Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

You have only pointed out that it is a possibility. But due to market saturation, it is quite possible no such rebound will happen. You have yet to demonstrate it will happen.

There is no need or intent for me to demonstrate that it will happen.

What I have demonstrated is that various outcomes are possible, and thus the "displayed certaintude of outcome" of Joe, and other proponents of forcing consumer behavior on bulbs is utterly, completely false. That certainty is a claim of theirs, not mine.

And we are not talking about a 1% or 0.01% of Jevon's paradox applying, but maybe 20-60%. Market saturation does not occur when new markets open up. For example, LED lighting now makes landscape lighting far more practical than when incadescent bulbs needed to be changed out on a property, and some were in difficult to get to locations, the fixtures needed to be sealed against weather to protect the bulb, etc.

The market for LED landscape lighting may be expected to zoom off the charts. Right now the fixtures are being sold with integral LED (NO bulb or edison base socket).

That is just one example.

Remember, Jevon specifically applies to consumer choice and energy utilization. It certainly does seem to apply to cars and energy use. Today we have far more energy efficient cars than in the 1980s, but don't we have a much higher oil usage in cars, due to having that many more cars?

Here is a good article on Jevons possible application to these issues.

Efficiency and resilience: after Jevons paradox, the Piggy Principle by Marco Bertoli

In such a case as this, someone who continued to believe the previous assertion of a certain outcome would essentially be in denial of reality.

For this reason I feel the term "Bulb Truther" is valid.

 

[Ziggurat]

"Your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

If you want to try to use that analogy, you need to address the AMOUNT of energy used, not the particular uses it's put to. And this law does nothing in that regard. I'm still just as free to use just as much electricity as before. What I use electricity for is no skin off your nose.

Your precious freedom to use hugely inefficient methods of lighting your home infringes on my freedom to enjoy a future where we don't have to pay exorbitant electricity rates.

No, it doesn't. Perhaps the total amount of energy I use has some impact on that, but again, the law doesn't address that.

In case you haven't noticed, consumers are denied options all the time, often by the business sector you admire so much. Have you tried to buy a laptop recently with a matte finish on the monitor, or with a serial port? A CRT TV or computer display? A telephone with a dial on it? A roll of Kodachrome film? A two quart soft drink in a glass bottle? A 2 gigabyte hard drive? A game of lawn darts?

You know why you can't get that stuff? Because almost nobody WANTS it. Businesses haven't denied anyone those things, they simply aren't producing them because there's no demand for them. Do you honestly not see the difference between a lack of demand and a prohibition?

 

[JudeBrando]

They are not letting a free and reasonable market decide.

They are dictating to the market.

They know better.

They say so.

 

[Ziggurat]

Riiiiight.

I'm sure if the EISA hadn't passed you would be in favor of a tax on inefficient bulbs that was high enough to phase out their use.

There's no need to phase out their use. It's enough to decrease their use.

And how exactly is a tax "more direct" than setting energy efficiency standards?

A tax on electricity rates is more direct because it affects all uses of electricity, and raises costs according to actual usage.

To let people who are wealthy enough or uncaring enough indulge in what they consider to be a convenience while effectively banning the practice for everyone else.

I think you will find that Rich people who don't care about their personal electric bill constitute a very small fraction of electricity usage.

Nor do I think you have a legitimate claim to progressivism when advocating a policy that forces capital investments on the part of the poor while leaving actual energy consumption by the rich (who can consume more electricity even with efficient bulbs than the poor do with inefficient ones) completely untouched.

 

[Ziggurat]

Why would someone do that? People tend to use light bulbs that produce the desired amount of light.

They might do that for precisely that reason. Two traditional 60-watt bulbs give off comparable light to a single traditional 100-watt bulb. The traditional 60-watt bulbs will be banned at a later date than the 100-watt bulbs.

 

[mhaze]

They are not letting a free and reasonable market decide.

They are dictating to the market.

They know better.

They say so.

I wonder if the CFL scheme (which is basically what was behind the "ban incadescents legislation") was conceived of in conjunction with carbon taxes. Then it makes sense as follows:

1. "For the public good" / "To save the planet" implement carbon control schemes which basically....raise energy costs. Obama "Energy rates will skyrocket".

2. THEN government programs come into play "to help you be more energy efficient and save money"....CFL.

The CFL schemes largely did follow the carbon cons in various countries, as best as I can remember.

Obviously if you first jacked up the energy cost, then the public would be more receptive to "energy/money saving measures". Plus, you have the government telling them what is good for them, and the public going along, not just once but multiple times.

It's a control freak fest.

 

[JoelKatz]

"Your freedom to swing your arms ends where my nose begins."

Of course, because you have a right not to have your nose swung at.

Your precious freedom to use hugely inefficient methods of lighting your home infringes on my freedom to enjoy a future where we don't have to pay exorbitant electricity rates. By improving the efficiency of electrical appliances now we can avoid a huge expense building new power plants in the future, be they hydro-electric (not too many good sites left), coal (with their attendant output in greenhouse gases), or nuclear (Three Mile Island and Fukushima, anyone?)

But you have no right to a future with low-priced electricity. You can certainly work for one if you want one, but it's not a justification for restricting freedom. If increasing electricity consumption won't fund expanding the supply, then the price is too low. I think it actually will and this concern in invalid, but if it was correct, it would simply mean the utilities are charging too little. Most likely, what will happen is that as usage increases, so will prices -- enough to fund the creation of new power sources. Higher-priced electricity and increasing usage would also encourage the development of new power technologies. So you're actually fighting to hold back the improvements.

In case you haven't noticed, consumers are denied options all the time, often by the business sector you admire so much. Have you tried to buy a laptop recently with a matte finish on the monitor, or with a serial port? A CRT TV or computer display? A telephone with a dial on it? A roll of Kodachrome film? A two quart soft drink in a glass bottle? A 2 gigabyte hard drive? A game of lawn darts?

Sure, but I have no right to have someone sell me a two quart soft drink in a glass bottle if they don't want to. You are equating compulsion with the absence of compulsion, and that dog won't hunt.

 

[TjW]

I know this is a while ago, but don't you have household recycling bins in the US, collected by local government? We have three, one for normal garbage, one for green waste and one for glass, plastic and metal recycling.

Certainly we do. But fluorescent light bulbs can no longer be disposed of in any of those waste streams, as they are classified as hazardous waste.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's a made up presumption and in my case completely false. We got nuclear here. the differential in environmental impact here from eco-fascist preferred light bulbs would be exactly, precisely, ZERO.

Unless you are connected directly to a nuclear power plant that isn't connected to the grid, you get your power from the grid. Most of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning coal.

The environmental impact of burning coal is significant.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If you want to try to use that analogy, you need to address the AMOUNT of energy used, not the particular uses it's put to. And this law does nothing in that regard.

You obviously haven't read the EISA.

Also, setting energy efficiency standards makes more sense than just a limit on the "AMOUNT" of energy used. Ideally, no quantity of energy should simply be wasted. Rather, we want to get good use out of what we use. The usefulness of light bulbs (at least the ones in question) is getting light. That's why the efficiency requirements are expressed as lumens per watts. (That is, for a given range of lumens, there is a maximum wattage.)

 

[Ziggurat]

Most of the electricity in the U.S. is generated by burning coal.

No it isn't. Coal constitutes the largest single source of electric generation capacity in the US, but it's still less than half the total. And it varies considerably by location.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I wonder if the CFL scheme (which is basically what was behind the "ban incadescents legislation")

You're still repeating that lie, eh? The law most definitely doesn't favor any technology. As mentioned, nothing in the law would prohibit incandescent bulbs, CFLs, LEDs or even any new technology of lightbulb as long as it complies with the energy efficiency standards.

By the way, have you admitted yet that the law will NOT require you to change your flood lights, since the law specifically exempts any reflector light bulbs?

Also, I'm still waiting for examples of "snarky" language from the EISA. I'm thinking we'll never hear you admit that you misused the term "snarky".

While we're at it, I've yet to see you retract your claims that the Philips Halogena bulb isn't an incandescent bulb, that it has no filament, and that it's not dimmable.

These aren't matters of opinion or interpretation. Just the facts. It's evident, though, that you've been basing your opinion on a misunderstanding of some facts.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No it isn't. Coal constitutes the largest single source of electric generation capacity in the US, but it's still less than half the total. And it varies considerably by location.

I stand corrected. Coal is the largest single source of electricity in the U.S. However, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) does account for well over half.

But haze is dead wrong to claim that the electricity he uses comes strictly from nuclear.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also, setting energy efficiency standards makes more sense than just a limit on the "AMOUNT" of energy used.

In the sense that it's easier to implement, yes. But that doesn't mean it will accomplish its goal, or that it's worthwhile.

Ideally, no quantity of energy should simply be wasted.

That goal is impossible to achieve. Even if we had the technology for 100% efficient lighting, and used it for all of our lighting, we would STILL have waste in the form of light being made that doesn't need to be made. Total efficiency is what matters, and this ban doesn't control total efficiency. So what limits total efficiency from dropping through the floor? Market forces.

 

[mhaze]

I stand corrected. Coal is the largest single source of electricity in the U.S. However, the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas) does account for well over half.

But haze is dead wrong to claim that the electricity he uses comes strictly from nuclear.

That's a made up presumption and in my case completely false. We got nuclear here. the differential in environmental impact here from eco-fascist preferred light bulbs would be exactly, precisely, ZERO.

So the argument you made was flat wrong, and some undefinable fraction of my power comes from nuclear because all power comes from the grid.....

Wrong again, Joe. The local power utility contracts for power from suppliers, and they have a contract with the nuclear plant. I don't know the percentage offhand, but let's say it is sixty percent.

So all my bulbs of every type should be just fine.....the environmental impact of my 150watt incandescent is the same as your sixty watt.

But I guess a bulb truther would not see it that way.

 

[Blue Mountain]

If you want to try to use that analogy, you need to address the AMOUNT of energy used, not the particular uses it's put to. And this law does nothing in that regard. I'm still just as free to use just as much electricity as before. What I use electricity for is no skin off your nose.

Which is precisely what the law does: it regulates the amount of energy a lighting device can use in relation to its light output.

You know why you can't get that stuff? Because almost nobody WANTS it. Businesses haven't denied anyone those things, they simply aren't producing them because there's no demand for them. Do you honestly not see the difference between a lack of demand and a prohibition?

Most of the stuff on that, yes. But not the matte finish laptop monitor. One might be able to get it if he is willing to put in a special order and wait for the computer to arrive. But every single laptop on the shelves these days has a glossy finish on the monitor, and people who are serious about their computers don't like them--they reflect overhead lighting like crazy and can make the computer difficult to use in an office environment.

 

[Blue Mountain]

They are not letting a free and reasonable market decide.

I agree with you on the free part, but not the reasonable part. Markets can be incredibly stupid at times. Witness the economic meltdown of 2008.

At some point a failure to regulate markets and industry will turn into a tragedy of the commons, and we all lose.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Wrong again, Joe. The local power utility contracts for power from suppliers, and they have a contract with the nuclear plant. I don't know the percentage offhand, but let's say it is sixty percent.

So you admit your claim that you only use electricity generated by a nuclear plant is false?

Which means I was right and you are wrong, yet again.

ETA: And even if you did only use electricity generated from nuclear power, I would simply point out that this is a federal law, and as a nation, the U.S. gets nearly half its electricity from burning coal (and well over half from the burning of fossil fuels). That your case isn't typical isn't at all persuasive that the EISA will fail to reduce energy consumption and require less burning of coal.

By the way, I'm *still* waiting for you to offer even one example of "snarky" language from the EISA. This was just the first of many falsehoods you've posted to this thread.

 

[Ziggurat]

Which is precisely what the law does: it regulates the amount of energy a lighting device can use in relation to its light output.

Are you getting this wrong intentionally? It DOESN'T MATTER to anyone else how much light I get. What matters to other people is how much energy I use. But dictating how much light I get out of the energy I use will not actually determine how much energy I use.

Most of the stuff on that, yes. But not the matte finish laptop monitor. One might be able to get it if he is willing to put in a special order and wait for the computer to arrive. But every single laptop on the shelves these days has a glossy finish on the monitor, and people who are serious about their computers don't like them--they reflect overhead lighting like crazy and can make the computer difficult to use in an office environment.

That doesn't prove your point at all. It's perfectly in line with the idea that most consumers don't actually want them, whatever the "serious" consumers prefer.

And for those who work in offices with overhead lighting or otherwise object to the glossy finish, well, it's actually VERY easy to get laptops with a matte finish. Just buy a business laptop. They don't usually sell them through retail channels (because there isn't enough demand), but there isn't actually any difficulty in getting them. And if you're really "serious" about your laptop, that's not exactly a major hurdle.

 

[mhaze]

So you admit your claim that you only use electricity generated by a nuclear plant is false?

........

you can not read and understand, or do you misrepresent on purpose?


That's a made up presumption and in my case completely false. We got nuclear here. the differential in environmental impact here from eco-fascist preferred light bulbs would be exactly, precisely, ZERO.


This is clearly not the same as what you claim was said. Do you see the word "differential"?

Yes, joe....the word you left out?

So....why are you a bulb truther?