Ron should be talking about this Light Bulb thing [Archive]

azminuteman

12-19-2007, 01:48 PM

What are you talking about?

There is a blurb on all the media outlets that the government wants to outlaw incandescent light bulbs like Australia - to save energy.

Sorry but the CFL hurts my eyes - especially the floods. I've tried it, I have CFL on the exterior of my home where I used to spend 180W an hour for 4-6 hours a night but the CFL floods give me a headache.

conner_condor

12-19-2007, 01:48 PM

They did have an article about getting rid of the regular lightbulbs and use more expensive but energy efficient ones.

azminuteman

12-19-2007, 01:51 PM

fluorescents sucks anyways. they take like three minutes to get warmed up.

The new CFL take seconds to warm up. If you have more than one on the same circuit, it takes longer.
I have 2 dimming CFL that take seconds to turn on and they're on the same circuit.

I tried the CFL floods and I have a circuit that has 3 in a row and it takes about 5 seconds to light up. They also gave me headaches so I returned them and vowed to never use them again - for a while.

drexhex

12-19-2007, 01:51 PM

http://www.thedailygreen.com/green-homes/eco-friendly/congress-incandescent-light-bulbs-ban-461217

What he's talking about.

trispear

12-19-2007, 01:57 PM

InRonWeTrust

12-19-2007, 02:02 PM

This is not a question about how good one type of bulb is versus another - it's a question of whether the federal government is even allowed under the Constitution to outlaw certain lightbulbs.

Anti Federalist

12-19-2007, 02:04 PM

What's new here?

The fedgov has been forcing us for years now to use toilets that don't flush, now they'll force us to use lights that don't light.

Just found out yesterday that I could no longer buy "off road" diesel fuel in my area due to winter EPA regs. So now I have to use the low sulfur "on road" crap that will eat the valve train of my backhoe engine alive.

All for our own good of course.

Ron Paul Fan

12-19-2007, 02:06 PM

The people and the market should decide! Stop Congress! Vote Ron Paul for President!

Smiley Gladhands

12-19-2007, 02:07 PM

I'm going to take a risky political stance and say that Americans should be able to use whatever type of light bulb that they think is best for them.

Even if it's a nuclear lightbulb? We don't want the terrists switching out all of our lightbulbs with nuclear ones.

Oh oh...I went to check Sylvania's ownership to make sure some arabs weren't trying to sneak some ownership in so they could switch all of our lightbulbs over to their nuclear counterparts, and it's much worse than I imagined. The Japanese own Sylvannia.......that's 9/13ths of Pennsylvania! Yes, that's the same Japan that invented terrism by bombing Pearl Harbor! :eek: My intelligence thus tells me that Japan is a terrist-sponsoring nation and that they, in concert with the islamic fascists, are planning on switching our lightbulbs out with nuclear ones, which would no doubt kill us all.

So I'm calling my congressman to ask him to invade Japan (and we might as well hit North Korea while we're over there), as well as every Muslim nation...and to STRONGLY regulate lightbulbs and possibly even nationalize the lightbulb industry. Who knows what kind of America-hating messages we might see in our magazines/newspapers if Japanese-Arab nuclear light is our only light source?

Intel source: http://www.sylvaniaconsumerelectronics.com/aboutus.php

sorry, I got kind of carried away...:)

JoeSixPack

12-19-2007, 02:13 PM

My house uses many flood lights in all the common areas. Recently I've been replacing burnt out bulbs with CFL floods and visually you can't tell the difference from the standard ones once they are on. It takes them a minute to get up to full brightness but that's a small price to pay for the fact they are brighter and last way longer yet only run 15 watts compared to 75-100 watts. I can literally run 25 CFL floods at the electrical cost of less than 5 normal floods and they seldom have to be replaced.

I can't wait until they get LED technology going better for floods... those won't have any delays going on, won't have anyone sensitive to their light, they won't burn out and they'll be even cheaper to run than CFL! We are really stepping into a whole new world as far as household lighting goes.

The gov't telling us what lights we can and can't use is similar to the gov't setting gas mileage for cars. Unless there is a pressing social need the market is normally a better place to sort out that kind of thing. In this particular case I think the market is starting to tip hard into alternative lighting anyway and the gov't is just stepping in to take credit for the change.

Rebel Resource

12-19-2007, 02:20 PM

In Venezuela and Cuba the governments are paying out of state funds to replace every single inefficient bulb. Both countries should be done in a couple of years from now.

fiddler1

12-19-2007, 02:22 PM

lnieves

12-19-2007, 02:31 PM

In Venezuela and Cuba the governments are paying out of state funds to replace every single inefficient bulb. Both countries should be done in a couple of years from now.

which is why George W. Bush and Hugo Chávez are more similar than they want their people to believe.

I wonder, if the other light bulbs are more efficient why is it that people is not buying them voluntarily and have to be forced by law to do it?

Talldude1412

12-19-2007, 02:32 PM

Gotta love the gov't. Not to mention they just required that all car companies have a 35mpg avg by 2020. Way to pretty much force people to drive tiny cars, thanks a lot pricks.

Wyurm

12-19-2007, 02:33 PM

And then they can ban CFLs cuz they are full of Mercury.. Put a couple billion of these in landfills.. So they will require hazardous waste permits to throw away (at a fee of course). It never ends if you let them start.

See that's what really irritates me. They are all too happy to attack CO2 (what you breathe out and plants need to survive) saying various messages of doom and gloom, but their solution is more poisonous and more hazardous to us than the current "problem". I can easilly see how one might conclude that our government is trying to kill us.

Rebel Resource

12-19-2007, 02:34 PM

Gotta love the gov't. Not to mention they just required that all car companies have a 35mpg avg by 2020. Way to pretty much force people to drive tiny cars, thanks a lot pricks.

Ever hear of Peak Oil talldude?

Rebel Resource

12-19-2007, 02:37 PM

which is why George W. Bush and Hugo Chávez are more similar than they want their people to believe.

I wonder, if the other light bulbs are more efficient why is it that people is not buying them voluntarily and have to be forced by law to do it?

Because the long vision of a government that has to distribute energy across the nation is more urgent than the short-term vision of an individual that pays next to nothing for their energy usage?

walt

12-19-2007, 02:39 PM

Where in the Constitution is the federal government allowed to tell us we cannot use a certain type of light bulb?? This is insanity.

+1 - the ethanol part of the bill is even more destructive when you consider 14,000 gallons oof water are used to make each gallon of ethanol or something like that.

erikm

12-19-2007, 02:53 PM

Economics and laziness are the main reasons I got rid of my incandescents. CFLs may take some time to warm up (though try recent ones) and be more expensive than a an equal number of incandescents but the CFLs should last 5 years or more. I've had a CFL (a design from Philips) that lasted over a decade from the late 80's to the late 90's.

Sure, you'll see incandescents in special purposes for a few years, but LEDs are catching up fast. New traffic lights here are all LED and I don't think it unlikely that CFLs will follow incandescents inside 25 years.

Cheers,
ErikM

Aballistar

12-19-2007, 02:56 PM

Ever hear of Peak Oil talldude?

Doesn't matter, the market should regulate what type of fuel effeciences the cars have that they produce. If people don't want to pay a ton in gas for Ford F-350's, they'll lose money and quit making them. The government should not be in this business.

trispear

12-19-2007, 02:58 PM

Sure, you'll see incandescents in special purposes for a few years, but LEDs are catching up fast. New traffic lights here are all LED and I don't think it unlikely that CFLs will follow incandescents inside 25 years.

Just as how some people don't like the light output by CFLs (I think they look good) -- I don't like the light output by LEDs. Currently, it's good for a flashlight, but I won't be replacing my CFLs any time soon.

I have to admite, LED lights drastically came down in price (still pricey) from last year and that is a good thing - but their lumen output is still poor. If they improve the light quality and lumen output without reducing the efficiency (many LEDs in 3 watt lightbulbs are overdriven and produce heat unlike normal LEDs) I'm all for it.

Nash

12-19-2007, 03:00 PM

http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.htm l?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting

I don't support banning the bulb. CFLs are more efficient in the market -- they'll pay for themselves and many people buy them especially as the price comes down. The cheapest I have consistently seen them is at Costco -- much cheaper than places like Walmart. The more esoteric sizes and types Costco don't carry - I buy elsewhere. CFLs have also gotten better over time -- if you tried them only years ago - try them again.

But I can understand if some people don't like them -- let them buy the old type and pay more in electricity bills - it's their money.

Also, a ban is bad because incandescents are good in extreme temperature conditions where CFLs or even LEDs can't cope. Ovens for example. Refrigrators too (LEDs could cope there, but aren't economical enough in the inital $$/lumen compared to incandescent). Incandescent is the only reasonable way to go there.

CFL's are also loaded with mercury. They are a environmental threat, much more than traditional bulbs. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but it does mean that they certainly shouldn't be mandated as there will be unintended consequences if the ENTIRE country switched to them. As usual the politicians go forward with stupid legislation without fully thinking about the long term ramifications. As long as both are allowed on the market, the most sensible one will win out in the long term, or both will flourish depending on the needs of the people who use them.

trispear

12-19-2007, 03:45 PM

CFL's are also loaded with mercury. They are a environmental threat, much more than traditional bulbs. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be used, but it does mean that they certainly shouldn't be mandated as there will be unintended consequences if the ENTIRE country switched to them. As usual the politicians go forward with stupid legislation without fully thinking about the long term ramifications. As long as both are allowed on the market, the most sensible one will win out in the long term, or both will flourish depending on the needs of the people who use them.

There isn't that much mercuny in them - it's been greatly reduced over the years (regular fluorescent lights have mercury too).

Also, incandescents release more mercury into the air by having to be supplied with about 4 times more electricity. 50% of electricity in this country comes from coal. That coal releases mercury.

As a result, incandescents will release more mercury into the atmosphere than a CFL (plus CFLs could be properly disposed of, though I'm not always counting on it).

http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2007/07/16/cflmercury/index.html

http://local-warming.blogspot.com/2007/08/mercury-compact-fluorescent-cfl-bulbs.html

noztnac

12-24-2007, 08:09 PM

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977210108&grpId=3659174697241980&nav=Groupspace

Incandescent bulbs produce a better quality of light. My lamp, my money, my electric bill, my choice.
The government is waaaaaaaay out of line.

I also am not buying that it has anything to do with energy efficiency. I live in South Korea. When I want to use hot water I have to turn it on and wait about five minutes for the hot water heater to heat up. In the US I don't think anyone does this. If the government were really serious about saving energy they'd implement that strategy. But, guess what? I still wouldn't support it. Energy conservation is not a function of government. Protecting civil liberties is. So now they've suddenly decided it is ok to infringe on civil liberties that they are supposed to be protecting in order to force us to buy light bulbs that are more efficient. This is insanity. Ron Paul should be all over this one.

wfd40

12-24-2007, 08:20 PM

I'm going to take a risky political stance and say that Americans should be able to use whatever type of light bulb that they think is best for them.

i actually think that using energy efficient light bulbs is a great friggin idea and SHOULD BE mandatory..

Considering there is no way in hell the corporations will work towards such a positive end.

----

And to be perfectly honest, this kind of reasoning makes me wonder what the heck a Paul presidency will do about 99% of media being owned by 4 multinationals??

Oh nothing??... ok, sounds great to me!

:rolleyes:

Wanna protect our civil libeties?? Dismantle/break up/dissolve the Media Industrial Complex.

Paul4Prez

12-24-2007, 08:23 PM

Does anyone remember the movie Equilibrium?

There's going to be a big nostalgia market for real light bulbs someday...

TSOL

12-24-2007, 08:24 PM

I have never heard of this but prefer daylight balanced Floros.

noztnac

12-24-2007, 08:25 PM

This site is called "Ecolibertarian". They support the energy bill that bans incandescent light bulbs and mandates the fuel economy requirements of privately manufactured automobiles.

http://ecolibertarian.com/2007/12/20/507/#comment-2723

My response:

Why on earth do you have “Libertarian” on this site?

This energy bill is a complete infringement of our civil liberties. Manipulating energy consumption is NOT a function of government.

If I want to buy an inefficient car or an incandescent light bulb it is none of the government’s damn business!

You should rename this site ECOFASCIST!

Mastiff

12-24-2007, 08:29 PM

If they force me to use CFL's, I'm leaving them on 24/7 just to spite them. Why people think "wasting" money on light is worse than wasting it on ipods or whatever is beyond me.

The car thing pisses me off even more because I really like 4x4's and big engines. Good economists work the foregone pleasure of driving fun vehicles into the equation, but eco-politicians assume it only has to do with getting from A to B. Nevermind that people are mostly driving around doing pointless things anyway, maybe we ought to regulate that too.

evandi

12-24-2007, 08:30 PM

i actually think that using energy efficient light bulbs is a great friggin idea and SHOULD BE mandatory..

Considering there is no way in hell the corporations will work towards such a positive end.

----

And to be perfectly honest, this kind of reasoning makes me wonder what the heck a Paul presidency will do about 99% of media being owned by 4 multinationals??

Oh nothing??... ok, sounds great to me!

:rolleyes:

Wanna protect our civil libeties?? Dismantle/break up/dissolve the Media Industrial Complex.

No, its funny that you have it completely backwards. Corporations want you to be forced to buy their product. These new lightbulbs are more expensive right? This is called fascism. Enjoy.

Imagine all the effort and materials that are wasted building these new lightbulbs to replace what we already have. The lightbulbs are more expensive. This means that the power they save might not make economic sense at all, but since the government mandates it, these light bulb companies (big light bulb) get propped up by the government.

We have plenty of coal. Gas is not used for power in the US. When coal runs out we have nuclear. We are so safe that it is scandalous for things like this to even come up as a concern.

wirenut

12-24-2007, 08:37 PM

CFL bulbs are nice but the one thing I hate about them is that they can not be dimmed with a dimmer switch. It's so stupid to ban these light bulbs. Our government shouldn't have any say in what type of bulbs we can use. Simple as that.

charger

12-24-2007, 08:37 PM

My guess would be there was some kind of corporate lobby behind the light bulb ban.
We tried the CFL bulbs a couple of years ago and were not happy with them.
They actually burn out quicker than the standard bulbs and we didn't see a decrease in our electric bill.
They are much more expensive to purchase.
Just like my biggest pet pieve. The new spill proof gas cans.
I have never spilled so much gas in my life as I have spilled with these stupid cans.
I have looked everywhere for the old style gas cans and they are no longer availible. I'm sure some crook made a ton of money when they sold the spill proof gas can idea to our idiot government.
Just like this crooked light bulb mandate.
We have taken this type of abuse long enough. Electing Ron Paul is only the first step. We need to keep electing more of his kind to government at all levels and put the current crooks out into the street!

bdmarti

12-24-2007, 08:41 PM

We have plenty of coal. Gas is not used for power in the US. When coal runs out we have nuclear. We are so safe that it is scandalous for things like this to even come up as a concern.

uhm...no. Sorry, you'd be wrong that this isn't a concern. It's a big concern, but not one that has any constitutional jurisdiction.

Sure, we have a lot of coal. At current rates of use, that'd last well over 100 years...some say even over 200 years. however, we aren't maintaining current rates. If we also continue to grow our energy use at current rates, we're down to something around a 50 year supply of coal.

Nuclear could help, but even if we had every ounce of Uranium in the world working in our power plants we'd be hard pressed to make up the shortfalls we'll see as oil and coal run short. There isn't enough uranium to make up the difference...and uranium isn't as portable and doesn't store as nice as oil and coal.

I don't really want the federal government involved with energy policy. The market will shift to alternate forms of energy as the ones we use become too expensive.

Besides that, if we do "conserve" then we run into Jevon's paradox. If we don't use up the oil and coal as fast as we can, then the price drops and others will try to use the very same resources at a now reduced price. We lose economically unless everyone in the world conserves at the same time.

bottom line...it is a concern...a big concern...but not one that the federal government can fix or should have any hand in

evandi

12-24-2007, 08:45 PM

uhm...no. Sorry, you'd be wrong that this isn't a concern. It's a big concern, but not one that has any constitutional jurisdiction.

Sure, we have a lot of coal. At current rates of use, that'd last well over 100 years...some say even over 200 years. however, we aren't maintaining current rates. If we also continue to grow our energy use at current rates, we're down to something around a 50 year supply of coal.

Nuclear could help, but even if we had every ounce of Uranium in the world working in our power plants we'd be hard pressed to make up the shortfalls we'll see as oil and coal run short. There isn't enough uranium to make up the difference...and uranium isn't as portable and doesn't store as nice as oil and coal.

I don't really want the federal government involved with energy policy. The market will shift to alternate forms of energy as the ones we use become too expensive.

