Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

EnigmaDude (86.01)

When incandescents are outlawed, only outlaws will have incandescents.

Recs

19

May 17, 2011 – Comments (58) | RELATED TICKERS: EFOID , RBCN

How many people will actually switch to LED bulbs when the federal ban on incandescents takes effect next January?  A Yahoo article on new 100-Watt LED bulbs shines some light on this controversial topic.  New developments mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, after a government ban takes effect. The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.

California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.

Besides being expensive, there are other drawbacks to LED bulbs.  For example, many of them are not "dimmable".  In my house dimmer switches are used in most rooms so that I can adjust the lighting to reflect my mood.

The notion of energy efficiency is a noble one, however, the feds may be flipping the switch too soon on this developing industry.

58 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On May 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM, mtf00l (50.11) wrote:

I feel your pain.

I'm starting to run low on my stockpile of bulbs.  I understand the LED bulbs last much longer and that supposedly justifies the price.

Only time will tell.  Perhaps the government will ban all electric lighting and the carbon ban will ban candles as well... =D

Report this comment
#2) On May 17, 2011 at 4:11 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

I don't use hundreds, so that's not a problem, but I am stocking up on sixties, since the LEDs are going to be expensive for a while.

Report this comment
#3) On May 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM, lemoneater (71.67) wrote:

Perhaps you all should move to South Carolina.

http://www.constantconservative.com/2011/this-little-light

I'm not sure if the legislation actually passed.

Report this comment
#4) On May 17, 2011 at 4:30 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

I will switch to LEDs once the color temp is warmed up. They may cost more but last far longer. I will not switch to CFLs. They give my lovely wife headaches.

Report this comment
#5) On May 17, 2011 at 4:33 PM, EnigmaDude (86.01) wrote:

At least LED technology has advantages over CFL bulbs, which contain mercury.  And one has to wonder whether the manufacturing process is more energy efficient.  If it takes considerably more energy to produce LED bulbs, are we really going to gain anything by switching?

Report this comment
#6) On May 17, 2011 at 4:49 PM, selfdestruct2 (25.92) wrote:

We'll gain whatever Big Bro says we'll gain.

Report this comment
#7) On May 17, 2011 at 6:21 PM, PainterPoker (22.56) wrote:

Out with the Old. In with the New! LED's are the future.

Report this comment
#8) On May 17, 2011 at 6:43 PM, doug007 (< 20) wrote:

Well, there's several other technologies besides CFL and LED that have some potential.

ESL from Vu1 is supposed to ramp up production this year, starting with a R30 form factor (65w replacement) version.

http://www.vu1corporation.com/

Fully dimmable, no mercury, better light quality.  Or so promised.

I find this one fairly interesting, but fairly risky from in investment standpoint.  Lots of things can go wrong yet.

Disclosure:  Long Vu1.

 

Report this comment
#9) On May 17, 2011 at 7:05 PM, buffalonate (94.72) wrote:

I already own many LED bulbs.  They are expensive but last a long long time.  They are efficient too so they pay for themselves.

Report this comment
#10) On May 17, 2011 at 9:05 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

I've been putting LED's in sign boxes and channel letters, for quite awhile now. Yes it makes for a more expensive sign up front ,but the savings make up for it in less than 2yrs. Bad part for me no service calls ,cause they last seemingly forever.

I have been stocking up on incandescants for home use, and will continue to do so. I don't think the technologys there to put them in bulb form properly yet, LED's should'nt give off heat. Also I'd rather wait for the price to go down.

Yes it is the future of lighting just not today.  

Report this comment
#11) On May 18, 2011 at 7:52 AM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

Nobody who walks into my house notices that I have something other than incandescants. CREE cr6 bulbs cost $52 each, the bulb comes with a trim ring and makes a much nicer, cleaner looking installation than a typical "high hat" with its seperate trim ring and bulb hanging down.

In other words, it looks good.

CREE says my $52.00 LED high hats will last 50,000 hours. If they only last 30,000 hours and I use my LED for three hours each day and my cheap .33 cent incandescants last 2 years instead of the more typical one year at that usage, at .09/ kwh over the 30,000 hours I will save enough to buy another bulb.

Of course, using conservative estimates of savings makes me look like a financial conservative.

If the bulbs last 50,000 hours like they suggest, and over that time incandescants average $1.00 each, and electricity prices increase as much as they did in the last 30 years and average $.18 over that time, I'll save $450 on each fixture.

Plus, because there is no significant heat, I can insulate around them.

I also have LED Christmas lights.

Those of you stocking up on incandescants to get through the next thirty years of lighting needs, will spend more than if you simply did the math.

But I do admire your principled stand against Democratic Government, cleaner air, and saving money. 

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#12) On May 18, 2011 at 10:07 AM, EnigmaDude (86.01) wrote:

Wow Steven.  You sound like I somehow made this blog appear to be a conservative rant against the Democratic party and the environment.  All I said was that this may be too soon to legislate at the federal level because the technology is still developing (see comment #8 for a specific example of what I mean by that).  I am not a radical environmentalist as you seem to be, but I do believe in making sensible decisions that affect my life and my fellow citizens. And I have a daughter so I do care about clean air, water, etc. for future generations.

I have not actually purchased an LED bulb and just bought a new house that so far does not need any replacement bulbs, but when they do I will certainly consider LEDs.  Just don't like it being mandated.

Report this comment
#13) On May 18, 2011 at 10:19 AM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

Use CFL's at your own risk. Breaking a CFL bulb in your house is a health risk you don't want to have.

Now LED's are definately worth the investment and if the cost seems to high for you, just buy them one at a time. 

You can buy LED's that are dimmable now and I've seen LED bulbs under $20. Just check out Amazon.

Some simple math, (for the sake of argument I'll go with $50 for LED bulbs)

The avg homes spends about $2000 a year on electricity.

About 10% of that is for lighting or about $200 a year.

An LED that is comparable to a 60 watt bulb runs on about 6 watts (some run on as low as 3 watts) 

The avg household has about 30 light bulbs.

The avg incandescent light bulb lasts 1000 hours and costs a buck and the avg LED last 50,000 hours and costs $50 so this is a wash. 

So lets say that you spend $50 a bulb and replace 30 bulbs.

Total cost = $15000

Your total cost for normal bulbs in this time frame would also be $15000 so this is a wash.

You save 90% of your lighting costs a year or $180 a yr for the avg home. $1800 over the next decade.

You still spend the same amount of money on bulbs, but the LED option gives you a savings of $180 a year.

This one seems like a "no brainer" to me. Not to mention that production costs should decrease as demand increases.

Also even if you can't afford to change your normal bulbs, the Christmas light option gives you the peace of mind that you aren't going to burn your house down with the huge draw of electricity while you are out doing your Christmas shopping.

 

 

 

Report this comment
#14) On May 18, 2011 at 10:42 AM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

For those of you that didn't catch it...

$15000 should be $1500 

Report this comment
#15) On May 18, 2011 at 11:26 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

steven,

I couldn't help but notice that your purchase of environmentally friendly light bulbs is because you applied subjective value scales.  You determined, subjectively, that you derived both real and psychic benefit from your purchase of a product that is deemed environmentally friendly - a benefit greater than you would derive using your money on old fashioned bulbs or other spending options.

I'll set aside for the moment, who actually decided that previous bulbs were not environmentally friendly, or why - if indeed they are dangerous - property rights have never been enforced in response to the harm they have caused.

Do you deny that your purchasing decision was based on a subjective value scale? 

(If you need to define subjective value scales before you answer, see here.)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#16) On May 18, 2011 at 11:31 AM, EnigmaDude (86.01) wrote:

ChrisGraley - great comment.  Thanks!  I am learning a lot about LED bulbs from the comments on this post. 

Here is the bulb on Amazon that you mentioned.

 

Report this comment
#17) On May 18, 2011 at 12:06 PM, lemoneater (71.67) wrote:

@ #8 Thanks for the info, Torpex77. I just ordered 600 shares of VUOC at 42 cents a share. I was born too late to invest in Edison's light bulb, but not too late to invest in another bright light :) I'm willing to risk that much in support of a non-mercury lighting solution.

I was interested to learn that VU1 has a factory in the Czech Republic. Some of the best glass in the world comes from that country.

 

Report this comment
#18) On May 18, 2011 at 12:51 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

I smell a blog post coming on lemoneater. ;)

Report this comment
#19) On May 18, 2011 at 12:54 PM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

Enigma,

Maybe it was the tone of the title, misrepresenting possession of incandescants as outlawed, and referencing gun laws, this websites history of anti-Gov rantings, not neccessarily yours, and a few of the replies that got me all defensive?

I will apologise to you though. My last comment was not actually directed at you, more to those hoarders taking principled stands against Government interventions, despite its benefits to them.

