Ban the Bulb?

American Thinker ^ | April 03, 2007 | Luminus Maximus

[neverdem]

In a few weeks the US Congress is likely to vote to phase out the standard incandescent lightbulb within a decade. The frantic race to see who can best appease the global warming alarmists will claim another victim, the friendly glow of the direct descendant of Thomas Edison's filament-based light bulb.  

Why would the humble lightbulb, a staple commodity that has raised the standard of living throughout the world, be in the bullseye?  It was the incandescent electric light bulb that abolished the tyranny of the night. Our 19^th and 20^th century ancestors believed it one of the greatest gifts of civilization because they had directly experienced life before electric lighting changed everything. In 2002, former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld briefly reminded us of this blessing when he commented on the satellite imagery revealing the nighttime darkness in North Korea, but other than this brief moment, we seem to have forgotten what we owe to Edison's first invention.  

Ironically, the lowly lightbulb became one of the icons of the New Deal, forever connected with the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The REA and the TVA enabled cheap electric power to be available everywhere, even on the remotest farms and ranches. And a substantial part of the American people fell in love with big government because it brought this fruit of civilization, the rollback of the night, to all Americans.

But today, more than anything else, the humble lightbulb is altogether another sort of convenient symbol for big government-a technology dinosaur, perpetrator of evil crimes against the planet.  Stopping the wasteful use of kilowatts by American households in the war on greenhouse gases is the new battle cry of the lovers of governmental control over our lives.

There are about 4 billion conventional screw-in light bulb sockets all across America; the vast majority are in homes and apartments. Incandescent light bulbs are in most of these sockets, with some 2 billion or more replaced every year. It is estimated at least $15 billion of electricity is consumed by these inefficient anachronisms, and that by replacing them with more energy efficient types of lightbulbs-primarily post-modern compact fluorescents--that $15 billion could be cut in half.

We are told that as kilowatts could be reduced, we would need fewer nasty coal-fired power generating plants, while winning a major battle against global warming with little pain and even less effort. Everybody wins!

Well, not exactly. Once again, a nice-sounding theory overlooks significant details of the practical outcomes.

Energy conservation lobbyists conveniently overlook the obvious fact that household lightbulbs are primarily used at night-exactly opposite the time of day in which utilities experience peak load demands for daytime heating, air conditioning and commercial lighting. Peak load shedding is what is most necessary for taking coal fired power plants out of commission.

Reducing nighttime lightbulb consumption of kwhs will do almost nothing to shave peak demand.  Moreover, with non-peak kwhs reduced at night, utilities will now have fewer revenues on which to earn a return on their invested capital. Utilities must build up their physical plant to meet the peaks, and the capital to finance that equipment has to be paid for 24 hours a day.  Thus, utilities will have to raise rates on the remainder of the kwhs we use for everything else, from washing machines to hair dryers to computers.

Household power used by lightbulbs is actually dwarfed these days by major appliances and high tech consumer electronics- such as wide screen TVs, computers and video games along with internet servers, the biggest energy hogs besides cars and trucks.

And since the new CFLs produce inferior light compared to incandescents, we'll need more of them to read, shave, comb our hair and brush our teeth.  Assuming literacy and personal hygiene are still hallmarks of civilized life after the global warming alarmists are done with their crusade to rid us of the blessings of the evil civilization that rapes Mother Gaia.

By banning the incandescent lightbulb Congress will forcibly remove a staple commodity from the marketplace, replacing it with products that are far more expensive, less reliable and more hazardous, notably the much ballyhooed compact fluorescent lightbulb (CFL).

CFL lightbulbs have been around for well over a decade. Only recently have they come in enough varieties and flavors to capture about 10% of the available sockets. But they are still at least 5 times more expensive than regular incandescents, which if replaced in their entirety would cost consumers an extra $4 to 5 billion at the cash register. No doubt millions of Americans will enthusiastically embrace this new technology and be willing to pay extra to get it.

But millions more will not fare so well. This ban will be a tax on poor people and the silent majority-retirees on fixed incomes, single working parents, low wage earners working double shifts or two jobs along with the average Joes and Marys who live each week paycheck-to-paycheck. They don't have cable TV to watch the Home and Garden channel, and can't afford to replace their functional if drab table lamp fixtures, much less employ a green ideology-toting residential lighting designer.

For these Americans, burdens come in large packages. Relief arrives less often, and then in small envelopes, such as reduced inflationary pressures on staple commodities like lightbulbs and all the necessities of life purchased at low prices from Wal-Mart. Of course Wal-Mart is yet another enemy of the trendy affluent class that wants to dictate how the rest of us lead our lives. 

And guess where the extra purchase prices for these CFLs will wind up? In the pockets of Chinese manufacturers, because not a single CFL is produced in the US.

And it gets worse. As Chinese manufacturers add enough manufacturing capacity to produce ten times as many CFLs , they will need several new coal-fired power plants to run the new factories.  This comes on top of the already breathtaking pace today of construction in coal fired electric power plants in China  - at a clip of one new plant every week. Don't even think about asking about what kind of pollution control will be operating on those Chinese plants.

A tax on poor people in the US so the Chinese can add more coal fired power plants. Now there's a bright idea.

There's even more to this story: one more dirty little secret that the greens won't tell you about.

CFLs contain mercury. You didn't know that? Just a drop you say?  How about up to 5 milligrams per lightbulb. If all 4 billion incandescent sockets were filled with CFLs we'd have 20 billion milligrams of mercury spread around every single US household. By the way, 20 billion milligrams is nearly 50,000 pounds.

That 50,000 pounds of mercury amongst 300 million people, if indiscriminately thrown away, will eventually find its way to your favorite landfill and public drinking water supply. Knock over a table lamp and shatter a CFL in your house, and you have a toxic waste situation on your hands right in the living room, bedroom or dining room.

On the other hand, at least half of all mercury emissions from coal fired power plants currently is captured by scrubbers, and clean coal technologies promise to eliminate 2/3rds of what remains. Not so for CFLs-- which can't operate without mercury.

So there you have it. Congress will soon enact legislation to impose a tax on poor people that will directly pass to Chinese companies, contribute to lower literacy and less personal hygiene while making industrial policy that will increase greenhouse gas emissions worldwide and spread a hazardous heavy metal into the environment.

Ban the bulb is a no-brainer , only this time the empty-headed variety.

Luminus Maximus is the pen name of a longtime observer of the industry

[Marie]

A year ago I put fluorescent bulbs throughout my entire house in a bid to save money. I found that fluorescent lights give me a headache. I actually switched to candles for about a week to get away from that horrid light before I finally broke down and switched back. There went a hundred dollars down the drain.

I suppose I'd better stock up on a lifetime supply of the regular kind.

[MIT-Elephant]

Fluorescent lamps do give inferior light, but incandescent bulbs are really power-inefficient. There’s just too many better technologies out there to be relying on the tungsten filament.

Now, I don’t think the gov’t should ban it - as the libs like to say, you can’t legislate morality, and forcing people to use a more green bulb isn’t going to make them environmentally conscious. It actually would probably make them less considerate of their own environmental choices, thinking the guvmint will take care of it.

[jwh_Denver]

Just effing brilliant.

[bruinbirdman]

The curleyques are only good for outside all night lights, little ones, not for light, just to show someone is home. Supposedly the 40 watt equivilent lumen output curlies only use 13 watts.

They last a long, long time but the light output is horrible (kinda like a russian apartment with one 25 watt bulb) and they are too expensive.

I have replaced three or four in two years and I sure didn't call HAZMAT to come get them.

yitbos

[Drammach]

I have read recently that CFLs ( the compact fluorescents) don't last as long as advertised as well..
Personal experience has found that some of them don't have proper "starters" in them and flicker on and off..
They sometimes don't work well with electronic switches..

The real solution lies somewhere else..
Light Emitting Diodes.. (LEDs)

LEDs have only recently started to become even close to economical..
They aren't there yet, but they are getting there..
Another problem has been "white light" LEDs..
Only recently have white LEDs been produced..
Since they are "new" even compared to standard LEDs, they are also,... more expensive..

But this too, will pass..
LEDs are cooler, like CFLs, and very energy efficient..
They will be the lighting for the 21st century..

[highlander_UW]

I just skimmed the article...are they trying to ban Al Gore...the dim bulb?!

[quietolong]

>>>> This ban will be a tax on poor people <<<<

Oh oh you know what that will lead to more of (the gov. already gives vouchers out to go
to Wal-Mart to get CFL’s)

I have a mix over the house. Some places ok but other places the incandescent works better.

When you need full light now or were it’s cold or detailed work bench the list goes on.

Can you see the next crime? .....Felony light bulb possession, Black market bulbs,Lightkeepers (see Fahrenheit 451)

[snoringbear]

“I found that fluorescent lights give me a headache.”

Right on Marie. I live in Shanghai and fluorescent lighting is used throughout China. In addition to give me a headache, these things are dim, causing the addition of extra lights to achieve some modicum of decent lighting. Also, it is very irritating when walking into a dark room, flip the light switch on, then have to wait a second or two for these flickering things to stabilize and provide enough light to enter the room. There will have to be significant improvements in fluorescent lights before Americans will buy into them I think.

[DB]

The government shouldn’t interfere. Let people decide what best works for them.

The article is in error when they say it is a tax on poor people to use CFLs. The cost of the energy saved over the life of a typical CFL more than offsets the additional initial cost of the CFL. The overall savings is usually more than double the cost of the CFL. So if you’re poor, using CFL’s will make you a little less poor.

[NavVet]

I switched to CFL’s because you never have change them. However, I think it is a stupid idea to make it illegal to buy a regular light bulb. And what about lights in dimmer circuits. CFL’s are either on or off.

[AlexW]

“I have read recently that CFLs ( the compact fluorescents) don’t last as long as advertised as well..”

Especially if you live in an area of thunderstorms, or other voltage surges. In my experience, the premature failures eliminated any savings.

CFLs are still the same ancient technology that is well over
70 years old. Only the solid state ballast has made them compact.

I think LED bulbs will be in the future.
I envision matrix structures of diodes, much like modern
integrated circuits. (thousands of LEDs in one bulb.)

[JoeGar]

Great info in the article.

[restornu]

Ban the Light Bulb?

Years ago when comment sense still existed this title would have made a good April fools day?

[Dallas59]

The government shouldn't’t interfere. Let people decide what best works for them.

You must be a Conservative!

[Vanders9]

Actually I think the article is not telling you the exact truth at all.

To say this is a “tax on the poor” or ringing in extra money for the wrong people or even that it means more coal-firing plants are going to be built is breathtakingly innacurate. Consider:

CFLs do cost more, but due to the laws of supply and demand, the cost has been dropping and will drop very much more as they are more widely used. Also, they last about eight times longer (because they don’t generate as much heat) and they only use a fifth of the energy, hence lower electricity bills. They are actually less expensive now.

As for this ridiculous argument about building more plants to make them - how so? The demand for lamps isn’t going to change all that much. Surely if you are making more CFL’s you must be making fewer incandescent bulbs, so how come you are going to need extra power stations?

What this article actually does is call for a halt to progress. Incandescents are ok, but CFLs are better. However, I agree that it would be better to institute them by market forces, not legislation. I also agree that both incandescent and CFL are going to be overtaken by LED technology in the future.

[x_plus_one]

The article is in error when they say it is a tax on poor people to use CFLs. The cost of the energy saved over the life

2 dollars a bulb is more than I can afford today.

[elli1]

Fluorescent lights have a high output of UV rays. Don’t use fluorescent lights anywhere you have valuable artwork displayed unless the work is shielded with special (and costly) UV filtering glass. I’ve seen valuable signed & numbered prints rendered worthless because of fading resulting from being displayed in fluorescent lit offices.

[Paisan]

And, despite the persistent urban legend regarding the Great Wall of China, the electric light is truly the ONLY man-made object visible from outer space

[dirtbiker]

I just skimmed the article...are they trying to ban Al Gore...the dim bulb?!

I'd like to think so, but Al would make up for it with increased volume and mass....