On Light Bulbs and Liberty
Jul. 20th, 2011 03:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
chris_gerribIn the news of late are various rumblings that the Republican Party, great champions of freedom, are trying to repeal the so-called "light bulb ban." I find this whole discussion pretty dim-witted (pun intended). Allow me to shed some light on the situation.
The first problem with this discussion is that Americans, at least, have gotten into the habit of buying light bulbs based on wattage. The problem is that wattage is not a measure of light output, lumens are. You could take a 60-watt bulb, paint the outside black, turn it on and get zero light but still suck down 60 watts of electricity.
The corollary to this problem is that there's no standard as to how many lumens you should get for a bulb of a certain wattage. Going by this page, one can get bulbs that consume 60 watts but put out between 520 and 825 lumens - a 36% spread. One will also note that the lower-priced bulbs produce the least amount of light.
So, what Congress did in 2007 when they passed the "ban" was two-fold. First, they set a standard - a general-use bulb of X watts needs to produce Y amount of light. This seems to me a simple matter of enforcing an easy-to-understand standard, which is a both a clear benefit to the consumer and well within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Second, they set this standard to be about 25% above the "typical" incandescent bulb of the time. That means you, the consumer, get more light for your dollar. Since they phased in the rule, all sorts of manufacturers came up with energy-efficient incandescent bulbs.
In short, Congress did exactly what we pay them to do - saw a problem and fixed it in a way that's beneficial to the American public. But apparently there's a sacred right in the Constitution to be duped by light bulb manufacturers.
The first problem with this discussion is that Americans, at least, have gotten into the habit of buying light bulbs based on wattage. The problem is that wattage is not a measure of light output, lumens are. You could take a 60-watt bulb, paint the outside black, turn it on and get zero light but still suck down 60 watts of electricity.
The corollary to this problem is that there's no standard as to how many lumens you should get for a bulb of a certain wattage. Going by this page, one can get bulbs that consume 60 watts but put out between 520 and 825 lumens - a 36% spread. One will also note that the lower-priced bulbs produce the least amount of light.
So, what Congress did in 2007 when they passed the "ban" was two-fold. First, they set a standard - a general-use bulb of X watts needs to produce Y amount of light. This seems to me a simple matter of enforcing an easy-to-understand standard, which is a both a clear benefit to the consumer and well within the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Second, they set this standard to be about 25% above the "typical" incandescent bulb of the time. That means you, the consumer, get more light for your dollar. Since they phased in the rule, all sorts of manufacturers came up with energy-efficient incandescent bulbs.
In short, Congress did exactly what we pay them to do - saw a problem and fixed it in a way that's beneficial to the American public. But apparently there's a sacred right in the Constitution to be duped by light bulb manufacturers.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-07-20 09:44 pm (UTC)Weirdly, my mother got back from Egypt a few years ago and complained it had been 40C every day and that was too much, which suggests that she has actually managed to change over, probably because the TV on the weather just stopped bothering with F sometime in the late 70s.
no subject
Date: 2011-07-21 02:54 am (UTC)Then I might actually know how warm it is south of the border when I watch tv!
It is a ban...
Date: 2011-07-21 11:49 am (UTC)- see the 2007 Energy Act
Not only a ban on simple incandescents starting 2012 (28% energy reduction reqd)
but also on ALL known incandescents by 2020 (67% energy reduction reqd),
including therefore the announced Philips etc “New Incandescents”
- which the politicians waving them around like to keep VERY quiet about.
The Energy Information Administration at Dept of Energy (see their
press releases) also confirm that any lamp on the market in 2020
“will have to be as efficient as CFLs” by such time.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on view!)
incandescents can’t technically be made to such energy usage,
and even if they could, the profit -seeking manufacturers behind the
ban would be unlikely to pursue it given the high cost of such bulbs
relative to more profitable CFLs/LEDs.
Of course, even during the time they're allowed,
the Halogen etc replacements are not the same, are more expensive, and
are hardly available (and only in smaller ranges) in post-ban EU and
Australia.
More on the industrial politics behind the ban, with references and
copies of official communications
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
.
...and it's wrong and pointless...
Date: 2011-07-21 11:51 am (UTC)1. Only c. 2% grid electricity saved, DOE etc data =
http://ceolas.net/#li171x with more relevant and significant alternatives.
2. Consumers as a whole hardly save MONEY - regardless of energy savings
Initial bulb cost + Utilities compensated for reduced sales.
So, not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost
(or being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs)
- but also because electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised
or allowed to raise Bill rates to compensate for any reduced
electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc,
and before them in the UK and other European countries
( as referenced http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl )
.
Re: ...and it's wrong and pointless...
Date: 2011-07-21 03:46 pm (UTC)Seriously. That's an enormous amount of electricity saved through one thng? They should have done it sooner.
Re: ...and it's wrong and pointless...
Date: 2011-07-21 10:59 pm (UTC)well that may be an upper limit...
less than 1% of energy usage saved according to same link references
and the alternatives seem more substantial