I understand what you are saying, particularly with respect to inefficiency of electrical power generation. That is an area we could save huge amounts of energy, but I am not sure the technology is there yet to do things like replace high voltage transmission lines (where losses are staggering) or the like.
You said that the Free Market doesn’t account for all of the costs that usage of electricity imposes. There are third-party costs...just to make sure I understand the nature of what you reference (before I agree or disagree with that) could you provide a few examples?
But I do disagree with the characterization of my discussion as populist, which usually carries the stench of a shallow and emotional approach. I would say that my approach to the issue was much less shallow and populist (by far) than that of the politicians who passed this legislation. How is it populist to say a person should be able to buy what they want, particularly if performance is degraded and the alternative is cheaper? If the CFL lights were commercially viable, people would buy them, no questions asked.
This isn’t just a knee jerk, populist reaction. This is a case of government mandating what we should purchase. Just because they “banned” them by making a standard that it was impossible for them to meet, or banning them outright by fiat, the end result is the same.
I don’t see this as any different from the Colonial Americans being forced to purchase British tea.
And this is simply one example. Day by day, the government is closing its regulatory fist around all of us, doing it so slowly, incrementally and relentlessly that one day, the water in the pot will boil us in tyranny before we are aware and can jump out like the proverbial frog.
Many Americans think that day has already come. I don’t believe that.
Yet.
Doesn't the DOE say that something like 7% of the losses are in transmission? Most of it is the conversion from chemical to electrical power, but even if transmission is <10%, it would still be a great bonus if we could improve it. Note that I included capital costs in there, too. Some of the inefficiencies could be reduced, but they aren't deemed worthwhile because energy is still so cheap for those directly involved in the transaction.
There are third-party costs...just to make sure I understand the nature of what you reference (before I agree or disagree with that) could you provide a few examples?
To better explain the nature of these costs, let me give a non-energy example and maybe you have the proper economic term for it. Let's say a developer puts in a new housing development and agrees to pay for the costs of a new traffic signal and road modifications to allow for access. Those funds help to put in the signal, but don't cover the extra burden on every other driver who now has to stop for the light. As one example for energy, it might be those people who are downwind of a coal-fired plant who get fallout of heavy-metal-containing particulates and have increased birth-defect rates.
But I do disagree with the characterization of my discussion as populist, which usually carries the stench of a shallow and emotional approach.
My apologies. Your overall approach is, indeed, one of the more rational and balanced ones I've seen. I meant that much of the opposition is populist in nature.
This isn’t just a knee jerk, populist reaction. This is a case of government mandating what we should purchase. Just because they “banned” them by making a standard that it was impossible for them to meet, or banning them outright by fiat, the end result is the same.
Agreed. Electric companies should be covering costs of extra usage (which they will pass on to ALL customers, even though they should be scaled to go where the actual extra costs are, in some cases)...though I admit that apportioning costs properly is impossible. And that's why Band-Aid-style approaches and proxies are used.
I also note that one factor against residential lighting being a big problem is that it is mostly not used during peak times.