Now I personally really don't like the federal government telling me I can no longer purchase incandescent light bulbs. They may be 100 year-old technology, but they are cheap, turn on quick, and produce nice quality light. The alternatives at the moment are the CFLs (compact flourescent light bulbs) and LEDs (light-emitting diodes) but there are some problems with these (especially the CFLs):
1) Cost - They cost one heck of a lot more than a regular incandescent (a 100 watt LED costs $50)
2) Light quality - The quality of the light from a CFL is not the same as from an incandescent
3) No heat - CFLs produce virtually no heat. This has proved problematic for some towns that replaced their traffic lights with CFLs lights, only to realize that in the winter time, the old incandescents melted the snow, whereas the new CFLs do not. Some people also like the heat produced by incandescents; this heat also can help in heating ones's home in the winter time. Yes, during the summer, it makes it tougher to cool the home as well, but if left with the choice, one could then switch the incandescents out for an alternative during the summer time.
4) Environmental - This one I am unsure of. Some say CFLs are unsafe and must be disposed of in a special way due to their mercury content, and require a special cleanup procedure if you break one, others say this is scaremongering. What's interesting is that the U.S. government seems to want it both ways on this: they tell us that CFLs are hazardous enough that they require a special cleanup process, but at the same time, they are also perfectly safe.
5) Time - CFLs take some time to fully light up (as opposed to the incandescent where you just flick the switch and it's on). I have read that they have CFLs that switch on instantly now, but they cost a bundle.
6) Won't save energy - this one is the major claim, that although the LEDs and CFLs cost a lot more, they last a lot longer, and will thus safe energy. That for example, if all 300 million Americans replace their 60 watt bulbs (the most widely-used light bulb) with 10 watt bulbs, the energy savings will be enormous. But there is no proof this will happen. What will likely happen is that the energy saved from the light bulbs will then be spent somewhere else. People's electricity usage won't decline from energy efficient bulbs, they'll just use more electricity elsewhere.
The reasoning behind the legislation is probably that of what you could nickname as "Nudge Regulation." Nudge regulation is regulation meant to nudge an industry a certain way, to incentivize it to do enough research and development to develop products that are significantly improved in a certain way. Sometimes, this works, sometimes it doesn't. Examples of nudge regulation could be the limits placed on how many gallons of water can be used to flush a toilet. Toilet companies had to go and design new toilets that flush with a lot less water. Or showers. Regulations were placed on how much water a shower head can flow. Which of course makes a shower have a less powerful flow. Some companies offer shower units with multiple shower heads, but this has attracted the ire of regulators as well. This company found itself in the crosshairs of a regulator back in 2006 for offering a unit with up to three shower heads. It is now 2011 and as the link shows, they are still in business, still selling the three shower head unit, so luckily legislation has not yet been passed outlawing multiple shower heads (or at least not nationwide). I am waiting for them to start trying to limit the size of water heater you can own, or the degree to which the water can be heated.
Anyways, the idea behind the light bulbs is by raising the efficiency standards for light bulbs, companies will spend money on research and development to develop alternatives that can match the old incandescents in performance, and eventually, price. The problem is that this does not always work. GE (General Electric) WAS working on developing what were called High Efficiency Incandescent Light Bulbs, basically incandescents that meet the new efficiency standards, but they decided to can the idea as they believe the new form of light bulb will be LEDs and OLED (organic light emitting diodes). The problem is that creating LED light bulbs is proving more problematic than originally foreseen. I would hope that the R&D will win out in the end and eventually LED lightbulbs come down to the same price as current incandescents and provide smooth, steady, clean light. Unlike CFLs, I believe LEDs also produce heat.
As recently as May 9th, 2011, South Carolina's Senate panel is introducing legislation to allow the continued sale of incandescents in their state. If it passes, as the article says, lawsuits will probably ensue. The lightbulb industry is invested heavily in making sure that incandescents remain outlawed, as they have invested a lot of money in creating the manufacturing plants to manufacture the LEDs and the CFLs. If the legislation were to be repealed, then essentially they will have wasted a bunch of money.
Now despite these regulations, there are certain ways individuals and even some companies can bypass them. For example, the shower company offering units with multiple heads, people also can "hack" their shower by removing the flow regulator themselves, and now onto the really neat part. One of the complains about incandescent light bulbs is that they waste about 90% of their enegy in the form of heat. Yes, incandescent light bulbs are technically little heaters that we use for light, not lights that happen to produce heat. Some light bulbs are even used as heaters, for example heating lamps. These are light bulbs that are used as little heaters. And here is a picture of a heater that uses a heating bulb:
Irregardless, I intend to start purchasing incandescent heaters once the light bulbs are no longer available and if the alternatives are too costly or lacking in quality. I also see a possible entrepreneurial opportunity here :)
No comments:
Post a Comment