Repeal of law that will soon ban regular light bulbs fails

Exactly...
Light bulbs don't burn coal or release any CO2 gas.
Power plants might - and might not.
If there is a problem - deal with the problem.

Old coal plants typically 30-35% energy efficient,
and especially the US electricity grid (basically 3 zones with interconnectors) needs upgrading,
and currently has around 8% distribution loss on Dept of Energy stats.

It is irrelevant and counter-productive to tell consumers what to do
(besides which effectively cheaper energy from energy saving products is simply used more,
conversely lowered utility sales leads to electricity price rises, as referenced with US/EU data)

Energy saving is not the only reason for choosing a light bulb you want to use,
if there was an energy shortage the price rise would reduce use without the need for regulations,
and the overall savings are irrelevant anyway, again as referenced.

 

Does it really matter? You won't be able to afford the electricity to run those bulbs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Obama says that under his plans, electricity rates will necessarily skyrocket.

I hope you're stocking up on candles and firewood before the november election.

 

I got two LED bulbs to replace high-hour 60 watt incandescents. They cost $35 each. They save 47 watts each and the lights are on about 1350 hours per year. that saves me $11.42 per year even since our electric rates got jacked up 50% in the last three years by environmental pass-throughs. That equates to a 73 month payback...if they last that long.

I need my head examined.

 

lighthouse posted:
"Old coal plants typically 30-35% energy efficient"


Taxcutter says:
Odd. My "handbook of Power plant Engineering" by Elliot, et al says the least efficient coal fired plant in the US runs about 37% efficient and most run in the high thirties and low forties. Not bad for Rankine cycle.

Those familiar with the Second Law of Thermodynamics know that the efficiency of the ideal Carnot cycle is limited to 50%.

 

Yes but most of the "references" have more stretch than a rubber band

Mate if you are going to link to a long winded badly written blog then do us a favour and actually quote the bit you want us to read - life it too short to wade through pig poop looking for an occasional low grade sapphire - because I can guarantee there are no diamonds THERE

 

Please expand on the statement that "coal plants might or might not produce CO2" - been on night duty and want a good laugh

 

And what would a conventional bulb have cost? Add to that the cost of going to the shop multiple times to buy the bulb as it wears out. So why did you buy LED? Most probably for the same reason the rest of us are interested - long life span

And you just know they will get cheaper with time

 

Good quality Sylvania 60 watt incandescents used to cost 79 cents each at Lowe's. I never made trips just to buy light bulbs.

I will say the $35 LEDs are good quality Philips bulbs and they work well where I've put them. But maybe its counterproductive. with their lower energy cost I leave them on most of the time, rather than turning them off as i leave the room.

Wonder how long it will be before LEDs cost 79 cents?

 

RE Bowerbird /Taxcutter

"The expensive LED bulbs will become cheaper in future"

It may seem natural to expect that greater sales means cheaper bulbs.

Firstly it does not necessarily hold on supply and demand.
Having removed the other bulb choices, there may be insufficient supply for the new demand. That raises rather than lowers prices.

Secondly, it is irrelevant how many bulbs are sold, in that manufacturers / distributors / retailers simply charge what they can. Since the cheap competition has been removed, and since there are fewer manufacturers of newer more complex bulbs, there is less pressure to reduce prices (besides which light bulb manufacturers have a history of cartels, eg Phoebus cartel as also covered on previously linked sites).

Thirdly, on the Government side, pre-ban price lowering subsidies (as in North America and Europe) are no longer seen as so necessary.
Conversely, with any continuing taxpayer subsidies people are still paying more for the bulbs than the price tag says.

Fourthly, a reason the ban was sought by the major manufacturers was profitability, on patented new technology compared to patent expired old simple bulbs.
As with all other patented products (compare with pharmaceuticals) the price is higher for the duration of the patents.

That is not all.
CFLs and LEDs contain rare earth elements, the price rise in recent years giving an increase in their prices, as from 2011 news reports.
Also they are mostly made in China, where wages are rising, and shipping transport fuel cost has also risen in recent years.
Finally, CFLs (and possibly LEDs) will be subject to increasing recycling mandates on manufacturers and retailers, which will again add to consumer purchase cost.

In comparison, incandescents are of course more simply and often locally made, and have no recycling requirement.

 

They will probably never get that cheap given that they are a more complex piece of equipment, however I still stand by the whole more convenient issue being as changing light bulbs is a real pain for someone who is just over 5 foot tall and has had more than one light fitting drop multiple moths and bugs on her head while doing os

 

I just want to point out that coal fired power plants can provide electricity in the United States for around 3-5 cents per kilowatt. And this is with high-efficiency technology that minimises particulate pollution. By effectively banning new coal power plants in the USA, they have caused the price of electricity to be raised dramatically. So those "high-efficiency" light bulbs do not really "save" as much money as claimed, because the cost of operating a normal light bulb does not have to be as high as it is now.

Do not completely discount coal as a fuel. Indeed, it is more efficient to produce hydrogen directly from coal (in the Fischer–Tropsch chemical process) than to generate electricity to produce hydrogen by electrolysis. It makes absolutely no sense making hydrogen from wind energy while at the same time coal is being burned to produce electricity elsewhere. And it makes no sense to promote electric cars while at the same time natural gas power plants are being used to provide electricity. It would be far more efficient to use the natural gas directly to fuel the car.

It seems environmentalists do not really put much thought into the policies they promote.

The one environmental regulation I would actually support, which would do the most good, is requiring architectural plans for new offices to incorporate natural lighting, so that lights do not need to be on in the day. Natural light would also be better for the employees too. It makes more sense to use natural light than to use the sun to power solar panels to generate electricity to power "energy efficient" lights. I think it is all too often that architects completely disregard the effects of natural light in commercial office space.

 

An interesting point
Environmentally the reasons for not using coal
1 finite energy source 2 the emissions
RE finite energy source, like oil, as it depletes the price goes up and less used anyway
RE emissions, the final price including CO2 treat and store, mercury filtering etc may still make it priceworthy against other sources, given the low basic price you mention (and without going into if global warming is a problem or can be dealt with on other ways)

 

Also with cars, and regarding CO2 etc emissions,
Georgia Tech, Atlanta, USA research, a process where carbon and other emission substances are filtered out from hydrocarbon (oil, gas) fuels
and the carbon deposited at refilling stations, for later storage such as burial.
Emission reduction legislation should be neutral legislation: It should be irrelevant what fuel is used, as long as emission targets are met.

 

Unusual but interesting projects using natural lighting
(like using water bottles to guide light in, and in another project literally using pipes to guide daylight into the house)
“Let the Sunshine in!”
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/02/let-sunshine-in.html

 

False. The LCOE (levelized cost of electricity) for wind, hydro, and nuclear is about the same as coal, so turning off the coal plants won't (and hasn't) changed the price of electricity. During the past three (recession) years, nine states in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative saw electricity rise at exactly the same rate as the nation as a whole, while (a) reducing energy use by 2.4%; (b) reducing CO2 emissions by a whopping 23%; (c) seeing lower job losses than the nation as a whole; (d) seeing lower losses in Gross State Product than the nation as a whole; and (e) generating a billion dollars in revenue for state governments.

Only good results here, so naturally, the conservatives whine. Liberals cannot be allowed to have programs that work, because that would mean conservatives are wrong.

 

But the emission targets should be set to realistic levels. Setting them too high will effectively ban certain types of fuels, and thus would dramatically raise prices to impractical levels.

 

I do not believe you. If this was true, why would any of the utility companies be operating coal power plants? If the cost was all the same, even a 20% tax on electricity produced from coal would presumably cause all the power companies to switch over to other source, no? So why has the EPA felt a need to essentially ban new coal power plants by setting impossible efficiency mandates?

 

Because it takes a big chunk of change (and a lot of time) to replace a coal plant with alternatives. Oh, and direct from Wikipedia, read 'em and weep:

Because conservatives in Congress won't go for a 20% fossil carbon tax, that's why (even though it's a conservative Republican idea). If you vote for Republicans, it's YOUR fault.

 

I think the best way is to phase out coal plants as they become obsolete.

Just don't build any new ones.

I am sure a farmer would rather pay 20% more for electricity than see 1,000 acres of corn dry up in the field...if he had a choice.

And I am sure a person that owns beach property in Florida would rather pay 20% more for electricity than see his vacation home go under water.



So what is inaction going to cost....in real dollars...???

 

According to the Stern Review (UK estimate), the cost of doing nothing is 5% to 10% of global GDP by 2100 -- that's 3 to 6 trillion dollars per year. The cost of stabilization is about 1% of global GDP.

According to the offical EU estimate (Watkiss 2005), the cumulative cost of doing nothing will reach 74 trillion euros by 2100.

According to the official German estimate (Kemfert 2005), the cost of doing nothing will be 6% to 8% of global GDP by 2100. That's 4 to 5 trillion dollars per year.

According to the official US estimate -- oops! There is no official US estimate. Congress doesn't want that kind of bad news, because it might mean they would have to do something. Your tax dollars not at work.

 

You forgot the Garnaut review - although he did not put a figure on inaction

 

It is costing the U.S. right now.

It has been hot as Hades in most parts of the country and we have already had two tropical storms, flooding in Minnesota, record rain in Florida...with tornados.

The mile high city (Denver) is baking.

15 to 20 degrees above normal....is becoming normal.

 

IIRC, Garnaut confined his work to Australia specifically. The others are global.

 

Duluth is considering replacing its entire storm sewer system to deal with the increasing possibility of flooding. You bet it's costing.

 

Yeah, but being an Aussie meself I just have to mention it!!