I've been stocking up on them at Walmart for $1.24 for four, which is .31 a bulb (the price is the same for any wattage). I'm surprised the prices haven't started rising yet. By the time they do, I'll already have a lifetime supply.

Oh, never mind. Mine are only rated for 2,000 hours. Still, not a bad deal.

My Walmart has been picked clean. Nothing left, dangit. I have enough for several years, but still...

How long until the government decides to ban electric ovens? The nameplate on mine says 9.5KW...average consumption when it is on will be less than this as the thermostat cycles, but probably still 4KW or so. That's as much as 40 100-watt incandescent bulbs. A microwave uses a lot less.

I foresee a future in which people of the Common Sort will be allowed only to have microwaves or to eat in Communal Feeding Centers...

...meant to also add the point that professional chefs employed by Al Gore, James Cameron, Eric Schmidt, etc will be exempt from the requirement and will be allowed to use gourmet cooking equipment.

"we can no longer have incandescent bulbs after 2014"

Not true. What you can't have is incandescent bulbs that fail
to meet efficiency standards.

Meanwhile, why are you stocking up on gas guzzlers? Here's an
analysis of Phillips energy-saving incandescent lights:

Let us do a rough cost comparison between a basic 100 W incandescent
bulb and the Phillips Energy Saver 100 W bulb. The basic bulb costs
$0.60 and lasts for 750 hours. The equivalent 70 W Phillips Energy
Saver bulbs costs $5 and lasts for 3,000 hours. As such, it is
basically going to take four basic bulbs to last as long as one
Energy Saver bulb. Assuming the bulbs get used four hours a day,
they get used or lit about 1,460 hours a year.

The basic bulb rated at 100 W would consume 146 kWh or $20.44
annually at $0.14 per kWh. The Energy Saver bulb rated at 70 W
would consume 102.2 kWh or $14.31 annually at $0.14 per kWh. Over
two years, the approximate life of the Energy Saver bulb, the total
cost of the basic incandescent bulb would be $2.40 plus $40.88, or
about $43.28. However, the total cost of the Energy Saver bulb
would be $5 plus $28.62, or about $33.62. In effect, the Energy
Saver bulb would be saving the buyer $9.66. That is roughly $4.83
per year per light point.
http://www.norcalsavant.com/2009/07/16/new-incandescent-bulb-technology-one-last-hurrah-before-death-or-the-best-of-both-worlds/

"Meanwhile, why are you stocking up on gas guzzlers?"

Um, Ron, are you from around here? Because for that $4.83 a year we would be more than deliriously happy to tell a meddling hypocritical bureaucrat to go @#$% themselves. Those savings are small consolation to the 200 GE workers in Winchester, VA.

Ron..."why are you stocking up on gas guzzlers?"

The term "gas guzzler" usually refers to *gasoline*, which of course comes from oil. Very little oil is used for electrical generation in the US---a fact that seems to surprise many people---so your term "gas guzzler" is accurate only if you are referring to *natural gas*.

This is brought to us by the same folks that gave us toilets that use half the water and need to be flushed twice. You can at least call that a draw.

Those are the same guys who eliminated pilot lights in furnaces, because they wasted some gas. That gas was a lot cheaper than the new heat exchanger caused by the old one corroding after condensation sat on it because it wasn't warm anymore, but Washington doesn't pay for that. That's what I call a loss, but I'm the one who pays the bills. What would I know?

I'm not going to tell them what to do with their lightbulbs, I'm just going to stock up on what I want.

Mark - if you've got condensation on your heat exchanger, you're doing something wrong. You're more likely to have gotten that from a pilot light anyhow, since the major output of natural gas combustion is water vapor.

Those new forced induction furnaces are ridiculously efficient. When my oil-fired burner goes, I'll be switching to gas.

Under a market system in which goods have prices, people can make their own tradeoffs about what is important to them. Ron suggests that CFL bulbs are a good deal economically...if I don't object to the quality of light from these things, I can choose to buy them..and the manufacturers can help the process along by publicizing their economic benefits. OTOH, if I care a lot about light quality in particular rooms, I can continue to use incandescents and save money on something else, like not buying coffee at Starbucks or getting a less-costly and more fuel-efficient car. Regulatory control, of the type favored by today's Democrats, removes individual choice and substitutes command from a central authority.

And no one has bothered to even mention (if I missed it, sorry) - what are we going to do with all the mercury that's going to be in these bulbs when we discard them. Oh, that's right....we aren't allowed to discard them without some ridiculous procedure instituted by the gubmint and which will undoubtedly cost us more than throwing away an incandescent bulb would.

The light quality, as david says, also is horrendous.

If these CFL's were any good at all, people would be flocking to buy them - no government intervention would be necessary.

The light quality, as david says, also is horrendous

I get mine from Kroger, and they are the same as incandescent. Also, last much longer outside. They do seem to last longer inside, too, and are cooler to the touch after being on.

"Let us do a rough cost comparison between a basic 100 W incandescent
bulb and the Phillips Energy Saver 100 W bulb. The basic bulb costs
$0.60 and lasts for 750 hours. The equivalent 70 W Phillips Energy
Saver bulbs costs $5 and lasts for 3,000 hours. "

A 100W and a 70W bulb using the same technology are, by definition, not equivalent. Further, the "long life" incandescent bulbs are made by making the filament thicker, which makes them run cooler -- meaning that they produce less light, on a per-watt basis. (Halogen bulbs are more efficient than standard incandescents because they run hotter. However, they can't be used everywhere because... well, they're damn hot.)

If you want a 75W bulb, just buy a 75W bulb.

There is no constitutional justification for this level of government intrusion into the marketplace.

Arguing that the change will be for our own good, ignores that the same argument can be used to justify any multitude of tyrannies great or small.

I don't want to have florescents around the house. They flicker. Very annoying.

Halogen bulbs produce a superior light to standard incandescent bulbs.

@KrisL - electronic ballasts don't flicker, magnetic ones do.

And this is one area where the government is hopelessly incompetent to regulate, unless their goal was to drive all light bulb manufacturing to China, in which case, mission accomplished!

>A 100W and a 70W bulb using the same technology are, by definition,
>not equivalent.

That's true. I guess that means it's a good thing that the Phillips
bulbs don't use the same technology, right?

>Further, the "long life" incandescent bulbs are made by making the
>filament thicker

Correction: some "long life" incandescents use thicker filaments.

The Phillips uses a halogen capsule inside a more conventional outer
shell. The 70W provides 1600 lumens, the same as their cheap "standard"
100W bulb.

You can still do way better in lumens per watt with a CFL, but if you
want or need incandescent, you don't need to be stuck with the old,
inefficient technology.

BTW: I did check the web page on the 33 cent bulbs Amy is buying.
A 100W bulb that sheds only 1075 lumens means it gives the light
of a conventional 75W bulb, making this a literally dim bulb idea.

I don't know whether it's just me or if perhaps everybody else experiencing problems with your website.
It seems like some of the written text in your posts are running off the screen. Can someone else please provide feedback and let
me know if this is happening to them too? This could be a problem with my web browser because I've had this happen previously.
Thanks