[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null Lightbulbs - Page 3 - Conquer Club
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Would you like him to adjust for inflation, or tell you that you live in a socialist country with oppressive utilities bills?
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Would you like him to adjust for inflation, or tell you that you live in a socialist country with oppressive utilities bills?
In the mean time, check out my chainsaw-shotgun:
I've seen better chainsaw shotguns. In my part of the UK we all open carry them. I'm wearing two right now.
That's all I'm wearing though.
Except for my chainsaw-shotgun holster.
Holsters, sorry- I have two chainsaw-shotguns, and I'm wearing them both, with the holsters. Apart from that I'm naked.
[EDIT] Apart from those.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
I'm still a bit confused, sorry dude, and thanks for replying. Your bills are higher than they were five years ago? Is it the bulbs, or the price plan from the energy company, or both?
I know I'm being a pain with this, but do you think staying with the original bulbs and shifting to the current price plan would have cost less?
Don't get me wrong- I'm generally in favour of the new bulbs. I'm not wedded to them, but it sounded like you have more of an issue with the energy company messing around with the way it prices electricity.
Last edited by Symmetry on Sun Jul 17, 2011 8:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Would you like him to adjust for inflation, or tell you that you live in a socialist country with oppressive utilities bills?
In the mean time, check out my chainsaw-shotgun:
I've seen better chainsaw shotguns. In my part of the UK we all open carry them. I'm wearing two right now.
That's all I'm wearing though.
Except for my chainsaw-shotgun holster.
Holsters, sorry- I have two chainsaw-shotguns, and I'm wearing them both, with the holsters. Apart from that I'm naked.
[EDIT] Apart from those.
There's nothing worse than seeing a naked British man.
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
I'm still a bit confused, sorry dude, and thanks for replying. Your bills are higher than they were five years ago? Is it the bulbs, or the price plan from the energy company, or both?
I know I'm being a pain with this, but do you think staying with the original bulbs and shifting to the current price plan would have cost less?
I can't crunch the numbers to know if staying with the old bulbs would have cost less. My point that I am trying (apparently poorly) to make is that the government has been pushing all these cost saving measures (CFL bulbs, energy efficient equipment) with coupons and rebate programs...only to raise the cost of hydro to the consumer. Therefore nullifying any savings I would have had. Would I be paying more now if I hadn't switched? Probably. But I put up a lot of money to switch and I haven't seen any "real" savings as my rates have gone up.
Again...if you don't understand you will have to wait until tomorrow. Spent the weekend at camp in 35*C heat and the mind isn't flowing as smoothly as I would like.
keiths31 wrote:This is being considered up here in Ontario. The incandescent bulbs are being considered for banning. I don't like this. I replaced everyone of my bulbs in my house, my rental properties and my two businesses...savings? No. The hydro company has changed their billing procedures. There isn't a flat rate anymore, but a peak rate (between 11:00 am and 5:00 pm, mid peak rate (7:00 am - 11:00 am and 5:00 pm - 7:00 pm) and non-peak (7:00 pm - 7:00 am). So any savings are minimal if any. In my restaurant I have all CFL bulbs, and have recently replaced the equipment with brand new energy efficient models. But yet my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago due to the rated peak times. All promised savings haven't transpired.
Fair point, but can you clarify on the "my bills are still the same as they were 5 years ago" line? I'd love it if my bills were the same as they were 5 years ago. The way you phrased it makes it sound like they're the same as they were 5 years ago.
Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
I'm still a bit confused, sorry dude, and thanks for replying. Your bills are higher than they were five years ago? Is it the bulbs, or the price plan from the energy company, or both?
I know I'm being a pain with this, but do you think staying with the original bulbs and shifting to the current price plan would have cost less?
I can't crunch the numbers to know if staying with the old bulbs would have cost less. My point that I am trying (apparently poorly) to make is that the government has been pushing all these cost saving measures (CFL bulbs, energy efficient equipment) with coupons and rebate programs...only to raise the cost of hydro to the consumer. Therefore nullifying any savings I would have had. Would I be paying more now if I hadn't switched? Probably. But I put up a lot of money to switch and I haven't seen any "real" savings as my rates have gone up.
Again...if you don't understand you will have to wait until tomorrow. Spent the weekend at camp in 35*C heat and the mind isn't flowing as smoothly as I would like.
Hah- fair enough. I've been barbecuing all day. I can appreciate the sentiment.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
5 years ago, he spent $x per month on electricity bills for his businesses.
At that point, he replaced his bulbs with CFLs because of their promises to use less electricity, therefore dropping his electric bills to $(x-y) per month.
The electricity provider decided to jack-up rates during certain times of the day, so keiths is still paying the $x per month even though he made a purchase thinking he would only be paying $(x-y) per month.
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry, here is what keiths is saying:
5 years ago, he spent $x per month on electricity bills for his businesses.
At that point, he replaced his bulbs with CFLs because of their promises to use less electricity, therefore dropping his electric bills to $(x-y) per month.
The electricity provider decided to jack-up rates during certain times of the day, so keiths is still paying the $x per month even though he made a purchase thinking he would only be paying $(x-y) per month.
What is the logic in believing that the electricity provider wouldn't have jacked up the rates during those certain times of the day, with or without the CFL bulbs? In other words, it seems likely to me that he is, in fact, paying less due to his use of the CFLs than he would be if he had stayed with the old ones.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
keiths31 wrote: Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
If you had not bought CFL bulbs, you would be paying even more. So, you are saving.
Night Strike wrote:Symmetry, here is what keiths is saying:
5 years ago, he spent $x per month on electricity bills for his businesses.
At that point, he replaced his bulbs with CFLs because of their promises to use less electricity, therefore dropping his electric bills to $(x-y) per month.
The electricity provider decided to jack-up rates during certain times of the day, so keiths is still paying the $x per month even though he made a purchase thinking he would only be paying $(x-y) per month.
This highlights the real reason for the new laws. It is not about saving the environment, it is about making sure there is more electricity available for industry, business without building more power plants.
A truly sensible environmental law would do something like simply tax all the pollution impacts, then let companies pick the cheapest.. which would also be the best environmentally. The economy would work to reduce pollution. This is not really about reducing pollution, despite the hype. (though sure, many environmentalists are happy to see this as a step in the correct direction.. though not all environmentalists by any means).
I hate those posts with a dozen quotes in them so I will try to summarize to the best of my early morning ability...
Night Strike pretty much summarized what I was trying to say. Thanks NS.
Woodruff, when the government first started pushing the CFL bulbs on us (which I am for as an energy saving measure) they made no indication they were going to change the rates and hike them up during peak times. That was a surprise move by the current provincial government. And I did state that my usage is down, but I am paying more now due to the peak rates. So yes if I had stayed with the old bulbs and equipment I would be paying more right now. I never tried to say I wouldn't be. My contention was that the government increased the cost of hydro on me and the entire province after pushing the bulbs on us. So while there is savings because my usage is down, there is no real savings because my costs are higher. In fact you could say that I am out of pocket now because of the cost to switch everything over to CFL bulbs and buy new equipment.
Player, I am a business and the new peak rates hurt my business and not help it. Ontario is in dire need of more electricity as they have closed coal fired plants and were trying to go nuclear. In my area of the province (Northwestern Ontario) we have more electricity than we know what to do with. We are on our own grid and it gets wasted because we produce more than we can use and because we aren't on the same grid as the rest of the province we can't even sell it back to the province. So up here anyway it isn't about ensuring there is enough electricity for everyone...it's about boosting revenue for the government (as all hydro is taxed by both the province and federal governments).
In summary, yes if I hadn't spent thousands switching to CFL bulbs and energy efficient equipment for all my rental units and two stores I would be paying more...but I would be paying less if the government hadn't changed to peak time rates (which is double at peak time than it is at non peak time) and still switched all my bulbs and equipment.
keiths31 wrote:Player, I am a business and the new peak rates hurt my business and not help it. Ontario is in dire need of more electricity as they have closed coal fired plants and were trying to go nuclear. In my area of the province (Northwestern Ontario) we have more electricity than we know what to do with. We are on our own grid and it gets wasted because we produce more than we can use and because we aren't on the same grid as the rest of the province we can't even sell it back to the province. So up here anyway it isn't about ensuring there is enough electricity for everyone...it's about boosting revenue for the government (as all hydro is taxed by both the province and federal governments).
I should clarify, I was talking about the US. Electricity is privatized here. And when I say "ensuring there is enough", profits are very much a part of that.
AndyDufresne wrote:The Amish have solution. We'll all just use lanterns and candles.
--Andy
We don't have to go that far, but their society could continue for centuries, exactly as it is. Ours cannot.
The issue is either we find alternatives now, while we still have energy, etc using the old methods or we wait.. and then many alternatives will already be gone.
Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.
Timminz wrote:Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.
I would agree. However, both CFL and incandescents should be taxed.. comminserate with the pollution/harm they cause. CFL lightbulbs, for example, have mercury which is highly toxic.
And, in either case, the taxes should go directly to clean up and research for safer alternatives, both. Else.. its mostly another boondoggle.
Timminz wrote:Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.
I would agree. However, both CFL and incandescents should be taxed.. comminserate with the pollution/harm they cause. CFL lightbulbs, for example, have mercury which is highly toxic.
And, in either case, the taxes should go directly to clean up and research for safer alternatives, both. Else.. its mostly another boondoggle.
Good luck getting the government to earmark the money collected for research...
And it is quite perplexing that CFL bulbs are touted as green friendly, but they contain a significant amount of mercury which isn't green friendly at all.
Timminz wrote:Why not just tax incandescent bulbs until they cost almost the same as CFL ones? Taxes are a better way to exert government control over the markets than quotas are. At least then, the market decides the best way to deal with it, based on cost, rather than just having numbers mandated centrally.
You know, that's a smoother alternative than outright prohibition. I'm still against it for my previous reasons, but that's a better idea.
Symmetry - how much do you think the mandated light bulb purchase laws cost the federal government? Did the Department of Energy have to spend additional capital to enforce these laws? How will these laws be enforced (on me)?
keiths31 wrote: Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
If you had not bought CFL bulbs, you would be paying even more. So, you are saving.
If people had kept using normal bulbs, the electric company would have continued to make their money, and more as people's usage of electronics increased.
Instead people bought CFL bulbs, and decreased their usage, which makes the electric company mad, because now they sell less power. So they need to increase their rates, to make the same amount of money. Thus, CFL bulbs increase the cost of electricity for everybody.
keiths31 wrote: Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
If you had not bought CFL bulbs, you would be paying even more. So, you are saving.
If people had kept using normal bulbs, the electric company would have continued to make their money, and more as people's usage of electronics increased.
Instead people bought CFL bulbs, and decreased their usage, which makes the electric company mad, because now they sell less power. So they need to increase their rates, to make the same amount of money. Thus, CFL bulbs increase the cost of electricity for everybody.
keiths31 wrote: Sorry...that was a bit vague. Five years ago, before I switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, my bills were about $Y a month. I have switched to CFL bulbs and high efficiency equipment, so there should be some savings and my bills should be lower. But they aren't. Because of the new billing system (where you pay more in peak times, which happens to be when I am busiest) my bills have stayed the same. My usage is down, but the cost is higher. So all the money I have spent in new bulbs and equipment has been a wash. I am using less than I did 5 years ago...but paying more.
If you had not bought CFL bulbs, you would be paying even more. So, you are saving.
If people had kept using normal bulbs, the electric company would have continued to make their money, and more as people's usage of electronics increased.
Instead people bought CFL bulbs, and decreased their usage, which makes the electric company mad, because now they sell less power. So they need to increase their rates, to make the same amount of money. Thus, CFL bulbs increase the cost of electricity for everybody.
No, you are actually wrong here.. though you do point out why there is only some reduction, not a fullscale change in electric use overall. Its a tangled mess and I cannot remember the details right now (nor do I think you really care that much), but many power companies are actually having to buy power at certain times and thus may be losing money.
However, this only goes until, as you say, they are well below capacity.
