I posted this to a blog about the mandatory phase out of incandescent light bulbs. It can make sense down south because you use energy with AC and if you can save from heating your house with low heat lighting while cooling it, that's a double energy savings, but what about us? I live well north of the Mason/Dixon line. At the moment it is 42* out. Today is May 17th, and it is night time. During the daytime it got all the way up to 52*. I don't really care if my light bulbs create heat. I prefer doing most of my heating with natural gas, but there are tons of electric space heaters people use in cold climates. I really do NOT mind if my light bulbs provide light AND heat. I suppose I'm also going to be told I need to paint my black roof white. It gets down to -5 at times and rarely above 32* during the winter, I'm really going to save energy with a white roof. I don't think so. What a bunch of idiots. Just because something might make sense in some areas of our country, doesn't mean makes sense all over. We live in a huge area with large climatic swings, If we were truly a Free Country, we'd be given a choice, and if it made energy sense, we would make the changes as needed, and technology became cheaper.
(updated. I made a typo saying 'Truly a 'Fee' country," but changed to Free. Thinking about it, we are more Fee than Free, aren't we?)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I'm gonna miss the warm glow of incandescent bulbs. I think it's "only" the 40w - 100w range they're banning, but still...
I don't like this legislation. I hate the new bulbs. The light looks dim no matter what the wattage. I'm sure it must add to SAD (Seasonal Affective Disorder) It is dark and gloomy too much of the year around here.
I heard that South Carolina is working on a plan to continue to make regular bulbs. They will be stamped [Made in South Carolina] and are supposed to only be used in that state. What the heck, how crazy is it that we need to propose legislation to block other legislation. Insanity seems to be the norm.
Just to add my thoughts, I work in the renewable energy sector. Solar, Wind & LED lighting. I agree the lighting situation is the one area which needs to be addressed. But, regardless of the appearance and warmth the incandescent lights give, they do use alot more electricity then the CFL's and LED. I have been able to save companies lots of money on their energy usage, thus saving some jobs, at least that is how I view things. Jobs vs appearance? With that said, stay tuned, I am sure we will see legislation show their evil heads as the date come closer.
My workplace uses fluorescent light. It is fine for general use. I'm all for going more green. I even use the more efficient bulbs CFL's in my basement, bedroom and outside lights. But, in my kitchen and bath, where I need better lighting, I feel I should be able to choose whichever works the best.
Mandating something like that seems to be too much government interference, simply putting a band-aid on a much bigger issue. We should be looking at better and cost effective mass transportation and the reduction of fossil and non renewable fuel consumption.
KK, your point is well taken, I could not agree more that the gov needs to put their efforts in finding new energy sources. We are very far behind Europe & the Far East. If I had my way, I wish the research was going there rather than the space program.
Improvements are being made almost daily on the quality of energy efficient lighting. I just want to mention to you that you can get the CFL's in various lighting shades and wattage,so maybe you could find the shade you like for the K & B.
I don't really mind the Fluorescent bulbs, but I do notice the difference when turning the one on above the stove. I think that when the LED light improve In design, that will be a much better light. I hope.
Toad... The technology is getting better and better almost every day for both CFL and LED. The prices are dropping also. The issue we are having is the admins are telling us what we can and can not use in our homes.
BTW, LED's use 90% less energy and last up to 150,000 hours. If you want to see a completely off the grid(solar) LED parking lot pole light check out the west entrance to the Gifford School on hwy K in Franksville, you'll need to go after dark to see them in operation.
Unless you are really using big 1000W theater lights, you probably aren't getting that much heat from your lights so anyway.
But you do bring up an interesting point. It's a big country so different strategies do work better in different climates. A swamp cooler that can reduce cooling costs in Tucson is a horrible choice in Florida.
A few years ago Indiana started doing daylight savings time. A study was done showing energy use went up when they changed to daylight savings time. Some people used this to argue for the elimination of DST. That may or may not be a good idea depending on where you live. Indiana is on the western edge of the time zone...would the same necessarily apply to a state at the eastern edge of a time zone? Indiana is fairly long in the north-south direction...I wouldn't be surprised if it saved energy is some areas of the state and cost more in others. You could optimize the time for every location with lots of studies, but then you end up with the old railroad problem of every city having a different time! In short, it's not a good idea to set national time zones based on one state's unique situation.
Post a Comment