As to your point about it being to soon to legislate lighting, it always takes Government to lead business.

David,

Cut to the chase.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#20) On May 18, 2011 at 1:15 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

 devoish (99.43) wrote

it always takes Government to lead business.

Only if you are talking about into bankruptcy Steven 

Report this comment
#21) On May 18, 2011 at 1:28 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

devoish (99.43) wrote: 

My last comment was not actually directed at you, more to those hoarders taking principled stands against Government interventions, despite its benefits to them.

Sorry Steven I can't let this one go either.

I've made the switch already because it does benefit me.

I didn't need government to force me to do it and I didn't need my taxpayer dollars paying for government to force me to do it.

You can only force people to do so much before they resent you for it. That's just human nature. What you are left with is people rushing to hoard light bulbs because they remember being on the losing end of government intervention too many times.

Instead of promoting government force wouldn't a cheaper and less intrusive option be just to explain the benefits to the consumer?

If it benefits him, why do you need to force him to change? 

Report this comment
#22) On May 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, chk999 (99.97) wrote:

ChrisGraley - ya beat me to it!


Report this comment
#23) On May 18, 2011 at 2:07 PM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

The law makes it maditory for all the good little kids out there to plug the failing dyke with their fingers while the government wastes valuble time not taking care if the bigger issue.

I am all for switching techs. It makes too much sense from a personal stand point not to. At the same time the national power grid needs to be repaired/replaced.

Report this comment
#24) On May 18, 2011 at 2:21 PM, EnigmaDude (86.01) wrote:

Some great comments here.  The comments regarding

it always takes Government to lead business.

got me thinking more about the connection between this new legislation and how it could impact business.

Energy Focus, Inc. (EFOI) is a leading provider of energy efficient lighting products and turnkey energy efficient lighting solutions, holding 74 relevant lighting patents. Our solutions provide energy savings, aesthetics, safety and maintenance cost benefits over conventional lighting. Our long-standing relationship with the U.S. Government includes numerous research and development projects for the DOE and DARPA, creating energy efficient LED lighting systems for the U.S. Navy fleet.  Customers include supermarket chains, the US government, state and local governmental agencies, retail stores, museums, theme parks and casinos, hotels, swimming pool builders and many others.

I have no position in this company but in light of the pending legislation I may decide to add some shares of EFOI to my speculative real-life portfolio.  Does that sound like a bright idea, or am I just being a dim bulb?

Report this comment
#25) On May 18, 2011 at 2:37 PM, CluckChicken (39.21) wrote:

If it benefits him, why do you need to force him to change?

2 Reasons: 1) sometimes people are too dumb to realize it benefits them. 2) when the benefit is not instant business doesn't always do what is needed to improve the benefit or make the product available.

Report this comment
#26) On May 18, 2011 at 3:17 PM, mtf00l (50.11) wrote:

Thoughts;

I had my supply of outlaw bulbs before the CFL/LED debate started.  I buy bulk because of my flawed phylosophy that consumables never get cheaper.

Doing even cursory due dilligence on CFL tells me, again through my flawed phylosophy, that special handling for disposal purposes is a non-starter.

Although I like the idea of LED lighting, I've seen documentaries and done research on the technology, I am to date unable to go to my local retailer and purchase in bulk.  Again, due to my flawed phylosophy I'm not on board yet.

I love early adopters, I am not one.  They, serving an important market function, spend their resources while the vendor perfects the product.  I can wait until that process is closer to complete.

As I smile and wave sitting on my stack of bulbs... =D

Report this comment
#27) On May 18, 2011 at 4:08 PM, lemoneater (71.67) wrote:

@ #18 There's a lot to say about glass :).

Thanks for bringing up such an interesting topic, Enigma.

Oil, kerosene, gas lamps, and candles had a great risk of fire and flickered a lot, so Edison's invention was seen as an amazing leap ahead in safety and light quality. Probably the lack of smoke made incandescent light bulbs environmentally better also.

One thing I do object to is whenever legislation makes light expensive for the poor. If I remember correctly, the first luxury tax was on the "lux" or "light," the number of windows in a dwelling. Those who couldn't afford the tax painted them out or didn't have them at all which was horrible for health. In comparison to the other options, an incandescent bulb is much cheaper in the short term. Those on limited income may find it harder to afford the legal options. Legislation needs to be enlightened not medieval.

