Why is the right so consistently wrong?

[telcoman]

I'll never understand them

We heard the right chanting drill baby drill during the last presidential campaign so why would they be opposed to reducing our dependence on foreign oil ? This would reduce our national debt as we continue to send money to Arab countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/magaz ... f=magazine

It is a long read but we have many members here that are into mod lighting with LEDs so why are some so oppossed to this new technology?

“As a consumer product, light bulbs belong to what one industry executive calls a “low-thought category,” and yet, of late, they’ve become a surprising flash point. Conservatives like Rush Limbaugh have denounced the “light-bulb ban” — actually, a new set of federal efficiency regulations that the traditional incandescent can’t meet — as a symbolic case of environmentalist overreaching, and Michele Bachmann invoked it in the Tea Party’s response to the State of the Union. Wherever your political sympathies lie, you may have found yourselves nodding along with Representative Joe Barton, a Texas Republican who has lambasted the harsh glare given off by those “little, squiggly, pigtailed” compact fluorescents. When it comes to making light, a fundamental necessity of human civilization, libertarians and aesthetes are joined in an unlikely alliance. Environmental groups say the complainers are a cranky minority — that consumers will eventually get used to new light — but those in the illumination business can’t afford to be so sanguine. And that is why, inside a drab Silicon Valley office building belonging to a company called Lumileds, some of the industry’s most brilliant minds are plumbing the mysteries of light on an atomic level, working to devise the bulb of the future. “

We need to keep this new technology right here and the jobs this new technology will create.

“A bipartisan bill passed Congress with little notice in 2007, but protests have mounted as the phaseout nears, and lighting companies need to prove to the public that efficient products can also be easy on the eye.”

Wow, a plus while Bush was in office! I’m shocked.

“Efficiency wasn’t an issue until the energy crisis of the 1970s, which inspired compact fluorescents, but they went over poorly and never made much of a dent in the incandescent’s market domination”

At least President Carter tried.

Telcoman

[bigbadberry3]

I'm all for more efficient energy, I think a lot of the back lash comes because of the banning by the government. Maybe?

[srellim234]

Pretty much. Capitalists will tell you that when electric bills get high enough the consumer will demand more efficient electrical products, companies will react to the demand and THEN do both the R&D and production necessary to put out those products. Being proactive is not a function of the government. The problem is the companies are reactionary so products will always be behind the times.

Gas mileage in cars is another good example. Without the increase in gas mileage standards we'd still have no gas efficient vehicles on the road, we'd all still be driving 10 mpg behemoths and the air would be thick with black exhaust smoke. The change to smaller and more efficient would not have come until AFTER oil was already gone or at least $15 a gallon.

I believe some government standards have to put into place to provide proactive movement by companies; otherwise they'd never change. The problem is determining at what point the government needs to step away and leave well enough alone. Simply saying technology can accomplish infinity so let's put arbitrary increasingly tough standards in place is not the answer. In the case of fuel economy and emissions are the new standards necessary or has the market already been stimulated enough to keep development going?

In the case of lighting I believe these initial standards are probably good but the government should stay out of it after this unless development becomes stagnant again.

[AZhitman]

"Wrong" is in the flawed eye of the beholder.

Pull your head out, Howie, you're thinking like a Prius owner.

We had this same argument over CFL's. And my question was, "Do you have any idea how much pollution CFL's produce? Any idea how much petrochemicals it takes to MAKE them? Do you have ANY idea what the disposal of them does to our water supply?"

But I suppose I was "wrong"? Well, you see how the CFL has flopped. It's a joke - I can't even find a place to take my CFL's and flour tubes for recycling... Trying to be environmentally-conscious, but there's no infrastructure.

The LED's are expensive, so I'm sure you're ok with the wealthy saving money on their electric bill, while the poor get poorer?

Listen, I'm no environmentalist, and I could give a damn about energy conservation for the most part. My BIG issue with it is this: Look who's behind the push to change regulations: A company that can't sell enough product. Well, how damn convenient. So, the government comes in, takes away ANOTHER right to choose, and there's no recourse. That is bulls***, no matter WHAT party you support. Like someone said in the article, you can decide whether you want to keep or kill an unborn child, but you won't be able to put incandescent bulbs in your home.

Typical short-sighted libby thinking. Just because something uses less electricity (which we can make more of), doesn't mean it's evil. Quit eating the pablum that's being spoon-fed to you, you're dribbling it on your bib.

[IBCoupe]

The LED's are expensive, so I'm sure you're ok with the wealthy saving money on their electric bill, while the poor get poorer?

Yep, and probably in about six months after the regulations take effect, the prices will go down. In the meantime, fluorescents are a great transition.

Freakin market forces... How do they work?!

[szh]

Reality check: FWIW, CFL's are not a good transition technology. I have been trying to use them in my house for some years now, including comparing them carefully to incandescents (yes, I am a geek engineer!) to see what success I was having with them.

So far, the outcome has been:

1. They last much less than good quality incandescents. Even in little used areas. In my son's bathroom for example, the CFL's longevity is less than half the incandescents for example - about 1 year on average compared to over 3 years (side by side in the same light fixture!) that I have been measuring. In our bathroom, some of the incandescents are still working fine since we bought our house ... more than 11 years ago!

2. None of the CFL's I have ever bought - even expensive ones - have lived up to the 7 or more(!) years promised on the boxes. Nothing has lasted more than 2 years without failing or requiring replacement due to light output dropping too far.

3. CFL's start gradually losing their light capacity as soon as you start using them - the light output is down about a third to a half within 6 months or so. I sometimes end up replacing a CFL before it actually burns out totally because the light output has degraded to the point of uselessness.

4. They cannot be disposed of easily. I have tried to find local areas that will take them and end up driving some miles to do so! Pain in the butt.

5. Drop one and you will have to quickly open windows and leave the house for 30 minutes (or much more to be safe - I have a young son that I would like not to be exposed so much) to allow the Mercury vapors to escape. I wonder how many people know about this?

6. The cost is still too high. In general, based on electricity rates around here, given the higher price and the faster failure rate, my actual calculated experience has been that I am spending about three times as much for using CFL's as incandescents - even when taking electricity into account.

So, yes, I can't wait for lower-cost LED's - they are purported to have longer lives (so were CFL's by the way, but have not proven so), but I will check to see how long they actually do so. Today, the prices are way too high for me to consider them as a complete alternative.

Z

[AZhitman]

The LED's are expensive, so I'm sure you're ok with the wealthy saving money on their electric bill, while the poor get poorer?

Yep, and probably in about six months after the regulations take effect, the prices will go down. In the meantime, fluorescents are a great transition.

Freakin market forces... How do they work?!

That wasn't directed at you, but get real, dude... I get how it works. My point is, a $30 light bulb can drop to 1/10th it's current price and STILL not be as economical as a 4-pack of 40w incandescents (on sale for $1.49 at my HD).

One can buy an awful lot of electricity for the difference.

My point was to illustrate the disconnect between the left's position on taxation of the wealthy vs the "poor", and their position on gov't regulatory interference that will undoubtedly affect the same people.

Another fallcy: Light bulbs don't "reduce our dependence on foreign oil". That's a stretch by ANY measure.

BTW, side note: I, like Z, have had the same experience with CFL's. My whole house is outfitted with them, and I'm not convinced they save me enough to justify their initial cost (or hassle).

[IBCoupe]

And my point is that the price being high isn't really that good an argument, no matter whom it's directed towards.

[szh]

And my point is that the price being high isn't really that good an argument, no matter whom it's directed towards.

It is a perfectly good argument for people for whom money is more of an issue.

Or are we supposed to be saying that they can be ignored. Isn't that against the liberal "help the poor" mantra?

Z

[srellim234]

z- you might want to check your wiring. We've had the exact opposite experience with CFLs. By the end of 1999 I replaced every bulb in the house with CFLs and I still have 7 of the original bulbs that get used in the bathroom vanities and one bedroom daily. The others have been replaced but only one fixture has had the CFL replaced more than once in. 1750 sq. foot house, 4 bedroom, 2 bath with a wall AC unit in southern California and our electric bill has not exceeded $100 since we moved in.

Disposal here has not been too much of a problem because our city was proactive and established a recycle center for electronics and hazmat disposal. We were proactive instead of reactive. I seal the old bulb in a ziploc bag and drop it off at the recycle center on Saturday between 9 and 2. That's the only time it's open for us to drop it off.

I would prefer to have bulbs that are not hazmat; hopefully the light bulb industry will get it done for a reasonable price. For many of us out here using the CFLs saved us a bundle on our electric bills and haven't been the dangerous and poor lighting option yours have been.

[srellim234]

z- you might want to check your wiring. We've had the exact opposite experience with CFLs. By the end of 1999 I replaced every bulb in the house with CFLs and I still have 7 of the original bulbs that get used in the bathroom vanities and one bedroom daily. The others have been replaced but only one fixture has had the CFL replaced more than once in. 1750 sq. foot house, 4 bedroom, 2 bath with a wall AC unit in southern California and our electric bill has not exceeded $100 since we moved in.

Disposal here has not been too much of a problem because our city was proactive and established a recycle center for electronics and hazmat disposal. We were proactive instead of reactive. I seal the old bulb in a ziploc bag and drop it off at the recycle center on Saturday between 9 and 2. That's the only time it's open for us to drop it off.

I would prefer to have bulbs that are not hazmat; hopefully the light bulb industry will get it done for a reasonable price. For many of us out here using the CFLs saved us a bundle on our electric bills and haven't been the dangerous and poor lighting option yours have been.

[stebo0728]

I'll echo BBB here, a government ban is only properly imposed when immediate safety is concerned, and from the hazmat standpoint, CFL's are more dangerous that incandescents in that they contain trace amounts of mercury. I've even heard stores of hazmat crews coming to homes when these things break (urban legend perhaps? but still I've heard the stories). There are some other things to consider. For one, light quality. Some will claim you just cant match the quality of light that an incandescent bulb puts out. Personally I dont care, light is light, but there are those who are beholden to old-school. If the free market sees the demand drop to such a point that its pointless to keep making the incandescents, thats free market at work, but a government ban is not the answer. Another thing to consider, and I'll default to T's experience here, but CFL's have a minor health concern for those with epilepsy, unless I'm wrong, because of the flicker factor, and even for those without epilepsy, some studies show that CFL's can increase eye strain because of the flicker factor. