NationStates Jolt Archive

California is trying to step further into the greenworld by outlawing incandescent bulbs. I think this is a good step forward, but a bit over the edge. Then again, people won't wake up until they can't the air because it's polluted as hell and procede to die. I have been trying to convert my house to fluroescent bulbs, but my mom doesn't like buying them, so when I see them, I drop them in the cart...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc)

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.

If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.

Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.

That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.

While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.

"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."

Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.

About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.

A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.

Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.

California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.

While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.

"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.

Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.

Awaits libertarians to complain about free will, choice, and how they hate fluorescent bulbs...

Honestly LEDs are an even better alternative.

One of teh reasons I'm glad I live here.

perfectly reasonable for a 2012 target date

It's not like companies will lose money. I believe they charge more for LCD and other energy saving bulbs anyway right?

Honestly LEDs are an even better alternative.

But they're alot more expensive. You can get a good flourescent now for $5.

But they're alot more expensive. You can get a good flourescent now for $5.

And what's going to happen is the people who can't afford them will either have to be given them, be subisdised for them, or will just drive to the next state and stock up.

Fluroscent lights are far better. I even like the light they give, that is usualy white, while regular lamps are yellow.

Not to mention they last quite a lot. Regular ones may break because you turned the lights on or off too many times.

all of the bulbs in my house are the fluorescent kind, except for the ones in the bathroom, that fixture won't accommodate them :( we are going to change it soon.

http://www.survivalunlimited.com/litebulbs/dc_flourecent/TwistedCFbulb.jpg

:D

Awaits libertarians to complain about free will, choice, and how they hate fluorescent bulbs...

Well given that most self proclaimed libertarians don't even know what a libertarian is I could well imagine they'd complain....idiots will be idiots.

I don't see why people havn't massively switched to the more efficient bulbs on the market, a higher immediate cost for the bulbs would be more than covered by the cost saved in electric bills, especially somewhere like California. This is one area where I agree people need to be forced to do what is good for them.

Honestly LEDs are an even better alternative.
But last I heard, LED lights for basic light sockets are either still in development mode or still in early stages of release. They arn't quite perfected yet, but of course when they are, they will make all current light bulbs look like they are energy black holes.

perfectly reasonable for a 2012 target date

It's not like companies will lose money. I believe they charge more for LCD and other energy saving bulbs anyway right?

Most businesses use fluroescent already...

Fluroscent lights are far better. I even like the light they give, that is usualy white, while regular lamps are yellow.

Not to mention they last quite a lot. Regular ones may break because you turned the lights on or off too many times.

Yeah...the lamp behind me lost two bulbs because I bumped into it and the filament cracked.

Well given that most self proclaimed libertarians don't even know what a libertarian is I could well imagine they'd complain....idiots will be idiots.

:mad:

normal light bulbs save more when you use the light only a few times a day because they don't take the same amount of energy to start up iirc.

other than that it isn't a really bad idea.

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.Is that really what it's called?

Most businesses use fluroescent already...


No I meant the businesses that sell incandescent bulbs. They may as well sell horses and buggies or butter churns along with them :p

And what's going to happen is the people who can't afford them will either have to be given them, be subisdised for them, or will just drive to the next state and stock up.

That's why they are allowing flourescent bulbs. They are not much nmore than incandescents and last many, many times longer and use a fraction of the energy so they pay for themselves quite quickly. No subsidies will be necessary when you only have to buy new lightbulbs every two years or so and you spend 30 cents on the dollar for electricity to run them.

Is that really what it's called?

One can only hope.

or will just drive to the next state and stock up.

i might add that if you're stupid enough to spend $120 on gasoline to save a buck or two on a light bulb them have at it. :)

That's why they are allowing flourescent bulbs. They are not much nmore than incandescents and last many, many times longer and use a fraction of the energy so they pay for themselves quite quickly. No subsidies will be necessary when you only have to buy new lightbulbs every two years or so and you spend 30 cents on the dollar for electricity to run them.

CF bulbs are about $5 each. Your standard incanddescent is less than $1 for a pack.

CF bulbs are about $5 each. Your standard incanddescent is less than $1 for a pack.

I know how much they cost and I know that they CFs have an immediate, measurable impact on your energy bill. How many lightbulbs do you need in a home? 50? 60? How many do you ever need to buy at one time? two? Four? I brought the current set of CFs in the house I'm living in now from the apartment I was in before and they're still working and I've lived here for over two years. If they were Incans I'd have replaced them a few times by now and spent more than twice as much money to run them.

CF bulbs are about $5 each. Your standard incanddescent is less than $1 for a pack.

And are supposed to last an average of 8x longer than a single incandescent bulb.

:mad:

:rolleyes:

And are supposed to last an average of 8x longer than a single incandescent bulb.

Key words.

Key words.

Are you saying they dont? For you personally or generally? Because if it's yoru personal experience then, I'd recommend that you have your wiring looked at.

Key words.

They do last much longer and that's from experience. Hell, I haven't even thought about lightbulbs in my house since I moved here. Nothing has burned out except the front porch light which was the only incandescent left at teh place. It's a CF now and that was over a year ago.

Are you saying they dont? For you personally or generally? Because if it's yoru personal experience then, I'd recommend that you have your wiring looked at.

Exactly. If you're blowing CFs then you probably have more to worry about then your lightbulbs. I'd be worried about a fire hazard.

Exactly. If you're blowing CFs then you probably have more to worry about then your lightbulbs. I'd be worried about a fire hazard.

I'd second that. However, we must remember that Fluorescents last 8x longer ON AVERAGE, but also have a wider distribution of lifespans. I've had ones last ten years; I've had ones last less than a week. No incandescent I've owned lasted less than three months.

:rolleyes:

:p

I'd second that. However, we must remember that Fluorescents last 8x longer ON AVERAGE, but also have a wider distribution of lifespans. I've had ones last ten years; I've had ones last less than a week. No incandescent I've owned lasted less than three months.

I'll buy that though it hasn't happened to me. I'm equally sure that if you have one last less than a week then you'll get your refund or replacement.

I'll buy that though it hasn't happened to me. I'm equally sure that if you have one last less than a week then you'll get your refund or replacement.

I did, actually. The store said it wasn't all that uncommon, they got about one of those a month.

Cutting energy use when possible is always a good thing, especially when the replacements are not only more efficient but superior in technological and quality terms as well. This might be a good way to promote LEDs when they become a mature market.

Obviously, they should provide a way for lower-income people to make the switch without incurring financial burden, but this isn't too bad an idea. The energy savings would probably be fairly significant.

:rolleyes:

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/smarty.gif

They do last much longer and that's from experience. Hell, I haven't even thought about lightbulbs in my house since I moved here. Nothing has burned out except the front porch light which was the only incandescent left at teh place. It's a CF now and that was over a year ago.

We have a few rod fluroescent lights that I know haven't been chnaged in the 13 or so years I can remember and I don't think they were changed once in the 18 or so year my parents lived here.

I'd second that. However, we must remember that Fluorescents last 8x longer ON AVERAGE, but also have a wider distribution of lifespans. I've had ones last ten years; I've had ones last less than a week. No incandescent I've owned lasted less than three months.

I blew out an incandescent in like two days...they're very easy to knock out.

I did, actually. The store said it wasn't all that uncommon, they got about one of those a month.

That's sounds fairly uncommon to me.

:p

:headbang:

:headbang:

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/toilet.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/smarty.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/ugly17.gif

They still make old-fashioned light bulbs? I haven't seen those in years.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/toilet.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/ostern_15.gif

California is trying to step further into the greenworld by outlawing incandescent bulbs. I think this is a good step forward, but a bit over the edge. Then again, people won't wake up until they can't the air because it's polluted as hell and procede to die. I have been trying to convert my house to fluroescent bulbs, but my mom doesn't like buying them, so when I see them, I drop them in the cart...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc)



Awaits libertarians to complain about free will, choice, and how they hate fluorescent bulbs...

California - the leading edge of insanity, stupidy and general fuzzy thinking.

I just moved from that La La Land. All of their laws, rules and regulations have done nothing to improve things for anyone (except, possibly, the very wealthy - who are the only ones who can afford these idiot laws). If they want people to buy fluorescent bulbs or energy saver bulbs, then they need to make them affordable. If four 75 watt incandescent bulbs cost $3.75 and three 75 watt fluoresent bulbs cost $7.75, which ones would you buy?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/ostern_15.gif

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/robot.gif

They still make old-fashioned light bulbs? I haven't seen those in years.

Yeah, you just need some wax, a wick, and the ability to create fire.

If four 75 watt incandescent bulbs cost $3.75 and three 75 watt fluoresent bulbs cost $7.75, which ones would you buy?
At those prices? Fluorescent bulbs. More bang for your buck. If you could buy 10 AAA batteries for $5.75 or 6 AAA batteries for $4, which would you buy? If you said 6, you fail at life.

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/robot.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/typeDefStructure.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/typeDefStructure.jpg
http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/9568/shutthellup3oo.jpg

They still make old-fashioned light bulbs? I haven't seen those in years.

You live in Sweden. Everything there is environmentally friendly...


California - the leading edge of insanity, stupidy and general fuzzy thinking.

I just moved from that La La Land. All of their laws, rules and regulations have done nothing to improve things for anyone (except, possibly, the very wealthy - who are the only ones who can afford these idiot laws). If they want people to buy fluorescent bulbs or energy saver bulbs, then they need to make them affordable. If four 75 watt incandescent bulbs cost $3.75 and three 75 watt fluoresent bulbs cost $7.75, which ones would you buy?

Fluorescent. They save in the end. Buying incandescent shows the ignorance of short-term planning, which you appear to have, as do many people. -_-

http://img309.imageshack.us/img309/9568/shutthellup3oo.jpg

No swearing. This is NSG.

No swearing. This is NSG.

What the fuck? That isn't no god damn fucking swearing.

What the fuck? That isn't no god damn fucking swearing.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/abort.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/abort.jpg
http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1484/batmanbombbig2df.gif

California is trying to step further into the greenworld by outlawing incandescent bulbs. I think this is a good step forward, but a bit over the edge. Then again, people won't wake up until they can't the air because it's polluted as hell and procede to die. I have been trying to convert my house to fluroescent bulbs, but my mom doesn't like buying them, so when I see them, I drop them in the cart...

Link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc)



Awaits libertarians to complain about free will, choice, and how they hate fluorescent bulbs...

Whaaaat? That's insane. The government of California has no right to do that!

I suggest we eject California from the US so they can go and create some sort of an extremely-centralized socialist state, which is, apparently, what they want.

Whaaaat? That's insane. The government of California has no right to do that!

I suggest we eject California from the US so they can go and create some sort of an extremely-centralized socialist state, which is, apparently, what they want.
Believe me, a California law making everyone switch to more energy efficient light bulbs is good for everyone, they can't make enough of their own energy you know.

http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1484/batmanbombbig2df.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v427/vonbek/tard.gif <----- We is gonna be sooo much in twubble!!

Believe me, a California law making everyone switch to more energy efficient light bulbs is good for everyone, they can't make enough of their own energy you know.

The individual is best suited to make personal decisions (like what kind of light bulb to buy), not the government.

Maybe, just maybe, the government should take a less-heavy-handed stand on this "crisis." Maybe they should just try to influence the market for more energy-efficient light bulbs (a radical idea, I know). Or, maybe go a little more extreme and raise electric prices to *gasp* alter the markets so that people will choose to buy more efficient bulbs instead of being forced to.

You live in Sweden. Everything there is environmentally friendly...




Fluorescent. They save in the end. Buying incandescent shows the ignorance of short-term planning, which you appear to have, as do many people. -_-

This isn't short-term planning, this is about reality. If you have x amount of dollars to spend on groceries at a given time, you're going to maximize your purchases at that moment. This is the reality of being poor, you can't plan for the future, you don't have the means.

This isn't short-term planning, this is about reality. If you have x amount of dollars to spend on groceries at a given time, you're going to maximize your purchases at that moment. This is the reality of being poor, you can't plan for the future, you don't have the means.

