more legislative fun..

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.

Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient. Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating lower power consumption for electronic devices will have only a small effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

Hi!

Except it wouldn't. There are many applications where CFLs will not work well or at all...and my "dim bulb tester" is one of those. The way things are going, I may have to buy a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs for it, and hope that I got enough.

Fridge, oven and quite possibly microwave oven bulbs are another, along with chandeliers. My oven light went out recently, and I really wondered about putting a CFL in there--but it occured to me that potentially toxic decomposition of the bulb's casing could occur in that kind of heat, and it would do the electronics no good at all.

William

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hkhghl$qbk$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being involved. (one of many....) If consumers want to use incandescents,it's their business,not the gov'ts. Who wants government to tell them how to live? You want that,MOVE somewhere else.

besides,in some apps,incandescents are the best choice.

I'm not sure of that. I think many devices can't *conveniently* be turned off. E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts, TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still use a fair bit of power).

Granted, there is progress made towards cutting this consumption but there are still a lot of little "leaches" sucking up power that needn't. E.g., why can't switchmode wall warts be designed to shut down (completely) until they sense some miniscule demand from the load? Of course, old fashioned (xformer) wall warts just act as small heaters even when they are supplying no load.

I've had to install power switches in many of my devices just because the manufacturer opted to economize by *not* doing so ("Oh, it goes into low power mode when not in use". "Really? And how does that differ from NO POWER mode?"). Do I *really* need my network switch to run 24/7 when I am asleep or away from the computer for much of that time?

I think the more significant issue is change of mindset. If people start thinking about the little things, they will eventually discover the big things. :> E.g., 30 years ago, no one recycled anything. Now, everyone on my street puts out a "trash barrel" full of recyclables as often as they put out the trash.

(though how effective this effort actually is can be debated :< )

I think we all get used to wasting energy and think nothing of it. Whether its leaving the TV on while you are in another room ("Oh, I'm still *listening* to it") or replacing your two year old computer because it is *suddenly* "way too slow" (gee, I guess there must have been a distortion in space-time since it was "wicked fast" TWO YEARS AGO! :> )

I still lament the loss of the heated butter compartment in the refrigerator! :<

Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs. incandescent? Including manufacturing and disposal costs? Our experience with them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we have replaced 5 already). Granted, during operation, they use less energy. But, if replacements have to be produced more often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the replacement costs the customer "nothing")

gov'ts.

Where would you have moved during WWII when there was rationing?

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as well as practical reasons.

Most of the proposed legislation acknowledges that incandescent lamps are required for certain uses.

Hi!

Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing nothing" and use 50 watts!

I'm not aware of one.

I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics (sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!

If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put almost any CFL to shame.

There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.

Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the price paid!

William

When CFL's hit the market in 1990,,,, I started to use them. I love them. Thats 20 years experiance.

greg

The CCFL juggernaut is just a "political green type" wet dream.

For the most part, whats on the market now as "affordable" is Chinese junk that does NOT live up to the promise of long life. Why are many so cheap? because they use as CHEAP of components as they can. Kind of like the capacitor fiasco with the stolen formula. Cheap components don't last.

I bought one cheap 11 watt CCFL and it blew up with a pop days after installation (caps inside blew apart). Just more toxic mercury in the landfill sooner now. People can make better CCFL's, they just don't want to pay the price of what it cost to make them.

The home electronics industry and appliance industry already is doing the energy star thing. With guidance, this should go forward without some green Al Gore type demanding it do 90% less power when they don't have a clue.

We have a local utility here in Nebraska that had to raise its rates due to DECREASED demand. So we bought into the lie and got charged more. Go figure.

And when that new plug in hybrid car gets in your driveway, how many TV's will it take to equal there power draw? But i guess thats ok. The TV deal is kind of a SIN tax i guess. Driving is NOT a sin i guess.

In the future, LED lighting may be some of the solution. But its not perfected and cheap enough for the time being.

bob

True. But they draw a heck of a lot less power.

I used cheap CFL from Home Despot, and I would never go back to tungsten lighting. They come on "instantly" (faster than tungsten), have a pleasing color balance, and last about 2000 hours. For around $2 a lamp. Not bad.

That plastic is there to prevent the lamp from spewing broken glass and mercury if it breaks. Someone could be hurt pretty bad if it exploded. As far as I'm concerned, it failed when the light output dropped by 50%.

I certainly hope that you're not referring to the U.S. government. One of the major responsibilities of the U.S. federal government is to protect the nation against foreign threats. The dependence on foreign oil can be viewed as a threat to this country. In a high percentage of uses, the inefficiency of incandescent bulbs increases our use of foreign oil. In that respect, it is the U.S. federal government's business being involved.

I suppose you believe drugs such as heroin and/or crystal meth should be legalized, as nobody wants the government telling us how to live, eh?

Hi!

I don't fully agree with that. Speaking as someone who has dropped or otherwise broken both regular fluorescent tubes and CFLs, I can say that a CFL really doesn't put off all that good of a show. The glass shatters and that's the end of it.

The tubes, on the other end, come across as loud as a gun going off if you're not expecting it (and it will still take you by surprise even if you knew it was going to break). I've actually seen the glass from tubes being thrown quite far--and yet they operate in free air without people being concerned at least some of the time.

Mercury? Well, that's hazardous for sure, but the amount is miniscule. I certainly make sure to clean up the area where the tube or CFL broke, but I don't worry about it much afterwards. I'm not overly concerned about this problem.

Nearly all CFLs in this part of the world are sold as bare "squiggle" tubes. A diffuser or covering is rare. This lamp had one, for whatever reason. This plastic cover was far from being sealed--the lamp and its electronics had to get cool air somehow.

The fixture in question was fully enclosed, with only a few places where the fit and finish didn't quite work out being open.

I disagree with that too. :-) The actual lighting part was still working *fine*. Damage from the sun--and maybe even the emissions of the bulb--caused the clear plastic to become dark brown.

Now I'm a resourceful sort (although usually not in any way that would result in anyone being in any sort of danger) and I hate to throw away anything that still works and can repaired to be useful again. When you look at most CFLs and see that they have no protection between user and bulb, it stands to reason that this bulb wouldn't strictly require that plastic cover. And it didn't.

William

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hkhl3j$573$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

there was good reason for rationing during WW2. there is no good reason now.Shortage of electric power now is solely due to bad management. Political restrictions and red tape. Politically Correct CRAP.

Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind turbines,or to invest in a business venture,fine. No need for gov't to mandate anything.

If you want a government-controlled economy,MOVE elsewhere.

Let the ecofreaks find out that you've spilled any mercury from a broken lamp and you'll have a hazmat cleanup expense.

I'm talking about if the bulb is struck or dropped.

So, paying for twice the electric for the light you get is OK? If it's OK to strip that cover you might as well use the uncoated, clear UV lamps.

If you say so. Do whatever you want but I won't put up with useless crap, or eliminate safeguards.

Jim Yanik wrote in news:Xns9D16CCF4BC693jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44:

there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and other places. and building new refineries and pipelines. That's where our energy-independence falls down.

ethanol is bad news both in food production and soil depletion.

And what if private industry doesn't make the right decisions -- those that benefit society as a whole, rather than the stockholders? Do you really believe that individual selfishness always produces the best results?

Big Oil and Big Coal are doing everything it can to delay alternate energy, so that it can reap the most profits.

I've never understood the "logic" of allowing private interests to exploit public resources for private gain.

Hi!

Is that what it's come to these days? Sometimes I forget that people used to be sensible. (Yes, I know that mercury is not a nice thing, but I also know that there are only trace amounts in these bulbs. And I don't make a habit of breaking them, but accidents happen. I very seriously doubt that anyone has been worse for the wear outside of the bulb. I've broken two CFLs, both several years apart.)

Neither circumstance would have been likely in a fully enclosed fixture. If it had been broken while being transported to or from the fixture, it would have been no worse (or better) than an unsheilded CFL.

Hmm? What light was I paying twice for? I don't understand what you're saying.

Barring a Rather Serious Scientific Examination, I came to the conclusion that the cover was not a required part. The underlying tube is nothing more than a frosted white fluorescent bulb. The cover was clear plastic with no special attributes. It's *not* a clear tube. (You don't seriously think I'd knowingly expose a tube that was clear, do you? I know full good and well what "germicidal bulbs" are.)

It was an easy (conceptually speaking) task to repair the bulb. (Isn't that the point of this newsgroup?) I didn't mind doing it in the slightest. But then again, I'm not above fixing almost anything unless it was total crap to start with.

I'm not in the habit of eliminating safeguards from equipment. That's a very bad idea. If I don't understand a safeguard's function, it stays in place, because I know full good and well that I can't think of everything. A clear plastic sheild on a lightbulb operating in a fully enclosed fixture wasn't going to be missed.

Well, it's been an interesting discussion anyway. :-)

William

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in news:hkjr96$e7p$ snipped-for-privacy@news.eternal-september.org:

"Big Oil and Big Coal"... conspiracy theory. Perhaps you believe in the 100 MPG carburetor.

(BTW,it was the environutz who blocked building transmission lines for a wind farm,and the Mass. Cape Cod wind farm project itself.)

And "alternate Energy" is NOT PRACTICAL. If it were,somebody would be developing it.....without gov't subsidies.

because they do it more efficiently than gov't. Gov't can't even run the Senate and House lunchrooms,nor the US Post Office or Amtrack.

Gov't would not even know about those "public resources" if it weren't for private industry.