Acceptable to whom? Using your logic the government should 'force" you to buy and electric car, on your dime, force you to replace your water heart, your furnace. ALL of which would do more then replacing light bulbs. Now given the extremely slow start up of CFL in cold weather, I can easily make the case that using CFL in the cold are a health and safety issue vs the plain light bulb. Like I said I use them where they make since, and don’t use them where it doesn’t. I started using CFL when they were over $5 a piece, so to me it wasn’t a cost issue. As CFL get cheaper, something that will stop once they are mandated because you HAVE to buy them and there won’t be the competition from old fashion light bulbs, they would slowly take over anyway without a mandate. We are seeing that already. So why not just let the market work, with someone who think they know better FORCING you to do it?
"So why not just let the market work, with someone who think they know better FORCING you to do it? "
Should have read
So why not just let the market work, without someone who thinks they know better you FORCING you to do it?
Couldn’t edit my post because the time limit had passed sorry
I think there’s a strong argument that energy efficiency is both.
The “dimmable” CFL bulbs I bought for my kitchen light fixtures don’t work worth a crap. There’s essentially two settings: with the dimmer turned all the way “off,” they glow faintly and emit an obnoxious buzzing sound; if you barely turn the knob they’re suddenly full-on bright.
I have CFL bulbs in other fixtures and the light quality ranges from ugly to just acceptable. Overall, not too impressed with them as a substitute.
I had a “dimmable” CFL that flickered horribly when it wasn’t on full brightness, and then burned out after 25 hours. LED dimming ability is better but stilll isn’t there. My Philips LED will only dims to about 10% and then goes out and the “range” is still different than an incandescent. My father a retired electrical engineer says he doesn’t see a technical reason why LEDs can’t be made to dim to 0%. For now it’s exiled to one of the outdoor lights, which while on dimmers I don’t care about dimming ability, or light quality.
I have four lights in my kitchen, I tried to replace them all with the CFLs and they just would not work right. I think it’s because the switch is dim-able but with more then one they flicker and will not turn on. I bought the more expensive dim-able type too. I can not afford the LEDs to even try one out and now they do not have the old type of bulbs any more so I don’t know what I’m going to do when the ones I have burn out.
Really, I remember a study that stated less then 1% (0.8 if I remember right) of the US energy consumption was used for lighting, so at best even if CFL’s were 100% efficient it won’t even make a dent in the US energy consumption. And just how are CFLs more save then the bulbs they replace?
If reducing energy usage is the real goal, then why not mandate that car dealerships and business offices change their lighting from on-all-night-at-noon-brightness, to maybe motion activated lights and an alarm system? Require office buildings to shut off the lights when no one is on the floor?
I use CFL in probably 1/2 of the fixtures in my house, in places that I decide they work well in. The living room which stays warm and the lights stay on for 1hr+ at a time? Good option. The cool basement or cold garage, where the light is usually on for under 2 minutes? Bad option.
I probably waste more energy by having instant on TVs and by leaving cellphone and laptop computer chargers plugged in than I do by using an incandecent lightbulb instead of a CFL in my yard lights.
Only if you assume the American consumer population comprises entirely rational actors.
Powers &8^]
Most consumers will buy what they perceive what is in their best interest. I know people who still use a horse and buggy, and people who use a straight edge razor, tube amps, vinyl records, etc . They are in the minority. If CFLs are as good or better then incandescent light bulbs they will win out in the end, but if they are not they won’t. It shouldn’t be up to someone who thinks they know best to decide that incandescent light bulbs are obsolete knowing there are problems with CFL’s.
The fact they have to just about mandate buying CFL’s should tell you they aren’t better then what they are going to replace.
If a heater is not 100% efficient, that means some of the energy it uses goes to something other than heat.
So tell me, if you have a heater in an opaque metal housing (so no light or radio waves can get out) where does the energy go, if not to heat?
First you have transmission losses into and out of your box. The heater may be very close to 100% efficient, but you still have loses very very small loses on the conversion. That’s why they claim the heater is 100% efficient. The losses are almost unmeasurable.
The third law of thermodynamics states basically an ideal engine would convert 100% of the heat into useful work only if its exhaust temperature were absolute zero. In other words, 100% efficiency is impossible.
The First Law says you can’t win.
The Second Law says the best you can do is to break even.
The Third Law says you can only break even at absolute zero.
How about an LED nightlight that’s as bright as a 7 watt incandescent too. I’ve tried several of them and none of them are anywhere close.
That’s a question of design and/or the quality of the goods. I have a three-D-cell LED flashlight that is, by a broad margin, the brightest flashlight I’ve ever owned. And the LED nightlight I recently put in the kitchen is far brighter than its incandescent predecessor, too.
I think he was referring to generation/transmission losses (the latter has already been mentioned but isn’t the largest factor); it is generally much more energy efficient to generate heat by burning fuel on-site than burning it in a power plant to generate electricity; the difference may be several times higher for an electric heater vs natural gas. Otherwise, an electric heater really is 100% efficient in producing heat; an incandescent (as a heater) might as well be also for practical purposes (not much difference between 98% and 100%, and even the 2% that is emitted as visible light will stay in unless it goes out a window; the IR emitted by hot objects is reflected by glass).
no no, it’s:
- You can’t win
- You can’t break even
- You can’t get out of the game
or:
- You can only do as well as breaking even
- You can only break even at absolute zero
- You can’t reach absolute zero.
the issue with LEDs is that they’re directional. They work great in flashlights because the entire point of a flashlight is to “throw” a beam of light in a particular direction. LED light bulbs have to use combinations of multiple high-power LEDs and diffusers or reflectors in order to be able to replace incandescent bulbs. These, these, and these do a great job of being drop-in replacements for incandescents. Bulbs like these are less suitable because they don’t emit light as omnidirectionally as incandescents.
Your application of economic theory fails to take into account that the primary benefit of CFLs is not economic. By your logic, we shouldn’t need to enforce fuel efficiency standards on automobiles, either, because left to their own devices, people will buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. We know from real-world observation that that isn’t true. The regulations had to be put in place to force manufacturers to research ways to improve fuel efficiency.
Likewise, the law banning traditional incandescents is necessary to force manufacturers to research ways to improve their efficiency. It may not be in any one person’s personal economic interest to make a switch, but it most certainly is in our collective interest for as many people as possible to make the switch.
That’s the whole reason we have government, you know – to make sure that people acting in their own interest don’t, by doing so, act against the interest of society as a whole.
Powers &8^]
“…the primary benefit of CFLs is not economic.”
If not economic, then what is the benefit? They won’t save any significant amount of energy. Lighting take up less then 1% (0.8% if I remember right) of the electricity we generate. If the goal is to save energy then look at water heaters, which use 14-25% of household energy.
“…necessary to force manufacturers to research ways to improve their efficiency”
They were already doing the before the ban was announced. So why is the ban needed? They had already done the research and the bulbs are already on the market. And many people, including me, are using them.
“By your logic, we shouldn’t need to enforce fuel efficiency standards on automobiles,…”
We really don’t have to. People will buy more efficient car when the price of fuel goes up. I don’t know how old your are but when the first gas crisis hit gas prices double in one year. During that time people were trading in their big cars for tiny cars. People budget for x amount for gasoline. If the price doubles they buy less, to make up for the lower amount of fuel they buy, they replace their old car with more efficient cars. So if gasoline price were to go to $8.22 double 2008 prices do you think people would still be buying SUVs with 500 HP engines or would the be looking for more fuel efficient cars?
Again unless its a clear health or safety issue the government should keep out of it.
If you look at catalytic converters, the government address a health issue and safety issue head on. We had a health problem with lead, we had a safety and health problem with smog. Many people alive today don’t remember LA with a brown haze over it. We cleaned up the air and ground and help improved the health of everyone. The car itself was causing a health and safety issue. Can you really say the same about the light bulb? What health and safety issue is the plain old light bulb causing? None really, even if you replaced ALL the light bulbs with those that only use 1/4 the power, you are on saving about 0.5% of our energy usage. When there are bigger energy waster in our home and offices. You would be better off making TVs, computers, DVD players, chargers, etc, turn themselves OFF when not in use. When you hit the power button to turn off most things today they don’t shut off, the go into sleep mode and continue to use power, I’m betting you’d save more power MANDATING that when something is turn off it can only use 1% of the electricity that it used when turned on. You’re remote will still work and you’ll save power. But should the government get involved in that? I’d say no, make them show energy usage when turn off, sure, then let the people chose what THEY want.
And I left this one for last.
“That’s the whole reason we have government, you know – to make sure that people acting in their own interest don’t, by doing so, act against the interest of society as a whole.”
Really, then you wouldn’t have a problem if the government were to mandate that you exercise 30 minutes a day every day, at a private gym that you MUST pay far. After not only is it in YOUR best interest but “in the interest of society as a whole” Look at the money we would save and how much better society would be. Exercise is something almost everyone agrees is in your best interest, so why not mandate that? It’s not the far of a leap.
Then when and where will it stop? Ban junk food, no soda, no caffeine, under the flag of “best interest of society as a whole” you can get some terrible things happening. We’ve seen it before, but instead of saying “in best interest of society as a whole” people use to say “The end justifies the means.” But that not PC anymore so we say it’s in the best interest of our country, or in the best interest of our society. It’s really the same thing.
And in the best interest of society we’ve seen forced sterilization in the US. Generally they were poor or had some kind of disability where someone determined it was in their best interest and the best interest of society for them not to have any more children. In China we’ve seen the one child policy, were women were forced to have abortions, all because it was in the best interest of society as a whole. We’ve seen people killed, tortured, genocide all under the same flag.
I see this mandate in a different light than you do, I feel that unless there is a CLEAR health or safety issue the government should stay out of it. I can’t find a clear health or safety issue in incandescent lighting, that is solved by using CFL’s or LED’s. Yes we NEED some government regulation, lead in paint is bad, lead in gasoline is bad, waste water needs to be cleaned, industrial waste need to be disposed of in a safe manner, we need to keep our air clean, our water clean.
I know you’ll jump on clean air and water, sigh, but given that lighting makes up such a small part of our energy usage, we should take on the bigger and better fish first. Like I and other have pointed out, CLF’s and LEDs are being adopted, people are buying and using them in greater number. Not only for the energy savings but because they last longer and they don’t have to change them as much. So why do we need a mandate for something people are already starting to do on their own. I see this mandate as a feel good, do nothing step, where politicians and other can stand up and say “See we are the good people.” if they would only add “who didn’t make much of a difference.”
In other words, “this particular mandate is personally inconvenient to me, so I oppose it.” I’m sure other people who are inconvenienced by other mandates feel the same way about them.
Powers &8^]