I don't think there is anything apparent about it. A Constitutional Amendment was created and passed stating that Senators would no be elected by the people. But that does not mean it was the best thing that could have been done nor does it mean that the fundamental nature of the government, as designed by the founders, was changed. We also know that there is a history of Constitutional Amendments that were just plain wrong. A repeal amendment was then subsequently passed to fix the damage from the previous amendment.
Maybe, maybe not. Each state would get to decide how to pick their Senators. Some could still use popular election as that happened prior to the 17th Amendment. Some could use the state legislature of governor as the appointive body. Each state would have to decide for itself. Repeal of the 17th Amendment is a boost for state's rights. That it is not on the table for discussion is one of the indicators to me that the whole current state's rights issue is nothing more than a smoke screen for one political party to complain about not getting their way.
So you agree that the bulb ban is a bad thing, and, as the article suggests, electricity bills should be raised so that consumers are motivated to conserve that way, but get to choose how they do it?
If the Governor does the selection, then there's no room for a specific Senatorial primary, though I suspect that Governors will end up aligning themselves with Senators much like Presidents run with VPs, to the extent that's possible given the synchronization of their respective terms.
Nobody is claiming that this is what it is about, and I made that clear the last time you made this false claim. This is primarily about reducing energy consumption, reducing its byproducts (carbon, pollutants like sulfur, nuclear waste), and reducing the expense of increased capacity while also saving consumers money.
I provided a link to this page earlier in this thread and you derided me for quoting "advertising fluff-pieces from the makers of CFLs, the goverment promoters of CFLs and their paid shills in academia". I guess you're okay with these sources now.
The source you provided earlier suggests that a 30 minute duty cycle would result in 3000-5000 hr lifetime for bulbs on the market 13 years ago.
If we assume an average 4000hr lifetime for bulbs, as determined by the references you provided, then we have:
You're sharing a logical fallacy with that article quote above. The existence of other things we can do that have greater effect but which are not mutually exclusive with this action do not argue against this action, they argue for doing both.
Most of the things you just mentioned don't exist in most homes. Geothermal heat pumps? The power company triggering your dishwasher? Smart grid technologies? Everybody had these 35 years ago?
I understand and I think that there is something to it. But that is why I jumped in and agreed with Randy. He and I agree on changing the way Senators get into office but we are seldom in agreement on what the Senate is currently doing. I just think that there is a non-I-don't-like-what-they-guys-in-the-US-Senate-are-doing argument to be made. Hopefully I conveyed that in my postings. That the current crop of 10 Amenders aka state's rights groupies are not looking to over turn the 17th Amendment tells me that they are more like the guys you are characterizing in your observation. I cannot disagree with that.
.
And are you under the impression that these features have been widely adopted by consumers?
What percentage of consumers are so educated that they can consider all the ridiculous dork principles we've been talking about in this thread, e.g. bulb cycle times and mercury released by coal plants and the impact of waste heat on air conditioning?
What percentage of lawmakers have a clue about all of the issues involved? Is there any chance that they may have been improperly influenced by lobbyists, possibly from GE which has an especially incestuous relationship with the current administration?
If the lawmakers, due to their cluelessness and the dark evil that lies in the recesses of their hearts, drafted a bad bill then all we need in order to make that determination is to see the text of the bill itself. Alternately, if their cluelessness and dark evil hearts were the motivation to make a good bill, that wouldn't lessen the merit of the legislation.
Sometimes it sucks to be a bird.
Wind and solar are certainly not 24x7 energy sources.
Hang on a second, let me put on my tri-corner tin-foil hat first... okay, got it, go ahead...
Silly me, I thought "uses less energy" and "saves money" were a win-win, but now I learn that CFLs are a win-win-win-win! Praise Gaia!
We derive great value from GA, and it's elimination would be a loss. The value we derive from light bulbs is light, and CFLs provide that at lower cost and 25% of the energy consumption.
Unless you are building a non-green power plant or factory or road or whatever, then they are Gaia's sacred creatures and will stop the project in it's tracks.
Not only do I have a tin hat but a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering. I designed the lighting for several textile mills in Georgia and South Carolina. I am quite capable of making my own decisions on the concerning the proper choice of light bulbs in my own home.
Don't forget about the additional cost of a CFL and toxic mercury issues if they ever break. This could be an important concern in households with pets or small children. I just changed out another CFL, this one was in my garage. I have changed out many of the incandescent lamps in my home with CFLs but this was my decision. I do not need the State to tell me how to run every aspect of my life.
Which you brought up as examples of technologies that consumers _already_ adopted on their own, thus proving that there is no need for government to step in and influence consumers.
Consumers are imperfect, we sometimes choose to influence consumer choices to address societal concerns, and the government is our mechanism for doing this.
Fortunately Thalidomide is back on the market. It is a useful treatment for multiple myeloma, a very nasty disease.
I've made no evaluation of the legislative process except to say that the proof is in the pudding, and once you have the legislation in hand you should have confidence in your own ability to judge it on its merits.
Well, then we have both matching hats _and_ diplomas!
What kind of lighting did you install there?
You're late to this party, we've covered all of this ad nauseum.
How many aspects is it running now, say, as a percentage?
And also fortunately, when it was a major cause of birth defects, the government took it off the market, thus removing a choice from consumers, thus apparently insulting consumers and trying to run every aspect of their lives.
If you run 6 100w incandescents for 5 hours a day, at the end of the year you've used about 1100 kwh, the equivalent of about 8 hrs of flight at 180HP. If you convert those incandescents to CFLs, you get back the equivalent of 6hrs of flight in energy savings.
A normal size screw-in base (i.e. "medium")? Or a candelabra base? The latter are exempt.
He mentioned saving energy, I gave you the energy comparison.
You'll find that addressed here:
Yes, the power savings advantage of a CFL is a 1x factor when the heat isn't running, a 0x factor when it is, and a 2x factor when the AC's on, as explained here:
I'm not sure when kind of "d***" you're referring to or why yours caught on fire.
I have many faults, but "ignoring" is not one of them, as demonstrated in this thread.
What? I cruise at 65% power or 135 HP. The engine has less than 100% efficiency and varies with a number of factors. It is easier to consider the energy content of the fuel burned. My 180 HP Lycoming burns about 10 gallons or 37.8 liters/hour. Eight hours of flight would burn 302 liters. The energy density of gasoline is about 34 MJ/liter so 8 hours of flight would burn 10,281 MJ.
You can buy incandescent light bulbs in CA. I recently bought some of those large round ones that go in bathroom fixtures above the sink. I think those are incandescent anyway... because they burn out quickly.
I just converted 180HP into watts for a quick back-o-envelope comparison.
Absolutely. I think I figured out once that flying was about half my energy consumption, once you factor in car driving too.
Appliance bulbs, the kind you find in your fridge and oven, are exempted from the new efficiency standards, and I think that covers your lava lamp.
. I had a couple like that before, one completely melted and I found all of the plastic in the bottom of the glass fixture, it had actually glued the glass part to the central post 
.
Thus saving you $4.66 over its lifetime as a result of reduced power consumption. The bulb cost an extra $1.80, so was $2.86 cheaper than its incandescent counterpart, and reduced the emission of nasty stuffs into the atmosphere.
That bulb gave it's life that you might save $2.86 and have a cleaner atmosphere. Remember to honor it with a moment of silence.
Did you wake up with it holding a pillow over your face?
Per our previous calculations, it was purty close to break-even for mercury if you decide to just throw it in the trash instead of recycling. If you do recycle it, then it's a clear win for mercury. Either way, it was a win for carbon, sulfur, and the other nasty bits that come from burning coal.
You have a light bulb on your hands. Throw it in a box in the closet and remember to take it with you next time you're headed to a Home Depot.
Nah. You do like I did and round them up with your old batteries and drag them to your local Ace Hardware where you look at the workbench behind the service counter where you dropped off your load and see them sweeping up the broken glass and parts of a CFL bulb.
