The End of the Light Bulb As We Know It

[tivodan1116]

FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It - US News and World Report

The incandescent light bulb, one of the most venerable inventions of its era but deemed too inefficient for our own, will be phased off the U.S. market beginning in 2012 under the new energy law just approved by Congress. Although this will reduce electricity costs and minimize new bulb purchases in every household in America, you may be feeling in the dark about the loss of your old, relatively reliable source of light.

So now the government thinks they can tell me how to light my home...

Will the nanny-state never cease?

[Jack]

I would hope that there are limits to the nanny-state legislation, but that's not to say there aren't situations in which it's appropriate.

There is no more "wild frontier" in most of the lower 48 states. We live in fairly close proximity to one another now, and what one person does affects entire neighborhoods, sometimes entire cities. Why shouldn't the society as a whole enact controls on the usage of common utilities? If a person generated their own electricity, I'd agree that no one else could tell them how they could use it. But as long as an individual is on the common grid, the rules should encourage conservative use of those utilities by everyone on the grid. Of course, if everyone voluntarily adopted energy-conserving habits, there wouldn't be a need to legislate it.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Isherwood There is no more "wild frontier" in most of the lower 48 states.

Do you have any support for that assertion? On the contrary, there are still huge undeveloped areas.

We live in fairly close proximity to one another now, and what one person does affects entire neighborhoods, sometimes entire cities.

So let neighborhoods and cities make these type of laws, not nations. Somehow you find it acceptable that the ICC has morphed from the original intent - keeping states from engaging in trade wars - to dictating what type of light bulb I can put in my house...

Why shouldn't the society as a whole enact controls on the usage of common utilities? If a person generated their own electricity, I'd agree that no one else could tell them how they could use it. But as long as an individual is on the common grid, the rules should encourage conservative use of those utilities by everyone on the grid. Of course, if everyone voluntarily adopted energy-conserving habits, there wouldn't be a need to legislate it.

We already have controls on consumption and rules that encourage conservation...

It's called PRICE.

Very simply, if there is a finite amount of generating power, if people use too much, price will go up. As price goes up, people will either pay more for the privilege of overuse, or will conserve to avoid paying more.

Really, economics will always work more smoothly than force.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: tivodan1116 FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It - US News and World Report So now the government thinks they can tell me how to light my home... Will the nanny-state never cease?

What's worse, the government wants you to light your home with a light bulb that contains mercury and cannot (depending on a state's environmental laws) be disposed of by just tossing it in the trash.

[Suburbanite]

well, now that makes it an issue. My ink cartridges arent supposed to go in the trash either, but god knows they do everytime.

[Sonart]

.

Well I suppose if the kiddies aren't mature enough and responsible enough to do even the bare minimum necessary to save their own planet, then nanny is gonna have to grab them by their little ears and drag them kicking and screaming. And this IS no less than about saving our planet, so you'd better get used to the idea.

But then, I switched my entire house over to the new small flourescents last summer, so it don' bother me.

.

[Cephus]

Quote by: tivodan1116 It's called PRICE.

No, it's called CAPACITY. The generating plants can only produce a certain amount of power and when use exceeds that capacity, you get blackouts. It happens almost every summer around here, everyone has their air conditioners on and need exceeds supply. Raising rates (which they do, BTW) doesn't stop people from using the supply any more than raising the price of gasoline has stopped people from using it.

The reality is, there's only so much electricity currently being produced, you can either do your part to reduce your usage or you can do without power entirely. You pick.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart . Well I suppose if the kiddies aren't mature enough and responsible enough to do even the bare minimum necessary to save their own planet, then nanny is gonna have to grab them by their little ears and drag them kicking and screaming. And this IS no less than about saving our planet, so you'd better get used to the idea.

You completely ignore the fact that simple economics will take care of the problem by itself.

But then, I switched my entire house over to the new small flourescents last summer, so it don' bother me. .

Really? You did? And without a government forcing you to... imagine that... And yet you argue that other people need to be forced...

Quote by: Cephus No, it's called CAPACITY. The generating plants can only produce a certain amount of power and when use exceeds that capacity, you get blackouts. It happens almost every summer around here, everyone has their air conditioners on and need exceeds supply. Raising rates (which they do, BTW) doesn't stop people from using the supply any more than raising the price of gasoline has stopped people from using it.

You lack a basic understanding of the immutable law of supply and demand. When you have passed a basic economics course, come back and adjust your position accordingly.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan You completely ignore the fact that simple economics will take care of the problem by itself.

Yeah, sure... like simple economics solved slavery, child labor, sweatshops, unsafe work conditions, company stores, slave wages and hours, runs on over-extended banks, seat belts, killer smog, toxic, flammable lakes and rivers and the expanding holes in the ozone layer.

Yeah, I believe that, tivodan, cuz the free market never puts greedy short term gain before the greater good.

Quote by: tivodan Really? You did? And without a government forcing you to... imagine that... And yet you argue that other people need to be forced...

It's like alcohalism, tivo... first you have to admit you have a problem and I've been admitting it for years. Then you have to be mature enough to know you can't keep living the same life that caused the problem or the problem just gets worse.

And based on YOUR posts, obviously you're gonna be one of those the government has to drag kicking and screaming.

.

[Cephus]

Quote by: tivodan1116 You lack a basic understanding of the immutable law of supply and demand. When you have passed a basic economics course, come back and adjust your position accordingly.

I have no need to adjust my position, thank you. In the modern world, electricity and gasoline are essential products, without which people die and society grinds to a halt. It's like putting people in a room with a limited supply of oxygen, people can't simply decide to stop breathing because the demand exceeds the supply. In the end, the supply is essential and when it's exhausted, everyone dies.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Sonart . Yeah, sure... like simple economics solved slavery, child labor, sweatshops, unsafe work conditions, company stores, slave wages and hours, runs on over-extended banks, seat belts, killer smog, toxic, flammable lakes and rivers and the expanding holes in the ozone layer.

Logical fallacy: Red Herring. Those things have nothing to do with this.

Yeah, I believe that, tivodan, cuz the free market never puts greedy short term gain before the greater good.

You're not paying attention. Do you actually examine the problem, or do you just see the words "free market" and start hyperventilating?

Greed will solve this problem on its own, without intervention from the government. Currently, in terms of electric costs, CFLs are already much cheaper than incandescent bulbs, and they are creeping closer in up front prices as well. Greed will lead an informed consumer to purchase the cheaper CFLs when total cost of ownership is taken into account. Furthermore, greed will keep the companies that make CFLs constantly innovating in order to make them even more competitive with incandescents. However, since the government has now removed their competition from the market, they no longer have incentive to do so, and in that case greed will drive them to make a worse product for a higher price.

It's like alcohalism, tivo... first you have to admit you have a problem and I've been admitting it for years. Then you have to be mature enough to know you can't keep living the same life that caused the problem or the problem just gets worse.

And then, apparently, according to you, the government has to hold you down and make you fix the problem? Since you brought up the analogy, how well did prohibition work to get the nation off of alcohol?

And based on YOUR posts, obviously you're gonna be one of those the government has to drag kicking and screaming.

Obviously, you know nothing about me, so stfu.

Not that my personal use matters, but since you decided to make this a personal attack thread, I use CFLs in several places in my house where they are a good application. However, there are some places in which they are not - reading lights, chandeliers, exposed light bulbs. I'm waiting for things like efficient compact led's and other types of lights for those applications. But, since companies will no longer have any incentive to beat the old-fashioned incandescents, I won't hold my breath.

[Compugasm]

Six years ago (in 2002) I bought 10 lightbulbs that put out 100w of light, but only consume 20w. Out of all the energy being wasted in the nation, I can't imagine that new light bulbs for everyone will make a big difference.

This announcement of regulation is the appearance something is being done. So, 10yrs after energy efficient lights have been available, government is mandating it? Won't most people already have energy efficient lights by then anyway? How many "illegal" lights would be around after 10yrs? This is silliness. Just last week, one of my lights finally died. I probably have enough lightbulbs to last the rest of my life.

Someone mentioned having a responsibility to being on the grid. But blackouts effect even those who make every attempt to use less electricity. No matter how responsible, you are still at the mercy of how much electricity they can, or feel like generating. That is what needs to change. Somehow, buildings and cars needs to generate their own electricity and get consumers off the grid entirely. New lightbulbs, as a solution to the energy crisis, is a freaking joke.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan Logical fallacy: Red Herring. Those things have nothing to do with this.

It's not a red herring. You suggested that simple economics would take care of the problem (meaning global warming) instead of compulsory regulation. I pointed out a great number problems that economics not only didn't take care of but caused in the first place. Global Warming is yet another problem created by economics and which many economic interests have absolutely no interest is solving.

Quote by: tivodan Greed will lead an informed consumer to purchase the cheaper CFLs when total cost of ownership is taken into account.

Funny... I've been saying exactly that for years.

So why is it that such bastions of free market Capitalism as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Pacific Research Insitute, the Libertarian Party, or the Ayn Rand Institute all refuse to concede that global warming even exists?

Is that their idea of the marketplace solving a problem? By ignoring it?

Quote by: tivodan But, since companies will no longer have any incentive to beat the old-fashioned incandescents, I won't hold my breath.

Having a market suddenly thrust wide open to new innovations won't be an incentive???? "Gosh, no more standard incandescent bulbs on the market... guess we better stop work on our LED idea."

Beg your pardon, but who doesn't understand basic economics?

.

[Compugasm]

Electric companies want you to use less electricity, because the more you use, the less you pay per kilowatt. This means, if you use less electricity, they charge you more per Kilowatt. Check your bill, it's a fact! More customers, decreasing demand, but paying higher rates. That is what this lightbulb legislation is really all about.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Cephus I have no need to adjust my position, thank you. In the modern world, electricity and gasoline are essential products, without which people die and society grinds to a halt. It's like putting people in a room with a limited supply of oxygen, people can't simply decide to stop breathing because the demand exceeds the supply. In the end, the supply is essential and when it's exhausted, everyone dies.

So I assume you advocate the same price controls and similar measures for food, clothing and housing, then? Obviously since those are essentials, we can't trust the market to provide them, right?

Close down the grocery stores - the government is going to outlaw competition in food now.

Quote by: Sonart . It's not a red herring. You suggested that simple economics would take care of the problem (meaning global warming) instead of compulsory regulation. I pointed out a great number problems that economics not only didn't take care of but caused in the first place.

None of which are analogous to the current situation. That is what defines a red herring. Some of them are too far removed in time, some of them were not solved through government intervention, and some were never problems.

Global Warming is yet another problem created by economics and which many economic interests have absolutely no interest is solving.

Really??? So all those companies were forced by the government to come out with hybrid cars? BP is being forced by the government to run ads talking about what they're doing, as an oil company, to protect the environment? People are forced to make millions in donations each year to environmental causes? Organic foods don't enjoy a successful free market, the government has to force them upon the consumer?

Shall I go on?

Funny... I've been saying exactly that for years. So why is it that such bastions of free market Capitalism as the American Enterprise Institute, the Cato Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Pacific Research Insitute, the Libertarian Party, or the Ayn Rand Institute all refuse to concede that global warming even exists?

Because it doesn't exist to the extent that enviro-nazis religiously push that it does.. And to the extent that it does, it is not caused or controlled by humans.

Is that their idea of the marketplace solving a problem? By ignoring it?

See above.

Having a market suddenly thrust wide open to new innovations won't be an incentive???? "Gosh, no more standard incandescent bulbs on the market... guess we better stop work on our LED idea." Beg your pardon, but who doesn't understand basic economics?

LOL... YOU don't. What motivation is there to innovate when your product is guaranteed a monopoly by government regulation?

Right now, CFL producers are competing with incandescent lights on many factors, foremost of which is the "quality" of light put out. They constantly strive to make their CFL's more similar to incandescent lighting. Now that incandescent lighting is being outlawed and consumers will no longer be able to choose based upon quality of light, why would they continue to attempt to "beat" incandescent light?

In which case do you run a faster race: Where your opponent is equal to you, or where your opponent shows up broken and forfeits, but the rules say you have to run across the finish line anyway. Go to a weekend of drag racing and let me know.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: tivodan None of which are analogous to the current situation.

Says who???? How is unsafe working conditions, the industrial production of killer smogs, acid rain, polluted rivers or the mass poisoning of wildlife -- all of which were only reversed with government regulation -- so different than the pollution of our atmosphere to the point where it creates global warming? The only reason you've decided that none of my examples were analogous is because it defeats your argument for them to be analogous... therefore - PRESTO - they aren't analogous.

Quote by: tivodan Really??? So all those companies were forced by the government to come out with hybrid cars?

Hey, Al Gore and I are the ones who keep saying that unleashing Yankee ingenuity and American knowhow will innovate our way out of the problem... and make fortunes in the process. But first we have to be convinced there's a problem, and the Free-Market Denial lobby and the current Republican administration seem intent on keeping that from happening.

So I guess it's going to be Japanese ingenuity and knowhow that gets rich solving our problems.

Quote by: tivodan Because it doesn't exist to the extent that enviro-nazis religiously push that it does.. And to the extent that it does, it is not caused or controlled by humans.

You don't know whether to jump up, take a dump or wind your watch, do you? The market will solve the problems, but there really isn't any problem, but if there was a problem we didn't cause it.

There is a problem, tivo, a very, VERY BIG problem, and all the name calling in the world won't change it. So if you don't want Nanny Sam telling you what to do, then you best start telling the market to get cracking and commence saving the planet.

Quote by: tivodan YOU don't. What motivation is there to innovate when your product is guaranteed a monopoly by government regulation?

Who's product is guaranteed a monopoly? They're eliminating old, innefficient light bulbs, but anyone else who can design a better light than what's currently available has got a wide open market. Small flourescents, LEDs, no one has a monopoly yet.

Quote by: tivodan Now that incandescent lighting is being outlawed and consumers will no longer be able to choose based upon quality of light, why would they continue to attempt to "beat" incandescent light?

Why were the incandescent bulb makers constantly making improved styles??? To increase their market share against competing bulb makers by makig a superior product. Just because different companies were making essentially the same kind of bulb didn't stop them from competing with newer, better products.

Silly boy, did you think competing CFL makers are going to sit on their butts and not try to make a better light than their competitors?

Quote by: tivodan In which case do you run a faster race: Where your opponent is equal to you, or where your opponent shows up broken and forfeits, but the rules say you have to run across the finish line anyway

See above... just because there's no more incandescent light bulbs doesn't mean there isn't competition.

.

[Cephus]

Quote by: tivodan1116 So I assume you advocate the same price controls and similar measures for food, clothing and housing, then? Obviously since those are essentials, we can't trust the market to provide them, right?

At least in the United States, there isn't a limited supply of any of those things, therefore there is no need to control the prices, the free market can do that. With energy however, there's only so much to go around and our generation capacity hasn't grown with the times (but that's another thread altogether).

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Cephus With energy however, there's only so much to go around and our generation capacity hasn't grown with the times (but that's another thread altogether).

By 1980, after two Arab oil embargoes had wreaked havoc on our economy, America's campaign of energy conservation and alternative energy had reduced foreign oil imports by an incredible 25%, leading to the collapse of both oil prices and OPEC.



There may be a limited supply, but that becomes considerably less problematic if we cut the demand through conservation. And as we proved in '80, surprisingly little conservation goes a long way. Unlike some would have us believe, it would not require Americans to move into caves.

.

[Chris]

Quote by: tivodan1116 FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It - US News and World Report So now the government thinks they can tell me how to light my home... Will the nanny-state never cease?

Please.

The government has regulated appliances and the way they use energy for years. Its for your own good. We are talking about a light bulb here, we aren't talking about making you not shave on Sundays - or take 3 minute showers.

Get over it.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Chris Please. The government has regulated appliances and the way they use energy for years. Its for your own good. We are talking about a light bulb here, we aren't talking about making you not shave on Sundays - or take 3 minute showers. Get over it.

Heh, and they still manage to do that too during droughts.