Report this comment
#28) On May 18, 2011 at 4:17 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

CluckChicken (< 20) wrote:1) sometimes people are too dumb to realize it benefits them. 2) when the benefit is not instant business doesn't always do what is needed to improve the benefit or make the product available.

 

1) people have a right to be dumb. They also tend to get it right over time after watching their peers take the lead. Show a dumb guy your savings on an electric bill and he'll get smart real fast. 2) Business will always be early to the table if there is a profit to be made. The bulbs have been there for a good long time now without regulation. People are buying them without regulation. Companies are profiting off of them without regulation. Who decides in your world who the dumb guys are and who the smart guys are? I guess part of being a tyrant is to justify the reasons for it, but tyrants eventually face the resistance of the masses.

Report this comment
#29) On May 18, 2011 at 7:20 PM, CluckChicken (39.21) wrote:

1) people have a right to be dumb. - Agreed

They also tend to get it right over time after watching their peers take the lead. Show a dumb guy your savings on an electric bill and he'll get smart real fast. - If only it were so. We can all name a lot of people that will blast their A/C from the first day that it is needed till the first day they need to use a heater all the while complaining about how high the electric bill is. Those people would never switch without being forced. The majority of people even after being told how much they could save over X years wouldn't switch because they only see that LED cost $30 vs incandescents $3.

2) Business will always be early to the table if there is a profit to be made. - Agreed however there are times when there is a supirior product that just costs too much to be competitive with the long standing leading product that businesses never spend the money and time to research improved development processes to make it cost compeditive. When such products can have a large benefit on the greater community forcing business to move faster is a good thing.

 

LED light was first discovered in 1907 by H.J. Round, first used in 1962 and the bulbs for home use have been around for at least 10 years with little change in the market for them till the government forced the issue. Sometime business needs a kick in the tush to move it along once they get heading in the direction they are usually pretty good at it.

Report this comment
#30) On May 18, 2011 at 9:06 PM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

it always takes Government to lead business. - Devoish

I've made the switch already because it does benefit me.

I didn't need government to force me to do it and I didn't need my taxpayer dollars paying for government to force me to do it. - ChrisGraley

ChrisGraley - ya beat me to it! - chk999

LED light was first discovered in 1907 by H.J. Round, first used in 1962 and the bulbs for home use have been around for at least 10 years with little change in the market for them till the government forced the issue. Sometime business needs a kick in the tush to move it along once they get heading in the direction they are usually pretty good at it. - Cluckchicken

it always takes Government to lead business. - Devoish

Note to Cluck, thanks for saving me the typing.

ChrisGraley and chk999,

in addition to Cluck's point, the only reason LED's are here now for ChrisGraley to buy is because of the taxpayer funded subsidies that kept these companys going for the last ten years and the "earmarks" they received to develop them. So the only reason you can benefit from LED's is because Government funded an unprofitable technology.

Uncle Sam says "your welcome" for the earmarks, the rebates and the complicated tax code that allows deductions for R&D you so often and loudly complain about.

Lemoneater,

Your concern for low income earners is a real one. In a free market they could never choose a $50 LED despite the savings they would realise over time. They need money today as much as in thirty years. They can choose flourescants though, or the $20.00 LED bulb. I could see attaching something to food stamps for three years to help them. After that all the incandescants should have burned out, and they have some additional money from lower electric bills. But poor is poor, capitalism is what demands it exist.

mtfool,

As an early adopter, I will probably learn that in one or two years, had I waited, I could have gotten the bulbs for less. But I was renewing my house this year, and would have spent some money anyway. Plus there was a rebate which I hope ChrisGraley applied for too.

Best wishes, all,

Steven

Report this comment
#31) On May 19, 2011 at 4:29 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Steven,

That's a pretty straight forward question I asked. Since you are thoroughly versed in Austrian School Economic theory, you should be able to answer it.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#32) On May 19, 2011 at 9:37 AM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

Cluck and devoish,

You still have no right to force your will on someone because you think he's stupid. You should be glad that is the case because some of the stupidest things I've ever heard are liberal schemes to force their beliefs on someone else.

Now as far as the product never existing without all of the government assistance that most likely was canabalized by bloated government structure anyway...

I haven't fact checked Cluck, but if LED's first came out in 1907, I pretty sure there weren't any government subsidies then.

I'm also pretty sure the the LED technology in bulbs today was developed in flat screen TV's and backlighting for other electronic devices. Have we been subsidizing Sony?

