[
Author's note-this post has been re-written in light of the math error made in the original article and the subsequent change in economic benefit] Another
scam effort at Federal Government tyranny that has been creeping along and was about to be
come a
real pain to forced on the common man may be about to subside. Not go away,
but subside:
Republican Rep. Fred Upton of Michigan – the man running against Texas Rep. Joe Barton to be Chairman of the Energy and Commerce committee in the next Congress– has reversed his position on CFL light bulbs. The move is significant not only because Upton wants to be chairman of one of the House’s most powerful committees, but also because he championed the incandescent bulb ban and switch to CFLs just three short years ago.
I guess I had sort of heard that they were going to phase out incandescent bulbs, but I didn't really think they would do it. Evidently, this liberal Republican from Michigan, has introduced a bill that was passed that would sunset incandescent bulbs. I knew that some states were doing that, but I didn't think the Feds were going to try to do that.
I detect a sleezy politician here: not 'til the nation got rocked by the Tea Party does this slimeball see the infringement on an individual's right to run his life and the obligation of the Federal government to keep their nose out of business they have no constitutional mandate to stick it in. Rack up another victory for the Tea Party, at least hopefully, soon.
We should have ToeJamm run another economic analysis for us I am glad ToeJamm checked my math for us, plus, I have since gone to the store and gotten more facts, so am not entirely winging it with some of my figures:
No, I'll do it this time. The cost of electricity in households across the nation varies quite a bit, but I think 10¢ a kilowatt-hour (kWh) is a fair number. Portland probably pays more, because PGE is very expensive, but other places probably pay less. 17¢ a kWh is probably on the high end. A kilowatt-hour means 1000 watts for 1 hour. That would be equivalent to letting your wife or girlfriend's hair dryer run for an hour: costs you 10¢. Electricity, even now, is quite a bargain for what you can do with it. OK, now I normally use 60W incandescent bulbs in my house. The equivalent-brightness CFL bulb is 20W. So, for me to change to an equivalent-brightness CFL would save me 40W. If I leave my CFL lightbulb on for an hour I've saved myself 40 watt-hours of electricity. Note, not 40 kilowatt-hours, but 40 watt-hours. So, if my electricity costs 10¢/kWh and I've saved 40 Wh of electricity, how much money have I saved? By my calculation, I save 0.04¢ an hour by using a CFL bulb
, but that calculation is wrong, per ToeJamm, it is 0.4¢ an hour saved. But still, that's a savings, right? Well, what about the costs? A pack of four incandescent bulbs costs about $2, so 50¢ each.
One CFL bulb costs from $6-$8. I bought a pack of four today for $14.00, so $3.50 per bulb How long does the CFL bulb have to run before you make your money back from your big investment? Let's choose
$6 $3.50 for the CFL bulb, even though they're often more expensive. $
6 3.50- $0.50 =
$5.50 $3.00 for the difference between the two. So, $
5.50 $3= ($0.00
44/hr) x
X hrs. Solving for
X gives
13,750 750 hours
or 573 days of continuous use to break even. My 60W bulb says it will last for 1500 hours. I did a test once between a 60W incandescent and a 20W CFL on the same light switch
, the CFL lasted about twice as long as the incandescent
however, the CFL bulbs I bought today say they will last 8000 hours. I don't believe that for a typical application, as I have tested it out repeatedly in my house and they don't significantly outlast incandescent bulbs. so that modifies the equation a tiny bit, but, in a nutshell, you will never come close to making your money back. Now, who's the
sucker I mean responsible environmentalist? Well, I own some CFLs, so count me as one of those
suckers people who know the value of a dollar. But, it was my choice to
be a sucker make the purchase. That's fair. But, these statist, mother-knows-best, nannies want to force us all to involuntarily
lower our standard of living have the government make our shopping choices for us for a very small comparative benefit. They WILL be defeated.
It's a trend, Jeff!
PS: And that doesn't even take into account the question I raised when we discussed Prius'. Why is the CFL bulb so expensive? Again, cost is relative to the energy required to construct, in a nutshell. My guess is you need to subtract quite a bit from your electricity savings in the whole-earth calculation of your power consumption because so much energy was used to build the CFL bulb as opposed to the incandescent in the first place, but I don't feel like expending the energy to prove that.
PPS: Besides being able to sound our arguments off each other to see where we have significant flaws, we get to learn things through the time we put investigating and discussing our article. I am very happy to learn that it does make economic sense to buy CFL bulbs!
[Author's note-this post has been re-written in light of the math error made in the original article and the subsequent change in economic benefit] Another 
I would never want to disagree with an engineer who has a bachelor's degree but I'm not so sure about your math.
ReplyDeleteAt first you said it saved $0.04 per hour. Then in your equation: $5.50=(0.0004)x
Where did (0.0004) come from?
My math was $5.50=(0.04/hr)x
x=137.5 hrs. Or 5 1/2 days of continuous light.
Ohhhhhh! My bad. But shouldnt it be saving 0.4 of a penny? If we pay $0.10 per kwh, then 4% of that (40 watt hrs I'm assuming is 4% of a kwh) would be $0.004. So you should move your final outcome of 13750 should be 1375. I could be wrong again.
ReplyDeleteBud-D, "We should have ToeJamm run another economic analysis for us: No, I'll do it this time." That is very funny.
ReplyDeleteThis whole save the environment movement is so laughable. But sadly it still pulls in a lot of suckers. I guess one is born every second as the famous saying goes. I think the free market should be the driving force that determines when and how less energy intensive sources for our energy needs come about, not government mandate as in the above example.
It will be good if this ban is overturned, but it has not happened yet. And the ban has already imposed cost on future cost of production for these incandescent light bulbs as "The last major GE factory making ordinary incandescent light bulbs in the United States is closing this month[ Sep 2010], marking a small, sad exit for a product and company that can trace their roots to Thomas Alva Edison's innovations in the 1870s." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html
Businesses have already adjusted to the ban being passed, as they are forward looking, and will cause these incandescent lights to be more expensive. Although, I don't know how many more factories there are that make these light bulbs so I can't say how much the increase in cost would be. And GE is another topic. NBC just had a "Green Week" or something like that. America and the world are moving towards going green by meeting its energy needs with non-economically-efficient-renewable sources of energy. This will take major steps to reverse this trend.
These little victories are a step in the right direction, but they are only the beginning. Even before the current adminstration and recent developments in the EM, the EM has greatly altered the direction that the Nation is taking in meeting its energy needs. The government still forces us to drive smaller cars by artifically driving up fuel prices by restricting our supply of oil and through the CAFE standards. And also through other minor environmental rules and regulations that we don't even know about. When I see this ban actually overturned, I will consider it an actual victory.
I wasn't trying to diss Toejamm's economic analysis capability, as he nailed the Prius analysis, it's just that I know some of the pertinent values off the top of my head, so I could do it.
ReplyDeleteDamn ToeJamm, you nailed it again. I did screw it up! Next time, let ToeJamm do the analysis.
Off by a factor of 10. So, in fact, you have just shown that CFL bulbs are at worst, a break-even proposition, assuming the inputs are as I showed them above.
I will edit this article and start buying more CFLs! But not because the government told me to!!!!
I agree with your points Jeff.
I'll do a follow up once I get my next electricity bill and I'll check the cost of the CFLs. But, at worst, I need to admit that this is not a scam, though it shouldn't be forced on us.
That's funny, both times we did an analysis of the facts we proved the opposite of what we were trying to do! Hmmm...
ReplyDelete"In a standard incandescent bulb, in which the filament is electrified until it glows, only about 10 percent of the electricity is transformed into light; the rest generates heat as a side effect. A typical fluorescent uses about 75 percent less electricity than an incandescent to produce the same amount of light."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090706933.html
The only problem is that it is harder to manufacture because of the requirement of bending the tubes to create length. I think the market will demand more of these and in turn the technology for manufacturing will improve and drive down costs. Eventually.
We are all on the same page about the government "cramming this down our throat". It shouldn't be that way. But we should want the market to find more efficient ways of using our energy. If we can find a way to use energy more efficiently then I think it is a thumbs up for humanity.
The American government shouldnt push the invisible hand because it will bitch slap us.
This could very well end up what being Patrick some day.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bLyjcXQmF0
I didn't do the math on this post, so I am taking both of you at your word that the CFL light bulbs are a break even proposition. Do these CFLs have the same quality of lighting as a regular light bulb? I have read that the CFLs give of an inferior lighting. I also read that the cost of CFLs will decline as they become more common and as the manafacturing process improves. So they could end up saving money.
ReplyDeleteBut on the Prius issue, I did not see how ToeJamm was correct? A person that owned a Prius for the length of time that it takes to break even with a regular care would have had to replace the batteries, even under warranty as it only lasts for 10 years. In the best case and uncommon situations, the Prius would have broke even at best. Although on the broader issue of renewable energy sources, CFLs, and electric cars they will all become economically viable as the technology improves.
The main argument that the government uses to force all of these renewable and more efficient energy sources is that it will save the Nation money and improve our national security by the Nation not having to import as much of its energy sources. Something I would agree with. But if the government allowed America to utlitize its resources, which is comparable to that of the middle east, the nation would not have to import as much of its energy. So this makes me skeptical of the government trying to force this upon America as opposed to allowing the free market to work.
On the broader issue of the environmental movement having set backs, "Socialism is rearing its ugly head again, this time in the form of energy costs! According to the Wall Street Journal, we may all have to start paying for wind or solar energy - even if we don't use it! Get to know this acronym: FERC--the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. According to the paper, the commission has a plan to spread out the costs for the transmission lines to bring wind and solar projects to the national grid. A price tag that is likely to top $160 billion! Residents in states such as California, Oregon, New York and Michigan will have to pay billions of dollars more in utility bills and they won't ever see such lines!"
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2010/11/08/socialism-rearing-ugly-head/#ixzz17eYlnSyr
In the Prius issue, the calculation was a long 19 years of payback. This is too long to make a sound investment. I concede to your argument.(go back to the original post to see Melkor's late comment. He brings an interesting view to the discussion)
ReplyDeleteNote: We calculated this with a fixed gas expense. The 19 years would have shortened if we adjusted for inflation.
Roughly a break-even proposition. Clearly not a scam though.
ReplyDeleteToeJamm said " The only problem is that it is harder to manufacture because of the requirement of bending the tubes to create length." So, CFL bulbs require roughly 10 times the energy to build most likely.
Eventually CFL's or something else will become a far better choice than incandescent lightbulbs. It is still very questionable, almost certain, if CFL's are actually environmentally friendly as Bud-D's and Toejammns last point make. And plus CFL's are required in some places to be recycled due to its high mercury content which further adds to the energy output required for these CFL's. Also CFL's loose their long life span, to almost the same as an regular one, if they are turned on and off too often. So the break even prop is not 100%.
ReplyDeleteAlso CFL's don't have the same quality of lighting as incandescent and the light output drops off considerably during the CFL bulb' life span. So if people don't like tough.
The whole point about the CFL lightbulb issue is that is leads to a loss of freedom on the part of individuals and replaces the free market as the entity determining what will be manafactured. But "state-capitalism", state-socialism-is the future so can't really complain on this point.
ToeJamm, I went back and read Melkor's argument. I already alluded to it in my last comment. The only reason that going green is a national security issue is because our government won't allow America to utilize its own oil. So the security issue is created by our government interfering in the free market. So to solve a problem created by the government, the government will create more regulations and increase its footprint. I read one article stating that California has enough oil reserves to pay down its massive debt. Can't do that though, must save the environment. Also,Melkor will be glad to know that Chinese workers can be poisoned with mercury in making these CFL's as they are the chief source of them.
The whole EM and going green is still a rip off in my opinion.
Yeah Jeff, careful with those Beatles comments!
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of what you say. Melkor made some points, but it was not entirely convincing to me. Though I'm repeating the statement without facts to back me up, I think the price reflects the energy required to build these green devices, and that subtracts from their 'Green' value.
I will re-write this post though, to show the correct math and the implications of what it shows.
When you get up to speed and finish "The Closing of The American Mind" and other books, those Beatles comments will make sense. I know Bud-D did a post about the Beatles and totalitarinism a while back.
ReplyDeleteWhatever
ReplyDeleteThat is what she said. If you do read it you might not agree with it but you will see where I am coming from.
ReplyDeleteNo, she said,"arigato"
ReplyDeleteWhatever is what pop-headed women say, women that are attuned to pop culture.
ReplyDeleteI found an awesome car for Toejamm called the Air Pod. It looks promising for replacing combustion engine vehicles. I think it would be a perfect fit for you. I can just imagine you riding around in it with a big smile. http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/11/video-the-air-pod/
Bud-D should do some of his cut and paste artist skills, like the black sheep post, and put his face in one of these.
ReplyDeleteI'd rather ride a bicycle then that thing.
ReplyDelete"Whatever" is what I say in order to end a fruitless conversation. When you say that I don't understand things because I haven't read the books that you have, I don't feel like dignifying your comments with a real response.
Next thing we have to do is find out which bulb lasts longest. I'm going to put a brand new CFL and a brand new incandescent bulb in the same light at the same time. I'll see which one last longer.
ReplyDeleteDo you (with your vast electronic engineering knowledge) think that this is a fair test? Is there some technical hidden variable that makes this test unfair for one of bulbs?
You have a good Elvis haircut in that picture. Was that taken at a Bubba Speed show?
ReplyDeletePicture was from my 50th birthday.
ReplyDeleteToeJamm, as long as both lights are controlled by the same light switch, so they both will always be on or off at the same time, and in relatively the same environment, you are good. But, if one is inside and one outside, for example, that wouldn't be good.