The poor, lonley incandescent light bulb,

Remember these? The evil, energy wasting sin of man! The savior, the cute little twistie bulb, that use’s less juice. Not one good word about our old friend in the past 100 years, thanks to Al Gore, and the other nut jobs. What better friend than the incandescent bulb on a cold winters night. Yes, they give off heat, so that wasted energy, really isn’t wasted after all, it heats your home! Use them in the winter, put the twistie thingy back in the summer! A consumer awareness message.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print

Related posts:

  1. Good news, well, kind of?
  2. Obama now blames poor job numbers on congress. Wait, His party runs Congress!
  3. ‘Obama Comes Across as Cold, Arrogant and Elitist’
  4. We’re moving in the (left) right direction, just like we planned!
  5. The Obamanation Report,,,,,,,,,,,,,,DZ

One Response to “The poor, lonley incandescent light bulb,”

  • peter dublin:

    There are many reasons why a ban on ordinary light bulbs -like other energy efficiency regulation product bans – is wrong,
    even for those who believe that energy and emissions need to be saved.

    To begin with,
    US Dept of Energy own figures show minimal 1-2% overall electricity savings
    ( )

    Also, setting energy usage restriction compromises light bulbs (like TVs, cars, washing machines etc) in their construction, performance, appearance as well as price.

    All lights have their advantages, there is no overall energy shortage, consumers choose to pay for the energy they use.

    Emissions? Light bulbs themselves don’t give out CO2 emissions, power plants might, but power plants can be dealt with accordingly (if believed necessary) and will do so less and less anyway.

    Light bulbs are not being banned for being unsafe to use
    - but simply to reduce USA energy consumption (marginally, as mentioned).

    Even if action on consumers was judged as necessary,
    taxation would therefore make more sense to reduce energy consumption,
    easier and more flexible to apply and remove than regulatory bans,
    while lowering sales and giving fed/state governments billions of dollars income in doing so (unlike bans, that give nothing)
    remembering today’s 2 billion current annual US sales of the ordinary cheap bulbs, whose cheapness aids in allowing taxation.
    The large government income from taxation on such a cheap popular product could also if desired go to green measures,
    with better energy/emission savings than remaining light bulbs cause them,
    and “green” bulbs could be subsidised or their sales taxes lowered, making them cheaper than today, so people are “not just hit by taxes”, and keep a choice of what they want to use.

    As said,
    both light bulb taxes and bans can however be seen to be unjustified.

    http://Ceolas.Net/ website,
    Light Bulb section content

    The Light Bulb Ban
    Summary: Why a light bulb ban is wrong – from every perspective
    Official EU, USA, Canada and Australia links to energy efficiency bans

    The Politics behind the Light Bulb Ban
    How collusion between politicians and manufacturers secured a ban legislation serving to push CFLs, as seen in the ban documentation

    Light Bulb Basics
    Safe — Old ain’t Bad — Popular — Unpopular — Cheap — Useful — Proven Heat Benefit — Ban on 100W+ Bulbs — All Lights are Different — Using Lights at Home

    Lighting Energy, Emissions and Cost
    Emissions not justify a ban — Bans in temperate climate states
    Money savings not justify a ban
    Energy/Emission/Cost savings rundown
    Price factors — Usage factors
    Incandescent usage: Heat Effect — New light efficient types
    CFL usage: Energy Use — Brightness — Turning on-off — Lifespan
    Lifecycles — Switchover cost
    Small eventual savings — “Saving power plants”

    CFL Safety
    Home Safety — Radiation — Health
    Mercury [breakage -- recycling -- dumping -- mining -- manufacturing -- transport -- power plants]