Their were no state rebates in my case and the util in my area only rebated for CFL's. I did get a manufacturer rebate though.

As far as today's bulbs being on the market for 10 years and no one buying them until the government stepped in, that simply isn't true at all. People started buying them when the math finally worked. They did the same equation that I did above and figured out that buying the bulbs put them ahead of the game.

I think that programs will probably be established by the utilities for low income households to allow payment for the bulbs in their electric bills. The utils would be very happy to reduce consumption so they can charge more for electricity later. Higher electricity costs may force those dumb guys to finally switch over as well.

 But poor is poor, capitalism is what demands it exist.

I always thought that you were a Marxist Steven. :P

As far as being an early adopter Steven, you are still saving money over not adopting at all.  

 

Report this comment
#33) On May 19, 2011 at 10:25 AM, lemoneater (71.67) wrote:

@ #30 Thanks for your answer, Devoish. 

Jesus was correct when he said that we would always have poor people. It seems like when it comes down to actual application: capitalism, socialism, or communism, always comes up short in preventing poverty. (I think that communism may work for a short time on a very small scale in a tightly knit community like a kibbitz or the early church in the book of Acts, but no where else on a larger scale.) I'm sure that russiangambit could speak more eloquently on the topic.

Because of the new legislation, I do think that there will need to be light stamps in addition to food stamps. (As someone in the lower middle class, I admit to having a feeling of "Oh, no, not another government subsidy" which means more taxes, or a deeper deficit.) Just once, I would like a government solution that didn't add to costs. Will the technology reduce costs quickly enough so that light stamps will be a temporary measure only?

Have a great day everyone!

Report this comment
#34) On May 19, 2011 at 12:49 PM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

You called me names, insulted the competence of American Government and stuck your tongue out at me?! How will I go on.

Disregardiing calling me a Marxist, using liberal schemes as opposed to intelligent planning, calling Governmet bloated even after shrinking it for 30 years and other such nonsense let's focus.

You still have no right to force your will on someone because you think he's stupid.

I do have an obligation to protect myself from being harmed by your stupidity though.I can choose to help others protect themselves from your stupidity too. For example your disbelief of global warming causes you to protect yourself from what you see as my stupidity. Because you are wrong, we argue.

As far as today's bulbs being on the market for 10 years and no one buying them until the government stepped in, that simply isn't true at all. People started buying them when the math finally worked.

Actually it is true. Governments other than the USA subsidized their purchase in order to make the math work out.

Their were no state rebates in my case and the util in my area only rebated for CFL's. I did get a manufacturer rebate though

Congratulations on the success of your vote at costing you money that your Goverment then threw at the banks. If only we had elected Al Gore, he might have encouraged a "liberal scheme" to redirect home loan money toward some whackadoodle energy efficiency idea that would have saved us enough energy money to pay the loans back instead of the crash and burn the small government guy delivered. Unfortunately "non interference" turned out to mean interfering with more of the same. Oh well, money under the bridge.

I'm also pretty sure the the LED technology in bulbs today was developed in flat screen TV's and backlighting for other electronic devices.

Google rocks.

The scientific work that eventually led to the founding of Cree Inc. was begun in the early 1980s at North Carolina State University (NCSU), where brothers Eric Hunter and Neal Hunter, along with Calvin Carter, began investigating the physical and electronic properties of silicon carbide (SiC), a rare, naturally occurring material. Their first work was funded by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), which hoped to develop processes for the production of microwave transistors from SiC that would supply the basis for higher power electronic systems for military aircraft

I haven't fact checked Cluck, but if LED's first came out in 1907, I pretty sure there weren't any government subsidies then.

No subsidies, no explosion of LED sales in 1907 either!  Just as my theory of Government leading would predict. Thanks for the confirmation! And that was probably another example of good Government thinking because at the time global warming was a possibility, not a reality.

This has been fun! Really.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#35) On May 19, 2011 at 1:37 PM, CluckChicken (39.21) wrote:

You still have no right to force your will on someone because you think he's stupid. You should be glad that is the case because some of the stupidest things I've ever heard are liberal schemes to force their beliefs on someone else. - Since the removal of the incandescent bulb really has nothing to do with LED bulbs and everything to do with enviromental impact that all that extra power generation has on the greater community it becomes a matter of the government saying that the right of a person to live in a cleaner enviroment trumps that of the right to be stupid.

 

If this was something like the happy meal thing San Fran is doing I would aggree that the government should stay out because a few thousand people eating fries over fruit really has no impact on me and there are additional things those fry eaters could do to improve their health. In this case me doing everything I can to reduce my electric needs can easily by thwarted by my idiot nieghbor going on vacation for a week and leaving all the lights on in the house. Basically I am saying it is good for the government to step in when too many dumb people are making things worse for too many smart people and the smart people have no ability to protect themselves from the effects of the dumb ones.

 

Also I would like to point out that I said LED light was first discovered in 1907 by H.J. Round. That does not mean that is when they first appeared, that was 55 years later.

Report this comment
#36) On May 19, 2011 at 1:59 PM, mtf00l (50.11) wrote:

I look forward to the day the "jack booted" thugs kick my door down and shoot me because they suspect I have incandescent bulbs!  =D

Wait, maybe I can be the "jack booted" thug!

Report this comment
#37) On May 19, 2011 at 2:22 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

Wow devoish this is getting more distorted as you go here.

I hope that you recover from the whole tounge sticking out thing.

Using your logic I have the right to be protected from liberals that don't understand the economic costs of forcing every pie in the sky idea that they come up with on the general population.

What country would you like to be exported to?

I can't say it's been fun, but I can definately say it's been entertaining.

 

Report this comment
#38) On May 19, 2011 at 3:40 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

CluckChicken (< 20) wrote: 

Also I would like to point out that I said LED light was first discovered in 1907 by H.J. Round. That does not mean that is when they first appeared, that was 55 years later.

I wonder how they discovered it without a subsidy?

 


 

Report this comment
#39) On May 19, 2011 at 4:16 PM, CluckChicken (39.21) wrote:

I wonder how they discovered it without a subsidy? - By accident like many things. Nick Holonyak, Jr has been credited for making the first LED light while working for GE with the University of Illinois on a program funded by the DoD (Navy specifically). First commercially available LED light was brought to market in 1976 (1 watt). 35 years later we are still waiting for the business world to fund the research to find a production method to make them price compeditive with incandescents.

Report this comment
#40) On May 19, 2011 at 5:12 PM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

I wonder how they discovered it without a subsidy? - ChrisGraley

Nick Holonyak, Jr has been credited for making the first LED light while working for GE with the University of Illinois on a program funded by the DoD (Navy specifically). -CluckChicken

Government spending programs of course.

I have the right to be protected from liberals that don't understand the economic costs of forcing every pie in the sky idea that they come up with on the general population

Why do you want to stop talking about LED lighting? Honest if some liberal ideologue was trying to force you into adhering to his pie in the sky belief in an imaginary free market economics that has never existed in the real world, I'd help you try to stop him.

Honest I would,

Best wishes 

Steven

Note to Enigma. I'm sorry.

Report this comment
#41) On May 19, 2011 at 7:12 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oleg_Losev

Unless you're saying that we subsidised a russian radio tech in the 20's. I don't believe that you can give government the claim of inventing the LED than you can give Al Gore the credit for inventing the internet.

Why do you want to stop talking about LED lighting? Honest if some liberal ideologue was trying to force you into adhering to his pie in the sky belief in an imaginary free market economics that has never existed in the real world, I'd help you try to stop him. 

I just had a vision of being a passenger on the train to hell with the devil sitting right next to me. Of course, he told me that heaven didn't really exist. 

Report this comment
#42) On May 19, 2011 at 7:13 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

From the article-

However, LED prices are coming down quickly. The DoE expects a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb to cost $10 by 2015, putting them within striking range of the price of a compact fluorescent bulb.

Bob Karlicek, the director of the Smart Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., thinks that price is achievable.

But, he said, "it's not necessarily clear to people in the lighting industry that LED chips were ever meant to go into a bulb."

What's really needed, he said, is a new approach to lighting — new fixtures and lamps that spread out the LEDs, avoiding the heat problem.

I guess I'm dumb for waiting to see how it all shakes out. Much better to have a "jack booted" thug show me the way (nice, mtf00l! :)

Steven, if it makes you feel any better I have about ten bulbs at my place, use flourescents in the bathroom, and my Christmas lights are led.

Cheers

Report this comment
#43) On May 19, 2011 at 8:14 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

HCG, it's funny that you and I switch on our own free will and then have to pay to get others to switch against their will.

Report this comment
#44) On May 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM, EnigmaDude (86.01) wrote:

All youz guys are cracking me up! (even you Steven).  What a great community we have here.  Glad I could kick it off!