Ya, that too.

That's a problem, especially considering how the ridiculously high cost of living in Cali, virtually everybody (except the extremely rich) have to watch their pennies.

The individual is best suited to make personal decisions (like what kind of light bulb to buy), not the government.

Maybe, just maybe, the government should take a less-heavy-handed stand on this "crisis." Maybe they should just try to influence the market for more energy-efficient light bulbs (a radical idea, I know). Or, maybe go a little more extreme and raise electric prices to *gasp* alter the markets so that people will choose to buy more efficient bulbs instead of being forced to.
Do you even read what you write?

Do you even read what you write?

yep

Maybe, just maybe, the government should take a less-heavy-handed stand on this "crisis." Maybe they should just try to influence the market for more energy-efficient light bulbs (a radical idea, I know). Or, maybe go a little more extreme and raise electric prices to *gasp* alter the markets so that people will choose to buy more efficient bulbs instead of being forced to.

We would be paying a lot more if the government hadn't subsidized fossil fuels out the ass for the past 100 years. It's American dollars and American soldiers that keep oil at $60/bbl and natural gas at $6 or 7...we're literally propping up the petroleum industry with the barrels of our guns.

The individual is best suited to make personal decisions (like what kind of light bulb to buy), not the government.

Maybe, just maybe, the government should take a less-heavy-handed stand on this "crisis." Maybe they should just try to influence the market for more energy-efficient light bulbs (a radical idea, I know). Or, maybe go a little more extreme and raise electric prices to *gasp* alter the markets so that people will choose to buy more efficient bulbs instead of being forced to.

More people would complain about that being communist or something.

This isn't short-term planning, this is about reality. If you have x amount of dollars to spend on groceries at a given time, you're going to maximize your purchases at that moment. This is the reality of being poor, you can't plan for the future, you don't have the means.

If you don't plan long term, you'll just stay in the cycle of poverty.

We would be paying a lot more if the government hadn't subsidized fossil fuels out the ass for the past 100 years. It's American dollars and American soldiers that keep oil at $60/bbl and natural gas at $6 or 7...we're literally propping up the petroleum industry with the barrels of our guns.

And we need to. As unfortunate as it is/sounds, the American economy depends on oil, and if that oil becomes too scarce or too expensive, our economy will suffer tremendously, and by extension, so will the world economy.

In other words, we (someone) have (has) to do it.

And we need to. As unfortunate as it is/sounds, the American economy depends on oil, and if that oil becomes too scarce or too expensive, our economy will suffer tremendously, and by extension, so will the world economy.

In other words, we (someone) have (has) to do it.

And that's exactly why I support measures like this. They prepare us for when we can't maintain the facade of cheap oil and gas anymore...this market can only be propped up for so long before it cracks and the free market takes over.

I'd sooner live by kerosene lamp than bathe nightly in fluourescent light. In fact, most nights I leave all lights off anyway - save for the glow of my monitor screen. That being said, I have the most wonderful collection of motion lamps, lava lamps, fibre-optic lamps and light organs you ever did see. And they stay off most of the time, too.

I use electricity sparingly. I'm not too keen on this approach to controlling power consumption, as it would tend to ignore those who prefer the quality of light incandescence afford, but who are mindful enough to habitually not use energy to excess.

And we need to. As unfortunate as it is/sounds, the American economy depends on oil, and if that oil becomes too scarce or too expensive, our economy will suffer tremendously, and by extension, so will the world economy.

In other words, we (someone) have (has) to do it.

No we don't. If oil is too expensive, people WILL have to find ways to make do. Carpooling, using something else like a bike or feet...

I'd sooner live by kerosene lamp than bathe nightly in fluourescent light. In fact, most nights I leave all lights off anyway - save for the glow of my monitor screen. That being said, I have the most wonderful collection of motion lamps, lava lamps, fibre-optic lamps and light organs you ever did see. And they stay off most of the time, too.

I turn lights out when I don't use them, so my electricity usage is fairly limited.

