Consumers are too stupid to make good choices

[kandrathe]

The latest energy bill (which does nothing to help us produce more energy or become more energy independent ) will outlaw incandescent light bulbs by 2012, replacing them with compact fluorescents, or leds. The government has decided that consumers are too stupid to make good choices, and so will now regulate what kind of light bulbs we have in our homes. Hey, how about tax credits for energy conservation?

Personally, for where I live it is nonsensical. 8 months of the year it is very cold here, so what excess energy is emitted from the bulb is converted to heat. This is heat I don't need to consume to otherwise heat my home. The other 4 months of the year we have sunlight 16 hours a day so we don't need the lights on.

[NiteFox]

It's not just America, Europe has adopted the very same law.

[Quark]

You're picking a fight over inefficient light bulbs. :rolleyes:

Personally, for where I live it is nonsensical. 8 months of the year it is very cold here, so what excess energy is emitted from the bulb is converted to heat.

Do you really think that's efficient? At best, if a light bulb was just as efficient as your heater at producing heat, you're still forced to use electricity - which was already converted from a source once at the power plant, so you're just hiding your own inefficiency by pawning it off on someone else.

Anyway, they did not in fact ban incandescent bulbs. Only inefficient ones. Took me a bit of searching to find out what that means exactly:

Code:

Nominal Lamp Wattage    Minimum Average Lamp Efficacy (LPW)

40-50                   10.5

51-66                   11.0

67-85                   12.5

86-115                  14.0

116-155                 14.5

156-205                 15.0

There's also some exemptions besides that.

[Swiss Mercenary]

Stay tuned next week, for Kandarthe fighting to bring back lead-based paint on children's toys, and 5MPG vehicles.

After all, consumers should be smart enough to choose not to buy them, right?

And this only appears absurd, because it's not the status quo (Unlike incadescent bulbs).

[Delc]

So have they got fluorescent lights that work when its 12 below, or are we pretty much SOL on outside lights?

[Jester]

The latest energy bill (which does nothing to help us produce more energy or become more energy independent ) will outlaw incandescent light bulbs by 2012, replacing them with compact fluorescents, or leds. The government has decided that consumers are too stupid to make good choices, and so will now regulate what kind of light bulbs we have in our homes. Hey, how about tax credits for energy conservation?

Personally, for where I live it is nonsensical. 8 months of the year it is very cold here, so what excess energy is emitted from the bulb is converted to heat. This is heat I don't need to consume to otherwise heat my home. The other 4 months of the year we have sunlight 16 hours a day so we don't need the lights on.

This may cause some kind of heart stoppage, but I actually agree with you. Tax credits are a much better way to regulate energy consumption than passing laws over lightbulbs. If person X uses half the energy of person Y, I don't really care how they did it, they deserve a credit for that.

-Jester

[Jester]

At best, if a light bulb was just as efficient as your heater at producing heat, you're still forced to use electricity - which was already converted from a source once at the power plant, so you're just hiding your own inefficiency by pawning it off on someone else.

I'm not sure how that works. Don't you get charged for all of your energy use, whether it's from your lightbulbs or your heater? How does that pawn it off on someone else?

-Jester

[Quark]

I'm not sure how that works. Don't you get charged for all of your energy use, whether it's from your lightbulbs or your heater? How does that pawn it off on someone else?

-Jester

I'm not talking about charging for electricity, but rather overall efficiency of the system.

If you're using heat based of electric resistance (which is essentially what an incandescent bulb ends up doing), you're consuming electricity to produce heat. That electricity came from some other source on its own - oil, coal, gas, nuclear fission, etc - that on its own is not truly efficient.

So you take some oil and convert it to electricty (~34% for the old to ~48% for the new) and then have a bulb produce heat for you (~90%), you're looking at about 30% of the inherent energy of oil being used for heat.

Or, you have an oil heater which at ENERGY STAR level compliance is at least 83% efficient for a new one.

[Jester]

I'm not talking about charging for electricity, but rather overall efficiency of the system.

If you're using heat based of electric resistance (which is essentially what an incandescent bulb ends up doing), you're consuming electricity to produce heat. That electricity came from some other source on its own - oil, coal, gas, nuclear fission, etc - that on its own is not truly efficient.

So you take some oil and convert it to electricty (~34% for the old to ~48% for the new) and then have a bulb produce heat for you (~90%), you're looking at about 30% of the inherent energy of oil being used for heat.

Or, you have an oil heater which at ENERGY STAR level compliance is at least 83% efficient for a new one.

Fair enough, I hadn't thought of converting oil to heat directly, I was thinking of an electric heater. To come up with a suitable tax scheme, you would have to do a very thorough analysis of the total environmental impact of one's energy consumption in all forms. Anything that lets people externalize the costs would undermine the system.

-Jester

(Edit, grain of salt: What I don't know about energy production could fill the Gulf of Mexico, so correct me if I'm talking nonsense. I'm interested in understanding the issues here, and make no illusions that I already do.)

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . The government has decided that consumers are too stupid to make good choices, . . .

Compact fluorescents are a good idea in principle, but, at present, usually fail in practice.

From the cost standpoint, they should pay for themselves in energy costs saved over their lifetime. From the energy standpoint, the extra energy it takes to make them (compared to making incandescent bulbs) should be recovered, again, over their lifetime. At least, that's what the model says.

The problem is that existing fixtures are not designed to keep the light bulb cool. This is not a problem with incandescents which are designed to run hot (indeed, heat is the core aspect of their operation). It is a problem for the fluorescents whose lives are severely shortened by excess heat. Because of the shortened life span, compact fluorescents are often both more expensive and less energy efficient over their total life cycle than are incandescents. Of course, changing the fixtures would solve this problem, but then the energy and cost required to make and install new fixtures has to be added into the equation and compared over the expected life of the house.

So, not only is the government regulating what type of bulbs we must use, but it is doing so in the stupidest way -- as usual. Reminds me of DOT's mandate on headlights which stuck the USA with 50's technology while the Europeans developed rectangular and halogen bulbs.

. . . Hey, how about tax credits for energy conservation? . . .

Why? If you're buying energy, then conserving energy energy should save you money. That should be all the incentive you need. If it doesn't save you money, odds are that if you check into it, it doesn't save energy (overall) either.

. . . 8 months of the year it is very cold here, so what excess energy is emitted from the bulb is converted to heat. This is heat I don't need to consume to otherwise heat my home.

Resistance heating is just about the most inefficient way to use electricity for heat. If you really want to save energy, get a heat pump. And heating your ceiling and attic is not too productive;)

--Pete

Addendum from Magi (who *is* a Certified Energy Manager). Compact fluorescents work well in open fixtures, fixtures designed for them, and in places where there is sufficient cooling. For these applications, they are a good deal. Also, the bulbs are getting better on all fronts, including heat toleration and longevity.

[kandrathe]

Stay tuned next week, for Kandarthe fighting to bring back lead-based paint on children's toys, and 5MPG vehicles.

After all, consumers should be smart enough to choose not to buy them, right?

And this only appears absurd, because it's not the status quo (Unlike incadescent bulbs).

One, lead in paint is a consumer protection issue. I've nominally accepted the fact that we shouldn't probably make TNT available at the local hardware store as well(at least without some hoops to make sure it doesn't end up detonating a building somewhere). But, on MPG, why should the government care how you waste your money? Could I not buy 20 gallons of gas a day and burn it in a fire pit if I wanted?

[kandrathe]

This may cause some kind of heart stoppage, but I actually agree with you. Tax credits are a much better way to regulate energy consumption than passing laws over lightbulbs. If person X uses half the energy of person Y, I don't really care how they did it, they deserve a credit for that.

-Jester

Thanks. You've caused me some concern lately, defending the wacko preacher and now tax credits for energy conservation. :)

Having been raised on a farm, I've seen first hand how effective tax credits are in influencing behavior without the government having to give away any money. In effect they incent the conservation minded consumers and also support the industries that support energy conservation. For the government, it's a win win. They raise the revenues from the increased taxes paid by the growth of the energy conservation industry. Which is why I also don't believe in subsidies for the energy producing or energy conservation companies, such as the ethanol industry. It distorts consumer behavior and makes the industry dependant on the subsidies. I don't think it would be viable without government support/interferance.

I'm thinking about the inefficiencies of my home, and trust me I want to correct them. So I know I've got the wrong heat plant, and maybe poor insulation and seals around doors and windows. I do spend what I can afford every fall to help reduce my imminent winter bills, but to redo it right would cost me maybe 10 to 20 thousand. I would love to change my system over to a ground based heat pump. So, for my efforts and doing this I would like to get a break on the investments I make, for at least a part of that over time. Otherwise the payback period would be like 10 to 15 years, and then I might as well invest in some good stocks and just pay higher energy bills.

[kandrathe]

Why? If you're buying energy, then conserving energy energy should save you money. That should be all the incentive you need. If it doesn't save you money, odds are that if you check into it, it doesn't save energy (overall) either.

Generally, I would agree, although if the payback period is high (> 20 years) it still might be a good idea to influence consumers to change to prevent the need to grow the infrastructure.

Resistance heating is just about the most inefficient way to use electricity for heat.

I know. I'm hosed. My house is entirely heated by electrical resistance heating. Most of my fixtures are not in the ceiling, but dangle down or are on the walls.

If you really want to save energy, get a heat pump. And heating your ceiling and attic is not too productive;)

I would love to do it. Maybe I can start small and grow it, but I can't afford to make the full transition all at once.

[Hammerskjold]

Addendum from Magi (who *is* a Certified Energy Manager). Compact fluorescents work well in open fixtures, fixtures designed for them, and in places where there is sufficient cooling. For these applications, they are a good deal. Also, the bulbs are getting better on all fronts, including heat toleration and longevity.

I wish there was more honest info like this going around in general, because I'm kind of sick of hearing that CFL is the greatest thing since fried gold. I use CFLs where applicable, and granted every new generation of bulbs is getting better and better. However for certain application I still use 100w incandescent. Not out of hidebound tradition, simply because of the brightness and colour spectrum it offers. For some other application, I use both CFL and incandescent.

But for me at least, LEDs and solid state lighting is the future. And it looks like there are exciting developments happening.

http://www.outlookseries.com/news/Infras...e/2646.htm

[Swiss Mercenary]

Could I not buy 20 gallons of gas a day and burn it in a fire pit if I wanted?

Unfortunately, we share one atmosphere.

[Griselda]

I'm personally happy that I don't have to run around changing light bulbs all the time since we switched to CFL. With incandescents, we couldn't go a week without something burning out. In fact, I was pretty sure that the act of changing one light bulb was what caused another one to burn out somewhere else in the house. :ph34r:

[Lissa]

small nit

(~34% for the old to ~48% for the new)

48% is stretching it by a bit, 40% to 41% is closer to the mark.

[kandrathe]

Unfortunately, we share one atmosphere.

That's not my point. I'm a nice guy and I love the planet too. But, is there a law that prevents me from being a jerk and burning needless gasoline? No, not that I know about. But, I am prevented from buying a gas guzzling Sherman Tank of an SUV that violates the Cafe standards. Not that I would, but it's more the principle of surrendered liberties I'm getting at. We have a nanny government that chooses to do the thinking for me by outlawing the choices they don't want me to make.

[kandrathe]

I'm personally happy that I don't have to run around changing light bulbs all the time since we switched to CFL. With incandescents, we couldn't go a week without something burning out. In fact, I was pretty sure that the act of changing one light bulb was what caused another one to burn out somewhere else in the house. :ph34r:

Well, I do already use them in some places where they make sense. The garage, the utility rooms, and even have motion sensor ones so when the kids of my wife omit to turn them off they go off by themselves. But, for fixtures with dimmers they won't work, and for chandelier type fixtures the cfl's look stupid and ugly. In other area's I like to read by incandescent light rather than the harshness of cfl's, so it's more of a light preference.

[Hammerskjold]

That's not my point. I'm a nice guy and I love the planet too. But, is there a law that prevents me from being a jerk and burning needless gasoline? No, not that I know about. But, I am prevented from buying a gas guzzling Sherman Tank of an SUV that violates the Cafe standards. Not that I would, but it's more the principle of surrendered liberties I'm getting at. We have a nanny government that chooses to do the thinking for me by outlawing the choices they don't want me to make.

While I agree with some of your points, your first example was burning gasoline in a fire pit. Not even using it to idle in a tricked out humvee limo with the DVD and the cappucino maker on.

It's one thing if you were in the middle of a extreme emergency situation like say, a zombie apocalypse where for some reason, perhaps you absolutely needed to use that gas as a firestarter. But to burn it as a demonstration for 'freedom'? Maybe it's just me, but I don't see gas the same way as tea was during that famous Boston harbor get together.

It's not always about liberty and freedom and how those damned socialists are trying to take away my right to eat red meat and smoke a fine cigar etc etc.

I think freedom from excessive justification is a worthy cause. (eg: Why do you need a metal pen comrade? You could stab someone with it. Better to use this safe 1 inch wax crayon instead. Or use your finger on the dirt.)

I also think there is such a thing as going too far the other way. Freedom doesn't mean freedom from consequences. There's no absolute 'law' against defecating in one's own pool either. But I'm personally not going to do it just because I have the freedom to do so.

But getting back to the original topic. Personally, I think the carrot approach should also be explored. Set up an X prize like contest. Whoever can come up with a lighting device\technology that can match or surpass incandescent colour rendering, with exponential efficency improvement, low power consumption and high durability with low manufacturing cost and footprint and high yield etc, gets....

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

A MILLION DOLLARS!!!!111

What. Not enough? Ok, then adjust after inflation.


A BILLION TRILLION DOLLARS!!!111