Ban means future dim for 'inefficient' lightbulbs
bootlegga @ Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:10 am
The only problem I have with CF bulbs is that prolonged exposure to them gives me headaches. I'll probably go to a 50/50 mix (better stock up soon).
fire_i @ Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:36 pm
I guess that if several thermic centrals can be closed down or the construction of a few dams avoided thanks to the ban, then it's worth it despite the heavy metals contained in CF bulbs. Anyway, it's not like they can't be disposed of, it's just a bit more of a hassle than for incandescent bulbs - but considering people have to throw away the "old" bulbs about ten times as often as the CF ones, that can't really be a problem.
If fewer lightbulbs have to be produced because fewer break down, then it's probably also worth it even if the CFs take more ressources to make than incandescent bulbs.
The only thing that worries me is, if people are too lazy to not put batteries in the 'normal' garbage, would they really do any different with lightbulbs? I doubt that, and chances are we'll soon be stuck with that much more mercury and other toxic substances in our environment.
Can't wait for LEDs.
dog77_1999 @ Thu Apr 26, 2007 3:43 pm
george123 george123:
Ah, yes, the LED. It is a miracle of technology, but it is expensive for the home lighting front. You can get $1 LED flashlights, but for your home it will cost an arm and a leg. Why? Because the coumpanies that make bulbs have invested heavily in the compact flourescent bulbs, and want to get that investment back before they move on to the next technology. Even though the LED is a cleaner, more efficient technology, the all mighty dollar must be recovered from the previous expenditure, and the government is making that happen.
As it was stated earlier in this post, the compact flourecents are not much better for the environment as they use more resources to make, and contain more hazardous chemicals. If the government and industry really cared, they would both swallow the cost of the flourescent investment, and go sraight to the LED. My tax dollars are being wasted as it is, at least this I can consider an investment.
As it was stated earlier in this post, the compact flourecents are not much better for the environment as they use more resources to make, and contain more hazardous chemicals. If the government and industry really cared, they would both swallow the cost of the flourescent investment, and go sraight to the LED. My tax dollars are being wasted as it is, at least this I can consider an investment.
Actually, the reason why it's expensive is because it is made up of silcone. And because silcone is very energy intensive to make and there is an unprecidented demand (think electronics and solar panels), the price is gonna be higher. Though conductive polymers should make it much cheaper than the silcone LEDs now.
Clogeroo @ Thu Apr 26, 2007 4:00 pm
I still use incandescent bulbs since someone just gives me them for nothing. I'm not sure what is so great about CFB's? If I can get incandescent ones for free how much would I even save by switching? I also do have a dimmer switch here. I think LED’s are the way to go I have a torch with one in it and it is very bright and I have had it for a few years now.
SideShowCecil @ Fri Apr 27, 2007 12:32 pm
I still don’t think CF bulbs are as great for energy conservation and the environment as they’re advertised to be. But I don’t mind saving a few bucks on my power bill either. I started switching over to CF bulbs back in 2001; they were a bit more expensive back then.
One of my biggest irritations with the CF bulbs is they don’t light to full brightness when they’re first switched on. They start out at 80% and gradually brighten to 100% over a few minutes. As the bulb gets older they gradually get dimmer and dimmer at start-up and the time interval to full brightness gets longer. I hope I explained that OK. Usually by the time the bulb is 18 to 24 months old that delay gets too annoying and I replace the bulb.