Besides that, if we do "conserve" then we run into Jevon's paradox. If we don't use up the oil and coal as fast as we can, then the price drops and others will try to use the very same resources at a now reduced price. We lose economically unless everyone in the world conserves at the same time.

bottom line...it is a concern...a big concern...but not one that the federal government can fix or should have any hand in

I wonder where you get your information. The majority of electric power in France is supplied by Nuclear and the only reason we don't have more nuclear here is because of 3 mile island (and chernobyl). Nuclear power plants were not shut down because of any other reason then fear.

ShowMeLiberty

12-24-2007, 08:48 PM

I hate those damn curly-fry light bulbs.

I tried some a few months ago and they give me a headache because the light quality sucks. Plus, they don't fit in most of the light fixtures in my house - you can't put the cover back on because the curly-fry is too big.

The government really needs to stay out of environmental issues. Every time they get involved there are unintended consequences. Look up all the problems that have occurred since they started managing Yellowstone Park wildlife, for one example.

bdmarti

12-24-2007, 08:59 PM

I wonder where you get your information. The majority of electric power in France is supplied by Nuclear and the only reason we don't have more nuclear here is because of 3 mile island (and chernobyl). Nuclear power plants were not shut down because of any other reason then fear.

France doesn't have the US's energy requirements and as I said, nuclear power can certainly help...but you can't run a typical automobile off of nuclear power and quite frankly it'll be pretty expensive to move over 1 trillion dollars worth of automobiles to electric power...and then there are the trains, planes, and boats that need oil...It's not like the energy sources are freely interchangeable. electricity is only one piece of the energy puzzle.

While biased, the site http://lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ can get you started...they at least link to a lot of useful resources.

By all means, find out the most optimistic estimates for the supply of uranium in the world. Extract the most optimistic amounts of energy at 100% efficiency. see how much energy we can get.

TSOL

12-24-2007, 09:03 PM

I can fathom boats and trains and trucks requiring deisel and oil fuels; but the American consumer going to work, the baseball field, the Wal Mart ?

No.

Man from La Mancha

12-24-2007, 09:23 PM

Energy problem is solved. A new company the is currently producing solar cells for less the cost of any other way of generating electricity. Cover ones whole roof and generate 10,000 watts. less than the price of coal $.90/watt. Now one can generate hydrogen to run your cars as gas electric hybreds for 100's miles range. HA HA peak oil who needs you.

http://www.celsias.com/2007/11/23/nanosolars-breakthrough-technology-solar-now-cheaper-than-coal/

November 23, 2007 · Filed under CleanTech - Solar, Energy by Jessica Hunt

Their mission: to deliver cost-efficient solar electricity. The Nanosolar company was founded in 2002 and is working to build the world’s largest solar cell factory in California and the world’s largest panel-assembly factory in Germany. They have successfully created a solar coating that is the most cost-efficient solar energy source ever. Their PowerSheet cells contrast the current solar technology systems by reducing the cost of production from $3 a watt to a mere 30 cents per watt. This makes, for the first time in history, solar power cheaper than burning coal.

These coatings are as thin as a layer of paint and can transfer sunlight to power at amazing efficiency. Although the underlying technology has been around for years, Nanosolar has created the actual technology to manufacture and mass produce the solar sheets. The Nanosolar plant in San Jose, once in full production in 2008, will be capable of producing 430 megawatts per year. This is more than the combined total of every other solar manufacturer in the U.S.

Nefertiti

12-24-2007, 09:28 PM

I replaced most of our lightbulbs with them about 6-8 months ago. The color is not much different from regular bulbs and I saw the results on my electricity bill immediately. They warm up immediately too. They are normally sold with rebates so they aren't as expensive as they are marked on the shelf. Highly recommended.

My only concern with them is that they need to think out the disposal issue more carefully. After 5 years of common use those things are going to be winding up polluting landfill even more than the landfill already is. There needs to be increased awareness of proper disposal.

kherty

12-24-2007, 09:28 PM

I personally like candles, but hey, they are bad for C02 levels and global warming. Maybe we should ask Al Gore what he thinks....lol

Nefertiti

12-24-2007, 09:31 PM

Crickett

12-24-2007, 09:31 PM

Even if it's a nuclear lightbulb? We don't want the terrists switching out all of our lightbulbs with nuclear ones.

So I'm calling my congressman to ask him to invade Japan (and we might as well hit North Korea while we're over there), as well as every Muslim nation...and to STRONGLY regulate lightbulbs and possibly even nationalize the lightbulb industry. Who knows what kind of America-hating messages we might see in our magazines/newspapers if Japanese-Arab nuclear light is our only light source?
Intel source: http://www.sylvaniaconsumerelectronics.com/aboutus.php

sorry, I got kind of carried away...:)

You have me laughing so hard!! LOL
The weird thing people seem to not understand is that or country was actually ORGANIZED to stay out of every other country's "goings on" because we were different! My sister says so much has changed now, we have to be more world oriented, blaah blaah. I tell her technology is the only thing that has changed in 200 years. NOT People. Our founders knew what happens when a country is not neutral. Look at England..Look at Rome.. What has changed? We are now American bullies, and ruining our National Guard with post war traumatic stress syndrome. Can't we just get out of everyone's face???????????

Man from La Mancha

12-24-2007, 09:32 PM

I personally like candles, but hey, they are bad for C02 levels and global warming. Maybe we should ask Al Gore what he thinks....lol
Pure bees wax candles are outstanding they even clean the air. Artificial ones are dirty and polluting, since global warming by co2 by man is a hoax then the more co2 one produces the more the plants grow and make more O2. Enjoy them.

.

Man from La Mancha

12-24-2007, 09:36 PM

Thank you so much for that link. We are seriously wanting to install solar panels on our house in Egypt to deal with the frequent power outages we get there but to date I haven't found anything we could afford to install. This looks really promising and I am going to bookmark this company and look into it in a year or two when we finish building our second floor.They are based in silicon valley and have 1 year backlog since they have sold a years supply to eastern Europe, but they have got a $100 mill loan to build more plants. I signed up for their email updates. Egypt should be a great place for them.

.

BillyDkid

12-24-2007, 09:40 PM

Seems like he had an idea and misconstrued the metaphorical symbol with reality? He seems to be doing that alot lately.

Best Regards
RandyCongress or the Senate is debating or passed a bill phasing out the use of incandescent bulbs and soon the will not be available so you have to use those new fangled, grotesque things that have mercury in the bottom - a bulb like fluorescent bulb.

Man from La Mancha

12-24-2007, 09:43 PM

Smiley Gladhands;667789]Even if it's a nuclear lightbulb? We don't want the terrists switching out all of our lightbulbs with nuclear ones.

http://ecoble.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/glowing-bike-with-litroenergy.jpg

GlowPaint glow-in-the-dark paint company, MPK Co., has come up with self-luminous micro particles called Litrospheres™ which they say are inexpensive, non-toxic, and will stay on for 12+ years (half-life point) continuously -- without having to be plugged into any power source. It is a betavoltaic technology, using a radioactive gas, whose "soft" emission of electrons from the beta emitting gas cannot penetrate the glass or polymer wall of the microspheres.
The Litrospheres™ are not affected by heat or cold, and are 5,000-pound crush resistant. They can be injection molded or added to paint. The fill rate of Litroenergy micro particles in plastic injection molding material or paint is about 20%. The constant light gives off no U.V. rays, and can be designed to emit almost any color of light desired.

The company seeks to mass produce this mateiral and supply OEMs.

"This has potential to save billions in energy costs world-wide. Litroenergy™ surpasses all known available lighting options for cost/durability/reliability and safety." -- Steve Stark, MPK Co.
.

Bilgefisher

12-24-2007, 09:53 PM

I have to pay for the bloody electricity, It should be up to me.

walt

12-24-2007, 10:09 PM

yep

Rob

12-24-2007, 10:41 PM

Ironically enough as I'm reading this thread, there is an add at the bottom of the page for "3 watt" LED room lights. The banner makes them look halfway decent. Maybe it's a "sign from above" about what the true solution to the problem is. Or maybe it's just some hack company trying to peddle junk that doesn't work. Who knows, that 3 watt use seems suspiciously low to me; I think my computer fans are using more energy than that.

fj45lvr

12-24-2007, 11:00 PM

I use incandescent bulbs in my business for specific purpose where flourescent will NOT work well

this is complete BS and is anoter straw on my back (amongst some other big ones)....

I am so glad we are on the verge of the REVOLUTION.....

GREEN fascists are the worst of them all.

I will be happy to be apart of the forces that drive these scum either north or south to let them try to work their tyranny outside the US.

No one likes a someone putting their nose where it doesn't belong with the arrogant attitude that they are "wiser" and "smarter" ....

Long live LIBERTY. DEATH to the FASCIST "stateists"