Posted on 08/07/2008 9:39:55 AM PDT by IrishMike
Every journalist in the land seems to be going ga-ga over the new "energy saver globe". This is the eco-friendly alternative to the devilish and grossly inefficient incandescent bulb. We are being incessantly told by our media mavens that the new alternative is cheaper in the long term than the old light bulb and that it will save just oodles and oodles of energy and that it would be irrational not to buy it.
The funny thing is that Joe Public has to be mandated by arrogant politicians into buying the next best thing to sliced bread. Why is this so? Because in the eyes of his intellectual and moral superiors in the media and politics he is just too dumb to know a good thing when he sees it. Therefore his betters must intervene to save him from his ignorance short-sightedness.
Irrespective of what smart-aleck journalists and pompous politicians think Joe Public is being perfectly rational in choosing the incandescent bulb over the new wonder light, despite the fact that calculations showing the technical superiority of the new product are correct. The principal problem is that politicians and journalists are economic illiterates. If it were otherwise they would never have confused technical efficiency with economic efficiency.
If technical efficiency was the sole determinant then consistency would demand that these advocates should also promote silver, gold and platinum as alternatives to copper wiring because they are superior conductors. But, as they would argue, these metals are too expensive for the job and that's why we need copper.
The same goes for solar panels. If these were 100 per cent efficient they would still be grossly inefficient economically because they involve massive diseconomies of scale where as centralised power generation gives us economies of scale. When it is realised that what really matters is economic efficiency the case for mandating fluorescent lighting and other alternatives falls to the ground.
Philips' figures show that the running costs of a $6 11 watt energy globe (the equivalent of a 60 watt incandescent globe) over a three year period would be $6.60 while the $1.0 alternative would cost 36 dollars for the same period. A "slam dunk deal", as Americans say. Only it ain't. Let us return to our hapless consumer, the one who is too stupid to know how he should spend his money.
In a free market he would have the choice of both products and he would choose on the basis of which one gave him the greatest satisfaction. In this case let us make it the destructive incandescent bulb. Running this light for one year will cost him $12 while the other one will cost $2.20. What is being overlooked, however, that he is not calculating costs in this mechanical way. He is comparing $1.0 for the incandescent bulb with the $6 for the so-called eco-friendly alternative.
By spending $1 he finds himself with $5 to spend on other goods. What we have here is an example of opportunity cost. It is very clear, therefore, that he values the additional goods more than he values the 'eco-friendly' light. But what about future savings? This question brings us to time preference, the preference for present goods over future goods. In other words, we value present goods more highly than those in the future.
If one were to ask these journalists if they would prefer to have a $100 today or $100 in a year's time, they would choose to have $100 today. By making this choice they reveal that they value $100 today more highly than $100 in the future. This means that these sums of money are being correctly treated as two different goods, with time making the difference. (Incidentally, this is why we have interest). If they were being treated as identical goods it would then be a matter of complete indifference to our journalists whether they chose $100 today or vice versa. The same goes for buying lights or any other goods.
Future cost savings are just that — in the future. If the consumer chooses the incandescent light then he is clearly stating that the cost of the alternative exceeds the value of its future benefits. In general, the lower the consumer's income the higher his time preference is likely to be. From this we conclude that mandating these lamps reduces the welfare of the less well off, as does the absurd tax on plastic bags. ( Plastic bags v. greenie bigotry ). However, this fact didn't faze Malcolm Turnbull , one of the economic illiterates responsible for the policy of banning incandescent light bulbs.
This leaves our activists with the externality argument. According to them the humble light bulb is a case of market failure that is 'polluting' the environment and as this cost is not built into their price they must phased out in favour of an alternative that produces very little in the way of externalities. Two free market economists nailed this argument when they pointed out:
Taxes do not result from a market process, nor do they reflect allocation decisions of resource owners . . . In other words, taxation is a method of intervening, not an alternative to intervention or nonmarket allocation. (O'Driscoll and Rizzo, cited in Efficiency and Externalities in an Open-Ended Universe , Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007, p. 13).
(For those who might be a little confused on this point, there is no fundamental difference between mandating incandescent bulbs out of the market or putting a prohibitive tax on them. As for pollution, Co2 is a nutrient and not a pollutant. Moreover, thousands of scientists are now challenging the phony science of man-made global warming. In addition, there has been no global warming for ten years. These scientists know that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is a mere 0.38 per cent while the Martian atmosphere is 95 per cent carbon dioxide. These are facts that you will not find in our scaremongering rags)
We must now examine the greens' hypocrisy. Back in the late '60s or early '70s green fanatics whipped up hysteria about traces of mercury being found in tuna and how it would poison us. Research later found that the amount of mercury found in tuna was perfectly normal and had nothing to do with industry. I raised this case because mercury is a necessary component of the greens' new wonder lamp. So the same fanatics who railed against traces of mercury in tuna are perfectly happy to bully us into installing mercury-laden lamps in every room in the house. (This raises the question of who should be sued if someone is harmed by mercury from one of these 'eco-saving' lamps).
If I break a an ordinary bulb I merely have to sweep up the bits and put them into a bin. Not so with 'green lights'. When they break they need to be disposed of in a responsible manner. Philips, one of the companies manufacturing these lights, states:
All mercury-containing products must be disposed of responsibly. As more of us adopt CFLs to help save energy and contribute to a better environment, it becomes more important that our community has a recycling programme for mercury and other environmentally unsafe materials.
Just like there are different grades of incandescents, there are different quality levels of CFLs. The cheaper ones will stop working way too quickly if put where the light is turned on and off a lot or where they are subject to vibration, such as in a ceiling fan. There are specially made ones for ceiling fans, not as sure about the on and off.
What happens when all the mercury in these things contaminates the groundwater near the landfills?
One light is not significant. Millions of these things will require cleanup.
Wait until the autism crowd gets involved in this.
And just how do I ‘dispose’ of these ‘responsbily’?
And since I frequently drop or break the old type, what do I do if I break or drop the new type? Do I need to call the Hazardous Materials Team to seal off the room and do a clean-up to get rid of the mercury?
You may change your mind about the convenience of highly toxic and polluting flourescent bulbs. please read the EPA’s guides for cleaning up a broken flourescent bulb.
It starts by telling you to evacuate the house. Nice. You cannot pick up the mess with a broom or vacuum for fear of spreading the highly toxic contents.
Conventional fluorescents contain more mercury than these new ones and, billions have been disposed of (more or less without a second thought) over the last 80 years.
We must all be dead.
Basically yes you should call a Hazmat team to clean these bulbs up when broken.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
Basically yes you should call a Hazmat team to clean these bulbs up when broken.
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
They have ones that work with dimmers, I installed them in the kitchen. I haven’t looked if they have 3-way ones yet but I never really used 3-ways....
BTW, I like the light (the ones I bought)give off, more blue than yellow....
My experience is that they are lasting with little problem.
See.
I told you so. ;)
Follow the money - ' bet your bippy there are some high ranking folk in Foggy Bottom who bought stocks before they passed the mandate - And why is no one making noise about the fact that these little bombs are all made in China? For those of you who buying these, if you check and see they were made in China - I hope you're not also on the "Bush shouldn't go to the Olympics! Bush should condemn China!" band wagon.
And let’s not forget the fancy new “green” bulbs don’t give satisfactory light. My wife got a couple of the CFLs (against my wishes) and put them in one of the ceiling fans, every time those lights get turned on I have to look because they’re lack of saturation makes it seem like there’s burned out lights. How much is it worth to have lights that light enough that you don’t think one is burne3d out every time they’re turned on?
Right....I have an X-10 system that allows total control over any INCANDESCENT light in the house. I can turn them on and off individually and all at once and dim them with a little plug in electronic timer or with a hand held remote from anywhere in the house. I use CFL’s as lights that I neither need nor wish to control remotely.
The CFL’s have gotten much cheaper, do run longer and cooler and are now available in warm colors. It takes conscious effort or extreme bumblefingerdness to break one.
They DO NOT however work with my X-10 system or with dimmers......,etc. As usual, the despicable s..theads in Congress are mandating something the free market should decide.
Whoa, you weren’t kidding! And the government, in all it’s AlGore inspired wisdom, is forcing us to use these things in every fixture in our homes.
” Save the Light Bulb!!! “ from extinction and racism.
Try the new 100% white light bulbs, They are really bright, and more like natural light. The first time you turn them on they take a while to come up to full brightness, but after that they are pretty much full on at the time you switch them on.
On another note I have some old 4 ft 40 watt bulbs that I installed more than 12 years ago, they are still going and they are used everyday.
flourescent are ok for long duration lighting where there is no actual human living done.
security areas, parking, outdoor lighting when it is not cold and the like.
For living environments, (living room etc., den, bedrooms, bathroom, dinning rooms, etc) incandescent is the only way to go. It is a matter of choice. Does it cost more? sure and I do NOT CARE.
Of course there are people who congenitally frugal (for those in rio linda, the word is cheep sob’s) so they don’t want consider the asthetic considerations. (see also people who reuse teabags)
Pro-Choice!!!!
(for the light bulb)
So am I! ;-)
I had trouble with a few in the past - "Lights of America" brand, which were made in China or worse. Pure junk. They didn't last 6 months.
However, the GE and Phillips brand CF lights I've bought are lasting quite a while. I had one old GE (one of the early ones from the 1980's) that lasted about 20 years, and it was used regularly as my night light.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.