Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: JoeGar

Actually I think the article is not telling you the exact truth at all.

To say this is a “tax on the poor” or ringing in extra money for the wrong people or even that it means more coal-firing plants are going to be built is breathtakingly innacurate. Consider:

CFLs do cost more, but due to the laws of supply and demand, the cost has been dropping and will drop very much more as they are more widely used. Also, they last about eight times longer (because they don’t generate as much heat) and they only use a fifth of the energy, hence lower electricity bills. They are actually less expensive now.

As for this ridiculous argument about building more plants to make them - how so? The demand for lamps isn’t going to change all that much. Surely if you are making more CFL’s you must be making fewer incandescent bulbs, so how come you are going to need extra power stations?

What this article actually does is call for a halt to progress. Incandescents are ok, but CFLs are better. However, I agree that it would be better to institute them by market forces, not legislation. I also agree that both incandescent and CFL are going to be overtaken by LED technology in the future.


16 posted on 04/04/2007 2:48:50 AM PDT by Vanders9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Vanders9
What this article actually does is call for a halt to progress. Incandescents are ok, but CFLs are better. However, I agree that it would be better to institute them by market forces, not legislation. I also agree that both incandescent and CFL are going to be overtaken by LED technology in the future.

I almost never support any government intrusions into the marketplace. But I think the market's preference for incandescents might be one of the rare examples of genuine "market failure." First, Americans are notoriously short-sighted when it comes to basic household finance. They will continue to buy incandescents because they are "cheaper" -- even though they are much more expensive in the long run. Second, and more importantly, people who live in rental housing generally buy incandescents because they don't have any incentive to buy bulbs that last longer -- while the landlord has no incentive to put CFBs in because he doesn't pay to replace bulbs. So there's a clear collective action problem at work.

I've used CFBs for over a year. If anything, the CFBs are too bright -- they are hardly dim. I'm guessing most of the haters on this board just bought bulbs that were too weak.

22 posted on 04/04/2007 3:12:36 AM PDT by ChicagoHebrew (Hell exists, it is real. It's a quiet green meadow populated entirely by Arab goat herders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Vanders9

Rush tore your arguments up yesterday. NOT ONE American company makes CFL’s. chicoms supply the majority of them to the US market. This alone is reason enough to fight this liberal insanity!

LLS


51 posted on 04/04/2007 4:43:13 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: Vanders9
Incandescents are ok, but CFLs are better.

I replaced my outdoor lights with the CFL's, but I only have one overhead fixture out of several dozen fixtures and lamps in my house that can use the bulbs. Most of my fixtures and lamps can only handle the minis or incandescents with the candlebra base.

110 posted on 04/04/2007 9:04:57 AM PDT by JoeGar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson