Skip to main content

View Diary: The great Lightbulb War goes on, funded by energy companies (224 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sorry, but I don't buy it at all. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lgmcp, buddabelly, Catesby

    I've said all I'm going to say about this stuff already, in a diary called, Um, My Compact Fluorescent Bulb Is Hot. (Places and Times NOT to Conserve Electricity.)

    Power companies actually don't want to build powerplants, and I'm sure, with the car CULTure fantasies about how everyone can drive an electric car (coal powered of course) they're not very concerned about their revenue stream.

    Personally I would like to force power companies to build all new plants of, um, a certain type, unless they find a way to contain dangerous fossil fuel waste forever, but that's not going to happen.

    I also note that self proclaimed "environmentalists," who, ironically enough, know next to nothing about the environment, are working overtime to destroy the infrastructure in the only State in this country where running an incandescent bulb is actually cleaner (in winter) than running a high efficiency gas furnace.

    The CFL is another one of those "feel good" bits that consists in large part of handwaving and wishful thinking.

    Lighting is not a significant form of energy demand, and changing all the lightbulbs in the world which, as I pointed out in my diary long ago, will probably represent in the near term - because of the car CULTure - a net loss where climate change is concerned.

    The claim reads like a conspiracy theory.   I don't buy it, not for a New York Neon lit second.

    •  Agreed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      buddabelly, NNadir

      The linked article has nothing to indicate electric companies are funding some sort of anti-CFL campaign. And as you point out, most energy comanies are in fact on board with CFLs.

      "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." --Voltaire

      by Gangster Octopus on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 03:34:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Excellent point from your diary. (0+ / 0-)

      At any time of year when your furnace is running, the heat from an incandescent bulb is not waste heat.  You're already spending energy to heat the house, and every heat emission is contributing to the total.

      Linking to a news article is journalism in the same sense that putting a Big Mac on a paper plate is cooking.

      by Caj on Wed Mar 02, 2011 at 06:34:32 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unless you have electric baseboard heat (0+ / 0-)

        though, you likely heat your home with a cheaper form of heating than electric resistance heat.  If this was really the argument as well, then everyone who complains could go through the house and switch to more efficient bulbs for summer use and then switch back in the winter.  Cheap wire filament bulbs exploit weaknesses in our primitive monkey brains.  People don't like to invest in things and we ignore costs that we can't measure.  We'd rather spend $0.25 for an inefficient bulb than $4.50 for a halogen incandescent since the savings over time of are largely hidden to us.

    •  So... (0+ / 0-)

      because it's not the biggest source of energy demand we shouldn't do anything about it.  I hope you realize what a lousy argument that is.  

      •  Well, if you must know, I favor reality over (0+ / 0-)

        gesture.

        Replacing every incandescent bulb in North America with a CFL (or for that matter an LED) is not an effective means of addressing climate change.

        The average American uses, calculated as average continuous power, between 11,000 and 12000 watts of energy.

        The vast majority of this power is devoted to the use of cars.    I often call for the phase out - ASAP - of the car CULTure, which includes lots of long drives to get lightbulbs at Walmart, but - as I pointed out in my last diary - Americans like to act that owning and driving a car is equally - and possibly more - important than air or water, as the state of our air and water shows.

        I think that's assinine.

        If we banned electric lighting in its entirety and insisted that everyone live by candlelight, it would only reduce electricity use by 8%.

        I have a hard time feeling all smug about that.

        I favor the electrification of the entire heating supply of the entire planet - save cogeneration where it can be practiced - and the substitution of all electricity generation by dangerous fossil fuels by nuclear power.

        That would be practical, and meaningful in the fight against the climate emergency which is both real and exigent.

        But instead we're going to hear glib stuff about CFLs and how they will save the world.

        They won't.

        Often, as shown, they will be worse for the environment in places like, say, Vermont (until dumb guys force the shut down of Vermont Yankee) and France.

        Have a nice evening reading by the light of your CFL.

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          Well.  At least you admit you are making a bad argument.  

          Incremental improvements are valuable.  Better is better, even if it is minor.  Arguing that some other thing is more significant isn't an argument against making some other positive incremental improvements.  I don't think any sane person believes that more efficient lighting will "save the Earth".

          But keep making bad arguments and attributing irrational motives and beliefs to others.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site