I use electricity sparingly. I'm not too keen on this approach to controlling power consumption, as it would tend to ignore those who prefer the quality of light incandescence afford, but who are mindful enough to habitually not use energy to excess.

That's why LEDs are going to be huge. They've got the light quality of incandescent combined with energy efficiency and reliability superior to that of a fluorescent bulb. They're like the perfect light, although still limited in scope due to cost.

More people would complain about that being communist or something.

It's less communistic than making them use a certain type of lightbulb.

If you don't plan long term, you'll just stay in the cycle of poverty.

Some people can't afford to.

No we don't. If oil is too expensive, people WILL have to find ways to make do. Carpooling, using something else like a bike or feet...

I'm not just talking about to/from work, I mean things like semis; what will happen to our ability to transport goods from point A to point B if oil becomes too expensive?

I don't think bikes are a good alternative to semis...

Neither are feet, for that matter...

I turn lights out when I don't use them, so my electricity usage is fairly limited.



That's why LEDs are going to be huge. They've got the light quality of incandescent combined with energy efficiency and reliability superior to that of a fluorescent bulb. They're like the perfect light, although still limited in scope due to cost.

I find fluorescent bulbs look better and have better light than incandescent, so...

It's less communistic than making them use a certain type of lightbulb.



Some people can't afford to.

Well then there's no hope for you. You're probably wasting money on something like alcohol or cigarettes or meth...or...college...or...um...Ramen!

I think this is a really good idea. This one approach is a little radical. But I think it would make sense to maybe take incandescents out of public buildings. California is facing an energy crisis.

LED's, imo, are just as nice as incadescents. You can combine them to make almost any shade/color of light and they use less energy than fluorescents.

Well then there's no hope for you. You're probably wasting money on something like alcohol or cigarettes or meth...or...college...or...um...Ramen!

LOL, nope. But, I would hate to see the government step in and say "you can't smoke cigarettes/drink alcohol anymore because it's bad for you."

But I am this close to "wasting" money on college in a little bit here... :(

I think this is a really good idea. This one approach is a little radical. But I think it would make sense to maybe take incandescents out of public buildings. California is facing an energy crisis.

LED's, imo, are just as nice as incadescents. You can combine them to make almost any shade/color of light and they use less energy than fluorescents.

The problem with LEDs is oyu can;t buy them at the supermarket, as far as I know. The only place I've seen them is the little electronics trays at Radio Shack...when I tried to make my own temporary blindness inducer...never actually got around to making it...

Some people can't afford to.
They can't afford to pay an extra $4 for a light bulb that will save them probably that much money a month.

LED's, imo, are just as nice as incadescents.
Last I heard, they hadn't been able to perfect white yet.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

Well, neither have cars, so shut up.

Well, neither have cars, so shut up.

Are you serious?

I'll just say this:

I bought a Class A energy efficient Fridge Freezer and changed all the bulbs in my house to 11 and 22 watt Energy Saving lights (fluorescents) instead of 40 and 60 watt incandescants and as a result my electricity bill litterally halved itself. The main culprit being of course the fridge freezer which was old and knackered.

I'll just say this:

I bought a Class A energy efficient Fridge Freezer and changed all the bulbs in my house to 11 and 22 watt Energy Saving lights (fluorescents) instead of 40 and 60 watt incandescants and as a result my electricity bill litterally halved itself. The main culprit being of course the fridge freezer which was old and knackered.

Good Job! :D

I'll just say this:

I bought a Class A energy efficient Fridge Freezer and changed all the bulbs in my house to 11 and 22 watt Energy Saving lights (fluorescents) instead of 40 and 60 watt incandescants and as a result my electricity bill litterally halved itself. The main culprit being of course the fridge freezer which was old and knackered.

Exactly. Even buying expensive energy efficient stuff, if it doesn't die after a couple months, you can only earn money off the investment because you arn't paying as much for it every month.

Are you serious?

Yes. Apart from things that make cars faster and less fuel efficient, there hasn't been much improvement in the last 100 years. We're still using the same control scheme, for example.

Yes. Apart from things that make cars faster and less fuel efficient, there hasn't been much improvement in the last 100 years. We're still using the same control scheme, for example.

