Looks very similar to the bulb I bought.Brett Sharenow with the Switch75.
Photo: Misha Gravenor
Beat me to it, heh.
eek. That actually seemed like a reasonable thing to say.
Again, good points.
I would argue that CFLs win the cost comparisons now, but LEDs are a fast moving technology, and will benefit from economies of scale as people switch to them, as I will be doing when our current crop of CFLs burn out.
Given that LEDs are available alternatives to CFLs, though one can't say the standards will force anyone to buy CFLs.
What about those who have a hard time making ends meet already?
Tradition bulbs you can probably still find 3/$1.00. CFL's are $0.99 at best, already raising their costs one time costs if if they have a tight budget. Now LED's... will they ever by at the $1 range?
Lets see...
Parents can buy the CFL for $0.99 for the children's bedroom, to replace a traditional bulb they just broke playing, or pay $35 for a LED that I can't afford for them to break...
What will parents choose? How many parents even know the warning that are not clearly listed about broken CFL's and children?
I like the idea of promoting energy efficiency with the public, but to force it? How many things are we pricing out of range of lower income people?
Car insurance companies can no longer give great rates with a 10 year diving history because they can only base rates for 3 years... by law...
The working poor can no longer buy a $50 junker that runs because of emission testing standards for regulations that most metropolitan areas now have. How many people are now priced out of cars?
How many other things in the future, will we price the working poor out of, nickle and dimeing them to death?
Liberals love to advocate how they are the champions in the poor, but the poor come behind to so many other political agendas they have.
Just looked at the packaging of a CFL I have. No mercury warnings!
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-14-2011 at 02:01 PM.
Why are you letting kids run around with broken light bulbs in their hands?
I take it you have no kids.
Children play. Toys get thrown, things get broken, and kids are curious.
Do I really need to elaborate more than that? Cannot watch a child every minute of every waking hour. happens. It's bad enough if they get cut by glass, but glass with phosphorous, mercury, and other nasty chemicals...
The amount of mercury is negligible. While it's a good idea to recycle them, 4-5 mg of mercury isn't going to make your kid more re ed than it currently is. As a comparison, the old mercury thermometers had 500mg.
Now, if you're letting them break a CFL every day maybe you shouldn't be a parent to begin with.
How many light bulbs did your children cut themselves with, WC?
This could explain a lot.
As RG already pointed out (not to mention the several before him), LED bulbs will cost far less once economies of scale catch up to them. It's also worth pointing out that breaking an LED bulb would be rather difficult: not only is breaking one diode a chore in and of itself, breaking a bulb covered with the 20-50 of them would prove quite the project. And unlike incandescent or fluorescent bulbs, a kid couldn't potentially cut, poison, or electrocute himself (or burn the house down) if he decided to experiment with an LED bulb.
As far as unit sales crippling the poverty stricken... given said demographics are poverty stricken, it's hard to say a family won't pay 2-5 dollars for a bulb that will pay for itself in energy savings within a billing cycle or, at most, two. The only time people may be forced to pay $35 for a lightbulb is when inflation renders such a sum the equivalent of $1 in 2011 money.
I'm not sure, but I believe the LED bulbs are still encased in glass. that aside, I doubt their cost will ever be close to CFL's and it's hard to invest in long term payoffs when you are scraping by. Lighting is a small cost of the total electricity bill. At 10 cents/kwh, it takes almost 167 hours to cost $1 for a 60 watt bulb. based on a 4 hr/day usage, that is 42 days. Over 42 days, the 50 watt equivalent will cost about 22 cents.
How much money do you want someone to spend to save $1.89 per month for a dozen bulbs on 4 hrs a day?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 09-16-2011 at 04:59 AM.
Again: economies of scale.
Ex: Wasn't so long ago that laptop screens used to be back-lit by fluorescent bulbs. Not just some -- ALL of them. Why? Because CFLs were the only light source that was flat and energy-efficient enough to work off a battery for any length of time. It was a cheap, universally adopted technology.
Then LED-backlit screens came along. They were way more expensive at first, but because the market laptop manufacturers' serve values battery life above most other features, and because LED LCDs were more efficient and much, much brighter, LED screens were quickly adopted and they laid waste to CFL-backlit monitors' market share: as LED screen market-shares rose, LED screen costs plummeted. Nowadays you can get a kick-ass LED-screen lap-top for $300, which was inconceivable just 10 yrs in the CFL back-lit days.
Why? [return to top]
And they all lived happily ever after.
Yeah, but how many kids broke those laptops and ate the screen?
You obviously don't have any children.
We are talking small amounts of lighting requirements, and a more stable power source.
I agree, lights will come down more. However, a $10 difference in a laptop purchase usually costing $400 or more is a far cry difference than buying incandescent 3/$1, CFL's for $1, of LED for $5.
The $10 makes a $400 laptop cost 2.5% more. However, CFL's are 200% more than incandescent, and at $5, LEDs are 1400% more.
There are fare more light sockets on this earth than there are laptops.
See: economies of ing scale.
I'll just wait for the future. I'm pretty sure it will prove me correct.
You're saying the poor will revolt against buying light bulbs that will save them money?
Cascade® With Phosphates - Automatic Dishwasher Detergent, 85 Oz, For Industrial Use Only (34953PG)
List Price: $68.74
SUPER Sale Price $54.99 / Case of 6
Cascade® With Phosphates - Automatic Dishwasher Detergent, 85 Oz, For Industrial Use Only (34953PG)
List Price: $68.74
SUPER Sale Price $54.99 / Case of 6
Trisodium Phosphate
Trisodium phosphate is another popular alternative to muriatic acid and cleans masonry in much the same way as muriatic acid. Trisodium phosphate is a heavy-duty cleaning agent that poses some of the same dangers of muriatic acid. The substance is very reactive and should not be used with any other acids or cleaners as the resulting mixture can create noxious fumes. Using trisodium phosphate to clean a surface will not neutralize or etch the surface being cleaned. Users will need to test the surface pH before applying any other substance or chemicals that may react badly with the residual pH level. In some cities, trisodium phosphate is illegal to use, due to restrictions on phosphate pollution.
http://www.ehow.com/list_6600562_alt...#ixzz1dQ2x8rOz
not so bad for 7 lb. boxes
LemiShine is the bomb, and it allows me to use far less actual detergent.
Newegg just had a sale. LED bulbs for $13 each.
Sold out.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
