Obama didnt care that poor people won't be able to afford the new light bubs

PACEDOG#1 wrote:See, every retard liberal only makes excuses for Obama and can never provide a solution. At 5-6 bucks a pop, that's probably their child's lunch money that day.

PkrBum wrote:Good ideas don't need the bootstrap of govt to squeeze the windpipe of bad ideas.

Humans are pretty good at surviving/adapting. If given the opportunity.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote: I don't have any of those, however, as my wife wouldn't let me try them.

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:See, every retard liberal only makes excuses for Obama and can never provide a solution. At 5-6 bucks a pop, that's probably their child's lunch money that day.

Are you really that dense?  Z has explained it to you several times.  Let's try an approach with numbers.  See if you can wrap your head around this.

Annual cost in electricity for various bulbs that produce 800 lumens of light

Incandescent = $300

Florescent = $75

LED = $30

Source: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/led4.htm



Also note that an LED bulb lasts considerably longer than an incandescent bulb.

Incandescent = 1,000 hours

Florescent = 10,000 hours

LED = 100,000 hours

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb


The better question here is this: How on earth can poor people afford to use a bulb that costs 10 times as much in power consumption and has to be replaced 100 times as often?  

Which costs the user more, PACEDOG?  Incandescent, florescent, or LED?

By a show of hands, who here thinks the next response will be "But...how can poor people afford to use LED?  Obama doesn't care about poor people!"

boards of FL wrote:By a show of hands, who here thinks the next response will be "But...how can poor people afford to use LED?  Obama doesn't care about poor people!"

PACEDOG#1 wrote:What's the initial outlay to replace all of the bulbs in a house? According to you libtards, poor people can't even afford to eat or pay their bills, so why are we forcing them to buy 5-6 dollar light bulbs?

boards of FL wrote:

PACEDOG#1 wrote:See, every retard liberal only makes excuses for Obama and can never provide a solution. At 5-6 bucks a pop, that's probably their child's lunch money that day.

Are you really that dense?  Z has explained it to you several times.  Let's try an approach with numbers.  See if you can wrap your head around this.

Annual cost in electricity for various bulbs that produce 800 lumens of light

Incandescent = $300

Florescent = $75

LED = $30

Source: http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/led4.htm



Also note that an LED bulb lasts considerably longer than an incandescent bulb.

Incandescent = 1,000 hours

Florescent = 10,000 hours

LED = 100,000 hours

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb


The better question here is this: How on earth can poor people afford to use a bulb that costs 10 times as much in power consumption and has to be replaced 100 times as often?  

Which costs the user more, PACEDOG?  Incandescent, florescent, or LED?

By a show of hands, who here thinks the next response will be "But...how can poor people afford to use LED?  Obama doesn't care about poor people!"

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:Yes, but a 7-watt LED bulb, which is a suitable replacement for a 60-watt bulb, costs $6.13 per year to use (using Markle's math). I can take the $46.43 in savings over using a 60-watt incandescent bulb, and buy 5 more 7-watt LED bulbs, with money leftover. Then, I can save $232.15 the next year, and buy even more LED bulbs. What is not to like about this?

Now, I will say that LED bulbs are not a panacea. I have had several fail since I started using them 3 years ago. The LED lighting elements might last 50,000 hours, but the micro-electronics that support them clearly can and do fail. Also, cheap Chinese construction means the components fall apart some times. However, this will not deter me from using LED bulbs wherever I can. And, prices keep falling each year, which means they are becoming more affordable as time passes.

I am not using LED bulbs because I am worried about my carbon footprint. For me this is a "green" intiative, however. Green, meaning $$$$ (LOL!).

Markle wrote:
Not true, another lie from the far left Progressives.

800 lumens equal a 60 watt bulb.

Multiply the kilowatt hours by your local electricity rate to see how much money you spend to power that bulb. For example, if electricity costs 10 cents per kWh, a 60 watt light bulb left on for one year would cost you $52.56 (60 / 1000 * (365 * 24) * .10) Alternatively, a 13 watt CFL left on for the same period would cost $11.39 (13 / 1000 * (365 * 24) * .10)

How many people leave a 60 watt bulb on 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
http://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-Kilowatts-Used-by-Light-Bulbs


Once again, Boards of Florida LIES for no reason whatsoever other than being lazy.

boards of FL wrote:How many modern conservatives does it take to replace a light bulb?  Honestly, the answer is "null set".   Not one among them even grasps the problem!