Paul's Here

California ready to ban industry

27 posts in this topic

In a remarkable coincidence, two stories on the same day show that California continues to ban industial businesses at an ever increasing rate. (And with a Republican Governor ;) )

California Bans Dry-Cleaning Chemical

California regulators on Thursday enacted the nation's first statewide ban on the most common chemical used by dry cleaners, pleasing environmentalists but worrying some small businesses.

By 2023, no more dry-cleaning machines that use the toxic solvent perchloroethylene, a potential carcinogen, will be permitted in the state.

The regulation by the California Air Resources Board will phase out the fluid next year, banning dry cleaners from buying machines that rely on the solvent. The state's 3,400 dry cleaners who now use it must get rid of machines that are 15 years or older by July 2010.

"Dry cleaners have known this is a problem for quite some time," board member Dorene D'Adamo said. "There is a cost to society, and believe me taxpayers are paying for it."

California Bans Dirty Power Sources

California regulators approved rules Thursday banning power companies from buying electricity from high-polluting sources, including most out-of-state coal-burning plants.

The rules - aimed at reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming - could have a far-reaching effect on the energy market across the West.

While there are almost no coal-fired plants in California, the nation's most populous state, about 20 percent of the state's electricity comes from coal plants in other Western states.

"It represents a significant milestone in our ongoing efforts to address the challenge of climate change," said Michael Peevey, president of the Public Utilities Commission.

At least one good will come from this. Californians will be living a healthier life in dirty clothes and very high energy costs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least one good will come from this. Californians will be living a healthier life in dirty clothes and very high energy costs.

Well, not so fast. Higher electricity prices means less money for other life-sustaining uses, such as medical care, food, etc. There is a direct relationship between wealth and health. By reducing wealth, the health of Californians will also be negatively affected.

As for electricity prices, California already pays 50% more than the national average (as they have been since the 1980s). With the banning of cheap coal power, the disparity between what Californians pay for electricity and everyone else in the country will only grow wider. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, not so fast. Higher electricity prices means less money for other life-sustaining uses, such as medical care, food, etc. There is a direct relationship between wealth and health. By reducing wealth, the health of Californians will also be negatively affected.

Don't confuse Californians with the facts, please.

As for electricity prices, California already pays 50% more than the national average (as they have been since the 1980s). With the banning of cheap coal power, the disparity between what Californians pay for electricity and everyone else in the country will only grow wider. ;)

Sounds like you live in Ca. With the extra supply for the rest of the country, prices should go down!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish it were so. I live in New York, and we pay even more for electricity than California!

Alas, we won't even benefit from that cheap coal power California won't use. It's too far away to reach here! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Power outages anyone?

No, silly! Surely you know it's all the evil greedy capitalists who own those power companies--not these regulations--that cause power outages. These rules are going to "save" Californians (or "society") the "costs" of "climate change"--at absolutely no cost! ( ;) sarcarsm)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California continues its assault on industrial America as it prepares to ban the bulb.

How many people does it take to change a light bulb? In California, the answer could be a majority of the Legislature.

The electricity-wasting incandescent bulb would be banned - replaced by energy efficient compact fluorescents - under a bill that Assemblyman Lloyd Levine plans to introduce.

He says the spiral light sources are so efficient that consumers should be forced to use them. The compact bulbs use one-fourth the electricity spent in an equivalent incandescent.

"Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," said Levine, a Democrat from Los Angeles, said in a news release Tuesday. "It's time to take a step forward."

The bulb bill was not yet on the legislative calendar. Last year, the Legislature passed a Levine bill that requires large supermarkets to recycle plastic bags. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed that bill but has not taken a position on the light bulb proposal.

Assemblyman Jared Huffman, who represents San Rafael, is working on a similar bill.

Critics say people should be allowed to make their own choices about which bulbs they buy, but Levine, who heads the Assembly's Utilities and Commerce Committee, points out that electric utilities give them away.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California continues its assault on industrial America as it prepares to ban the bulb.

... Critics say people should be allowed to make their own choices about which bulbs they buy, but Levine, who heads the Assembly's Utilities and Commerce Committee, points out that electric utilities give them away.

(Bold added.)

So, if I go and knock on the door of my local Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and tell them that Assemblyman Levine sent me, PG&E will fill up my shopping bag with light bulbs? I know that in the past PG&E, through participating retailers, has offerred limited time discounts on bulbs, and during the winter holiday season they donated LED lights for community buildings, but PG&E hardly replaces the hardware store. I wonder who does the shopping in Assemblyman Levine's household?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

California continues its assault on industrial America as it prepares to ban the bulb.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

All light bulbs in California might be compact fluorescents? Aren't those the bulbs that make that awful greenish-white color?

Talk about going Green!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ban the bulb.

WAR IS PEACE

FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

I've got some questions about this proposal.

What would be the fines and jail sentences for illegal possession and use of incandescent light bulbs? Would possession of small numbers of incandescent light bulbs for personal use be legal (like they are in Amsterdam).

Would individuals caught is possession of more than 100 incandescent light bulbs be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years? Would an individual who'd sold or organized the sale of more than 10,000 incandescent bulbs be guilty of being a light-bulb kingpin and subjected to a prison sentence of 25 years to life?

Most importantly, would cosmetics makers come out with a California line of products so that girls could still look nice under lights with an ugly greenish hue?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All light bulbs in California might be compact fluorescents? Aren't those the bulbs that make that awful greenish-white color?

Betsy tried a few of those (she's the thrifty one in the family), and I removed them. For us, the light cast a yellowish tint over everything. ;)

I've got some questions about this proposal.

What would be the fines and jail sentences for illegal possession and use of incandescent light bulbs? ...

California is the home of the Best © and the Worst ©, and the Worst © are always cooking up some hairbrained schemes. Fortunately, most of them do not make it past the first day's news story. Inspired by New York, Los Angeles County considered some trans fat regulations, but today the legal department said they could not control trans fats because that was the province of the State!

I wonder what would happen if we deep-fried a compact fluorescent in a trans fat ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can get fluo bulbs with a color temperature of 5,000k, close to sunlight, at Home Depot, for a reasonable price. You need to look specifically for a color temperature around 5,000k. Those will produce white light.

We're used to them but the incandescent bulbs produce a very clear yellowish hue. The ordinary fluo bulbs have a blue/green hue.

Of course, this doesn't change the fact that this scheme is madness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got some questions about this proposal.

What would be the fines and jail sentences for illegal possession and use of incandescent light bulbs? Would possession of small numbers of incandescent light bulbs for personal use be legal (like they are in Amsterdam).

a) 3 months at the tanning salon.

b ) personal use? you mean like putting them in your mouth and getting light from human energy? I'm sure that would go over well at night.

Would individuals caught is possession of more than 100 incandescent light bulbs be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years? Would an individual who'd sold or organized the sale of more than 10,000 incandescent bulbs be guilty of being a light-bulb kingpin and subjected to a prison sentence of 25 years to life?

Illegal transportation of light bulbs across state lines would undoubtedly initiate an ATF and FBI investigation. I think a just sentence would be one year per watt.

Most importantly, would cosmetics makers come out with a California line of products so that girls could still look nice under lights with an ugly greenish hue?

I guess it would be called: The Rearden Metal facial.

What happens if terrorists start smuggling light bulbs into California?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Betsy tried a few of those (she's the thrifty one in the family), and I removed them. For us, the light cast a yellowish tint over everything. ;)

--------

Maybe you should put up wall paper with a greenish-yellowish tint so you won't notice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one point that I thought that was hilarious that no one's brought up. "Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications." Exactly what would a major modification to the light bulb consist of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On California's ban of electricity purchases from out-of-state coal plants (and other politically-incorrect sources): just where do they propose to get the energy from instead? Perhaps they'll end up covering the mountains in the state with those ugly windmills... but what happens when the wind isn't blowing and the Californians need electricity to run, say, their air-conditioners? (The answer is that they, along with the like minded anti-industrialists in other states, just expect to get it "somehow". That seems to have been the expectation in the power shortage back in 2000 or 2001, in which federal laws were used to force out-of-state generators to send electricity to California, even though the California utilities were already behind in their payments for the electricity.* They're counting on responsible people elsewhere to pay for the consequences of their environmentalism.)

On making incandescent bulbs illegal: indeed, those things do put out a creepy tint of light. But if it's to "save the planet", I presume the ecofreaks would not mind putting up with this privation, and forcing everyone else to as well.

...

*These laws can be used to force power plants in other states to send electricity to deadbeats, but they can't be used against power plants in other countries. And so, when BC Hydro, up in Canada, during that power crisis noted that California was $3,000,000 behind on its payments, they simply told them to either pay up or have their power shut off. They got their check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On making incandescent bulbs illegal: indeed, those things do put out a creepy tint of light....

I meant, of course, that it's the compact fluorescent lights - that they're trying to force people to use - that put out the funny color of light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use CF bulbs in a number of places in my house since I like the idea of far higher efficiency (1/4 the power for the same light). Of course it is heinous that people may be forced to use them. It is also highly ironic that CF's contain a fair bit of deadly mercury. It is totally predictable that the environmentalists will scream, after having forced people to use CFs, that landfills will contain far more mercury as a result. By then the incandescent bulb will be an ancient artifact. No lights at all? Well, light is pollution after all ... (not even a joke unfortunately.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use CF bulbs in a number of places in my house since I like the idea of far higher efficiency (1/4 the power for the same light). Of course it is heinous that people may be forced to use them. It is also highly ironic that CF's contain a fair bit of deadly mercury. It is totally predictable that the environmentalists will scream, after having forced people to use CFs, that landfills will contain far more mercury as a result. By then the incandescent bulb will be an ancient artifact. No lights at all? Well, light is pollution after all ... (not even a joke unfortunately.)

