Sorry; my proof-reading at work is weak!
Farewell to the incandescent light bulb
- Thread starter supersuds
- Start date
Help Support :
brisnat81
Well-known member
The reason I think the mandate about CFL bulbs has come about, is that it is something everyone can do, and that for 90% of the population it will have no appreciable difference on their quality of life.
For Example, I replaced the 4 100watt Spotlights at the top and bottom of each flight of stairs with 23watt CFL bulbs (120Watt Equiv). These four lights probably run for about 5 hours per day. The Energy Saving is therefore 77watts x 4 = 308watts x 5 hours is 1.540KwH x 300 days = 450KwH per year.
Say 1 Billion households internationally changed out 4 globes to those that used 1/4 of the power. The saving then becomes, 450 Billion KwH saved per year. It doesnt seem like much effort to acheive these monumental power savings. The cost to each household is about $8 per globe.
If my arithmatic is incorrect in any way, please let me know.
To mandate water usage or gas usage, people have to start changing how they live. Take shorter showers, adjust the heat, drive less, buy smaller cars etc etc. CFL globes mean you can make savings without changing your life.
We've made the change quite easily to try and do our part and there is no appreciable difference in our lifestyle. Our water usuage has gone from 450L per person to 150L per person per day. Our power consumption has gone from $350 per quarter to $245. We havent changed how we live, we've just got fixtures and fittings that've enabled us to make the savings. Excluding the washer and dishwasher the total cost to us has been about $400AUD.
For Example, I replaced the 4 100watt Spotlights at the top and bottom of each flight of stairs with 23watt CFL bulbs (120Watt Equiv). These four lights probably run for about 5 hours per day. The Energy Saving is therefore 77watts x 4 = 308watts x 5 hours is 1.540KwH x 300 days = 450KwH per year.
Say 1 Billion households internationally changed out 4 globes to those that used 1/4 of the power. The saving then becomes, 450 Billion KwH saved per year. It doesnt seem like much effort to acheive these monumental power savings. The cost to each household is about $8 per globe.
If my arithmatic is incorrect in any way, please let me know.
To mandate water usage or gas usage, people have to start changing how they live. Take shorter showers, adjust the heat, drive less, buy smaller cars etc etc. CFL globes mean you can make savings without changing your life.
We've made the change quite easily to try and do our part and there is no appreciable difference in our lifestyle. Our water usuage has gone from 450L per person to 150L per person per day. Our power consumption has gone from $350 per quarter to $245. We havent changed how we live, we've just got fixtures and fittings that've enabled us to make the savings. Excluding the washer and dishwasher the total cost to us has been about $400AUD.
We need a Manhattan project to replace coal, oil and gas generated electricity.
We had one. It was, surprisingly, named The Manhattan Project.
France gets 80% of its power from nuke. We can, too. That alone would make a HUGE dent in our carbon footprint.
And give us cheaper electricity (nukes are fractionally cheaper than coal plants, per kw/h).
It's the idiots out there who can't grasp splitting atoms to make heat that have been holding it up for all these years...
We know more about nuclear power than any other source out there. We've studied plant design to death. We know more about radiation than we do about the common cold. The nuke industry all but invented modern industrial risk analysis and plant safety. We know how to build, operate, and deconstruct nuke plants in as perfect safety as one could achieve. We know what to do with the waste. We know how to store it safer than just about anything else.
Right after WWII, a good chunk of those 'who were there' in Nevada, went right on and designed/built the first generation of nuclear plants in the US, which serve as the basis for virtually all nukes built since then (ignoring Russian designs and the silly Magnox the Brits had).
Utilities want to build new ones - they're applying for licenses.
We always hear from anti nukes how it's so dangerous and how a few solar cells can fix the world. Ever look at the nasty stuff that goes into solar cell manufacture?
We had one. It was, surprisingly, named The Manhattan Project.
France gets 80% of its power from nuke. We can, too. That alone would make a HUGE dent in our carbon footprint.
And give us cheaper electricity (nukes are fractionally cheaper than coal plants, per kw/h).
It's the idiots out there who can't grasp splitting atoms to make heat that have been holding it up for all these years...
We know more about nuclear power than any other source out there. We've studied plant design to death. We know more about radiation than we do about the common cold. The nuke industry all but invented modern industrial risk analysis and plant safety. We know how to build, operate, and deconstruct nuke plants in as perfect safety as one could achieve. We know what to do with the waste. We know how to store it safer than just about anything else.
