Outlawing the Traditional Incandescent Light Bulb

[dianahsieh]

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The new energy bill (passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Bush) will outlaw the traditional incandescent light bulb over the next several years, requiring instead more expensive "energy efficient" bulbs as part of the fight against global warming. Of course, if these new bulbs are more cost-effective in the long run, then there's no need to mandate their use. And if they aren't, then this is just another burden on consumers. Either way, it's a violation of the individual rights of producers and consumers of those products.

This is on top of the recent shameful capitulation by the US on global warming policy at the recent international Bali conference, in which the US gave into the demands of the rest of the world.

Those who think that the Republicans and/or the religious conservatives will provide any kind of principled defense against the anti-reason and anti-human views of the environmentalists are in for a rude awakening.

Here are some links to recent news stories.

From USA Today, 12/16/2007:

"

It's lights out for traditional light bulbs

"

Turn out the lights on traditional incandescent bulbs.

A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months.

The new devices include current products such as compact fluorescents and halogens, as well as emerging products such as light-emitting diodes and energy-saving incandescent bulbs.

...Under the measure, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today's products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient.

(Disclaimer: I have no idea how the still-legal "energy-saving incandescent bulbs" differ from the forbidden "traditional incandescent bulbs".)

From AP News, 12/19/2007:

"

Bush signs bill boosting fuel standards

"

President Bush signed into law Wednesday legislation that will bring more fuel-efficient vehicles into auto showrooms and require wider use of ethanol, calling it "a major step" toward energy independence and easing global warming.

...The bill also calls for improved energy efficiency of appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and dishwashers, and a 70 percent increase in the efficiency of light bulbs. It also calls for energy efficiency improvements in federal buildings and construction of commercial buildings.

From the Christian Science Monitor, 12/17/2007:

"

Bali Climate Deal Marks a Geopolitical Shift

"

...South Africa said that the US position "was most unwelcome and without any basis." Then Kevin Conrad, who headed Papua-New Guinea's delegation, rose and turned Mr. Connaughton's comment on its head.

...Confronted with the prospect of overwhelming isolation, [chief US negotiator] Dobriansky relented, saying, "We will join the consensus."

...Many longtime observers say it was the most stunning reversal they had ever seen at one of these meetings.

From the Christian Science Monitor, 12/20/07:

"

Many Religious Leaders Back Climate-Change Action

"

Religious groups in the United States and around the world have steadily adopted pro-environment positions. At Christmastime this shift has been particularly evident regarding global climate change.

...More than 100 influential evangelical leaders have signed the Evangelical Climate Initiative (ECI) to fight global warming,

the [Christian] Post article says

. They're asking governments and individuals to reduce CO2 emissions.

The ECI concludes that global warming is real. The Post article quotes from the initiative's statement:

"Christians, noting the fact that most of the climate change problem is human induced, are reminded that when God made humanity he commissioned us to exercise stewardship over the earth and its creatures.... Climate change is the latest evidence of our failure to exercise proper stewardship, and constitutes a critical opportunity for us to do better."

...According to one recent poll mentioned in a story by The Economist, two-thirds of Evangelicals want immediate action on global warming. The story continues:

"The new mood reflects a generational change among evangelicals, says Andrew Walsh, a religion-watcher at Trinity College, Hartford [Conn.]. The younger lot wants to focus more on issues such as AIDS and the crisis in Darfur – a cluster of concerns that have more in common with climate change than with crusading against homosexuality."

Although I'm sure it's unintentional, I find it ironic that the environmentalists and the evangelicals are teaming up to extinguish Thomas Edison's traditional incandescent light bulb, the long-time symbol of reason and thought.

http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003103.html

[Fireball]

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

The new energy bill (passed by Congress and just signed into law by President Bush) will outlaw the traditional incandescent light bulb over the next several years, requiring instead more expensive "energy efficient" bulbs as part of the fight against global warming...

The American left has achieved its first major victory in the fight against industrialized civilization: the criminalization of Thomas Edison's iconic invention -- the incandescent light bulb.

Driven by left-wing environmentalists and drafted by Nancy Pelosi and her leftwing cohorts in congress, this new bill not only outlaws Edison's great achievement but outlaws Henry Ford's great achievement: a V8 engine in an affordable car.

Would you rather be reduced to a candle-lit cave by leftwing anti-producers or be reduced to a candle-lit cave by rightwing anti-seculars?

[Steve D'Ippolito]

The American left has achieved its first major victory in the fight against industrialized civilization: the criminalization of Thomas Edison's iconic invention -- the incandescent light bulb.

Well, crap: There goes Anthem.

Perhaps they'll next figure out an excuse to ban copper (just to nail both Rearden and d'Anconia). Or skyscrapers (Roark).

[Benpercent]

Awh, this makes me sad. They're throwing Thomas Edison right out the window.

[Thales]

The American left has achieved its first major victory in the fight against industrialized civilization: the criminalization of Thomas Edison's iconic invention -- the incandescent light bulb.

So true. That kills me where it hurts. I love Edison and his inspiring inventions, and the incandescent bulb is so representative of America in its glory days. The state just marches on, closing in on our freedoms ever more. Bush is a pathetic excuse for a human being.

[Robert J. Kolker]

So true. That kills me where it hurts. I love Edison and his inspiring inventions, and the incandescent bulb is so representative of America in its glory days. The state just marches on, closing in on our freedoms ever more. Bush is a pathetic excuse for a human being.

You can get brighter light cheaper from a florescent bulb. They are brighter, they last for years and they require less electricity. It is a win win win thing to use them. HOWEVER, I object strenuously to the gummint telling me to use them. I started using them several years ago all on my own, motivated by a desire for more light at a lower cost. I don't need no steeenking badges to tell me what do do.

The incandescent has had its day. It is obsolete. Florescent and LED lights will do most of th illumination for home and office.

Bob Kolker

[Thales]

You can get brighter light cheaper from a florescent bulb. They are brighter, they last for years and they require less electricity. It is a win win win thing to use them.

It depends on what you’re using them for. If I want heat and light, then an incandescent is preferable.

Incandescent bulbs give off a great deal of energy in the form of heat, which is what makes them less efficient. But, I find the light from incandescent bulbs to be more intense and focused than it is for fluorescents.

HOWEVER, I object strenuously to the gummint telling me to use them. I started using them several years ago all on my own, motivated by a desire for more light at a lower cost. I don't need no steeenking badges to tell me what do do.

How are kids going to hatch chick eggs without incandescent bulbs?

The incandescent has had its day. It is obsolete. Florescent and LED lights will do most of th illumination for home and office.

Fluorescents were invented around 1901. GE had a patent for one in 1941. They’ve been around almost as long as incandescent bulbs. Anyway, incandescent bulbs are still around in great numbers, so what you say is not true. The government is trying to make them obsolete, but that’s a different matter altogether.

This is just another tool of survival being taken away from man by a malicious government policy.

[D'kian]

You can get brighter light cheaper from a florescent bulb. They are brighter, they last for years and they require less electricity. It is a win win win thing to use them.

I'm not entirely sold on them. I've been using them for over 5 years. They do last longer than incandescents, yes, and they do consume a lot elss energy (I'll admit to using more lights than I used to, but the net energy usage is still lower). However, several of them don't last that long, say a year and half or so.

Another problem is that most fluorescents come in white rather than yellow. White light, even soft white, isn't as good for reading as yellow light.

The incandescent has had its day. It is obsolete.

Not really. It's very, very cheap. the energy savings, while real, are relatively small. And, as it has been mentioned, the heat given off by incandescents can be useful, too. I don't live in a cold climate (Mexico City), but it does get chilly in winter. The very first time I considered buying an electric heater was the first winter after I switched to fluorescents.

I wonder if space heaters will be enxt. They are a fire hazzard, too.

[softwareNerd]

I bought a few of these low-energy blubs too, and I assume they save something on my monthly bill. They are also supposed to last longer; but, I haven't found this to be true. They seem to burn out just like regular bulbs. I haven't kept records, so they might last a little longer; but, definitely nowhere near the 7-years that are typically advertised on them. Since they are expensive, their life-span is a significant part of the cost-benefit calculation. I'm not sure they've saved me money. Perhaps the 7-year claim is based on some type of laboratory condition that does not reflect the fluctuations of power in my area, or my usage of the bulbs.

Some other negatives of these new bulbs:

• one does not get them in smaller-thread sizes. This rules out many fixtures in our home
  
• they have a larger than normal circumference above the threads, when compared to incandescent bulbs that have an identical thread-circumference; so, they do not fit into certain fixtures. In our home, this means they do not fit into some of our fan-light fixtures, nor can they fit into some torcherie-style lamps
  
• they cannot be used on dimmers. Our basement has two arrays of recessed lights, ideally a great place to save by using low-cost illumination; but, one array is on a dimmer, so these new bulbs cannot be used
  
• they take a while to light up to full capacity, so even in the recessed-light array where I use them, I've had to retain a few regular floodlights, so that we get enough light during the first 10 minutes. (I'm fine with paying a little more for that convenience)
  

I've seen some articles about LED fixtures, that I think can be made to look real cool... and can be morphed into all sorts of styles. I think if LED can be made economical on large volume production, it could be a great alternative. However, I haven't seen them in regular stores yet. Perhaps they're still too expensive.

All said and done, light fixtures are minor part of our home utility bill. So, it's not such a huge saving even if the lighting cost does go down by 75-80%.

PS: Further, if the thesis of "The Bottomless Well" then we will see the apparent paradox that more energy efficient devices will cause us to use more total energy per capita in the long run.

[Robert J. Kolker]

Not really. It's very, very cheap. the energy savings, while real, are relatively small. And, as it has been mentioned, the heat given off by incandescents can be useful, too. I don't live in a cold climate (Mexico City), but it does get chilly in winter. The very first time I considered buying an electric heater was the first winter after I switched to fluorescents.

I wonder if space heaters will be enxt. They are a fire hazzard, too.

Incandescent lamps have to be replaced much more frequently, especially the high wattage lamps.

You are right about the color. Florescent lamps cast a harsher light than do soft-white or yellowish incandescent lamps. I have become accustomed to the harsher light so it no longer bothers me.

Bob Kolker

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

This is incredibly evil; and this is what happens when altruism runs amuck at the point of a gun.

When it comes to lighting my home, I use both incandescent and fluorescent light bulbs. I have no actual preference as to the lighting, except that florescent tends to be more in the blue versus incandescent which tends to be more in the red; unless one buys "natural light" florescent bulbs.

Before long, each person will be required to wear a space suit on Earth so as not to pollute the atmosphere...you know, in case you fart too much or breath too much or smoke too much. Gotta watch those CO2 and Methane emissions!

They are all but outlawing human survival.

Where I work, it was governmentally mandated that we use flow control devices on our heating / air-conditioning equipment and to use non-water-tank water heaters; so now it takes many hours to heat or cool the place, even though we intentionally bought larger units so it would heat and cool quickly. And the hot water never really get steaming hot; only luke warm because the device heats up only twenty degrees above ambient temperature of the non-heated water. All due to government ecological enforced building codes.

If my eight cylinder 1976 Ford LTD had survived, I would still have it, because it had great acceleration. Hard to get that in a four cylinder car, unless one wants to pay a lot for it. And I have to wonder if our Founding Fathers 200 years before that cars was made would think that we could advance so far only to have the government outlaw it.

What ever happened to freedom?

Oh, I forgot, that was outlawed too.

[Capitalism Forever]

PS: Further, if the thesis of "The Bottomless Well" then we will see the apparent paradox that more energy efficient devices will cause us to use more total energy per capita in the long run.

The interesting thing about this to whom it appears as a paradox. I suppose it is the same kind of person who, when asked, "If you lowered the price of a product, what would happen to your total revenue?" could only imagine answering, "It would go down." It is the kind of person who operates on the premise that all demand is totally inflexible. There is a fixed amount of "transportation needs," a fixed amount of "lighting needs," and a fixed amount of "health care needs." This is the kind of person who sees life as a decades-long series of things that "need" to be done--without ever conceiving of doing something not because you "need to" (need, for what purpose?) but because you want to. Improving life, to this kind of mentality, consists of minimizing the effort you expend in securing a smooth journey into the grave.

To someone who understands that the demand for wealth--ultimately, the demand for life--is insatiable, this "paradox" is nothing but basic economics: if you make a product more attractive (by making it offer more benefits for the same amount of cost), you will see more of that product being used. Life is about obtaining benefits, not about avoiding costs.

[Robert J. Kolker]

PS: Further, if the thesis of "The Bottomless Well" then we will see the apparent paradox that more energy efficient devices will cause us to use more total energy per capita in the long run.

It really is not a paradox. We are mining the free (in the sense of Gibbs free energy) energy of an open thermodynamic system. As long as the sun shines and the conditions for human life hold on the planet we simply cannot run out of energy. We might run out of ideas, but the free energy* is there. The cost of the end product (electricity, say) is really the cost of the brain power and the capital necessary to deliver the end product to us for use.

*free energy is that portion of thermodynamic energy capable of doing mechanical work. It does NOT mean energy at no cost or price. When everything becomes lukewarm, no more mechanical work can be obtained (this is the maximum entropy condition). It won't happen while the sun shines.

Bob Kolker

[softwareNerd]

The WSJ (Jan 2nd 2008) carried an article accusing bulb-selling company, Philips, of actively campaigning for this legislation.

[DavidV]

I have a brilliant business plan for short-term profit:

1. Invent an improved version of a popular commodity product and protect it with patents
   
2. Lobby politicians to ban the cheap commodity version in the name of environmentalism
   
3. Force consumers to upgrade to your exclusive product
   
4. Profit!
   

[D'kian]

I have a brilliant business plan for short-term profit:

How about bio-degradable paper clips?

[softwareNerd]

A wily German entrepreneur is importing and selling 100W light bulbs even though Germany has banned them. he does this by claiming that they're for use a small heating devices. Here's the story. He even claims that 30 cents from each bulb-purchase will go to save rain-forests; so, he got many ignorant consciences covered too.

[softwareNerd]

The "Bad Money Advice" blog posted an article on analyzing the cost saving of LED bulbs.

Edited April 27, 2012 by softwareNerd