Jevon and a Better Light Bulb

[prufrock01]

I want to make sure that you meant to reference Jevon’s paradox. In order for something to qualify under Jevon’s paradox, consumption must increase - not just utility. So, in this case, people would have to use more electricity than with incandescent bulbs [e.g., burn lights more than four times as long].

If, on the other hand, you meant to indicate that people will burn their lights longer using CFLs than they did when they used incandescent bulbs [completely understandable], you are referring to something called the Substitution Effect.

You can see how these have very different implications, and how we might increasingly find it helpful to distinguish between the two.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Boards, prufrock01, we’re glad you found us. WHen you start a thread, it’s helpful to other readers if you provide a link to the column you’re commenting on. Saves search time and helps keep us on the same page. In this case, it’s the one in incadescent vs fluorescent bulbs, found here: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3035/why-are-eco-fascists-trying-to-ban-incandescent-bulbs

No biggie, you’ll know for next time, and (as I say), welcome indeed!

[Irishman]

prufrock01, I don’t think “substitution effect” is quite right. According to Wiki,

The fundamental theorem of demand states that the rate of consumption falls as the price of the good rises. This is called the substitution effect. Clearly if one does not have enough money to pay the price then they cannot buy any of that item. As prices rise, consumers will substitute away from higher priced goods and services, choosing less costly alternatives.

Substitution effect

That appears to be the inverse of the effect in question, where as prices fall consumption goes up. Wiki says the inverse is the “income effect”

Subsequently, as the wealth of the individual rises, demand increases, shifting the demand curve higher at all rates of consumption. This is called the income effect. As wealth rises, consumers will substitute away from less costly inferior goods and services, choosing higher priced alternatives.

I’m not sure either of those is directly what Cecil meant. What he said was

Even the trivial gain being claimed is illusory. As we’ve discussed in the past, you run up against the Jevons paradox: as use of a resource becomes more efficient, it effectively becomes cheaper, stimulating greater use.

I think he did, in fact, mean that increased efficiency in bulbs would drive people to leave the bulbs on long enough that overall more electricity was being used.

[richgrise]

I’ve never had one of those “cheap” fluorescents last more than a few weeks. And then, when it fails, as they inevitably do, who’s going to bother to schlep it up to the HAZMAT and pay a fee to recycle it? Most people just toss them into the trash, and ultimately the landfill, where the tube breaks and releases mercury into the groundwater.

I’ll never buy one again! (when the Commissar takes over completely, will we have to smuggle in real lightbulbs from Russia or something?)

[Michael63129]

@richgrise

I’ve never had one of those “cheap” fluorescents last more than a few weeks. And then, when it fails, as they inevitably do, who’s going to bother to schlep it up to the HAZMAT and pay a fee to recycle it? Most people just toss them into the trash, and ultimately the landfill, where the tube breaks and releases mercury into the groundwater.

I’ll never buy one again! (when the Commissar takes over completely, will we have to smuggle in real lightbulbs from Russia or something?)

In direct contradiction to your post, I have a CFL on right now that has lasted for well, years (I keep wondering when it will burn out, a quick calculation suggests it has run for at least 10,000 hours; not sure what brand it is because it doesn’t say, a Google search for the model number gets this page; the FCC ID gets this thread from 2003 about an apparently similar model burning out). On the other hand, the one I had before (different brand) failed after about a year (but still longer than a “few weeks”)

Or maybe you were only referring to the really cheap ones, but I have seen people complain that even supposedly good quality CFLs fail on them a lot.

Of course, if you hate CFLs, LED bulbs are rapidly coming down in price and use even less power, thus are even cheaper to use in the long run (as long as they last long enough), and lastly, the ban on incandescents is overhyped; you can still buy them if they meet a minimum efficiency requirement, such as halogens (not those tubular ones that need a special fixture; some look like ordinary bulbs with a smaller bulb inside, which also eliminates the risk of damage from touching them).

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Technical comment from Moderator:
This thread is about Cecil’s comment on Jevon’s Paradox (and related.)

There’s a different thread about the lightbulbs themselves: Better light-bulbs do exist! - Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports - Straight Dope Message Board

So, please keep comments here restricted to the question of whether increased used of a resource causes it to become cheaper, stimulating yet more use.