Report this comment
#45) On May 19, 2011 at 8:42 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

Devoish is afraid of the words "free market"

especially the word "free" 

Report this comment
#46) On May 19, 2011 at 10:11 PM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

ChrisGraley,

Wow devoish this is getting more distorted as you go here.

I understand this is hard for you.

So let me ask; can you read? 

Their first work was funded by the Office of Naval Research (ONR), which hoped to develop processes for the production of microwave transistors from SiC that would supply the basis for higher power electronic systems for military aircraft

As you now know - LED bulbs exist for you to buy today only because of Government intervention into your precious and hopefully tempered free market idealism.

Just reread what I posted from CREE's website about their being funded by the Navy until you clear your distortions.

HarryCarysGhost,

How about you. Do you accept that LED's are here today because of Governments intervention into "free markets"? Do you think that when CREE states upon their webpage that their technology was developed under financing by the government that it is truthful? Do you think that the Government also funded research into LED technology that did not do so well? I do, but we have the succesful CREE lights today.

(investment tip! both osram LED's (siemens) and that 100watt bulb mentioned earlier use CREE technology)

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#47) On May 19, 2011 at 11:41 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.60) wrote:

How about you. Do you accept that LED's are here today because of Governments intervention into "free markets"?

Sure, as long as you can accept the fact that free markets would've got the job done right by now.

That's my whole point, the consumer would not accept a substandard product, and would not purchase a faulty bulb. Since it's Gov mandated, really no choice in the matter. They're jammin it down our throats when it could be so much better if you just chilled out.

You brought up a sore spot for me. Back in 08 I was comparing SI and GE as possible purchases. I chose unwisely : (

Report this comment
#48) On May 20, 2011 at 12:25 AM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

Apparently I'm the only one that can read.

A russian gets the credit for LED lighting everywhere except from the US government. (at least if you recognise global patent law)

Unless we gave that russian some US cash the government can't claim the discovery. 

CREE flashlights are good, but the rest of their bulbs suffer from heat degradation and last barely over 3 years. GE is even better than CREE and they suck at about everything.

Investment tip...

Buy Phillips. Thier micro-electronic experience gives them a leg up in heat dissapation. They have a great engineering dept and an experienced workforce. 

LED bulbs are here today because a couple of guys playing with radios noticed that diodes gave off a little bit of light. They got commercially viable because a huge demand for flat screen TV's and personal electronics that needed back-lighting grew the industry.

I will give you this Steven. Government intervention did play a role. There would have never been that huge demand for flat screen TV's or personal electronics if people had any real idea of their spending power and the true worth of the dolllar. So in a way, government did contribute. The problem is that the average consumer now will have to pay the debts of the consumer that partied like it was 1999. All sponsored by the goverment and paid for by the big banks that you hate.

The government has to transfer their debt to the consumer to keep going a little longer. They have to keep their employer's happy. Goldman Sachs gets upset when the government is slow to give people dillusions of wealth.

I will wake up tomorrow morning happy because my life doesn't depend on forcing anyone to do anything. I'm certainly not expecting anyone to thank me for force that I placed upon them. 

You chastise me for a world that you say that I imagined. You are following the playbook of a dictator there. The fact is that the world sucks as it is and you have contributed a big part to the reason why it sucks.

When I react with an alternative that is closer to what the founding fathers wanted, you claim that it never existed and depend on the audience being niave enough to except that.

It's the same audience who's rights you can ignore because they are stupid. You're counting on them to accept that too.

I used to feel sorry for you Steven, now I just feel sorry for the people that listen to you. 

 

Report this comment
#49) On May 20, 2011 at 5:20 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Our resident Marxist, Steven, shows his game isn't about honesty or the search for truth.  It's about defending what he believes provides his own personal world with blessings.  It is unenlightened self interest that motivates Steven.

He is not curious to know whether there is a morally acceptable alternative to government coercion in every aspect of your life. Steven wants government coercion in your life to protect his own personal well being.

In other words, like all Progressives and Marxists, Steven is as selfish, if not more so, than any Randian or Rothbardian or any free market adherent.  

He's also just as racist, if not more so, since he likes putting black people out of work with minimum wage restrictions.

He likes robbing old people of their money through inflation.

He likes bombing brown people if it keeps the price of oil down.

While he yammers on and on about the wonderful things the government will do for you, what he actually wants is wonderful things for him!