Right after WWII, a good chunk of those 'who were there' in Nevada, went right on and designed/built the first generation of nuclear plants in the US, which serve as the basis for virtually all nukes built since then (ignoring Russian designs and the silly Magnox the Brits had).
Utilities want to build new ones - they're applying for licenses.
We always hear from anti nukes how it's so dangerous and how a few solar cells can fix the world. Ever look at the nasty stuff that goes into solar cell manufacture?
The problem we have in America is that too many people think this way: "Saving a few thousand gallons of water and a few kilowatts isn't going to save the planet, so I'm not going to bother."
The whole point, to my way of thinking, is that if all of us do a few small things to save water/energy, our quality of life won't be drastically altered, but the savings will be enormous.
I'd like to see a LOT more wind-generated power. Windmills are popping up all over southwestern Minnesota and I couldn't be happier. We have nothing but wind out here on a daily basis. What could be cleaner or cheaper?
The whole point, to my way of thinking, is that if all of us do a few small things to save water/energy, our quality of life won't be drastically altered, but the savings will be enormous.
I'd like to see a LOT more wind-generated power. Windmills are popping up all over southwestern Minnesota and I couldn't be happier. We have nothing but wind out here on a daily basis. What could be cleaner or cheaper?
I can sort of see a parallel here, with the phosphate bans on laundry detergents. In many cases, institutions and commercial laundries are still permitted to use phosphates, but the average citizen is banned. And there is some scientific doubt that the ban on consumer detergent phosphates have any great environmental impact. But it's something that didn't cost the mfg's anything (they just replaced STPP with cheaper washing soda, charged the same price, slapped a "contains no phophates" label on the packaging, let the consumer be darned).
That is, if light bulbs were the only thrust of the energy bill. But they aren't. Cars, appliances, etc are also covered. Haven't seen it yet, or even a good summary, but there's a lot more to it than just bulbs.
That is, if light bulbs were the only thrust of the energy bill. But they aren't. Cars, appliances, etc are also covered. Haven't seen it yet, or even a good summary, but there's a lot more to it than just bulbs.
Nuclear power-we should go whole hog on this as an energy source.The US is rich with nuclear fuel bearing ore.USE IT!!Same with coal-USE IT!!Build new Nuclear and coal plants.We need the power.Its possible to burn the coal more cleanly-If you carefully look at pollution maps of the world the US,Europe,Canada,UK,Asia, are NOT the offenders-Look and see who they are!!You will be surprized!These countries listed above burn their fuels in a more clean and efficient manner.And are not chopping down trees to burn as fuel.Yes, semiconductor manufacturing does involve lots of very toxic chemicals-but we can't give these semiconductor products up-if we did there goes your computer to type into and look up Applianceville!!Maybe some Applianceville members from France can shed some light on this subject-didn't France use some Breeder reactors supplied by ---General Electric?Yes-we should use breeders-you can "recharge" the spent fuel and generate power at the same time!No storing spent fuel cells when they can be kept in use and recharged like a battery.
My understanding is that the Europeans use a more advanced, pressurized nuclear reactor system than our more antiquated boiling water reactor (such as at 3 Mile Island). No doubt we can do the more advanced design, but I don't think we've built any reactors for power generation in several decades. The real problem, apparently, is operator error.
