustrophobia), and has very little to do with whatever particular fuel we are currently using for our commute, beyond affordability. I also find it somewhat humorous that this paper wants to add things like sprawl into their true cost of gasoline. Sprawl comes about from people’s desire to move away from highly dense population centers (for any number of reasons such as crime, better schools, claustrophobia), and has very little to do with whatever particular fuel we are currently using for our commute, beyond affordability.

]]> By: James Hill http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606873 James Hill Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:49:48 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606873 #2, #11, #14 - Thanks for the replies, guys. I'll look in to getting these soon. I feel like the light from these bulbs is cleaner, though my wife has been a harder sell on the issue. Maybe I'll pull the "but you're hurting the environment" card, then cry myself to sleep knowing I used one of the left's tactics. ;-) #2, #11, #14 – Thanks for the replies, guys. I’ll look in to getting these soon. I feel like the light from these bulbs is cleaner, though my wife has been a harder sell on the issue.

Maybe I’ll pull the “but you’re hurting the environment” card, then cry myself to sleep knowing I used one of the left’s tactics. ;-)

]]> By: Mike http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606872 Mike Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:49:10 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606872 Factoring the deaths of those people in your "real" price is as pointless as saying that a Quarter Pounder "really" costs $10 because of all the people who die of heart disease each year. Now I'll go along with you on the idea that government activities help reduce the cost to bring a product to market... but that is the case universally. So again, what have you shown besides the fact that you just don't like the spending habits of Americans, and so you'd rather tax them into conformance? These types of studies do accomplish one thing at least - they keep think-tank economists from getting too bored at work. Factoring the deaths of those people in your “real” price is as pointless as saying that a Quarter Pounder “really” costs $10 because of all the people who die of heart disease each year. Now I’ll go along with you on the idea that government activities help reduce the cost to bring a product to market… but that is the case universally. So again, what have you shown besides the fact that you just don’t like the spending habits of Americans, and so you’d rather tax them into conformance?

These types of studies do accomplish one thing at least – they keep think-tank economists from getting too bored at work.

]]> By: Chris http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606862 Chris Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:43:04 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606862 Any comments or corroberation that CFLs have some amount of Mercury in them? It seems to me that we're saving energy, but creating a disposal hazard, in terms of landfills and broken bulbs. - http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf Any comments or corroberation that CFLs have some amount of Mercury in them? It seems to me that we’re saving energy, but creating a disposal hazard, in terms of landfills and broken bulbs. – http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf

]]> By: Misanthropic Scott http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2007/04/25/canada-to-ban-incandescent-light-bulbs-by-2012/comment-page-3/#comment-606805 Misanthropic Scott Thu, 26 Apr 2007 18:15:26 +0000 http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=11076#comment-606805 #45 - Mike, The range is because it depends what you decide to include in your version of the cost. Yes, $5 is the minimum because that includes solely the cost you pay now plus the subsidies to the oil companies. If you believe that 70-130,000 people per year dying of air polution have no value, don't include them. Then the estimate you choose will be lower. I personally go with the highest because I think that the global warming costs are probably horribly undervalued. If we go extinct, the cost will be immeasurable, literally. #45 – Mike,

The range is because it depends what you decide to include in your version of the cost. Yes, $5 is the minimum because that includes solely the cost you pay now plus the subsidies to the oil companies. If you believe that 70-130,000 people per year dying of air polution have no value, don’t include them. Then the estimate you choose will be lower. I personally go with the highest because I think that the global warming costs are probably horribly undervalued. If we go extinct, the cost will be immeasurable, literally.

]]>