Utility backs off on light bulbs | Th...

Utility backs off on light bulbs | The Columbus Dispatch

There are 13 comments on the Columbus Dispatch story from Dec 25, 2009, titled Utility backs off on light bulbs | The Columbus Dispatch. In it, Columbus Dispatch reports that:

FirstEnergy Corp. has proposed a new energy-efficiency plan that includes a smaller role for the energy-saving light bulbs that sparked a backlash.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Columbus Dispatch.

Flannery

United States

#1 Dec 25, 2009
Meijer has CFL's for $.99 (99 cents) each.

At the Sawmill Road store, there's an endcap along the back wall where all CFL's are on sale (along the back wall, just down the aisle from where the regular priced CFL's are located).
by law

Dublin, OH

#2 Dec 25, 2009
By - law - every - utility - must - help - customers - use - less - electricity!!!! Imagine. They made a law about this. Land of the free. Home of the brave. BS.
TimH

Columbus, OH

#3 Dec 25, 2009
... and in exchange for "helping" us save energy, every utility plans a rate increase to make up for the lost profit.
John Galt

Columbus, OH

#4 Dec 25, 2009
We're stocking up on the incandscent bulbs. When they break, they won't pollute our home with mercury like the new Chinese made bulbs.
Lain

Columbus, OH

#5 Dec 25, 2009
John Galt wrote:
We're stocking up on the incandscent bulbs. When they break, they won't pollute our home with mercury like the new Chinese made bulbs.
So based on your statement, you would rather use (waste) more electricity using an incandescent bulb and generate 2,000 times its own weight in greenhouse gases by comparison to a CFL out of some farce that your doing the planet some favor!! Ignorance at its best...What a darn shame.

a CFL can save over $45 in electricity costs over the lamp's life time compared to an incandescent lamp. Like ALL fluorescent lamps, CFLs contain mercury, but that is why you are supposed to have them recycled as it states on the label and not tossed in the trash genius.

As for "by law"...freedom does not mean the freedom to be ignorant and wasteful. Energy standards ensure that the cost for EVERYONES electricity are lower.

If you think its your RIGHT to waste than don't complain when the energy companies, whether its electricity, home heating gas or gasoline costs 4 times what it does because people such as you treat it like some constitutional right to throw in the trash. Waste only makes the power companies richer at your expense....Ignorance MUST be bliss???

Since: Aug 09

Lisle, IL

#6 Dec 25, 2009
Wait a minute, what about all the mercury in those cfl bulbs? That's an epa nightmare!
ErikW

Kenton, OH

#7 Dec 25, 2009
Hey, if Al Gore can use 221,000 killowatt-hours in one year compared to the national average of 10,656 killowatt-hours, why can't we burn extra energy on incandescants? We're paying the bill, what business is it of yours?

What's good enough for Gore is good enough for us. Or is he special?
John Galt

Columbus, OH

#8 Dec 25, 2009
Lain wrote:
<quoted text>
So based on your statement, you would rather use (waste) more electricity using an incandescent bulb and generate 2,000 times its own weight in greenhouse gases by comparison to a CFL out of some farce that your doing the planet some favor!! Ignorance at its best...What a darn shame.
a CFL can save over $45 in electricity costs over the lamp's life time compared to an incandescent lamp. Like ALL fluorescent lamps, CFLs contain mercury, but that is why you are supposed to have them recycled as it states on the label and not tossed in the trash genius.
As for "by law"...freedom does not mean the freedom to be ignorant and wasteful. Energy standards ensure that the cost for EVERYONES electricity are lower.
If you think its your RIGHT to waste than don't complain when the energy companies, whether its electricity, home heating gas or gasoline costs 4 times what it does because people such as you treat it like some constitutional right to throw in the trash. Waste only makes the power companies richer at your expense....Ignorance MUST be bliss???
Did you just get back from Kobenhavn? You know little about which you spew. The alleged energy savings you claim is false. Mr/Ms lightbulb NAZI, please have a very Merry Christmas!
workingdadof7

United States

#9 Dec 25, 2009
Lain wrote:
<quoted text>
So based on your statement, you would rather use (waste) more electricity using an incandescent bulb and generate 2,000 times its own weight in greenhouse gases by comparison to a CFL out of some farce that your doing the planet some favor!! Ignorance at its best...What a darn shame.
a CFL can save over $45 in electricity costs over the lamp's life time compared to an incandescent lamp. Like ALL fluorescent lamps, CFLs contain mercury, but that is why you are supposed to have them recycled as it states on the label and not tossed in the trash genius.
As for "by law"...freedom does not mean the freedom to be ignorant and wasteful. Energy standards ensure that the cost for EVERYONES electricity are lower.
If you think its your RIGHT to waste than don't complain when the energy companies, whether its electricity, home heating gas or gasoline costs 4 times what it does because people such as you treat it like some constitutional right to throw in the trash. Waste only makes the power companies richer at your expense....Ignorance MUST be bliss???
That's his right.Which we are loseing at a very fast pace with the hope and take my change administration.
Lain

Columbus, OH

#10 Dec 25, 2009
Uncle Buckeye wrote:
Wait a minute, what about all the mercury in those cfl bulbs? That's an epa nightmare!
There is a fractional amount in them, and as noted its only a "nightmare" for the EPA to deal with when idiots toss them in the trash rather than taking them to be recycled as they are intended. If you REALLY want to see an EPA nightmare, take a look at the destruction caused by strip mining and coal ash created from coal fired power plants. Did ya'all also stock up on ozone depleting aerosol products too when they were banned??

I suppose your all the same idiots who think that we should still have leaded gas in our cars....Or NO energy standards on your home appliances so they cost less, but use 5 times the electricity so that you can afford them, but go broke using them.....I bet you ate leaded paint chips as a child too?

Speaking of the EPA do some history checking and you will find that it was REPUBLICANS and Nixon who created it that agency back when "conservative" actually meant conserving things other than your political party.
Jason

Grove City, OH

#11 Dec 25, 2009
Uncle Buckeye wrote:
Wait a minute, what about all the mercury in those cfl bulbs? That's an epa nightmare!
I know facts play no part in a debate about the environment. Your watch battery has twice the amount of mercury as a CFL. Your computer is about ten times the amount of mercury in a CFL.

Stop repeating what Rush told you to say and start thinking for yourself.
Emily

Columbus, OH

#12 Dec 26, 2009
by law wrote:
By - law - every - utility - must - help - customers - use - less - electricity!!!! Imagine. They made a law about this. Land of the free. Home of the brave. BS.
I do not need a law to tell me to use less electricity, or gas or money. This is common sense for human beings. So, in the land of the free, the self-appointed regulators make a law to inform us that we need to use less - that is really talking down to people and an absolute BS. And we have a government agency that is run by our tax dollars to tell us (or to make such a stupid law) to tell us that we need to use less of the energies - I tell ya - only in America.
Ransome

Columbus, OH

#13 Dec 26, 2009
Sorry for FirstEnergy and the lobbying government advocates who are paid by FirstEnergy and other utility companies - sorry that this time you could not make the envisioned millions - better luck next time. People will not always be as vigilant as they were this time to thwart your million dollar deals...um...dreams.

I was talking to a long time employee of this advocacy group where-in this senior administrator said, "if I had been advising FirstEnergy, I would have asked FirstEnergy to just bill their customers without informing anything about bulbs etc., and consumers would not have noticed the 60c increase in their bill. Sneakily we could have achieved the millions. FirstEnergy blurted out and made a mess for themselves and us".

Hey, what can I say? Great government workers who are supposed to take care of the consumers?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

FirstEnergy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
double bill (Jan '14) Jan '14 H Sig 1
News FirstEnergy hydroelectric statio... (Nov '13) Nov '13 ndact 1
News Lawsuit against FirstEnergy claims wrongful ter... (May '08) Aug '13 pam 3
News Closing of Western Pennsylvania power plants le... (Jul '13) Aug '13 Joe 2
News Pipeline To Be Built Within Mile Of Nuclear Plant (Nov '12) Nov '12 Greg 1
News Nuclear Cracks Tied to Lack of Coating (Mar '12) Mar '12 Dan 1
News FirstEnergy plans job fair (Jan '08) Mar '12 Former Nuke 24
More from around the web