Why “green” fails
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
August 31st, 2011 at 9:10 am
You know, if you buy a light that sucks up less than 1 watt of power, it’s labeled as only putting out 70 lumens, and then you whine because it’s not bright, well, sorry no sympathy.
Like he said, ‘accent’ should have been a pretty good clue.
August 31st, 2011 at 9:53 am
1. Do not give a rat’s ass about “sympathy”.
2. Less of a question about how bright it is, and more of a question about how these damned things are being irrationally forced down our throats at governmental gunpoint. Sure, CFLs are an alternative, but they suck for a variety of reasons as well.
I am all about saving money, but these do not, and we are pointlessly forcing something into the market when it is not ready.
August 31st, 2011 at 11:48 am
You’re an idiot if you think this means “green fails”.
It’s 70 lumens! I have a 900 lumen out back. It’s a lot brighter than a 100 watt bulb. Does that mean green wins? Ignorance abounds.
August 31st, 2011 at 12:28 pm
Herp, derp, I used a bulb plainly not rated for my application and then complained about it not being rated for my application.
August 31st, 2011 at 2:36 pm
And what, pray tell, did that 900 lumen bulb cost you, Nate?
That is the point you and Sarah are apparently too smart to comprehend.
August 31st, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Let’s see. 900 lumen LED bulb @ amazon = $90.
Keep sucking Al Gore’s dick.
August 31st, 2011 at 7:09 pm
I’ve seen LED bulbs in the one to three Watt range that are as bright as any 60 or even 75 watt incandescent, and their sptecrum is more balanced. And they last for years. I don’t give a whit about “green” because mostly it’s a farce designed to promote socialism. We don’t talk about the “environmental impact” of making LEDs in China, packing them in a ton of plastic, and then shipping them over here either, but if I can save 1KW or more in the summertime, just on my lighting, I’m interested.
September 1st, 2011 at 10:01 pm
Hmmm…I’m inclined to say you really have never seen a one to three watt LED that has the same lumen value as a 60 – 70 watt incandescent. I’ve searched quite thoroughly and haven’t been able to find anything of the sort. Now, if you want to talk 8 watts then maybe so, but the price is still right out of crazy town. I’ve bought a couple to compare the temperatures of the light and to test the durability. I like the LED’s as they don’t suck like the CFL’s did but lets not misrepresent them.
September 1st, 2011 at 11:44 pm
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007—signed into law by George W Bush—does not ban incandescent bulbs. Nobody is “forcing” CFLs or LEDs “down our throats at governmental gunpoint” (that’s some serious PSH right there) … incandescent bulbs will continue to be available, they’ll just be more efficient. Don’t like LEDs or CFLs? Don’t fucking buy them.
September 2nd, 2011 at 6:58 am
No, standard, generic, every-day incandescent bulbs will not be available, because they cannot be produced to meet the asinine “efficiency” requirements idiotically imposed by the government (at gunpoint, as all laws are), so companies have stopped making 100Ws. And then 60Ws, once those come under the law, and then 40Ws, and then they will be gone.
Sure, we can still get halogens, but for how much longer?
September 2nd, 2011 at 8:43 am
Yeah, we didn’t ban your Corvette. We just passed a law saying coupes should get 60mpg. It’s ok, as long as your ‘vette gets 60mpg, right? Oh, they don’t do that. Hmmm.
September 2nd, 2011 at 10:53 am
I guess nobody told Phillips, GE and Sylvania that they cannot produce the bulbs, because they are already making and selling EISA-compliant 40W, 60W and 100W incandescent bulbs. You should alert them immediately that what they are doing is impossible.
September 5th, 2011 at 2:10 pm
ORLY?
In other words, citation please, jackass?
September 6th, 2011 at 2:00 am
Far from being “imposed by gunpoint” on lighting manufacturers, EISA—in addition to having overwhelming bi-partisan support—was, and still is, strongly supported by light bulb manufacturers.
The new incandescent bulbs employ a small halogen capsule with an incandescent element that looks, feels and operates just like the standard 100-year old technology you’re used to, they just do it more efficiently. Most major lighting manufacturers already produce 2012 EISA-compliant light bulbs (not including CFLs and LEDs), and they can be bought at Home Depot, Lowes, Walmart, Amazon, etc—for example, Phillips EcoVantage bulbs.
If you like flushing money down the toilet and want to continue lighting your home with “standard, generic, every-day incandescent bulbs” that only turn 10% of the electricity they consume into light, then go buy a truckload of them and stop whining about it.
September 6th, 2011 at 9:58 pm
And yet you still do not get it – no great surprise there!
If the light bulb manufacturers wanted to produce more-efficient lightbulbs, then they should have simply produced more-efficient lightbulbs. Period.
There was no need for governmental influence. There was no need for governmental legislation. There was no need for the government at all.
It simply does not matter if the legislation was “bipartisan” or who supported it – the government will still enforce it at gunpoint if people decide to break the resulting laws.
THAT is the problem with this bullshit legislation, and your prevarication does not change that in by a whit.
And I guess “standard, generic, every-day” were just too complex of concepts for you?