More Heat than Light
By: BJ Lawson
The most recent Energy Bill contains a most interesting provision: elimination of “inefficient” incandescent bulbs by the year 2012. Yes, that’s right: Thomas Edison’s invention will be outlawed (or, at least “inefficient” versions, as declared by the government) by 2012 in favor of the Next Big Thing: compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs.
Don’t get me wrong, I like CFL bulbs. They’re handy for places where it’s inconvenient to change a bulb, and they generate a lot less heat. But there’s a downside, as well. CFL bulbs contain mercury, which makes a replacing a broken bulb a hazmat exercise. You can just choose not to worry about it, and one broken bulb isn’t going to kill you, but what happen when bulbs are breaking and/or being thrown away instead of properly recycled by careless homeowners all over the country?
Why is it the federal government’s job to replace an inefficient but environmentally benign light with an efficient but environmentally hazardous one? Who stands to benefit from the switch? Is this environmentalism, or is this corporatism? Well, this New York Times article quotes CFL bulbs as costing six times more while lasting six times as long as their incandescent cousins. That’s handy from the perspective of the light bulb manufacturer — with those cost and lifespan numbers, a nation switching to CFLs should be at least revenue neutral. And given the greater likelihood of bulbs breaking during their much-lengthened lifespan, one could reasonably expect even more revenue from CFL bulbs, since fewer will make it their entire useful life before breaking.
So the next question deals with profit, as opposed to just revenue. Which bulb do you think has higher profit margins: a widely-commoditized incandescent, or a sophisticated CFL with fewer manufacturers? I’d love it if someone had some statistics to share on this point, but common sense suggests that CFLs will be more profitable than incandescents, depending on the R&D and upfront manufacturing costs. It seems that CFL manufacturers could have much to gain from this legislation.
So am I against CFLs, or progress in energy efficiency? Not at all. I am, however, against the federal government taking sides in an economic decision that is best left to the consumer. Not everyone can afford the up-front costs of replacing incandescents with CFLs, and not everyone is going to understand the need to manage the 4mg of mercury in a CFL in an environmentally responsible way. Are people now going to need to test mercury levels before buying a home, in the event bulb breakage was a frequent occurrence? Or should we empower the FBI (in this case, the Federal Bureau of Illumination) to take charge of replacing and recycling the nation’s CFL bulbs under penalty of law?
I also don’t think CFLs are the end of line — they are a just rest stop before light emitting diodes (LEDs) will completely revolutionize lighting for homes and businesses. LEDs have none of the environmental hazards of CFLs, can potentially be tuned to even more desirable light wavelengths, can last essentially forever, and will be even more efficient/generate less heat. Hopefully this little experiment in social engineering will be rendered moot by advancing semiconductor technology. Despite our legislators’ best attempts to hurt us, we are sometimes capable of defending ourselves through non-legislative means.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:25 am
I’m so tired of this Nanny State government telling me what I can buy and what I can’t buy. What I can have and what I can’t have. What I can use and what I can’t use. What I can eat and what I can’t eat.
I’m responsible enough to make these decisions for myself, as are most people, and if they’re not they’ll be the ones who suffer the consequences of their actions.
Freedom is about choice and when the government starts limited our choices they start limiting our freedom. This is a dangerous trend.
According to the government (depending on where you live, and in some cases at federal level), you can’t eat foie gras, or anything cooked in trans fats because it’s “bad for you” and “unhealthy” or in the case of the foie gras, “unethical.” You can’t use incandescent bulbs or plastic bags or drink bottled water because it’s “bad for the environment.” You can’t smoke, eat or talk on your cell phone while trying because it’s “unsafe.” You can’t smoke in your own apartment because it’s “unhealthy” and “unsafe.”
It’s just getting ridiculous. What’s truly “unsafe” is tyranny and that’s what we’ll be living in if we keep allowing freedom to erode like this. These may seem like small things, but they all add up. Little by little we lose our liberty and that’s always how it happens in a free society. It never happens over night but instead is always a gradual process, a gradual erosion.
On this, I take the stance of Patrick Henry: “Give me liberty or give me death.”
I’d rather die in a car accident while driving and eating a Hardee’s Monster Thickburger cooked in trans fat than live under the weight of tyranny by conforming to the freedom infringing rules of an authoritarian society.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Well, in the case of foie gras, those are local laws (such as in Chicago) which are simply saying that according to current animal cruelty standards, foie gras doesn’t cut it.
San Francisco banned plastic bags because they were spending ungodly amounts of taxpayer money picking them up from the streets.
So, in those two cases, there are reasons beyond trying to make a nanny state for passing those local laws. The line is thin, though.
I’m glad you mentioned LEDs, BJ. In a few years, CFLs will be a thing of the past and LEDs will be in everything. CFLs are more than revenue neutral– they save a lot of money on your electricity bill.