The sheer ridiculousness of your statements makes me so flabbergasted that I won't even bother to explain how ridiculously wrong you are.

LOL, nope. But, I would hate to see the government step in and say "you can't smoke cigarettes/drink alcohol anymore because it's bad for you."Or smoke pot or do some coke...

But I am this close to "wasting" money on college in a little bit here... :(
That's not a waste. You'll learn things like buying a CF, even though it's more exepensive up front, will save you money within the first few months you have it.

The government bans all types of things. This would not be the first kind of electronic that is banned for energy inefficiency. The monitor you're looking at is legal because it has a sleep mode. 15 years ago none of them did. Now if it does not it is illegal to sell.

Well, neither have cars, so shut up.

pantless won't answer, but I'm compelled to. I just bought a new Harley. It's not a car, but it's develpment is kind of the same. The Harley I bought has electronic, sequential port fuel injection, an electronic oil and fuel pump and the EMI has the ability to deliver richer or leaner fuel in an instant based on engine load, engine temperature, throttle intensity and what ever gear your in. It changes the fuel/air ration depending on all of these factors combined while I am riding the bike. If you don't think that's different than a Harley built in the 80s, 90s or even just three years ago, you're high. There have been vast improvments in efficiency in just the last few years.

pantless won't answer, but I'm compelled to. I just bought a new Harley. It's not a car, but it's develpment is kind of the same. The Harley I bought has electronic, sequential port fuel injection, an electronic oil and fuel pump and the EMI has the ability to deliver richer or leaner fuel in an instant based on engine load, engine temperature, throttle intensity and what ever gear your in. It changes the fuel/air ration depending on all of these factors combined while I am riding the bike. If you don't think that's different than a Harley built in the 80s, 90s or even just three years ago, you're high. There have been vast improvments in efficiency in just the last few years.

So basically, electronic versions of what we already had?

Yes. Apart from things that make cars faster and less fuel efficient, there hasn't been much improvement in the last 100 years. We're still using the same control scheme, for example.

cars are far mor fuel efficient now than they were just 10 years ago. The only reason that they get less gas mileage as a whole is that people have demanded that that new efficiency be put into lugging around bigger cars or into more horse power.

So basically, electronic versions of what we already had?

Yep. With electrnics that make my bike get 53 MPG as opposed to the Harleys that got 30 MPG just ten years ago.

So basically, electronic versions of what we already had?
= Improvements

Unless you want a dump valve that plays 'La Cucaracha' what on earth are you looking for in terms of improvements?

But fluroescent bulbs are dangerous to dispose of.

And it's rumoured they give off radiation.

You can buy compact fluorescent bulbs at home depot now, and they are inexpensive.

Not only do they use less energy and radiate less heat, but they last for more than five years without needing to be changed.

If you have not replaced your incandescent lamp bulbs and whatnot with CF bulbs, you are an idiot. There are no two ways around that fact.

-SNIP-
Question - is there anything California has decided it doesn't want to ban?

But fluroescent bulbs are dangerous to dispose of.

And it's rumoured they give off radiation.

Of course they give off radiation. That's what they're supposed to do.

They give off the part that is shown in rainbow colors.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/cassini/images/Electromagnetic%20Spectrum.jpg

But fluroescent bulbs are dangerous to dispose of.

And it's rumoured they give off radiation.

Everything gives off radiation.

Everything gives off radiation.

Yes, even our bodies with our C-14 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_14)ness...

But fluroescent bulbs are dangerous to dispose of.

And it's rumoured they give off radiation.

They aren't dangerous if you bring them to a recycling centre as you are supposed to. And they do give out some UV rays, as you are likely implying. But it's far less than you receive outside in the sun.

LOL, nope. But, I would hate to see the government step in and say "you can't smoke cigarettes/drink alcohol anymore because it's bad for you."


Or smoke pot or do some coke...

Well it would sure save the healthcare system (whoever pays that where u are) a load of money. My province is anti-smoking in any public building or on hospital Property...thats outside. The attitude has recently been shifting more towards the prevention than the cure in most places.