Comments on: Lights Out In California?

New Bill Calls For Banning The Common Light Bulb

[suiteo1]

For those that wish to be, "en-lightened", you can read for yourself at this interesting web site where it states:

"PHOLED technology and materials present the potential to combine the power efficiencies of fluorescent tubes with the pleasing color quality associated with incandescent bulbs in a thoroughly new flat form factor."
http://www.universaldisplay.com/white.htm

Mr. Levine, please read!

[edjohn66]

The other option for encouraging conservation would be to let the energy prices in California float. So the next time there is a shortage, consumers would pay 2, 3, or even 10 times or more for power. The California government kept a cap on prices during the last major shortage and broke their budget doing it.

My question to people who are aginst this proposed law: would you rather have uncapped energy prices? (Although I'm sure those who make a millon dollars a year would answer yes, the rest of us might see a problem.)

This bill may not be the best idea, but I think California needs to do something to promote conservation.

[suiteo1]

It should be obvious by now that the only reason anybody, like the uninformed Levine, would mandate legislation to use fluorescent lighting would be, um let%u2019s see, what's the word I'm looking for, %u201Ceconomy%u201D? No, no that's not it. %u201CEnvironment%u201D? No, hmmmmmm, ah yes; KICKBACK! Now it all makes sense!

[gangesdak]

I have used the spiral bulb too. They were the gift from the State Government. Enthusiastically I installed them in my home. But they were too dark. I took them down.

[mdc76082]

I have the spiral bulbs here throughout my Texas home and I haven't seen a significant savings by consumption difference in energy use. Usage is still the same as when we used incadescent bulbs and our kilowatt usage is still the same. They don't work period! I even use the outdoor spot light spiral bulbs. It takes them at least 3-5 minutes to burn at peak lumes. All I get is complaints at how "dark" it is in the rooms. And they do not work with dimmer switches. Also, the spirals emit considerable interference noise when trying to use Wifi, Bluetooth, AM, etc., electrical devices. So, you are actually polluting the airwaves with NOISE! This coming from California, doesn't surprise me in the least. Well California, there's your government telling you what to do...AGAIN. They must love to be under the crack of a whip and told what they can & cannot do, have, say, drive, drink, eat, smoke, sell, buy, Wow! let's move to communist California!!!! Yea. This is just a STUPID idea from a VERY STUPID Levin. Oh well what do you expect from the land of fruits & nuts???

[eggy1620]

In addition to the drawbacks stated by newster1, the new bulbs do not work well on variable voltage, i.e. dimmer, switches. They flicker and humm. I have not tried them in 3-way lamps yet, but they probably don%u2019t work in those either. This CA legislator needs to put his jerking knee back under his desk and do some research.

[rikedoid]

Generally speaking cfls are a good idea. It's only a matter of time before LED technology becomes viable also. Legislating something like this is ridiculous. Use incentives instead. Also make sure the facts are available to people.
hxxp://members.misty.com/don/cfbest.html

[arashigarou]

It seems the legislators in Cali have not looked at all the issues. Just from reading these comments, it's obvious that forcing the people to use a certain type (and I'd bet a million dollars a certain BRAND) of light bulbs will be harmful to the health of some, and possibly harmful to the environment. Doing a little research has bolstered these claims.

Personally I use a mixture of incandescent and fluorescent lighting in my home. I've learned the hard way that fluorescent lighting tends to disrupt some electronic devices. I've had to remove the fluorescents from my home office because they were interfering with my DSL modem and causing dropouts.

As for banning the old technology, well look what happened in the 1920s when they banned alcohol. It didn't take long for that to be repealed. Banning is not the answer; education and possibly a different tax schedule would be a more positive and less intrusive approach. I dare say that the health hazards and interference issues with fluorescents far outweigh the energy inefficiency of incandescents. As others have said, LEDs may be the best solution, perhaps with tax breaks for those who move to LED light sources.

[getserious1]

Why not simply inform the public of the facts about the different bulbs, their total costs to the consumer and let folks make their own decisions. This stuff of trying to legislate morality of any type is pathetic and belongs in some other country, not ours.

[sam12341234-2009]

Tax and Win

Instead of banning the bulbs, there is a better alternative, where the government can make money and also induce people to start using more efficient light sources.

Tax them differently, just like tobacco or gas, taxing differently will make more money to government in short term and help consumers decide the bubs they want to buy in future.