Really?
The problem with incandescents is you end up paying more in electricity costs. Incandescents are inefficient – 90% of the energy goes toward heat and only 10% toward light.
As I write this, the temperature outside is 16 degrees Fahrenheit.
If I may be so bold, I am perfectly fine with that heat output. And I resent these light nannies telling me I shouldn't be fine with them.
Also, as the article notes, the new bulbs are way more expensive and their odds of reaching their theoretical long life spans seem low given the restrictions and fragility of the new bulbs in actual production.
On the bright side, if the bulbs last much less than claimed, I guess that undercuts my protest that I don't want to buy bulbs that I'll need to leave to my children in my will.
And even if the new bulbs are cheaper when you consider actual life spans and that "waste" heat the incandescents give off, so far the new bulbs just don't look as good.
That will change, I assume. But it still rankles that this was a choice denied me, "for my own good."
Bugger off.
Why I can't be trusted to choose my light bulbs is beyond me.
Hey, how many people does it take to change a light bulb? Obviously, it takes an army of activists and bureaucrats along with a compliant Congress and a president who never should have signed this stupid piece of legislation (and yes, I'm aware that Bush 43 signed this law).
I'm still hoping some enterprising soul will export incandescents to America under the pretext of being replacement heat sources for the old Easy Bake ovens.
Because really, it only takes one person to figure out a way around the rules that legions of busy bodies come up with.
