Efficient lighting as a return on investment

A lot of people say, oh man, that LED bulb is really expensive, I don't know if it's worth it. It's a valid concern, but the other part of it is, you're going to start saving money on electricity the very first month you start using it.

There's an obvious parallel to this. If you put $1,000 in say a certificate of deposit (CD), you'd start earning interest on it in the very first month as well. Your money would be locked up in the length of the term (unless you wanted to take a penalty for early withdrawal), but at least that money would be invested in something.

Now in a sense, this is exactly the same effect as investing in some efficient lighting. You put some amount of money into an investment, saying a bunch of LED bulbs for your home. You make some money on it, namely the electricity you're not having to pay for. You're not exactly being paid in the form of a check, but rather paid in the savings you're not having to pay out each month. The effect on your bottom line is exactly the same.

The one difference between the two investments is that at the end of the life of your bulb, you don't get the money back (like you would in a CD). But still, we can use financial tools to estimate our return on our investment on a principal we will not get back.

I was using this with a friend who was balking at an $18 bulb cost. They were 12-watt LEDs that would replace a 75-watt unit. They're for a room he uses quite frequently (probably 3-4 hours a day most every day). The bulbs is expected to last 25,000 hours.

I pointed out that at 3 hours a day, the annual savings of that electricity is about $9.00 per bulb. That's a 50% return on investment every year the bulb will be in use versus an incandescent bulb. They're expected to last about 22.8 years, so we can amortize that cost of $18 over the 22.8 year span, say $1 a year (to round it up), so you save $9 a year in electricity, but your principal declines by $1, or about $8 return on your investment.

That's a return of 44% per year, every year for the next 23 years. And not only is it a good investment, it's practically a sure thing. Of course bulbs can break over time, but even if you use it for 2 years, the bulb pays for itself, and then it's paying you every year after that. (Most LED bulbs are guaranteed for at least 3-5 years, so they are guaranteed by the company for at least that long.)

Mind you, I didn't even include other costs such as bulb costs. If an incandescent bulb costs $2 and lasts 2,000 hours (for example's sake), and the LED bulb lasts 25,000 hours, that means it would need to be replaced 13 times in the LED bulb's lifetime, or costing $26 in bulbs alone, ignoring electricity costs. That brings your ROI up to about 52%.

Obviously this is just an example. But if we stop just looking at the initial cost and ask ourselves, how can I put my money to work, it makes clear that efficient lighting isn't just saving money, it's a good investment. Actually, it's a fantastic investment. Because if you can find any other investment that pays that much with that much certainty, please, do let all of us know!

Joe's review of LED A-style "standard" bulbs

I had replaced several standard light bulbs in my house with LEDs. Cost wise, LEDs don't have a huge benefit over CFLs. They often do cost less over the lifetime of the bulb, but we're talking a few bucks. For example, I estimate a CREE 9.5 watt LED light would cost about $31.11 in electricity over its lifetime, versus $42.58 for a 13 watt CFL. That's a $11.46 savings, but considering the bulbs cost about $8-9 more than the CFLs, it would take you a long time to recoup that cost. Their costs are continuing to come down dramatically though and that may make them more attractive in more cases.

They do have several benefits CFLs don't. Of course, they don't have any mercury, so they're safer that way. Many are dimmable, so if dimming is important to you, you can actually save a lot more in electricity than CFLs if you actually dim them. They are far, far, far more durable if you need to switch them on and off frequently. We've had CFL bulbs that were rated for 10,000 hours only to die after about a year of use (roughly 1,000 hours or so) simply because they were frequently turned on and off. CFLs just aren't designed for that. LEDs on the other hand are designed to be switched on and off very frequently, thousands of times a second. Of course you're not going to do that, but still, if you're frequently turning on and off the entrance hallway, you won't have to replace that expensive CFL so often if you use an LED bulb.

And if you either have to change a bulb frequently or it's exceeding difficult to replace (in a high ceiling, for example), their 25,000 hour life can make them an attractive. That's 22.8 years at an average of 3 hours a day, but if you have them on all night, that's 5.7 years at 12 hours a day. Note that is the mean time they'll fail. As LEDs will fade in luminosity over time, "failure" is considered to be when they'll reach 70% of their original brightness. They will continue to work, but dimmer than their original spec.

There's quite a number of 40 and 60 watt replacement LED bulbs. There are some 75 watt and one or two 100 watt LED replacement bulbs too, but they are even more on the expensive side. But like the 60 watt versions, those are coming down in price as well. In addition, LEDs are instantly (or at least almost instantly) on and instantly at full brightness. Many CFLs have vastly improved in this respect, but it still can be annoying. Some LEDs do have a short pause before turning on, anywhere from a small fraction to a full second. Most of the time it doesn't make a huge difference. Once they're on, they're fully bright.

I only reviewed "soft" light LED bulbs, either 2700K ("soft" white) or 3000K ("warm" white). These colors are the closest to your traditional incandescent bulb. Note that a lot of manufacturers make "cool" or "daylight" bulbs that are 4000-6000K. Those bulbs are the most efficient as they come close to a more "pure" white, but a lot of people don't like the color, outside of a bright work station.

Here's a few of my favorite bulbs, and a few that I either didn't like or wouldn't buy again.



CREE 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) A19 Dimmable LED Light Bulb

Joe says: Run and get these!

This is by far my favorite. It's pretty much a drop-in replacement for most light bulbs. It has a round shape that a lamp shade can easily rest on. It has no hum, and dims down quite well (probably about 20-25%). We noticed no hum when dimmed, even using a non-LED (but fairly modern) dimmer. At 9.5 watts for 800 lumens, it's one of the most efficient LED bulbs out there. I've had really good results with the down light. (Many LEDs have a large base that cast a shadow underneath it.) They make 40, 75 and 100 watt versions as well. Home Depot just dropped their price on the 60-watt replacement version to $9.97, $15.97 for the 75-watt replacement version. They also just introduced a 100-watt version for $19.97, but it's not yet widely available. It's hard to find a bulb that cheap that works this well.

The only thing I didn't like on it was that you can actually see the LEDs in it. The bulb is frosted, but not terribly so. Frosted glass does absorb some of the light, so I'm sure this was to make the bulb more efficient at the tradeoff of an aesthetic. It's no big deal if you have it under a lamp shade or in a frosted glass. Also, there is a very noticeable dark spot on the top of the bulb. Not a big deal, but slightly annoying.

It's rated at 2700K for color, but it's slightly "cool"er than that. CREE does make a softer "TW" (true white) version, but at 13.5 watts, it's far less efficient, but not that much softer white. I wouldn't recommend that again. For a softer version, check out the Feit one I review below.



Ikea's LEDARE LED bulb E26, globe opal

Joe says: Softest light, least expensive, but not so bright.

This is actually a bulb I didn't want to like at first. For one thing, it's not the most efficient. It's 10 watts for only 600 lumens, about 25% dimmer than your standard 60 watt, even though it's advertised as such. When dimmed, I did notice a slightest hum, but you practically have to have your ear next to it to hear it. It only dims down to about 40%.

But I came to love the light. It's by far the softest light of any of them I've tested. The brightness isn't an issue of where I used it. I use in in my nightstand, and I put a dimmer on it. And it's only $7.49, so it's really inexpensive. They also make a 400 lumen version (roughly a 40 watt equivalent) that's not dimmable for only $4.49 and uses only 6.3 watts. It has the same fantastic light.



Philips SlimStyle 60W Equivalent Soft White (2700K) A19 Dimmable LED Light Bulb

Joe says: Hold off on these, for the most part.

I really wanted to like this one. Philips has made some really awesome quality LED bulbs, although you pay more for such quality. I got the impression this one was an attempt to make a more inexpensive bulb and resolve some of the issues with other LED bulbs. For one, you'll note its odd shape. The reasoning was that instead of placing the LEDs in a horizontal circle outward, they would put it in a vertical circle. That would eliminate much of the problems with downward light. Plus, by placing the LEDs far from the electronics (a big source of heat), it would ameliorate the need for a large (and expensive) heat sink. Its shape is also great for more slender units, so the light near the glass isn't exceptionally brighter than towards the outside. And at 10.5 watts, it's one of the more efficient bulbs out there. And at $9.97, pretty inexpensive.

I really liked the light. It was other things I had an issue with. First off, there is a real noticeable hum to it. It's memorable of some CFLs. And of course if your light needs multiple bulbs, that hum increases by a multiple of those bulbs. It's not terribly loud. But it is terribly annoying. I put four of them in a friend's bathroom, and even a few feet away, it's real noticeable when you turn it on and off. A couple attempts at dimming them even made it noisier. (Luckily I didn't need dimming for this application.)

I eagerly await an improvement of this one. When a newer version sans the hum comes out, I will gladly replace these with them and relegate the old ones to a place where individually the buzz won't be such a bother.



Feit Electric 13.5W Dimmable A19 Household LED Light Bulbs

Joe says: Soft light, bright, great dimming, but not so efficient

They were $10.97 at our local Costco, and some places subsidize them down to $8. I love the light on them. They're probably somewhere between the CREE and the IKEA bulbs in the softness scale. They dim fairly well, but we noticed a very quiet hum when they do. (It could just be the dimmer we had them on.) They do dim down to about 20% and have a similar dimming profile to incandescents.

They have a couple drawbacks. For one, there is a rather noticeable shadow cast below it. It doesn't project down very well. Nor does it project up all that well either. Also, this was by far the heaviest standard bulb I reviewed. The package says 9.6 ounces, compared to 4-5 ounces for the others. It's odd shape might not work so well either. And at 13.5 watts, it's one of the least efficient as well. (By comparison, most 60 watt replacement CFL bulbs are 13 watts.) But if light color and dimming is important to you, this might be a good fit.



Feit Electric 8W Dimmable Decorative Globe LED Light Bulb

Joe says: Bright light, cooler, but great for bathrooms

My local Costco sells 3-packs of these for $19.99, or about $6.66 each. At 500 lumens, they're intended to be a 40-watt bulb replacement. In practice, they're slightly brighter than that. They're more of a cooler light, nameplated at 3000K but probably slightly cooler than that. I've found they work very well in bathrooms, where you like a brighter light, but need multiple bulbs. Since they're LED, they work well in fan fixtures. (LEDs tend to work better in the presence of vibration, like with fans or garage door openers.) They are dimmable. They don't cast their light back very well, but some fixtures that's less of an issue. If you need a brighter light but multiple 40 watt bulbs, this one is a good fit for that.

There were a couple other I wanted to check out but didn't review. Philips has a couple different versions. They tended to be more expensive. I've had good experience with the light on them on an older version, but like I said, I've had just as good an experience with others. (The original ones I tried were subsidized by the local power company.)

------------------------------------

UPDATE (7/28/14):' The CREE 100 watt version of their A19 bulb (actually A21, somewhat larger than the A19 versions) is now widely available.

Philips SlimStyle 60W Equivalent are now $8.97 at Home Depot.

The IKEA 400 and 600 lumen bulbs are now both $4.49. A steal!

Costco's FEIT 800 lumen bulbs are now widely available at $8.97.

Update on LEDs

I helped "green" the houses of my sister and a couple friends. It's been a few years since I greened my own place, and there's been a huge improvement in a lot of lighting technologies. LEDs have become very reasonably priced, especially considering how efficient they are and how long they last.

First off, two things to look closely at are color and lumens. LEDs are typically a very pure white. Like purified water, we're not used to consuming it in its purest form. Most people prefer a softer light. Color is measured in Kelvin or K. Higher numbers (4000-6000K) are closer to sunlight and typically aren't used unless you need a pure white light. Most households use a 2700K (the "softest" light, most typically used for gentle lighting like bedrooms and living rooms) or 3000K (a "warm" white, slightly brighter used in kitchens and bathrooms). LEDs try to get close to a soft light but since LEDs run white, they may be a bit brighter than you're used to. The difference between 2700K and 3000K may be more subtle than their incandescent versions.

The other thing to look closely at is lumens. Lumens is the measurement of a bulb's brightness. Many bulbs (both CFL and LED) use "watt equivalents" to give the user an idea of what the rough equivalent incandescent bulb would be. The issue is that this number is subjective. Even amongst incandescent lights, two bulbs with the same wattage can have a different lumens. Some 40 watt bulbs can be as low as 300 lumens or as high as 500. Because the brighter a bulb is, the more LEDs have to go into it, that means it costs more to manufacture. So some manufacturers will try and pass a lower brightness bulb as a higher wattage equivalent. Look at the lumens and you can compare apples and apples.

LED have some significant advantages over CFLs. For one, they are more likely to be dimmable, or at least not be that much more expensive for the dimmable version. Some may have issues with older dimmers, but modern dimmers work (those manufactured in the last 10 years) better, or best yet, buy a dimmer specifically made for LEDs. (They'll work better with dimmable CFLs as well. We had issues with dimmable CFLs until we put it on a dimmer built for such.)

Secondly, LEDs are instant on and instantly bright. There is no waiting time for it to get bright. There may be the slightest pause when first turning on, but it's typically less than a second.

Unlike CFLs, they also work in very cold environments. That can make them a good power-efficient substitute for an outdoor light in extremely cold environments. (Most CFLs will start down to about 0 degrees and may take longer to get bright but will work). They don't, however, work in extremely hot environments. Many are not rated for unventilated enclosures. Check the label to see if it's rated for enclosures first before using in such.

I've noticed that the light from one CFL to another isn't always consistent, even when new, so when using them side by side, slight differences may be noticeable. LEDs work better if you need absolute consistency (within a brand and model, of course).

They are the most efficient technology as well. They're typically 10-25% more efficient than CFLs, and up to 83% more efficient than incandescents. They also last the longest, anywhere from 25,000-50,000 hours. That's 22-45 years assuming 3 hours a day, but in applications where they are on 8-12 hours a day (such as offices), that's 6-15 years. Cities are now using them for street lighting because high-pressure sodium lights have to be replaced every 18 months, whereas LEDs are only every 7 years, vastly reducing maintenance time as well as saving money in energy costs.

They are also mercury free. Modern CFLs have an absolute minute amount of them (typically 2-4mg or less), but still some people are concerned about them, should they be disposed of improperly.

The other area that is LEDs individually tend to be quite directional. They can be diffused with smoked glass and such, but this can actually be an advantage. For that reason, LEDs tend to work well for flood and spot lighting. For another reason, flood and spot lights tend to be expensive on their own. A spot incandescent or halogen light bulb alone can cost $4-9, and it'll only last about 1,000-2,000 hours, meaning you'll have to replace it in a year with normal use. Between the bulb costs and the electricity savings, LED flood lights can pay for themselves within about a year. I've also noticed that when replacing directional bulbs (like flood lights), you don't necessarily need as many lumens to achieve the same lighting, because the directionality of LEDs mean fewer lumens more concentrated equal the same lighting effect. Buy one to check if it'll work in your application before replacing all of them.

Finally, LEDs tend to work well in the presence of vibration. Both incandescent (particularly those not rated for "rough duty") and CFLs work poorly in areas with fans (like an exhaust fan/light in a bathroom) or vibrations like garage doors.

That's not to say they don't have downsides. The cost can be quite high. Some energy companies subsidize them to encourage people to switch, but without subsidies, they can retail for $10-20 and up. The good news is hopefully you'll never need to replace them. They also don't work in all dimmers, particularly older ones, like those manufactured over 10 years ago.

Also, they tend to be sensitive to high heat. Some people have had issues with using flood lights in insulated canisters or in enclosures. Check if they're enclosure safe before using in such an application.

In most cases, if you can use a CFL, use a CFL. Particularly in more marginal applications (rooms that are not on often, like closets), your break-even point is going to be in the years, not months. Some people like the lights of an LED better, but there's clearly an additional cost to them. With some bulbs like A19s, the cost may not be that much more expensive to warrant the advantages (instant on, dimmable, better quality light), and obviously the more you use the lights, the quicker the payback will be. But if the benefits of an LED get you to use them instead of an incandescent, it's definitely worth checking out.

The sexist argument against marriage equality

There's a code that the opponents of same-sex marriage use, that, at even just below the surface, should offend almost anyone with a modern sensibility. They argue that a family is best when marriage is a man and a woman. Beyond the "tradition" argument (which is saying "this is the way it's always been, this is the way it should always be", which basically saying "it's right just because it is," just as slavery was once tradition, or women not having the right to vote was once tradition), they argue that a family is raised best when it has a mother and a father.

First off, marriage is not for procreation. Nowhere on the marriage license do you sign a contract to say you will produce children. No one is given a fertility test to make sure they can have children before marriage, and who doesn't swoon when an elderly couple finds each other and marry each other long after their child-rearing years?

And for those couples who do have children, who is to say to the estimated one million children that are being raised by couples in a same sex relationship, you don't deserve to have married parents? I would think all children would benefit from the stability of marriage. Few would argue that.

No, there's a deeper sexism to this. Why do parents have to be one male and one female? Surely to create a child, you do need certain physical parts, but as I mentioned previously, one million children were produced by other means. So beyond creating children, what is it?

The argument is that a child deserves a mother and a father. And herein lies the subtext. So the idea is that there must be a woman to play the part of the mother and a male to play the part of a father. The subtext is that a woman should play a certain role, i.e., cooks and cleans and changes the diapers, and the man should play a certain role, i.e., who goes out and earns the living, and comes home to expect dinner on the table. After all, if the woman started doing father's work, like going out and earning a living and coming home to find her hubby already had dinner on the table, then why couldn't you have a lesbian couple where a woman stayed at home at took care of the kids and the other went out and earned a living and coming home to find dinner on the table? And that would just be weird, no?

The answer is, that's actually the best way to do it. Studies have shown that heterosexual couples do best when they don't assume such gender roles, and that the role of parents are divided evenly between the two along areas of interest, not necessarily along lines of gender. And since same sex couples don't have such predefined roles, they tend to split their roles along where they're most comfortable, and tend to be even more successful at it than heterosexual couples.

Can you just imagine the scene otherwise?

A woman walks into the nursery. She finds her husband changing the baby's diaper.

"What are you doing?" she asks, looking puzzled.

"Oh, you were busy, so I'm changing the baby's diaper?"

"You're what? That's my job."

"Excuse me?"

"Well, marriage is between a man and a woman."

"Right."

"And a child needs a father and a mother."

"Right." He's trying to figure out where she's going with this.

Showing with her hands on one side, "Well, so a man is needed to do the role of the father, " and moving her hands to the other side, "and a woman is needed to do the role of the mother."

The man pauses for a second before it hits him. "Oh my god. I'm destroying marriage! What do I do?" he asks.

"I don't know... do something manly!"

"Uh, uh, get in the kitchen and make me something to eat!" he points the way out.

"Okay!" she runs out. Then runs back in, looking at the baby. "Uh, I'll change the...."

"Um, I'll go mow the lawn or something," and he walks out.

------

No, the answer is, it doesn't take a man and a woman to raise a family. Just love. And as long as someone takes out the garbage, does it really matter who?

Why Iowa is already protecting marriage

When discussing the weak arguments against same sex marriage, opponents often point to the fact that in countries that do support same sex marriage, the number of heterosexual couples that are cohabitating but not married increased. They make the weak argument that this was caused by same sex marriage.

In essence, they see a relationship between events X and Y, and therefore X causes Y. The argument is that because same sex marriage was allowed, that led to more heterosexual couples eschewing marriage, so X causes Y. Of course, they never give an explanation of what mechanism two guys getting married may cause to a man and a woman down the street not to get married.

I will give you a detailed explanation of that mechanism.

In a relationship between X and Y, there are three possible reasons for it: X causes Y, Y causes X, or some other factor causes X and Y. Indeed, in this case, some other factor is causing both.

We're actually starting to see the effects of it in our country, even though in same sex marriage is illegal in all but a handful of states. You see, no country or state merely wakes up one day and says "Oh, let's allow same sex marriage." It's typically a long drawn out process. First, they start realizing gays are people too and start to give them equal protections. Then they realize same sex couples are people too and they should deserve rights too. But not marriage. So they start to hand them rights piecemeal, say the right to see their partner in the hospital. And then slowly they add in more rights after that. And maybe after some long drawn out period, same sex marriage.

And therein lies the problem. Essentially, they start to develop this "marriage lite". Most places that do this reserve that right only to same sex couples. But sometimes not. But some of the rights that were traditionally granted only to married couples may be opened up to just anyone, for fear of a right-wing backlash that the government might be favoring gay people, or perhaps not to be in violation of the Defense of (inequal) Marriage Act. For example, the FDIC recently revised their rules that trust insurance be only for "qualifying" family members (which included spouses). To open that insurance to same sex partners, they had to open it to anyone a person designates. Another instance of "marriage lite" was created.

And eventually, this "marriage lite" gets extended to heterosexual couples. And if heterosexuals can have many of the rights of marriage without marriage, many will indeed take it.

Now say you have a case like Iowa. Same sex couples in Iowa previously had almost no rights. They were for most purposes "strangers under the law." Then the courts came in and decided they could get married. They never had time to create a "marriage lite" in Iowa. If straight couples want the rights of marriage, they have to get married. End of story.

Now many would argue this was disruptive, that it wasn't through the legislature and it wasn't the will of the people. But there's a huge benefit to it too: There's nothing to diminish heterosexual marriage either. Had they gone through the legislature, they probably would have needed to create this "marriage lite" and have the same problems the other states do.

My point being that same sex marriage doesn't diminish heterosexual marriage. Treating same sex couples as less than equal does. Same sex marriage isn't even in the equation. In fact, the process of creating a "marriage lite" is what does it. Same sex marriage merely often comes after.

So if you want to "protect marriage", don't treat anyone as less that equal. If you do, we are all harmed.

Some of my best friends...

Let me start this out with saying, some of my best friends are, well, uh, Mormon. It's a pretty controversial thing to say these days, what with the bad flak they've been getting lately. Not entirely undeserved, mind you.

Having said that, today is now two weeks since the election. I still have problems sleeping at night. I still find myself dwelling on it, doing things like washing my hair twice or forgetting to shave. It's the little things.

Yes, I'm deeply disappointed at the black vote, that Free at Last, Free at Last, Thank God almighty we (but not you) are free at last.

And that being said, I lay the blame very much on the Mormons. Not all Mormons, or even all their followers, of course, but definitely the church itself.

And let me say as well, they are completely allowed to express their beliefs. What they do in the ballot box is entirely between them and the ballot box.

Having said that, they completely crossed a line. And let me put this extremely succinctly: When you donate to a campaign, you cross the line from voting to campaigning. You're not merely expressing your beliefs, but attempting to influence others.

Again, there's nothing wrong with that. But I have every right not to like it either. In fact, the Yes on 8 campaign intended to do exactly that, sending out letters to No on 8 supporters threatening to extort them and publish their names on their web site if they did not donate at least as much to the Yes effort. Of course, those records are already public, so the effort failed.

So don't get all high and mighty with me when you're offended that we're attempting to influence you. It was your idea, and turnabout is fair play.

No, what really burns me is the fact that they realized late in the game that if things kept going the way they were going, they would lose. Fighting fair wasn't winning. They had to get ugly.

And ugly they got.

For here in California, they realized there was a huge middle. A set of people that didn't care. In fact, several of my friends are opposed to same sex marriage because of their religious beliefs. But as far as what other people do, that's they're own business.

As Wanda Sykes puts it, if you don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married.

So what burns me is that the Mormon church was called in to save the day, to make sure Proposition 8 passed at any costs. The extortion tactics were just the beginning. They blatantly told people they would teach gay marriage in schools. (Mind you they don't teach marriage at all in schools.) They said they would take away tax exemptions to churches, or force them to marry same sex couples in churches, or that free speech would become hate speech. All lies.

If that's not bearing false witness, I have no idea what is.

And that's why we're mad. If they didn't lie, they wouldn't have won, and because they lied, my rights were taken away.

I am completely fine with people voting with their beliefs. But once they lie, cheat or steal in order to do it, that doesn't seem to me to be very Christian.

And like the irony of the many blacks voting against civil rights, Brigham Young once argued it was no business of the government defining marriage for the church. Apparently now his followers believe it is the business of the church to define marriage for the government.

The Tyranny of the Majority

I met my partner Dan at a rugby fundraiser one year ago. We had our first date on November 3, 2007, and one year later we're still together. We celebrated our one year anniversary on Monday, and we hope for many more. We had the opportunity to get married, but I did not want just a quick marriage. I wanted to stand before my friends and family and do it right. That's just how I was raised.

Then on Tuesday, came the election. I walked down to my election place, took my ballot and first marked "No" on Proposition 8. Then I turned back to the first page and cast my vote for Barack Obama. Perhaps I was fearful that should something happen in the middle of choosing from the 34 propositions on the ballot, my votes against the measure and for the president could at least be counted.

No one ever said giving equal rights was a popularity contest. The Little Rock Nine, who were nine black students who were to be integrated into an all white school, they had to be escorted to school by the National Guard. The governor himself literally stood in their way.

At one time, the rights to marry the partner of your choice had been even more confined, afforded to only those who had chosen a partner of their own race. Even then, the bible was cited, that, angry at the tower of Babel, God had separated the races across the Earth. Surely, he wanted them to stay that way. Few would agree now. But at the time, 96% of whites agreed to that.

But apparently unlike so many of those who fought for the civil rights of other minorities, we must wait for discrimination to sit down before others to may stand up.

Tuesday was by far a historic day. We elected a black man president. We chose to give farm animals more rights. And we voted to take rights away from gay people.

Thousands and thousands of Californians had their rights removed. With every anniversary a straight couple celebrates, there are thousands of couples had theirs taken away.

I am very happy for the thousands of couples who did marry in the brief time they could. Many were together 10, 15, 20, 25 years and more. It would be difficult to argue that they would do anything but add to the institution of marriage.

And so we're back to the way it was one year ago. When Dan and I met, "partner" was the highest point our relationship could reach. And then we were granted more. I saw so many of my friends not only get married, but at least as many get into long term relationships, many (including myself) who had spent far more time single than coupled, because of the examples set before us, showing us that there was more out there for us. When not just a few, but an entire community celebrates your committed relationship, aren't we all strengthened?

And so yesterday became a new anniversary. A very dark one. A day when the tyranny of the majority spoke. A few very brave people risked their political lives so we could get to this point. All to be cast aside by the many who have never had an entire state decide whether or not they could get married.

Imagine in 1954 if the people of the country changed the constitution so those nine students had to go back to their black schools, or banning interracial marriage. Based on polls, both would have passed handily. One of our nation's finest moments would have turned into one of nation's biggest regrets.

Those couples who have been together 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years and more had their chance. But what about those who have not yet been together 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 years and more? Will the thousands of Californians who rights were taken away even want to, without that to look forward to?

Eventually, I am confident we shall prevail. The trend is moving our way.

Barack Obama was born seven years after the Little Rock Nine. Today he is president. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the assassination of Harvey Milk, perhaps those who were born in the years after will have similar opportunities before them. Or will we find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children's children about a time in America, back in the day, when marriage was afforded to all? Or yet, when our children ask, which side will we say we were on?

It is truly in my heart that those who voted for proposition 8 voted on the side of bigotry. Those of us who voted against it will have voted on the side of history.

We may have lost the battle, but we will win the war. If Proposition 8 was a casualty, it will be a martyr, and the anniversary of the day it was passed will be remembered, for the thousands of Californians who will not be able to celebrate their own anniversary. And for our supporters, every wedding and every anniversary is a reminder of the harmed institution in which they partake, sullied by discrimination. They are periodic reminders of the rights they enjoy, the rights of which thousands of Californians are not allowed to partake in. And together, we will not stop until this ugly stain upon our history is removed from the books. If it takes a generation, it will be removed.

So Dan and I are still partners. But we will be able to get married in our lifetimes. It may take time, but history will eventually go our way. I echo our President-Elect Obama when I say, "The road ahead will be long, our climb will be steep. We may not get there in one year, or even in one term, but America I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there."

Yes we can.

Joe Carlin

Here we go again

Okay, this time, it's personal. :-)

My recently finished up my contract with the State Bar. I have another contract I'm working on, but it's on a little hiatus as the project manager is on maternity leave. (Okay, technically his wife had the baby, but he's home for a couple weeks bonding.) Which is all well and good, because, man did I need the time to get things back in order!

So I woke up this morning on day 2 of No Particular Place to Go, and I was thinking, besides all those things I really should do, is there anything I want to do while I have the time?

And then I stated to think about the day and such, and then I thought, oh, Tuesday! I want to go down to City Hall on Tuesday. Not to get married silly, to watch all those happy couple do exactly that.

You see, I was here during the famous Valentine's Day wedding marathon of 2004, but of course like most stiffs, I was working. I remember vividly the immense joy and happiness that permeated throughout San Francisco as happy couples drove through the streets joyously proclaimed "Just Married". This time, wow, I could actually see it for myself.

And I remember something else that hit me. One day, I could actually get married myself.

For someone who's always had the privilege, you have no idea what it's like not to be able to. Not even having the option. Granted, I was more than a little hesitant when the court decision came down. After all, Dan and I have only been dating a few months! (Trust me, I am not yet ready to get married! I'm just barely getting used to the idea that I even can!) Which brings me to my next point. Now I can.

You see, when it's never an option, you never have that to aspire to. You think, oh, maybe I'll meet someone and we'll settle down and get a place together and have 2.3 pets and grow old together and such. (Mind you, it's not the only option. My friend Wayne and I have a pact that if we retire and we're still single, we're moving to Miami and getting a houseboy named Carlos. Just to clean the pool, silly.) But married? To stand in front of my friends and family and God and everyone and say, I take you to be my lawfully wedding husband, to have and to hold, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, even if you cruise that cute cub who just started working at Starbucks (hey, I'm not gonna take the script word for word!). No, it hadn't crossed my mind.

Until now. And I'm only now starting to realize how powerful that is. I've known scores of same-sex couples who've "tied the knot" in civil ceremonies, declared themselves "partners for life", and I don't mean to diminish that. But seriously, to say, this is my husband, and have it mean everything it means, that's completely different. It's a legal recognition, at least within the state bounds of California or Massachusetts (and let's face it, I honestly don't care if those bastards in West Virginia ever acknowledge it), but also in New York, most anywhere in the European Union, South Africa, and dotted little archipelagos all over he world. It means something not only to you, but to them.

And therein lies the rub. You now have that to aspire to.

I was reading the other day that they expected a major sea change in the lifestyles of gay men. I completely believe it. And it doesn't mean we're all going to get married. But it does mean it's a whole lot more acceptable to be in a relationship. Maybe to "whore" out a bit less. To be less promiscuous. To go out to bars even with your partner (or your boyfriend) and hang out with other couples, rather than just to pick someone up. I've seen it myself in San Francisco, the famous land of the "candy store", where you could go home with someone different every night if you want to.

Just now, maybe a little bit less, people don't want to. Man, that's power.

Saving the planet five minutes at a time

One of the things I recently found out about Microsoft Word 2007 was that Microsoft decided to change the default margins from 1.25 inches to 1 inch. They estimated that they're probably saving a small forest of trees by increasing the default margins, and thereby increasing the usable area of the page, thereby hopefully using fewer pages.

Likewise, there's a real simple thing that you can do to save a lot of power. Set your monitor to power off after five minutes.

Back in the 1980s, screen savers were created prevent burn in. Later on, power options were included to actually power the monitor off. However, in the old CRT style monitors, there was a concern that turning the monitor on and off too many cycles would cause them to fail. In fact I know of some instances where this did happen. All of us old-timers can probably remember the "thunk" our monitors made when we turned them on and off. So the default was typically set to 30 minutes.

Then again, when was the last time you saw a CRT monitor? Now, LCD monitors are pretty much de rigeur, and I doubt you could even find one in a Best Buy these days. (Manufacturers love the reduced shipping costs of the lighter, smaller LCDs.)

The problem is, most computers are still set to power off monitors after 20-30 minutes. (The risk of burn in on LCDs is also almost nil, unless you have the same image up for weeks at a time.) Not only are LCD monitors much more power efficient, but they do not "thunk" when you turn them on or off. That's because there is no huge surge of power to get those electrons firing. In fact, you can cycle them on and off orders of magnitude more times without failing. I've worked in IT with hundreds of users of LCD monitors, and not known one to fail under these circumstances. I myself have had the same monitor for about 5 years, and it's still working as well as it did the day I got it. (It's a nice 17", and while I would probably like a bigger one, it's still a trooper working just fine.) More than likely you'll upgrade your monitor before it fails. But even then, I'm still on the same monitor from two computers ago, and have no immediate plans to upgrade.

So where am I going with this? Change your monitor to power off to after only five minutes. That's long enough so it won't just go off if you're reading sfgate, but quick enough that if you run into a meeting or get talking to your coworker, it'll shut off by itself quite quickly, and thus save power.

On PCs, right-click on your desktop. Click personalize or properties. You'll have an option to switch the screen saver. While you're at it, turn any screen saver to blank. (Since we're just going straight to power off, any screen savers running just use a bit more CPU time.) There's typically a power settings option. Select Change Plan Settings for your current selected plan and set the monitor to turn off after five minutes. Then save.

Better yet, lobby your IT department to change the default time to power off monitors from 20 to 10 minutes. 10 minutes are enough of a change by default that few people would mind (they can set to 5 minutes if they're more generous), but large enough to see a great savings. At my current client, we estimated we'll save hundreds of dollars a month in electrical costs after the next rollout, spreading those savings over hundreds of monitors. (Not to mention prevent a few tons of CO2 a year from entering the atmosphere.)

While you're at it, Vista has an option to soft power down after so many minutes. While you're computer is running, you can have it also donate your unused CPU time to worthy computing projects, such as finding drugs against HIV and cancer, or predicting the effects of global warming. Go to www.worldcommunitygrid.org and download the agent. By default, it runs at the lowest priority so any applications you're working on have priority and you usually don't notice its running. (On a newer computer, even a power user like me rarely notices.) Otherwise, you can have it set to only run when idle, or manually say "sleep" if you're doing something really intensive for awhile, then wake up after a set period (typically an hour).

That way you can reduce the amount of power your computer uses, and get the most use out of it for the time it is on!

Saving the planet one CFL at a time

The other day the light in my entry way went out. I went to go replace it, and realizing it had been quite some time since I had last replaced it, I was surprised to remove the cover and find a CFL. I had completely forgotten I put one there. For the longest time, I had thought that it was far too small for a CFL, and thought I had an incandescent bulb in there. Turns out the bulbs had gotten to the point where they were small enough to fit in there. One time when it went out, I tried a newer CFL bulb, and it fit. I promptly forgot about it until it went out a couple years later.

What was perhaps the most remarkable was the fact that I didn't even realize it was a CFL until I actually looked at the bulb. While my entryway is obviously not the space I spend a lot of time, the light was warm, and it comes on almost instantaneously. (It could be a slight pause, but perhaps either in the hustle of first coming in the door from wherever I'm coming from, I don't even notice it, or because I heavily use CFLs, that very short wait is now the norm for me.) I had realized that I used CFLs in almost everywhere in the house. The only places I don't are with good reason. The bathroom, so I can dim and also for aesthetics, and such. Other low-usage places like over the stove or in the fridge. More on that later.

So which brings me to a story yesterday in the SF Chronicle about low-energy lighting, including CFLs and LED lighting. Not much in it was news to me (although GE and others are planning a low-energy incandescent for release between 2010 and 2012). But I did read people's comments. I was surprised in the eco-friendly Bay Area how many negative comments there were about CFLs. In fact the vast majority were negative, and the few were slightly positive, most of those had caveats.

Am I the only success story?

I did realize I did not switch all to CFLs overnight. In fact, I did have some fits and starts along the way. Given the fact that many CFLs can be quite pricey, especially compared to normal incandescents. Many utility companies subsidized more common bulbs, but often not more specialized ones. (Run, don't walk, down to Costco and pick up an 8-pack of Phillips 60-watt equivalent CFLs. They're often $1 each or less.) Even so, they usually pay for themselves in electrical savings and then some. (One reader noted his electric bill didn't go down. Lighting is not the only thing you use electricity on.)

So here I am to impart my wisdom about CFLs.

1. Baby steps. Don't switch all at once. Start with the most common bulbs, and if you can, start with only one. Try it out, and see if it's okay.

2. Then if you like it, go all in. Go in on a bulk pack. As mentioned, Costco's awesome for that. If you need a large number of specialized ones, try one from a local dealer, then ship a bulk pack to you if you like them. If you don't use them all, go in on it with a friend or perhaps a neighbor who uses the same. Maybe you can even just give them one to try it out and convince them to switch. And ask around to see if there's ones you like, and impart your wisdom on others.

3. Use them in the most common places you use lighting. They might not work well in that task lamp on your desk, but they might be great for hallways. Think of places that are on much of the time, like kitchens. Use them in places you light more often, and the more savings you'll get out of them.

4. Forget everything you've ever experienced with CFLs. The ones today are light years ahead of their predecessors. Granted, a cheap, poorly-made one today can be just as bad, but most standard regular-quality ones today are way better than the most expensive of yesterday. The light is of infinitely better quality. They come on almost instantly (if not instantly) and don't take long to warm up, if they take any time at all. They do not hum. They do not flicker. (The ballasts are now electronic instead of magnetic. They cycle 10,000 times a second instead of the old 60, and I'd be damned to find anyone who can perceive it.) If they start to flicker or hum, replace them, but probably will do so only after you've gotten a couple year's worth of use out of them.

5. The light is different, but you have a choice. Almost too much of one. Today, light comes in a variety of options from cold to warm. That can almost be the problem. If you buy one that's completely different from what you like, you may assume none of them are to your liking. Go ahead, try a bunch. And if it doesn't go well in your living room, it might work just fine for your laundry room.

6. It's not an incandescent. Don't expect it to be. But you completely get used to it. Yes it may take a fraction of a second to come on, but most are pretty instant on. No you can't dim it. (For the most part. but you can with some.) I had one light that I had one a dimmer, and eventually I realized, I never ever ever actually dim it. I replaced that 150 watt bulb with a 40 watt CFL, and swapped the dimmer for a switch. (I think the only reason I had a dimmer for it due to guilt of using a 150 watt bulb.) After getting a little used to a slightly different light (there might be one closer to my liking, I'll try that next, but this one is just slightly off), it makes up for that fact that I've been much happier knowing that the brightest bulb in my house has a fraction of the former's carbon footprint. As I mentioned above, I barely notice it anymore.

7. Realize their limitations. I heard one report of someone using one in a refrigerator. For one thing, they don't work in cold. Secondly, the few seconds they're on is not going to save a whole lot. And if they don't work in 100% of your lights, be proud of the ones you can successfully replace.

8. Realize that you're changing your lighting. You didn't pick the lighting in your home overnight. You're not going to change it all overnight either.

9. Mix things up. Perhaps you bought a light for the living room. You didn't like the light. Demote it to the hallway. Or perhaps that light you bought for the laundry room worked out better than you thought. Promote it to the kitchen. Eventually I did use all the CFLs I bought, so money was not lost, and so can you.

10. Surprise yourself. After you're more comfortable, try new ones. The technology is constantly progressing. Some now even work in ceiling fans. (Make sure they're rated for it, or use one before finding out if you should replace them all. See rule #1.) I had one I used in a yard light in Minneapolis. They don't work as well in the cold, but they're just fine in an enclosure. They might just take a second to come on in the cold and a few seconds to get warm and steady, but for lighting the outside, it's completely fine. (See Rule #5!) And I didn't have to run out in the cold to keep replacing it. Trust me, if it can work in Minnesota winters, it'll work just fine wherever you're at.

After all this, you'll find yourself a new joy. Not only smaller electric bills, but when you do have to replace one, you'll realize, do you even remember the last time you had to replace one? It used to feel like keeping the spinning plates moving. And you have better things to do than run around the house replacing light bulbs.