One of my favorite libertarians takes on one of my favorite examples of government overreach:
Though anti-populist in the extreme, the bulb ban in fact evinces none of the polished wonkery you'd expect from sophisticated technocrats. For starters, it's not clear what the point is. Why should the government try to make consumers use less electricity? There's no foreign policy reason. Electricity comes mostly from coal, natural gas and nuclear plants, all domestic sources. So presumably the reason has something to do with air pollution or carbon-dioxide emissions.
But banning light bulbs is one of the least efficient ways imaginable to attack those problems. A lamp using power from a clean source is treated the same as a lamp using power from a dirty source. A ban gives electricity producers no incentive to reduce emissions.
Nor does it allow households to make choices about how best to conserve electricity. A well-designed policy would allow different people to make different tradeoffs among different uses to produce the most happiness (“utility” in econ-speak) for a given amount of power. Maybe I want to burn a lot of incandescent bulbs but dry my clothes outdoors and keep the air conditioner off. Maybe I want to read by warm golden light instead of watching a giant plasma TV.
[. . .]
The bulb ban makes sense only one of two ways: either as an expression of cultural sanctimony, with a little technophilia thrown in for added glamour, or as a roundabout way to transfer wealth from the general public to the few businesses with the know-how to produce the light bulbs consumers don't really want to buy.
Or, of course, as both.
That's former Reason magazine editor Virginia Postrel, writing at bloomberg.com about the coming ban of 100-watt incandescent bulbs -- yes, it's really coming at the end of his year. She notes that she has a stash of the forbidden bulbs; I'm working on mine, too.
She also obeserves: "Of such deals are Tea Parties born." Yeah. And, by the way, why hasn't somebody introduced a reversal of the ban just to get all the statists on record now that so many people know about it and are so outraged?
Comments
There are very good public policy reasons for encouraging people to use less electricty - for lighting or anything else. The great bulk of our electricity comes from the burning of coal. Burning coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and - well, you know the rest, although you may decide not to believe it. How about the weather these past couple of years, eh?
People who attack scientists because they don't understand science are like people who insult Chinese people because the Chinese speak a language you don't understand.
There are other reasons to save electricity, of course, although they're a bit more roundabout. Consider the growing popularity of plug-in hybrids and electric cars such as the Chevy Volt. The more cheap electricity is available for them, the less gasoline - which does come from overseas - is consumed. As the cost of petroleum continues to rise, it is an absolutely safe bet that vehicles that run partially or entirely on electricity will become more common.
Besides all that, what do you have against a lower electric bill? And don't tell me you bill is your own business. It isn't. Higher demand for anything means higher prices for everyone. Driving an SUV you don't really need is literally immoral. So is stocking up on incandescent bulbs and other electricity-wasters.
Imagine a serious prolonged drought (not likely here, granted). What would you think of your rich snob neighbor who waters his lawn every day just because he can afford the water bill?
I'd dump a bucket of RoundUp on his damn lawn.
It's a problem that CFLs don't fit where incandescents do - and in some cases, the lampshade fastens onto the bulb itself, rather than onto the lamp.
Replacing an $80 lamp is bad enough, but I'm no longer capable of working at the top of a stepladder. Replacing the ceiling light in the hall means bringing in an electrician to install a new fixture, then bringing in a plaster because the new fixture isn't the same size and shape as the old one, then bringing in a painter to make it all look decent again.
If it takes 4 years to pay back the cost of a $4 bulb instead of 25c incandescents, how long will it take to pay back $800 to allow CFLs to light the hall?
If you're paying $4 a bulb, then the store must see you coming. Buy them by the half-dozen at big box stores and they don't cost much more than incandescents.
I'm not young either, but if you have to have a handyman replace your bulbs, what difference does it make what kind he's taking out? Your argument is self-defeating, by the way. Fluorescents last longer than incandescents, and will pay for themselves extremely quickly if you really have to pay someone to replace them for you.
I've replaced all the incandescents in my home. By searching online, I've been able to find odd-size bulbs that fit all the fixtures, including ceiling cans, that were designed for traditional bulbs.
And yes, I've got a couple of clamp-on lampshades on CFLs. It looks a bit odd, but it works just fine.
At any rate, if you do need to make a few changes, well, stuff happens. Bulbs burn out and you'll have to make the change sooner or later.
Even if you're on your deathbed and have a pretty good cache of old-fashioned bulbs, you're simply handing the problem down to your heirs. Kind of like what you conservatives say we liberals are doing with the debt. Bite the bullet and modernize, then sit back and enjoy the significant reduction in your electric bill. You'll be spending more on air conditioning this summer (like last summer) and all future summers thanks to that phony global warming, so cut back where you can.
TSC is selling 4-packs of Sylvania 100-watt bulbs for 99c. If you insist that Lowes or Builder Square is selling name-brand 100-watt equivalent CFLs for about 25c, I suggest you take a garden hose to your pants before the whole house catches fire. Lowes charges $10.16 for Sylvania 2-packs of 100-watt equivalant CFL light bulbs, and because I know how toxic mercury fumes are, I'd rather stick to name brand CFLs.
Changing a light bulb is a 30-second job that I can handle, even up a ladder, because it only takes one hand. Removing an old light fixture, and replacing it with a new one takes a couple of hours. Using a reciprocating saw is a two-handed job, and holding a new electric appliance in place while trying to drill holes and drive in screws is a three-handed one. Sorry, but this gimp really DOES need at least one hand to hold onto the ladder at this point.
What they should have done was to invent a new base for light bulbs, either smaller than the Edison base, or perhaps a bayonet socket like Ford 1157 bulbs use. Then, they could ban the sale of new lamps and fixtures using Edison-base bulbs, so as to "grandfather in" existing installations, yet prevent new installations using old technology. The Mogul-base lamp base disappeared in the 1930s, and yet bulbs are still available for antique owners.
Yes, if the house doesn't burn down first, it'll be remodeled someday, and installing old technology at that point won't make sense, but if the whole idea is to reduce energy consumption, you need to consider the entire energy budget. It's like cars: If you only drive 4,000 miles a year, replacing a 1985 land barge that gets 8-MPG for a new 40-MPG Prius isn't very "green" because of all the energy needed to manufacture that new car.
I have had little success, ok non what so ever with a CFL lasting even 25% of the life span advertised. In addition they "vibrate" which exacerbates a problem I have. In terms of Energy, the savings is no more than 70% and we are talking lights. How much of my 700 KW a month usage is for lights? 5% tops? My top user is the stove which I replace with a microwave as often as I can. I do not run A/C during the day and use mostly fans in the windows only when the temperature outside is lower than inside. If you truly want to cut CO2 emissions ban the use of oil heat in New England and you will do substantial 10,000 times better.
My thought on this incandescent vs CFL is like the GM message to raise the gasoline tax by $1 a gallon to sell more fuel efficient cars. Congress should be repealing this ASAP.
Harlo, your idea sounds a lot like what was done when leaded gasoline was phased out. Leave it to congress to screw things up.
I have had little success, ok non what so ever with a CFL lasting even 25% of the life span advertised. In addition they "vibrate" which exacerbates a problem I have. In terms of Energy, the savings is no more than 70% and we are talking lights. How much of my 700 KW a month usage is for lights? 5% tops? My top user is the stove which I replace with a microwave as often as I can. I do not run A/C during the day and use mostly fans in the windows only when the temperature outside is lower than inside. If you truly want to cut CO2 emissions ban the use of oil heat in New England and you will do substantial 10,000 times better.
My thought on this incandescent vs CFL is like the GM message to raise the gasoline tax by $1 a gallon to sell more fuel efficient cars. Congress should be repealing this ASAP.
Harl, your idea sounds a lot like what was done when leaded gasoline was phased out. Leave it to congress to screw things up.
"There are very good public policy reasons for encouraging people to use less electricty(sic) - for lighting or anything else. The great bulk of our electricity comes from the burning of coal. Burning coal releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and - well, you know the rest, although you may decide not to believe it. How about the weather these past couple of years, eh?"
Those of us who bother to research the subject know damn well that CO2 does not cause global warming, but some people will never look deep enough to find that there is no empirical evidence to support the AGW theories. We need to build more, not less hydrocarbon plants to reduce the cost of energy while eliminating summer brownouts in densely populated areas of the country. Obama and his EPA are acting outside their authority in shutting coal plants in favor of unreliable renewable energy sources which cost five to ten times more than coal. Technology has not advanced to where sun and wind power will work on a mass scale -- and did it ever occur to the bureaucrats that wind rotors will not turn without lubrication -- which comes from where? BTW, weather is weather -- and if you haven't noticed, it is getting cooler, not hotter of late.
gadfly, we should not be using coal to make electricity. The catch is that to make cleaner "modes of use or conversion" of electricity, you will increase the energy used to convert or make the mode useful than otherwise need be if you wait until its useful life is gone.
Rather like taking a trip out west and you are more than halfway there when you decide you took the wrong car that burns twice as much gasoline, so you turn around to get the other car.
The solution is to not build new coal fired plants. The other solution is to allow those who have solar or windmills on their property to use the type of bulb they want.
The cost of burning coal is twice that of generating the same amount of electricity from wind. GE's new turbine is designed to work in type II wind category areas with the same efficiency as type I category. In addition, until a coal fired plant is completed, it does not produce a single Kw of electricity. However, a windmill begins generating electricity within a month of its assembly. In addition, wind mills are spread out making it more difficult to take out a multiple small power generating plants versus one single large one.
Even if you think scientists are lying (why?) about global warming, there are plenty of other reasons not to burn coal. I'm originally from West Virginia. It's a beautiful outdoorsman's paradise - or at least it used to be. I've flown at low altitude over what used to be mountains. There is very little underground mining going on now. It's cheaper to blow up the mountain and bulldoze the dirt into the surrounding streams. Southern parts of the state look like nuclear bomb test sites.
Littlejohn...in r/e the "settled science" of global warming:
http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/06/08/ten-years-and-counting-wheres-the-global-warming/
The hits just keep comin'!
Hi Tim! Interesting weather we've having lately, no? Have a nice day.
We should let the market place decide coal, nuclear, solar, wind, natural gas, tidal, hydro, etc from what source Electricity is produced. In order for a fair market place, all tax credits, incentives need to be removed so that artificial stimulation of one source over another does not occur.
It is my belief that coal in Indiana would diminish and no new coal plants would be built based on cost alone. This would not mean that a utility with a new coal power plant would shut it down, it just means when its useful life, efficiency and cost no longer make it a viable alternative, the utility will implement a source that is more cost effective.
It is also my belief based on designing nuclear components for Naval Nuclear Reactors, manufacturing commercial fuel assemblies, neutron detectors, evaluating different means of extending the spent fuel pool capacity and interim dry storage (40 years) of radioactive fuel (Ten years off line) that nuclear is far more expensive than solar.
We have been burning a source of energy to convert it to electricity for a long time. There are better, more efficient and less costly ways of making electricity.
An acre of solar energy will produce 76,000 board feet of lumber, which is 312 KWH of electricity. Photosynthesis is the same, no matter what you grow, and it's considerably more efficient than any combination of solar panels and batteries we can yet gin up.
A typical 500 MW coal power plant produces 3.5 billion KWH annually, which is as much as 11,220 acres of photosynthesis - roughly 18 square miles. To build the coal plant at 2011 prices is $1 billion. A comparable nuclear facility would be $1.25 billion. The cost for solar, however, is $28 billion just for solar panels, and more for the batteries.
The problem is that we need power, and we can't wait until 2030 to get it. The Toshiba 4S nuclear reactors sell for $25 million and they generate power for 5-7c per kwh, cradle to grave - and cradle to grave may be just enough time to get solar panels and batteries working well enough to take over.
"littlejohn Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Hi Tim! Interesting weather we
Where do you live, Tim, that it's summer already?
Most of the rest of us live in the United States, where it's still spring.
"Harl Delos Says:
June 13th, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Where do you live, Tim, that it