Against a provision in energy bill.

[HighTest]

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...bs_N.htm?csp=34

I'm going to have to actually lobby against this with all of my representatives. Can't believe it but I've got to go against the grain regardless of the impact in terms of my "carbon footprint".

The heart of the matter is that a family member in my household has epilepsy and the CFLs and other florescent based lighting can cause seizures from longer term exposure. It's the 60Hz flickering that I've found is present in all CFL lighting regardless of the quality. Hope the bill provides a provision for those that have a medical necessity.

Guess I'll need to by several thousand dollars of lights before my rights are abridged and store them in the attic until technologies exist that provide lighting without a health risk.

As for others that don't have the health risk, is your HA setup able to handle CFL's? How many of you'll need to swap out dimmers for simple relay on/off controlls instead?

For the first time, I want to go out, find bambi and eat him! Love this quote

The new rules will save consumers $40 billion in energy and other costs from 2012 to 2030, avoid construction of 14 coal-fired power plants, and cut global-warming emissions by at least 51 million tons of carbon annually, ACEEE says.

The irony about this, is that the US can avoid the coal fired plants (plus remove existing coal plants) if we used the new highly efficient and significantly less waste producing nuclear systems that is used almost exclusively in France. Since we seem to be emulating them so much on so many other decisions, why can't we entirely cut the cord to oil and coal based power and go that route. Seriously, we are well over 30 years plus behind several European nations when it comes to electrical power generation.

With abosolutely no emissions and the power production from that system, we could all keep our inefficient incandescent bulbs and still have a carbon foot print less than the majority of the world. Plus my family member wouldn't be in serious risk of health impact from seizures. Many of the stores and other facilities we travel too have yet to move to CFL's, so that they still have a good quality of life. At some point all the eco-friendly lighting is going to be a serious issue for them.

 

[Steve]

I'm with you on this. I read somewhere that it was only 100w bulbs and above but that may have been a misquote out of context. Besides all the HA implications, all fluorescents also contain mercury. As a parent of a child who has heavy metal toxicity, this doesn't sit well with me. If any bulb falls or breaks, there will then be mercury in the house, so I avoid fluorescents wherever possible. I'm just hoping by the time this goes into effect (if it does) that LED lighting will be affordable and more practical.

 

[AnthonyZ]

You know, I'm with you on this but not for health reasons. Ultimately this issue is a pickle. I, as much as anyone, want to both reduce CO2 emmissions and power bills. I don't know about the CFL's, though. The truth is, the quality of light is downright FUGLY. Don't get me wrong, they have their place but, yikes, in the family room? Theater? Master bedroom? I think not. Then on top of it, we reduce carbon output but increase the level of mercury in landfills. Not cool. What are representatives don't understand is that with proper implementation, much can be done to reduce the use of energy in incandescents without privation. I personally believe that to switch much of my home (or all in Australia) is a subtle attack on my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would not be happy in a CFL home. I would probably end up in a tower with a rifle...

 

[sda]

What do you suppose the total carbon footprint is when you factor in the manufacturing process of CFLs vs incandescents? CFLs have to be more complicated with whatever electronics are in the base, which gets tossed each time. Oh that's right, they're made overseas so it doesn't count. And how many people are going to properly dispose of these now hazardous light bulbs?

I prefer halogens over standard incandescents. Picked up about 10 3-packs of 60Watters at Lowes on clearance a few weeks ago. $1.69 a 3-pack. What a deal! Now I wish I bought 50 of them.

 

[MrGibbage]

This is again one of those "feel good" laws that are easy to pass because they sound like they are going to make a huge difference in some big political hotbed, when in reality it won't make that big of a difference, has the possibility to cause real harm if people don't know how to dispose of them or if they do break in the home, and don't have the same aesthetics and appeal of the status quo. I have not read the actual law, so I don't know the ins and outs of it, but I sure do hope there are loop holes somewhere. Will I be able to buy incandescents online? Will it be illegal to own incandescents? I sure hope not? Is it for businesses only? For a certain size only? Any possible exemptions? **sigh**

 

[hockeypuck]

I agree with you there, it is a feel good law. I reminds me of the pointy head driving and prius and feeling all "better that you" because I get 50 mpg, except for the idiot does not realize the hazardous waste that car produces as a by product of its production and batteries. We were all scammed on this energy bill. I am all for using our resources wisely, but do not drum up some phoney baloney scam (ie global warming) to start reaching into our pockets. We were duped on this one.

 

[huggy59]

I agree about the feel-good nature of this proposal - it just shifts things from one end to the other. Not to throw any of this off-topic, but this guy might have something that will help us move to a hydrogen energy solution/economy. It looks pretty interessting.

www.genesys-hydrogen.com

 

[86turbodsl]

So what are those of us with multi-thousand dollar dimming systems supposed to do? Scrap em? My dimmable lights save more electricity than this bill would. This is absurd. Are we going to be black marketeers, or have to buy a lifetime supply of light bulbs?

Edit: Just found this:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm

 

[dublin00]

This is really a mess here in California. One of the nearby counties (Contra Costa) actually has a local law now "requiring" CFL lighting in new contstruction homes. Yes, I said "requiring CFL"! I've actually been over for dinner in one of these new homes (owned by a friend) and every last light in the house (every last one except the little lights in the oven/microwave) are CFL. The owners hate them and have floor lamps everywhere to avoid turning them on...what a mess.

The problem with this kind of single minded-ness is that CFLs are not the only solution and I really fear that we will see more areas passing similar laws. Of course, the people passing these laws are not following through on the tail end either. My friend above had never even heard of the law requiring hazardous disposal of used CFL lgihts. He was just going to toss a bad one in the trash. You would think that the builder could have at least handed out a little insert in the new home buyers manual or something.

So what are those of us with multi-thousand dollar dimming systems supposed to do? Scrap em? My dimmable lights save more electricity than this bill would. This is absurd. Are we going to be black marketeers, or have to buy a lifetime supply of light bulbs?

Best bets are halogen or LED lighting (last one longer term). I've done some small experiments with CREE LED lights using two of my PCS Lighting dimmers and they work just fine with a magnetic (not electric) AC->DC converter. This summer China will be making a big splash with their home grown CREE LED lighting in the Olympic pavilions. It should be interesting to see what our press says. I've been thinking about doing some more experiments with some of the higher end CREE LED 110V AC fixtures, but just haven't had the time. If anyone else has already tried them out I'd like to here how they looked and if you tried them on a HA dimmer.

As a last ditch, you can buy long life standard light bulbs. I've found some rated as much as 20,000 hours. I have a lot of 5,000hr high quality bulbs that have been going 7 years on an HA dimmer and they haven't failed yet. My guess is that the slow ramp on/off in a smart dimmer prevents the thermal shock "pop" that usually kills standard light bulbs so you might be able to ride out the current CFL craze and wait for dimmable LED lighting to catch up to CFLs.

 

[judge_l]

It's bad enough people are smuggling in toilets from Canada to avoid the low flush toilets here.... I can just see a bunch of people making road trips to stock up on bulbs. One question though, I didn't think dimming lights actually saved any electricity, I thought it was just used up (I'm sure there is a more technical way to descibe it ) in the dimmer switch?

 

[HighTest]

Well in that CA county, I hope any families in a similar situation such as mine sues the county for the health risk imposed. As I said earlier, epileptic seizures caused by CFL use is absolutely unexceptable.

Even when you know how to deal with a seizure in progress, there is still the fear of physical injury from the violent muscular contractions as well as any potential internal injuries even if body doesn't strike anything. Also what is the long term brain consequences? Sure upping the medication can help to prevent seizures from florescent light sources, but without CFL or Florescent lighting we were finding that we could reduce the amount of medication over the years and still have the individual seizure free.

Since many of the rich politicians are likely unaware of the dimmer restrictions and other issues, yet have the money to purchase fine homes that have decora type dimmers, etc, perhaps they'll learn the hard way. Nah! Likely they'll be using incadescent while lecturing everyone else about the need to control their carbon footprint. Just like a nobel prize winner that is flying constantly in a personal lear jet that has a carbon impact of a hummers full year consumption of gasoline during each extended flight
Actually I'm certain that my carbon footprint isn't too bad in comparison. Here's why:

1. I recycle as much as possible. This way I only have a single 32 gallon can of waste per month.

2. I compost as much as possible and have a garden (good stress reliever).

3. I've several rain barrels purchased from the city (to meet their regs) and use these for flower watering.

4. My employer has a free metro program, so all my daily commutes are by metro. My employer has a garanteed ride home program so in the event of an emergency, I'll get a company car or they'll call and pay for a taxi.

5. My appliances are energy star rated.

6. Use the shower for just getting wet and then rinsing (soaping, etc, the water is turned off).

7. Use my ELK M1, motion sensors and controlled switches to turn off the lights after one leaves a room.

8. Use dimmers to reduce the amount of energy to each bulb, lowering the energy consumption and lengthening their life span.

 

[86turbodsl]

This is really a mess here in California. One of the nearby counties (Contra Costa) actually has a local law now "requiring" CFL lighting in new contstruction homes. Yes, I said "requiring CFL"! I've actually been over for dinner in one of these new homes (owned by a friend) and every last light in the house (every last one except the little lights in the oven/microwave) are CFL. The owners hate them and have floor lamps everywhere to avoid turning them on...what a mess.

So do the lighting police come around every now and then to check that the CFL's are still installed? They don't call it Kalifornia for nothing..

 

[86turbodsl]

It's bad enough people are smuggling in toilets from Canada to avoid the low flush toilets here.... I can just see a bunch of people making road trips to stock up on bulbs. One question though, I didn't think dimming lights actually saved any electricity, I thought it was just used up (I'm sure there is a more technical way to descibe it <_< ) in the dimmer switch?

Dimming lights does save quite a bit. As I recall, dimmed 10% saves ~20% or so, and dimmed 20% saves 40%.. etc.
What really saves cash is the motion sensors that turn off lights after someone leaves the room with the light on... I've been trying for years to get the kids to shut the light off when leaving a room, and they never do. I've given up and just implement motion detection.

 

[Aquatic]

Congress has never understood and WILL never understand the concept of the free market--they're too married to their lobbyist "friends" (Contributors), etc.

The bottom line is simple. IF you make it simple for people to change, cost effective for people to change, they WILL change. No, subsidies like the Ethanol B.S. going on don't make it cost effective--we pay for it in taxes somewhere, be it income or at the pump.....

YES to the Nuclear solution. I would go so far as to call that a temporary solution ~100 years or so. If all the "eco" terrorists/luddites would simply shut the hell up ( or raise some valid concerns.....) then we'd be a bunch better off. Now that doesn't solve the gasoline/petroleum issue naturally, but without needing to retool for heating oil and 1000 different "blends" of summer/winter gasoline, our refineries would be able to stay up and producing longer, and we might have a chance at going easy on the oil consumption. That after all is the ultimate goal. I'm a FLorida person and I say OPEN THE GULF! Open ANWAR too while you're at it. But don't do it just to assuage the current issue--that's a bandaid. Go Nuke, open the new areas for oil, and reward companies doing new research in energy with tax breaks or what have you. The goal is to get to Cheap, renewable energy. Incentivize the companies. They'll solve it eventally.

Alas,no--the energy lobby is VERY strong and has deep pockets. It'll likely never happen unless we fundamentally change how Congress does business.

 

[upstatemike]

Dimming lights does save quite a bit. As I recall, dimmed 10% saves ~20% or so, and dimmed 20% saves 40%.. etc.
What really saves cash is the motion sensors that turn off lights after someone leaves the room with the light on... I've been trying for years to get the kids to shut the light off when leaving a room, and they never do. I've given up and just implement motion detection.

The statistics I am familiar with are: 25% dimming = 20% energy savings and 50% dimming = 40% energy savings. In other words, dimming does not save energy because the energy saved is proportionally less than the light output lost.

I am not suggesting mandatory CFL use is appropriate (there are too many situations where the technology is not suitable) but it also would not be right to suggest that you can accomplish the same thing just by using dimmers. LEDs will be the long term answer while short term the solution is to keep certain radical left coast politicians from winning another term in office.