Actually most of the commercial power nuclear reactors in the US and on ships-are of the PWR design.Westinghouse and Babcock-Wilcox came up with those boilers.The reactor at TMI was a PWR design.As you stated it was operator error that caused the incident-if the equipment was left on its own without the intervention the reactor would have been tripped off line before the problem got serious and loss of coolent occured.With any boiler or reactor loss of coolant is the primary hazard.This was even a concern in the old steam Rail locomotive days-That "firemans" other job was to monitor the sight glasses on the locomotive boilers to keep up the water levels-NO EXPOSED CROWNSHEETS!! otherwise a fatal boiler explosion would occur.the uncovered metal is weakend from heat due to the loss of water-becomes a soft spot-and the steam-BLEWIE!In the case of TMI the cleanup of emergency coolant and reactor "poisons" would have been less serious.Reactor "poisons" are chemicals dumpted into the fuel core to further kill the reaction along with the dropping of the control rods-a full "Scram" shutdown of the reactor.Boiling water reactors were built by General Elec tric in the earlier dayas of Commerical power reactors-none of these have been involved in known serious accidents.The boiling water units are very efficient and less expensive-the steam from the reactor fuel core goes to the generator turbine-but that steam is radioactive.Since the PWR has an isolated loop-the steam from the PWR isn't radioactive.Both types of reactors are used in the US power generation grids.Both are safe if ooperated correctly by well trained and licensed operators.Remember ANY form of electric power generation is potentially dangerous.Each has their own dangers.Since electric power generation is an energy conversion process-we just have to do this in as safe and efficient manner as possible.Also Chernobyl wouldn't have been a hazard if the operators there weren't playing "Mr Wizard" with their unsheilded reactor plant.At least US reactors are REQUIRED to be in containement buildings or enclosures.The Russian Reactors are more antiquated than US and European reactors.the older models you have to be more careful in using them.the Breeder system is an advanced nuclear system that uses a primary fuel core along with the secondary cores yopu want to "recharge"the operation operates at high tempartures and requires Sodium-Potassium mixture to cool the fuel cores."NAK" is used becuase of its very high boiling point.There are two NAK coolant loops on a usual breeder-one thru the main core-than feeds to the secondary one that goes to the steam generator-boiler.Needless to say these NAK loop plumbing is critical-you can imagine what would happen if liquid pressurized NAK hits water at about 1500 Degrees!A BIG BOOM!I think the hazards of the breeder are offset by the reuse of conventiaonl fission reactor fuel cores-keeping them in use-no "storage"And the Breeder is generating useful power as well!I think its worth the risk.One would think if the radioactive fuel cores are in the brreder being recharged or in a fission reactor being used they would present less of a security and enviormental risk.Just make sure the plant operators know what they are doing and follow ALL safety emergency procedures to the letter-no deviations!People have been hurt or killed in conventiaonl power plants as well-High pres-hi temp steam can be invisible-you could walk into the blast and be cut in half.Some people I knew that worked in boiler rooms in ships carried broomsticks in front of them when they heard the steam blasts-the steam would cut the broom in half if waved thru the blast-better it than your arm!
my biggest worry
About nuclear energy is not the process itself; the technology is proven and can be run safely.
Unfortunately, the history of private nuclear industry has been a horrid tale of sacrificing safety to maximize profit.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Just think of all the toys pulled off the shelves in the last year, all the food contamination stories of the last years, all the other cover-ups and 'turned a blind eye' reports in the press.
About nuclear energy is not the process itself; the technology is proven and can be run safely.
Unfortunately, the history of private nuclear industry has been a horrid tale of sacrificing safety to maximize profit.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Just think of all the toys pulled off the shelves in the last year, all the food contamination stories of the last years, all the other cover-ups and 'turned a blind eye' reports in the press.
"The government forcing people do to things" has lead to some great strides in product quality and safety: Seat belts, lead-free paint, Clean drinking water, safer food, truth in lending, flame resistant clothing for children - The list goes on and on.
Capitalism is a great economical system, but it needs regulation, or it will kill itself (and us with it). Irresponsible corporations whine about regulation like this, but it forces them to be more accountable to the consumer and ultimately to the stockholders.
As the article states, not all incandescent bulbs are being outlawed, and CFLs are only a stopgap measure. We are already seeing LED technology being used for a lot of commercial and industrial applications, I'm sure we will see it in our homes faster, thanks to this initiative.
Capitalism is a great economical system, but it needs regulation, or it will kill itself (and us with it). Irresponsible corporations whine about regulation like this, but it forces them to be more accountable to the consumer and ultimately to the stockholders.
As the article states, not all incandescent bulbs are being outlawed, and CFLs are only a stopgap measure. We are already seeing LED technology being used for a lot of commercial and industrial applications, I'm sure we will see it in our homes faster, thanks to this initiative.
Unfortunately, the history of private nuclear industry has been a horrid tale of sacrificing safety to maximize profit.
And in the US, the safety record of nuclear power is still better than every other industrialized country, except maybe France.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Sure, we could go the government run route, and have a Hanford on every block. Or, just look what a mess it's been in the UK - aging plants (with no containment because the UK government says a nuke plant accident "isn't all that bad, really!") with numerous safety problems (which aren't all that bad, really!), being run with who knows what safety record (well, the partial meltdown at Chapelcross is semi-known, the fuel handing issues are pretty well known), with no real replacement record ("They're only 50 years old!") and no real public accountability.
Or, we could be like Canada, where the state run CANDU plants are worn out and in need of heavy overhaul....after 20 years of operation (look at Bruce-A). With who knows what happening along the way (it's known at least one "impossible" sudden pressure tube rupture happened over the years).
Or we could be like the Russians...
Like it or not, the simple fact is the US nuclear industry outperforms just about everyone else in terms of safety (Maybe the French beat us, but the French don't talk about nuclear accidents, so maybe they do, maybe they don't).
True, nuclear power's dangerous - EVERY form of electric generation is. But we lead the world in managing the risks - others countries come to US for the know-how. The PWR and BWR designs that dominate the world were both developed here, as was the containment, as was the idea of redundant safety systems, etc etc etc etc.
As far as breeders - I've read that lead-bismuth has been an idea the Russians have played with. The whole NAK thing is more because of the US DOE's hangup with sodium cooling than anything else (Shippingport ran as a breeder the last few years, and was a PWR).
I actually like the BWR, but it's hard to argue the PWR isn't a good design and mostly equal....
Nearly 50 years of commercial power generation in the US and there's been one major accident, two less major (Davis-Besse's top head corrosion issue, Brown's Ferry's fire), and a lot of annoying issues along the way (mostly because there were so many 'bleeding edge' plants built here). But no fatalities. Even Hydrolelectric can't say that. And let's not think of what could happen if a dam pops (and they do)
And in the US, the safety record of nuclear power is still better than every other industrialized country, except maybe France.
If we are going to return to nuclear energy, then not in the way safety has been turned over to the private sector in the last years.
Sure, we could go the government run route, and have a Hanford on every block. Or, just look what a mess it's been in the UK - aging plants (with no containment because the UK government says a nuke plant accident "isn't all that bad, really!") with numerous safety problems (which aren't all that bad, really!), being run with who knows what safety record (well, the partial meltdown at Chapelcross is semi-known, the fuel handing issues are pretty well known), with no real replacement record ("They're only 50 years old!") and no real public accountability.
Or, we could be like Canada, where the state run CANDU plants are worn out and in need of heavy overhaul....after 20 years of operation (look at Bruce-A). With who knows what happening along the way (it's known at least one "impossible" sudden pressure tube rupture happened over the years).
Or we could be like the Russians...
Like it or not, the simple fact is the US nuclear industry outperforms just about everyone else in terms of safety (Maybe the French beat us, but the French don't talk about nuclear accidents, so maybe they do, maybe they don't).
True, nuclear power's dangerous - EVERY form of electric generation is. But we lead the world in managing the risks - others countries come to US for the know-how. The PWR and BWR designs that dominate the world were both developed here, as was the containment, as was the idea of redundant safety systems, etc etc etc etc.
As far as breeders - I've read that lead-bismuth has been an idea the Russians have played with. The whole NAK thing is more because of the US DOE's hangup with sodium cooling than anything else (Shippingport ran as a breeder the last few years, and was a PWR).
I actually like the BWR, but it's hard to argue the PWR isn't a good design and mostly equal....
Nearly 50 years of commercial power generation in the US and there's been one major accident, two less major (Davis-Besse's top head corrosion issue, Brown's Ferry's fire), and a lot of annoying issues along the way (mostly because there were so many 'bleeding edge' plants built here). But no fatalities. Even Hydrolelectric can't say that. And let's not think of what could happen if a dam pops (and they do)
Incandescent light bulbs are far more efficient heaters than light producers. Substituting more efficient lighting not only reduces the energy used for lighting, but also cuts the air conditioning load and power consumption in a building. Does anyone remember going into the lighting department at Sears with all of those incandescent bulbs lighted? It was like walking under a broiler. CFLs are not the only efficient alternative . Look at all of the LED Christmas lights. The new tol WP range uses LEDs for lighting the cooking surface, so these and other advances will be available as the use of incandescent bulbs declines. Somehow, I thought that people who appreciated technology would not be so negative about more energy efficient lighting. In this area, apartment and office buildings that once had incandescent lighting in the halls and other public spaces changed to CFLs when they came out and replaced other fixtures with fluorescent lights to save energy and maintenance costs. Many even upgraded to much nicer fixtures to accommodate energy efficient lighting. If you voluntarily changed to efficient lighting, HVAC or appliances, do you feel that you should continue to pay higher electrical rates to finance higher fuel costs and building increased generating capacity needed, in part, because of those who do not care to conserve? If some will not conserve voluntarily, is it not in everyone's interest to encourage the change to more efficient lighting? Isn't that better than doing nothing to reduce the factors that can lead to massive blackouts or rolling blackouts?
Incandescent light bulbs produce fewer lumens over the life of the bulb. The tungsten filament slowly vaporizes and condenses on the cooler glass surface. Have you noticed that a burned out bulb often has a dark gray shading on the normally white inner surface?
With appliances, lighting and automobiles, increasingly expensive energy is going to move consumers to more energy efficient products and increased sales will lead to improvements. I remember the 2 "energy crises" in the 70s. People went looking for more energy efficient cars and bought Japanese. Detroit howled, but did not seriously change their offerings. They will spend untold millions lobbying against change, but are not nearly as ready to spend money to update their offerings. They had decided for decades what people were going to drive and they still want to. The Japanese car brands were lobbying with Detroit against changes this time around, so I guess it will be up to other manufacturers to step in and offer more energy efficient alternatives. Maybe advances in technology will improve hybrids and lower the cost.
Incandescent bulbs came along and provided light with an ease and convenience only dreamed of before Mr. Edison's invention. Even though parents used to say, "Turn off the lights when you're not in the room" and other slogans to teach their children thrift, domestic incandescent lighting was not a budget breaker and that's why, after the fluorescent tube came along, there was not much call for innovation in lighting while energy costs were stable. Now, with the vast amount of energy used for so many tasks, lighting is something ripe for energy efficiency improvement. Research and innovation into alternate forms of lighting are paying off for manufacturers and the public utilities. When CLFs were introduced, our power company sent out very generous savings coupons to encourage their purchase and use. The only incandescent bulbs for area lighting in my house are the ones over the vanity in the guest bath, which are hardly used and one of those big round globe bulbs in a fixture that is not used much. Yes, I had to modify some lamp shades, but the reduced energy draw does not burn up lamp sockets like using incandescents could. Most of the earlier CFLs from the 90s have burned out. They generally went from working to dead without going through weird light producing death throes. I replaced them with newer ones that are more compact in design, cost between $3 and $7 (for a special bulb) each and produce a better quality of light for truer colors. I guess I do not have enough of the decorator gene to be horribly affected by the light the CFLs produce, but incandescent bulbs affect colors too; we just are accustomed to that and make adjustments to compensate. The two areas where I spend most of my waking time, the kitchen and basement have fluorescent lighting with tubes delivering full spectrum light. The plants like it and I feel that they are experts when it comes to the quality of light.
Incandescent light bulbs produce fewer lumens over the life of the bulb. The tungsten filament slowly vaporizes and condenses on the cooler glass surface. Have you noticed that a burned out bulb often has a dark gray shading on the normally white inner surface?
With appliances, lighting and automobiles, increasingly expensive energy is going to move consumers to more energy efficient products and increased sales will lead to improvements. I remember the 2 "energy crises" in the 70s. People went looking for more energy efficient cars and bought Japanese. Detroit howled, but did not seriously change their offerings. They will spend untold millions lobbying against change, but are not nearly as ready to spend money to update their offerings. They had decided for decades what people were going to drive and they still want to. The Japanese car brands were lobbying with Detroit against changes this time around, so I guess it will be up to other manufacturers to step in and offer more energy efficient alternatives. Maybe advances in technology will improve hybrids and lower the cost.
Incandescent bulbs came along and provided light with an ease and convenience only dreamed of before Mr. Edison's invention. Even though parents used to say, "Turn off the lights when you're not in the room" and other slogans to teach their children thrift, domestic incandescent lighting was not a budget breaker and that's why, after the fluorescent tube came along, there was not much call for innovation in lighting while energy costs were stable. Now, with the vast amount of energy used for so many tasks, lighting is something ripe for energy efficiency improvement. Research and innovation into alternate forms of lighting are paying off for manufacturers and the public utilities. When CLFs were introduced, our power company sent out very generous savings coupons to encourage their purchase and use. The only incandescent bulbs for area lighting in my house are the ones over the vanity in the guest bath, which are hardly used and one of those big round globe bulbs in a fixture that is not used much. Yes, I had to modify some lamp shades, but the reduced energy draw does not burn up lamp sockets like using incandescents could. Most of the earlier CFLs from the 90s have burned out. They generally went from working to dead without going through weird light producing death throes. I replaced them with newer ones that are more compact in design, cost between $3 and $7 (for a special bulb) each and produce a better quality of light for truer colors. I guess I do not have enough of the decorator gene to be horribly affected by the light the CFLs produce, but incandescent bulbs affect colors too; we just are accustomed to that and make adjustments to compensate. The two areas where I spend most of my waking time, the kitchen and basement have fluorescent lighting with tubes delivering full spectrum light. The plants like it and I feel that they are experts when it comes to the quality of light.
Tomturbomatic, I understand what you are saying. The difference we have is that you did your conversion VOLUNTARILY. No one told you you had to. You found products that fit your needs, made the necessary adjustments, and are happy with the results. I've done that in many areas too.
However, at the moment there is not a comparable product to replace the bulbs I choose to use. Lets' say you're a toploader guy. The government has decreed that henceforth all top loaders are to be banned. From this point on no replacement parts of any kind are to be sold. Your lid switch broke and your machine will no longer operate and you are not allowed to buy a $5.95 part to make your machine operable. You are now forced to buy and use something you very much dislike. Sure the economies are different, but the point is the same.
I've spent a lot of time and money renovating my home to archive a look that I like. By fiat the hundreds or more likely thousands of dollars I've invested are worthless. Now, if there was a product that produced a similar light and effect perhaps I wouldn't be as upset, but the product has to be cost effective. I'm not willing to replace a $3.95 bulb with a $30.00 bulb just to satisfy the government.
I'm being asked to pay, and in a way suffer, because of some decisions made by some corporation. The various energy producers decided it was better for their bottom line and their stockholders not to invest in cleaner energy. Their decisions which in no way was I involved are affection millions of citizens who had no say in the matter. The end result is that everyone is paying for bad decisions by a few corporations who have befitted greatly, in effect we are subsidizing their greed.
However, at the moment there is not a comparable product to replace the bulbs I choose to use. Lets' say you're a toploader guy. The government has decreed that henceforth all top loaders are to be banned. From this point on no replacement parts of any kind are to be sold. Your lid switch broke and your machine will no longer operate and you are not allowed to buy a $5.95 part to make your machine operable. You are now forced to buy and use something you very much dislike. Sure the economies are different, but the point is the same.
I've spent a lot of time and money renovating my home to archive a look that I like. By fiat the hundreds or more likely thousands of dollars I've invested are worthless. Now, if there was a product that produced a similar light and effect perhaps I wouldn't be as upset, but the product has to be cost effective. I'm not willing to replace a $3.95 bulb with a $30.00 bulb just to satisfy the government.
I'm being asked to pay, and in a way suffer, because of some decisions made by some corporation. The various energy producers decided it was better for their bottom line and their stockholders not to invest in cleaner energy. Their decisions which in no way was I involved are affection millions of citizens who had no say in the matter. The end result is that everyone is paying for bad decisions by a few corporations who have befitted greatly, in effect we are subsidizing their greed.
So how can I cook in my E-Z Bake Oven now? Now you guys should know by now that your government has your better interest in mind when they make all those tough energy decisions. Man that must have been tough working on that bill. All those government big wigs trying to figure out what to do that wouldn't harm their way of life. To hell with your ways of life, it's theirs that is at stake.
I was just in Costco today. They are selling a 10 pack of 60 watt Feit CFL's for $3.99. That works out to about 40 cents a bulb. I think that's fairly competitive with incandescents.
I've seen those
I've seen those FEIT CFLs at COSTCO. That price is unbelievably low. I wonder about the quality level. Of course, at 40 cents per bulb my expectations would be low. However if they have a 30% OOB failure rate, slow to start or purvey icky light I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.
For that money I might buy and test them myself. I'm intrigued but not yet won over. Hmmm.
I've seen those FEIT CFLs at COSTCO. That price is unbelievably low. I wonder about the quality level. Of course, at 40 cents per bulb my expectations would be low. However if they have a 30% OOB failure rate, slow to start or purvey icky light I'd rather spend my money elsewhere.
For that money I might buy and test them myself. I'm intrigued but not yet won over. Hmmm.
The 60 watt Feits are ok (they might even be Philips brand; I didn't look closely, the store was packed). Some of them have a purplish glow when first fired up, as they warm up the color gets more soft white. I would estimate perhaps at most a 10% initial failure rate. I haven't had any fail so far in service, but I have "upgraded" most of them to 100 watt Philips bulbs in the past year - more light for not much more electricity.
XYZ I kind of agree with you. I don't think incandescent bulbs will be totally banned because I would think in places like Alaska or Antarctica or Canada the heat would be welcome in a house, also you can make bread rise in an oven by leaving the oven light on without turning the oven on. Actually, all the politicians have banning incandescents on their web sites because they want you to think they really know about saving energy. Except for Dennis Kucinich. He really wants alternative energy but has no plans to ban traditional light bulbs (at least there is no mention of any plan) so vote for Dennis and keep your light bulbs!
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Dennis_Kucinich_Energy_+_Oil.htm