I'm glad to see someone has grasped the full implications and ultimate consequences and goals of the watermelons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's one point that I thought that was hilarious that no one's brought up. "Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications." Exactly what would a major modification to the light bulb consist of?

I'm no expert on the history of light bulb design, but I know that since Edison invented them 125 years ago, they've undergone numerous significant engineering modifications. The biggest problem in incandescent bulb design from the start and for many, many decades was bulb life.

When it comes to the quality of light from CF bulbs, Joss Delage is absolutely correct. The new, improved 5000K CF bulbs make for close to white illumination. The coloration of these bulbs is less tinted towards the green than incandescent bulbs are tinted towards yellow. I expect engineers to come up with even better designs in the future.

As an architectural matter, I prefer the warmer, richer yellow tint to pure white light (e.g. halogens). I'll admit that for the 98% of humanity who have not taken much care with the colors in their homes, the tone of the light (if it is as near to white as the 5000K CF bulbs are) doesn't matter that much. (Three years ago I hired an architect for help on color combos in my condo -- I'd have never come up with an interesting palate of colors on my own -- so color is a very important part of my every day life.)

The one area in which CF bulbs fail is that they flicker a little bit. It's a defect I would not -- in my current comfortable and (reasonably) prosperous economic state -- admit into my home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one area in which CF bulbs fail is that they flicker a little bit.

I actually haven't noticed that. I have noticed that conventional (long tubes) flourescents are very sensitive to line voltage, so when e.g. a laser printer or heater is going, they can have an extremely annoying flicker, but I haven't seen that in CFs. I have noticed though that different manufacturers have definitely different technology - some CFs come on at near full brightness almost immediately, some actually take time to "warm up".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually haven't noticed that. I have noticed that conventional (long tubes) flourescents are very sensitive to line voltage, so when e.g. a laser printer or heater is going, they can have an extremely annoying flicker, but I haven't seen that in CFs. I have noticed though that different manufacturers have definitely different technology - some CFs come on at near full brightness almost immediately, some actually take time to "warm up".

Ah, Mr. Oliver...You really are a CF fan, aren't you?

So is my good friend Gene Barth.

He's got good reason. Living in a 90-year-old apartment house in Hyde Park which still runs mostly on the original wiring, his electrical situation is peculiar. Up until last year everything in his two-room studio apartment was fed from a single 120 V, 20A breaker. (A few months ago, he pursuaded his landlord to install a second, 20A circuit, dedicated to his kitchen.)

Gene's solution to the problem was to put 23 W CF bulbs in each of his four floor-standing lamps, a table lamp, and two ceiling fixtures.

The last time I was over there I made fun of his situation for the 47th time. Assuming his CF lights flicker like a standard fluorescent bulb, I waved my hand in front of one of the lamps and claimed, "See. Look at that. It flickers."

(As an engineer in the nuclear power business, I used to walk into the homes of good friends, turn on all the lights, and asking them to leave them on because I wanted to buy a new car.)

I must admit, that my flicker claim was totally non-Objective. I didn't seriously look for the shutter effect when I waved my hand in front of the CF bulb. My attention was focused on getting Gene to wave his hand in front of the bulb, too. He did and he agreed with me that they flicker. But it would be totally second handed of me to claim I saw it, too.

The next time I'm visiting him, I'll do the hand-wave check in earnest to see what they really do. You may well be right. CFs may flicker less than standard fluorescent bulb. They may not even flicker at all.

The flicker of a properly-operating fluorsecent bulb is only a minor issue for lighting quality and eye strain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be advised: The damn things do not fit in all sockets; the base is extended. Also, I presume they flicker and would not be good to use in a machine shop, or especially around saws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I use CF bulbs in a number of places in my house since I like the idea of far higher efficiency (1/4 the power for the same light). Of course it is heinous that people may be forced to use them. It is also highly ironic that CF's contain a fair bit of deadly mercury. It is totally predictable that the environmentalists will scream, after having forced people to use CFs, that landfills will contain far more mercury as a result. By then the incandescent bulb will be an ancient artifact. No lights at all? Well, light is pollution after all ... (not even a joke unfortunately.)

As predicted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23694819/

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, long touted by environmentalists as a more efficient and longer-lasting alternative to the incandescent bulbs that have lighted homes for more than a century, are running into resistance from waste industry officials and some environmental scientists, who warn that the bulbs’ poisonous innards pose a bigger threat to health and the environment than previously thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ban is ready to be put in place in the UK.

It is an EU law, which our government then gold plates and passes off as its own.

I, for one, can't wait. Black markets :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites