Posted by Sudden Disruption on February 2, 2007, 2:47 am
It's scary how myth becomes fashion, and fashion becomes law...
A California assemblyman wants to ban incandescent light bulbs...
A California lawmaker wants to ban the use of incandescent light bulbs
in order to conserve energy and reduce greenhouse gases which are
linked to global warming.
The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"
would ban the use of incandescent light bulbs by 2012. Instead,
compact fluorescent light bulbs (COLS) would become the alternative
for California residents.
The rest of the article is here...
This new law would be based on a myth about light bulbs...
For years the Federal Energy Star program has perpetuated the myth
that if you buy appliances (or any electrical device) for the home
that uses less energy, you'll see proportional savings in your monthly
power bill. This is rarely the case.
Other eco-writers do similar simplistic math to calculate savings in
money, energy and carbon. A recent example is Charles Fishman's
September 2006 article in Fast Company magazine about WalMart's CFL
project, "How Many Lightbulbs Does it Take to Change the World?".
The claim is made that if a single light bulb using 45 watts less is
placed in 100 million homes, 6.57 billion Kilo-Watt-Hours will be
saved. The fact is, unless you are cooling your home, there is ZERO
savings. Charles focused on the bulb, but forgot about the home. His
entire premise is based on a false assumption. The savings are grossly
"Wasted" energy takes the form of heat. And this heat helps heat your
house, if only just a small amount. For most of America, for most of
the year, that 45 watts will be automatically added back in by the
home heating system to maintain the same level of comfort. If the home
is heated with electricity, the savings in dollars, energy and carbon
production is literally ZERO.
The rest of the blog post is here...
federal-energy-star-program.html#links">Sudden Disruption: The Energy
Star Efficiency Myth</a>
Will someone please tell me what I've missed before this becomes law?
the radical option for editing text
Posted by CJT on February 2, 2007, 2:53 am
Sudden Disruption wrote:
People generally only need to heat their houses part of the year; in
much of the country, air conditioning is a major component of peak
electric loads, and generating capacity must be sized for peak loads.
Many people heat with gas, propane, or heating oil.
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form che...@prodigy.net.
Posted by Jack on February 2, 2007, 3:46 am
Your analysis is quite correct in that saving energy on light bulbs only to
spend it on heating is a net zero gain. To be honest though most office
buildings have a net heat excess during almost all of the year because of
the large number of humans contained therein. In those situations you have
to pay twice for the inefficiency of the incandescent light bulb - once when
you use too much electricity making light and end up with waste heat and
again when the air conditioning system has to pump that excess heat outside.
California is a state where the latter situation is typical although it does
seem that criminalizing the use of incandescent bulbs is a bit drastic.
What will the little girls use in their Mattel ovens.
It would seem that if The Bush Administration really had the slightest
interest in the energy independence of The United States they would provide
us with some guidelines on conserving energy.
Posted by Gordon on February 2, 2007, 5:11 am
Well not necessarily. Most modern office buildings have
systems that are smart unough to use the cooler outside
air to ventilate the building to draw off the excess heat.
Durring the hieght of summer they do run the air cooler.
Posted by TH on February 5, 2007, 1:54 pm
Don't need that with all the info that the Clinton Administration provided.