MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 44.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

In light of Alder King's compact fluorescent proposal...

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

In light of Alder King's compact fluorescent proposal...

Postby Mister_A_In_Madison » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:16 am

explicated here, I am wondering what the current energy use guidelines are for city-owned buildings.

Can anyone point me to a link (since nothing obvious popped out of a Google search)?
Mister_A_In_Madison
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:45 pm

Postby Bonzai444 » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:57 am

So what's next?.....an ordinance banning the use of more than 3 squares at a time of toilet paper? Give me a break!
Bonzai444
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:53 am

Postby Mister_A_In_Madison » Wed Mar 07, 2007 11:56 am

I actually do not have a huge problem with this since the government often has to seed behaviour that in the end would benefit everyone.

Of course, i am presuming that city buildings are already following standards similar (or greater) than Alder King proposes.
Mister_A_In_Madison
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1574
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 1:45 pm

Postby pulsewidth modulation » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:00 pm

Most people already use compact fluorescent bulbs in their homes/property at this point in time. Within a few years stores probably won't even stock many luminescent bulbs due to the fact that compact fluorescents will be even cheaper than they are now; if current trends continue, which I believe they will. Why would anyone purchase a luminescent for anything other than special applications due to their hue? Why does A. King want to outlaw special applications? Consumers have already decided that compact fluorescents are a better choice using their pocketbooks. They didnâ??t need a screeching 25 year old to tell them what was best for them then, they certainly don't need one now. I'm surprised A. King didn't include some kind of reference disallowing property owners from purchasing their bulbs from Wal-Mart.

Why does the city need to mandate their use? I know why! INCREASED TAX AND FINE POTENTIAL. It also "feels good" when PD sticks it to those evil home owners.

Sorry A. King, you're 4 years behind market forces. Market forces are greener than you could ever imagine.
pulsewidth modulation
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2451
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2003 11:18 pm

Postby roadkill bill » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:07 pm

Almost all government buildings use regular fluorescent bulbs - the long ones we all remember. They have always been way more efficient than incandescent bulbs.

Madison has an energy efficiency and green building committee, so I'll take a guess that they are using compact fluorescents and LEDs everywhere they can. It is so much cheaper in the long run that it's sort of a no-brainer.
roadkill bill
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1687
Joined: Thu Dec 19, 2002 12:33 am

Postby jhain » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:17 pm

I'm glad that the proposal includes exit signs. Putting aside the energy issue, exit signs should be made of LEDs simply because they don't burn out. The energy savings is a bonus.
jhain
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Oprah » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:17 pm

pulsewidth modulation wrote:Most people already use compact fluorescent bulbs in their homes/property at this point in time. Within a few years stores probably won't even stock many luminescent bulbs due to the fact that compact fluorescents will be even cheaper than they are now; if current trends continue, which I believe they will. Why would anyone purchase a luminescent for anything other than special applications due to their hue? Why does A. King want to outlaw special applications? Consumers have already decided that compact fluorescents are a better choice using their pocketbooks. They didnâ??t need a screeching 25 year old to tell them what was best for them then, they certainly don't need one now. I'm surprised A. King didn't include some kind of reference disallowing property owners from purchasing their bulbs from Wal-Mart.

Why does the city need to mandate their use? I know why! INCREASED TAX AND FINE POTENTIAL. It also "feels good" when PD sticks it to those evil home owners.

Sorry A. King, you're 4 years behind market forces. Market forces are greener than you could ever imagine.


Actually, most households do not use CFLs, though the market share has been increasing at an increasing rate over the past 5 years. The rate of growth of CFL market share has been accelerated significantly through the efforts of energy efficiency programs, not purely by market forces.

In the near-term, energy efficiency programs like ENERGY STAR Change-A-Light, offered here in WI through Focus on Energy, will still be needed to ensure that the market's momentum toward CFLs is maintained and to ensure permanent tranformation of the market witin the next decade.

By no means is the current market for lighting tranformed.
Oprah
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 3:20 pm
Location: On the Down Low

Postby jjoyce » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:20 pm

You know who does use CFLs, and militantly so? Wal-Mart. The city is less progressive than Wal-Mart.

And my house, where I went on a CFL binge just last week. The problem is that it requires a significant outlay of cash.
jjoyce
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 12168
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 4:48 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby spanky » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:27 pm

jjoyce wrote:You know who does use CFLs, and militantly so? Wal-Mart. The city is less progressive than Wal-Mart.


Wal Mart, actually also uses day-lighting (via massive quantities of skylights) to reduce energy usage sunup to sundown.

More a testament to the efficiencies and cost savings of these systems than any sort of political persuasion I assure you.
spanky
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:57 am

Postby Bruno » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:29 pm

On a somewhat related note, if anyone was wondering, the colored compact fluorescents you can get at Menards or probably some other places kick ass for party lighting :)
Bruno
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:32 pm
Location: Sector 7G

Postby spanky » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:35 pm

Incandescent exit signs burn out more faster and need frequent maintenance, he said, and also use a lot of energy. LED exit signs will last longer and lessen energy consumption, he said.


More faster?
spanky
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 11:57 am

Postby jhain » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:38 pm

Bruno wrote:On a somewhat related note, if anyone was wondering, the colored compact fluorescents you can get at Menards or probably some other places kick ass for party lighting :)


We had one of their black lights and it certainly had a "mood."
jhain
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Bonzai444 » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:51 pm

You guys are all missing the point. Why should government be putting mandates out there on which kind of light bulbs lanlords have to use? It's absolutely ridiculous. Shouldn't that be left up to the lanlord? What's next?
Bonzai444
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 149
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:53 am

Postby jhain » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:00 pm

Bonzai444 wrote:You guys are all missing the point. Why should government be putting mandates out there on which kind of light bulbs lanlords have to use? It's absolutely ridiculous. Shouldn't that be left up to the lanlord? What's next?


I accept that govt can create rules (mandates) that govern how we conduct business. I'm glad there are laws about what toxins can be dumped into our air and water and this seems about the same. Since the techonology exists why allow people to use older / dirty bulbs? This will have a positive impact on our air quality.
jhain
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2001 7:38 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Postby Peanutbutter » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:04 pm

Bonzai444 wrote:Shouldn't that be left up to the lanlord? What's next?


"Smoking banned in rental properties" is the next surprise the landlords have in store for them. Expect this idea to be floated soon after the spring election.

The landlords need to understand, it isn't really their property. The city just lets them take care of it, collect the rent & manage the small details.
Peanutbutter
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2005 11:54 am

Next

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar