Forums | MacLife

As Im sure everyone is aware, california likes to ban many things.

Then build nuclear power plants.

I really hate the buzz my kitchen light makes.

I used to seriously hate flourescent lights until the most recent generation of compact bulbs. The spectrum of light is very, very close to incandescent and I can perceive no flicker at all.
I have been replacing the bulbs in my house with them as they burn out and I am very pleased with the lith and the lower energy consumption.
I would still never allow the industrial lighting tube type fluorescent in my house. I cannot abide by those and I would fight to keep those out of my home.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Then build nuclear power plants.

Increasing supply is not the same as increasing efficiency.

Subsidies are more expensive to the state than bans.  And subsidies eventually would come out of my pocket anyway, and be diluted across people who probably have many more lamps then I do, decreasing the value of my input.  So I'd prefer a ban over incentives.

Of course, this is probably a greenwashing tactic by the leg, so I'm not terribly concerned it would pass.  It would be in court for years.

Besides, they sell fluorescent bulbs at Costco.  Eventually, everything at Cosco gets sold.

Last edited by Arc (2007-01-31 6:30 pm)

Steyr AUG wrote:

Arc wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Then build nuclear power plants.

Increasing supply is not the same as increasing efficiency.

The stated goal of this law is to reduce emmissions, nuclear powerplants would further that goal a lot farther than a rediculous ban on a type of light.

thank you

So I guess then that SUVs should be banned and only hybrid cars allowed?  CRT monitors and tube TVs banned and only LCDs allowed?

The point about CFLs being more energy efficient (but they do contain more Mercury) are conceded.  That doesn't mean that the government should mandate their use however.  It should be an individual choice to use them or not.

Before you condemn this, try out compact fluorescent light bulbs. They differ from the old fluorescents with long, straight tubes because the compacts are electronically controlled and cycle at 20,000 Hz, unlike the older types which cycle at the AC frequency of 60 Hz.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Arc wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Then build nuclear power plants.

Increasing supply is not the same as increasing efficiency.

The stated goal of this law is to reduce emmissions, nuclear powerplants would further that goal a lot farther than a rediculous ban on a type of light.

You want to run the numbers before making such a statement?

Pariah wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

Arc wrote:

Increasing supply is not the same as increasing efficiency.

The stated goal of this law is to reduce emmissions, nuclear powerplants would further that goal a lot farther than a rediculous ban on a type of light.

So you oppose banning incandescent light bulbs but are in favor of massively subsidized power plants?

Yes

There are still some big downsides to nukeyoolar.  There's the waste disposal issue.  The meltdown potential (negligible - as long as the reactor is of US or European design).  But the biggest roadblock - to wind and solar as well - is NIMBY.  It's a tough sell.

But we soon may not have much choice.

Steyr AUG wrote:

D'Eyncourt wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

The stated goal of this law is to reduce emmissions, nuclear powerplants would further that goal a lot farther than a rediculous ban on a type of light.

You want to run the numbers before making such a statement?

Lets see, 0 emissions vs however much emissions coal powerplants make.

I guess I should have expected such a stupid reply.