Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Light Bulb Gate - The $50 Light Bulb


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-116 of 116 posts in this discussion
Posted on Apr 25, 2012 6:33:15 AM PDT
Like I said, if you want to use the new light bulbs, that is entirely your choice. Why do you have a problem if I don't?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:38:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 6:41:46 AM PDT
Because its not YOUR problem or my problem.

Its OUR problem. Its approximated that 600 million lightbulbs are disposed of each year (the WSJ states that there are approx 4 billion incandescent lights in usage) - that gives you an idea of the magnitude.

If as you claimed before to care about mecury and landfills using a short life lightbulb that is 30% or higher in energy usage can cause mercury pollution and landfill problems that are our countries problems. We as a country need to move into better technology that is readily available and cheaper.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:41:14 AM PDT
Along with all sorts of other rubbish, medical and chemical waste. No, I don't like it either. What do you propose we do with our hazardous waste?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:44:18 AM PDT
The first thing to do is minimize it. Something higher lightbulb standards do.

Something that banning or limiting use of harmful substances do.

Its another one of those pesky government regulations that mandate that the amount of mercury in household items be kept to a minimum.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 6:44:22 AM PDT
OldAmazonian says:
Candles and whale oil lamps are the best for reading.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:45:59 AM PDT
Such as a CFL with mercury in it? Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:48:48 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 6:50:11 AM PDT
Yes it makes absolute sense:

-----

How much mercury is contained in a CFL?
Each bulb contains an average of 5 milligrams of mercury, "which is just enough to cover a ballpoint pen tip," says Leslie, associate director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer. "Though it's nothing to laugh at, unless you wipe up mercury [without gloves] and then lick your hand, you're probably going to be okay."

How much mercury do power plants emit to light a CFL?
About 50 percent of the electricity produced in the U.S. is generated by coal-fired power plants. When coal burns to produce electricity, mercury naturally contained in the coal releases into the air. In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air-the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury-plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide-releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

.

Read more: Compact Fluorescent Bulbs and Mercury: Reality Check - Popular Mechanics

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 6:50:54 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 25, 2012 6:52:36 AM PDT
And once again the main points:

In 2006, coal-fired power plants produced 1,971 billion kilowatt hours (kwh) of electricity, emitting 50.7 tons of mercury into the air-the equivalent amount of mercury contained in more than 9 billion CFLs (the bulbs emit zero mercury when in use or being handled).

Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

---

Halogens and LED's are mercury free, in the case of LED's the savings on mercury pollution is greater because they are MORE efficient the CFL's. Halogens are not quite as efficient but you do see a 20 - 30% reduction in energy usage.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 7:13:15 AM PDT
Oh go join Greenpeace and stop preaching to the choir. If LED bulbs ever came down significantly in price, I might buy them.

Posted on Apr 25, 2012 8:22:34 AM PDT
Boss Haas says:
http://www.amazon.com/forum/politics/ref=cm_cd_search_res_ti?_encoding=UTF8&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx8PN13HD6LRON&cdMsgID=Mx3PHZ6C8GJ75X9#Mx3PHZ6C8GJ75X9

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 8:23:49 AM PDT
OldAmazonian says:
What better bulbs are readily available and cheaper?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 8:44:54 AM PDT
A 2 pack of halogen bulbs that last 2 to 3 times as long over a standard is $3., a CFL that last 8 to 15 times longer can be gotten for under $2 a bulb.

A LED is rated at over 20years are coming down to be $20 and less.

So yes cheaper.

I know if you buy a 5lbs bag of coffee it may be 3x more expensive than a 1lb bag but its still CHEAPER.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 8:55:03 AM PDT
OldAmazonian says:
Cheaper to run, sure. I'm waiting for luminous panels that make a room like daylight on ten watts of electric power.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 8:57:53 AM PDT
And cheaper to buy - if your bulb last 3 years versus one paying double for it makes sense.

Halogens get the same lumens as standard and are cheaper to run and last long.

LEDS are just about as cheap to buy when looking at lifetime and are starting to match lumens.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 9:29:00 AM PDT
SK says:
I have mixed feelings. Let's tax the sales by the waste problems that a product causes. Just think how much better off we'd be if they'd taxed asbestos when they were putting it everywhere including popcorn ceilings. No one would have wasted the money on something that kills & pollutes. We're taxing cigarettes that way.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 25, 2012 10:46:05 AM PDT
KING CONAN says:
Yes lets pay a Carbon Tax to
an unknown entity that promises
everything.
(oops, they're already planning that)
Your reply to KING CONAN's post:
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
 
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  24
Total posts:  116
Initial post:  Apr 24, 2012
Latest post:  Apr 25, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions