Ed Are light bulb efficiency laws really a rights issue?

[Roboramma]

Actually it's better if I'm more straightforward here: it was suggested that since individuals pay the cost of the lightbulbs, they should be allowed to make the choice to buy them or not. They pay the cost of production and transport, of retailing, of replacement, and particularly of the extra energy that they use during their lifetimes. Why shouldn't the person who is paying the cost be able to make the decision of whether it's worth that cost or not?

In response to this it was pointed out that some of the costs of incandescent bulbs are not payed by the user, but are spread out to society in general. These externalities cannot be included in the price of purchase. Global warming is an example of such a cost, I suppose others like energy security, blackouts, etc. might be other possible such externalities.

In response to this you point out that you pay extra taxes when you use more electricity. I replied to that that those taxes don't pay for the externalities because by definition we don't know what the extent of those costs to society is. You reply that because we don't know what those costs are... well, somehow it seems you think that since we don't know what they are, they aren't important.
But that's the point, as a society we seem to have found those costs to be, A. meaningful and B. not worth paying. So we prohibit the sale of incandescent bulbs because their benefit to society at large is not worth the cost.

Is there a discussion worth having about whether or not that's a reasonable conclusion? Certainly. But to have that discussion it seems disingenous to suggest that those costs somehow don't exist simply because we can't completely quantify them.

 

[Furcifer]

In other words, you can't say that you are paying for the externalities. You agree to that, correct?

I'm not sure. Can you give some specific examples of where externalities are paid? I'm not seeing how this is a reason to ban or regulate something.

 

[Roboramma]

True. But do you realize you can rationalize just about any cockamamie scheme based on "Global Warming" like this? Let's tax bean growers because of the methane from burritos. Methane is 24 times more powerful than CO2. Every burrito you eat contributes to destroying the very farms that produce the beans. It's just horrible what we're doing to the planet.

That's actually a good point, and I apologize for missing it in your previous posts, as it was implicit in what you were saying.

The impact of changing to CFL bulbs on global warming may not be entirely quantifiable (because we don't know exactly how climate change is going to unfold), but the impact on energy usage is considerably more clear. Yes there are issues, such as people perhaps using bulbs more because they know that they don't have to worry about the cost of electricity as much, but we can make quite accurate predictions about how energy use will be affected by the change to CFL bulbs.

It's considerably greater than the effect of eliminating burritos from our diets, particularly when you consider that the protein in the beans has to be replaced with something, and that the costs of switching to CFL bulbs are minimal at best whereas burritos are delicious.

 

[Roboramma]

I'm not sure. Can you give some specific examples of where externalities are paid? I'm not seeing how this is a reason to ban or regulate something.

See post 41 for clarification of what I'm saying.

 

[Oystein]

that is really unlucky! I haven't had that problem at all.
Recently we did some quick sums, even if the CFL did fail in the same time as an incandescent, it saves you $100 (ie, the incadescent cost $100 more to run over the same period). Fair enough if you want to pay that but it seems somewhat strange to want to pay more for the same amount of light. [Disclaimer- figures used were local $/kWh and may not apply to your town/state/country]

I would not pay more for the same amount of light, but for a better quality of light. They tell me that modern CFLs make as warm and pleasant a light as incandescents, but I haven't actually seen one that does. No CFL that I have seen produces the kind of continual light spectrum that black radiatiors like the sun or incandescents produce, and they drive me nuts. At one time, I had all light bulbs in my apartment switched to CFLs, but I went bonkers over the unnatural look af all things. I then changed to halogen lamps instead of conventional incandescents. These have a longer life expectancy and about 30% better energy efficiency than standard bulbs. That's not as good as CFLs, so I pay more for the same amount of light, but I have the quality of light I want, at moderately less cost.

 

[Molinaro]

How about anti-discrimination rights? Without laws, in the uk, it is entirely plausible that certain bars or restaurants would restrict, for example, ethnic minorities. The anti-discrimination laws grant ethnic minorities the right to access.

It wouldn't surprise me to see someone try and say it's a restriction of the rights of the bar owners.

In fact, I really don't want to discuss this sidebar because the comments I've seen so far seem outright crazy to me. The degree to which some will demonize governments as being nothing but a source of restrictions is loony.

 

[Oystein]

How about anti-discrimination rights? Without laws, in the uk, it is entirely plausible that certain bars or restaurants would restrict, for example, ethnic minorities. The anti-discrimination laws grant ethnic minorities the right to access.

In the context of my philosophical ramblings above, this would be described thusly:
Before any law: Everybody has the right to visit or not visit every bar they wish; and every bar keeper has the right to tend to or not tend to any customer they wish.
These rights and freedoms conflict.
The anti-discrimination law does not create any new right for the minority. It rather restricts the rights of the bar keeper to bar minorities, or/and erects limits to the restriction of rights of minorities.

 

[Oystein]

... The degree to which some will demonize governments as being nothing but a source of restrictions is loony.

I don't feel I demomize governments at all. I think it is highly beneficial that constitutions, laws and governments restrict our freedoms in a controlled, transparent process. Good laws resolve conflicts of freedoms in ways that are agreeable to almost everybody, and make sure that rights and freedoms can actually be excercised, even by the weak. Philosophical freedom isn't everything, and order isn't nothing.

 

[Furcifer]

That's actually a good point, and I apologize for missing it in your previous posts, as it was implicit in what you were saying.

The impact of changing to CFL bulbs on global warming may not be entirely quantifiable (because we don't know exactly how climate change is going to unfold), but the impact on energy usage is considerably more clear. Yes there are issues, such as people perhaps using bulbs more because they know that they don't have to worry about the cost of electricity as much, but we can make quite accurate predictions about how energy use will be affected by the change to CFL bulbs.

It's considerably greater than the effect of eliminating burritos from our diets, particularly when you consider that the protein in the beans has to be replaced with something, and that the costs of switching to CFL bulbs are minimal at best whereas burritos are delicious.

The government should not be able to regulate deliciousness.

 

[Molinaro]

I don't feel I demomize governments at all. I think it is highly beneficial that constitutions, laws and governments restrict our freedoms in a controlled, transparent process. Good laws resolve conflicts of freedoms in ways that are agreeable to almost everybody, and make sure that rights and freedoms can actually be excercised, even by the weak. Philosophical freedom isn't everything, and order isn't nothing.

I completely disagree with the assertion that rights exist independent of governments. The structure of society, the infrastructure that allows businesses to exist, the currency we use, the whole framework within which each right resides, is defined by the government. Without that structure the interactions that define the rights do not exist. The government by defining the framework of the interactions creates the rights.

 

[stokes234]

In the context of my philosophical ramblings above, this would be described thusly:
Before any law: Everybody has the right to visit or not visit every bar they wish; and every bar keeper has the right to tend to or not tend to any customer they wish.
These rights and freedoms conflict.
The anti-discrimination law does not create any new right for the minority. It rather restricts the rights of the bar keeper to bar minorities, or/and erects limits to the restriction of rights of minorities.

I think you're clutching at philosophical straws. If bar keepers are restricting the rights of citizens, and the government steps in and prevents the barkeeper from restricting their rights, that seems to me to be no different from granting or creating rights for those previously discriminated-against citizens. But we're probably agreeing that the governments actions here are justified, and so this is just semantics by this point.

To the OP, regardless of whether its a rights issue, its a good restriction. Our descendants will thank us for it.

 

[LTC8K6]

But do you also pay for the externalities, such as increased global warming?

No evidence of AGW, imo.

The Earth has been warmer and there's no expectation of the planet remaining within a certain temperature range all the time anyway. Why should the Earth's temp or climate remain within some arbitrary band of "okay"?

What about the externalities of CFL's?

Or LED's?

There are always externalities. This is not a legitimate complaint, imo.

 

[Oystein]

I think you're clutching at philosophical straws. If bar keepers are restricting the rights of citizens, and the government steps in and prevents the barkeeper from restricting their rights, that seems to me to be no different from granting or creating rights for those previously discriminated-against citizens. But we're probably agreeing that the governments actions here are justified, and so this is just semantics by this point.

I agree, no need to elaborate further.

To the OP, regardless of whether its a rights issue, its a good restriction. Our descendants will thank us for it.

Well, it is always a matter of weighing the options,
Sure, our descendants might thankj us for using less energy by adopting this measure, even if it is a bit unpleasant for some today.

They might also thank us for this law: People are only allowed to change their underwear every other day. This will lower energy and water consumption as well as pollution because we use our washing machines less often.
Is that a good restriction?

 

[DC]

Global Warming is just a prediction of possible events

erm no, its an observation being made by scientists around the globe......

and a working climate is far more important than your right for innefficient light bulbs

 

[DC]

No evidence of AGW, imo.

The Earth has been warmer and there's no expectation of the planet remaining within a certain temperature range all the time anyway. Why should the Earth's temp or climate remain within some arbitrary band of "okay"?

What about the externalities of CFL's?

Or LED's?

There are always externalities. This is not a legitimate complaint, imo.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

But do you realize you can rationalize just about any cockamamie scheme based on "Global Warming" like this? Let's tax bean growers because of the methane from burritos. Methane is 24 times more powerful than CO2. Every burrito you eat contributes to destroying the very farms that produce the beans. It's just horrible what we're doing to the planet.

Sorry, but it's not a matter of 'rationalizing'. Global warming is a scientific fact. Yes, Methane is 'more powerful' then CO2, but it dissipates far more quickly. CO2 is much more of a problem because it sticks around for a lot longer. Another flaw in your argument is that beans absorb CO2 while growing, therefore the entire process can be carbon neutral. Unfortunately this not true of light bulbs when they use electricity generated by fossil fuels.

You mean like saving money by switching from incandescent to CFL's?

The problem here is that many people do not appreciate how much they are saving. We hear anecdotes about how CFL's supposedly don't last any longer than incandescents (due to confirmation bias) while most people don't analyze their power usage to verify the savings they are getting. Therefore, it is very easy for somebody to erroneously think that switching to CFL's isn't worthwhile.

I was an early adopter of fluorescent lighting, buying circular fluorescents when they cost $20 each. Even at that price I realized the benefits of lower power consumption, less heat and longer lifespan. Now that CFLs only cost a few dollars, I can easily justify putting them everywhere.

However, there are still a few applications where an incandescent makes sense, particularly where a light is used frequently but only for short periods. For these cases I have replaced them with lower wattage lamps (eg. 25W) which still give enough light but use less power. I also try to always turn an incandescent light off as soon as it is not needed (a habit I learned a long time ago when blackouts were common due to lack of power generating capacity, and the government was encouraging everybody to save electricity).

I think it's closer to 5%, but yes they are very inefficient, so are CFL's for that matter. However, they are 97% efficient as long as you have the heat on.

The efficiency of an incandescent light is limited by the fact that it is a 'black body' radiator, therefore the vast majority of its spectrum is in the infrared. Increasing temperature improves efficiency, but at the expense of lifespan. Halogen lamps are a bit more efficient because they can at run a higher temperature. In contrast a fluorescent lamp works by converting narrow band ultraviolet light produced by gaseous discharge, into visible light via fluorescence. This process is inherently more efficient because it does not produce wasteful broad-spectrum infrared radiation that the human eye cannot see.

CFLs have an absolute luminous efficiency of around 9% to 11%, about 4 times higher than incandescents at 1.9-2.6% (cite).

The heat produced by an incandescent lamp may be still be of some use to help warm the room in cold weather (though that heat may not go exactly where you want it) but in hot weather it just makes more work for the air conditioning system, and is therefore worse than useless!

 

[stokes234]

They might also thank us for this law: People are only allowed to change their underwear every other day. This will lower energy and water consumption as well as pollution because we use our washing machines less often.
Is that a good restriction?

No, but for different reasons. Firstly, it implies the government will be granted powers to actually check how often you change your underwear, which would be extremely intrusive and open to abuse by those enforcing it. It could also potentially cause bad hygeine - a small amount for sure, but which might see effects on a large enough scale.

This measure is restricting what you can purchase, but doesn't involve any violation of privacy. It's a restrictions on the companies, rather than on individuals. What we should sacrifice for the environment is a grey area, but to me this fits inside it. I have never had any problems with energy saving lightbulbs, and actually i'm quite grateful that bulbs don't randomly blow out when I switch on the light anymore.

 

[Furcifer]

Sorry, but it's not a matter of 'rationalizing'. Global warming is a scientific fact.

What's a fact? Are you saying it's a fact that changing to CFL's will mitigate Global Warming? Present the facts then. How many degrees cooler will it be in 2050 because of the change to CFL's? Cite your source. More importantly exactly what difference would there have been had we just allowed people to choose instead of enforcing regulations?

Another flaw in your argument is that beans absorb CO2 while growing, therefore the entire process can be carbon neutral. Unfortunately this not true of light bulbs when they use electricity generated by fossil fuels.

It's an analogy, it's not perfect. So you don't like beans fine. I'm fond of ticketing every person for improperly inflated tires. That's inefficient as well. It's clearly not carbon neutral and it leads to CO2 and not methane.

The problem here is that many people do not appreciate how much they are saving.

I think you need to substantiate this claim. How many people and how far off are they?

We hear anecdotes about how CFL's supposedly don't last any longer than incandescents (due to confirmation bias) while most people don't analyze their power usage to verify the savings they are getting.

We also hear people who blindly accept the manufacturers claims about service life despite the fact that they aren't tested in real world conditions. I tend to believe anecdotes over manufacturers pushing their own product. I'll simply agree they last longer and save money. But so do all kinds of products, products we're free to choose or not choose based on our own requirements and not some guy in Ottawa. I also agree people don't actually verify the savings.

Therefore, it is very easy for somebody to erroneously think that switching to CFL's isn't worthwhile.

It's also easy for somebody to switch and think it's worthwhile when it isn't. Listen, people are stupid, that's a basis for making it illegal to drink and drive but not really a basis for banning a light bulb.

I was an early adopter of fluorescent lighting, buying circular fluorescents when they cost $20 each. Even at that price I realized the benefits of lower power consumption, less heat and longer lifespan. Now that CFLs only cost a few dollars, I can easily justify putting them everywhere.

Smart CHOICE

However, there are still a few applications where an incandescent makes sense, particularly where a light is used frequently but only for short periods. For these cases I have replaced them with lower wattage lamps (eg. 25W) which still give enough light but use less power. I also try to always turn an incandescent light off as soon as it is not needed (a habit I learned a long time ago when blackouts were common due to lack of power generating capacity, and the government was encouraging everybody to save electricity).

Again, a good reason for having the choice.

The efficiency of an incandescent light is limited by the fact that it is a 'black body' radiator, therefore the vast majority of its spectrum is in the infrared. Increasing temperature improves efficiency, but at the expense of lifespan. Halogen lamps are a bit more efficient because they can at run a higher temperature. In contrast a fluorescent lamp works by converting narrow band ultraviolet light produced by gaseous discharge, into visible light via fluorescence. This process is inherently more efficient because it does not produce wasteful broad-spectrum infrared radiation that the human eye cannot see.

Yah, but they still suck compared to LED's

CFLs have an absolute luminous efficiency of around 9% to 11%, about 4 times higher than incandescents at 1.9-2.6% (cite).

Yah but they still suck compared to LED's (not quite as much)

The heat produced by an incandescent lamp may be still be of some use to help warm the room in cold weather (though that heat may not go exactly where you want it) but in hot weather it just makes more work for the air conditioning system, and is therefore worse than useless!

Even my grandma knows to shut off the lights in the Summer.

I don't think there's any question CFL's are "better" than incandescent lights, but they're not the "best". I think when they do something as drastic as banning something they need to substantiate it and they need to make sure it's the best. That doesn't seem to be the case with CFL's and that's why I think people have the right to complain. I'd say at best it was premature and at worst a complete waste of time.

 

[LTC8K6]

Ahhh...not allowed to disagree I see. All we get is childish head banging and bolding of only parts of our answer?

Well, that's not going to work very well for discussion purposes...

But, do carry on.

 

[LTC8K6]

BTW, I think Fluorescents and CFL's are fine. I use both often. I recently installed a few Sylvania CFL's in my house and on some equipment at work.

I chose them on my own, though.