Self-interest personified.

(And a total fraud, like all Progressives)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#50) On May 20, 2011 at 8:47 AM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

Our resident Libertarian, David shows his game isn't about honesty or the search for truth.  It's about defending what he believes provides his own personal world with blessings.  It is unenlightened self interest that motivates David.

He is not curious to know whether there is a morally acceptable alternative to financial coercion in every aspect of your life. David wants financial coercion in your life to protect his own personal well being.

In other words, like all Randians and Rothbardians, David is as selfish, if not more so, than any Marxist or Fascist or any Communist adherent.  

He's also just as racist, if not more so, since he likes enslaving black people out of work with pay so low that is resembles the food water and housing of slavery.

He likes robbing young people of their money through deflation.

He likes bombing brown people if it keeps the price of oil down.

While he yammers on and on about the wonderful things the free market will do for you, what he actually wants is wonderful things for him!

Self-interest personified.

(And a total fraud, like all Libertarians)

Best wishes,

Steven

Once again enigma, I'm sorry.

Report this comment
#51) On May 20, 2011 at 9:09 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Steven,

Where is the line drawn between laziness and recycling? I ask because I'm having trouble finding with regard to #50.

The Douche,

Cato

Report this comment
#52) On May 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Steven,

The old copy and paste comeback.  Well done, Marxist.

You still never addressed the very simple question above.  Do you deny that you used subjective value scales in your purchase of "environmentally" friendly light bulbs?

This is a simple question.  I've been on this website for 2.5 years.  You have critiqued me for 2.5 years.  During those 2.5 years which you either criticized me or Austrian School Economics, I have to assume that you studied the basic positions we are prestenting.

The basic ones... not the hard stuff.

Don't tell me, Steven, that after 2.5 years, you still don't even know the basics of the position you are criticizing....

(copy and paste reply won't cut it)

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#53) On May 20, 2011 at 2:50 PM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

cato,

I simply wanted to make a point that namecalling is all David just wasted our time on.

So I recycled his namecalling.

David,

Mises.org  is a waste of time. It is a salespitch, with no relevance to any society in the world. I have read your posts, selling your version of a Libertarian dream and found them to be dependent upon hoping your readers would not place them in the real world. Nobody can argue with your imaginary world any more than they can argue with J.R.R. Tolkein about what Middle Earth might be.

Thanks for another opportunity to point that out.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment
#54) On May 20, 2011 at 10:12 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

devoish,

Nobody can argue with your imaginary world

So now, rather than answering the simple question, you claim that your buying of environmentally friendly bulbs was imaginary? 

You said you made the purchase.  Now it didn't happen?  Were you lying to us?

Let me get this straight, after 2.5 years, you still have  not a single clue about the theories that you mock and criticize. And you are a Marxist that claims everyone else lives in an imaginary world.

Can you give me one reason why anyone should listen to you?

David in Qatar

 

Report this comment
#55) On May 21, 2011 at 5:52 AM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

The bulbs are real, a world free of Societal/Government coersion is imaginary.

In your version you have a voice. In a Democracy, we both do.

Best wishes,

Steven

 

Report this comment
#56) On May 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM, ChrisGraley (29.72) wrote:

In your version the stupid people don't have a voice Steven.

The Peoples Republic of America 

Report this comment
#57) On May 22, 2011 at 4:44 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

No more best wishes Steven.  I ask you simple questions and you dodge and duck them. 

It's obvious why you refuse. You know that denying subjective value scales would be ridiculous.  You know that you have to admit that I am right, in which case, you cannot simultaneously claim that I want an imaginary world.

Drop the cognitive dissonance. 

You can either stop referencing me in your posts and comments, stop commenting on my posts,  OR you can engage in real conversation by answering the simple questions I ask.

David in Qatar

Report this comment
#58) On May 22, 2011 at 7:58 AM, devoish (96.27) wrote:

David,

It is good that our readers know you would rather I did not have the FREEDOM to disagree with you, or be at LIBERTY to point out your hypocrisy. Feels like I have more freedom in the world I live in, with its flawed democracy, than yours would offer. In fact, in my world we can demand Congress answer our questions too. A "real conversation" is when to people FREELY exchange thoughts, and ideas. A person who demands another submit to questioning is an interrogator, and an interrogation is not a conversation.

Cognitive dissonance is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena. In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs.

Your accusations often seem to be your confessions.

Best wishes,

Steven

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement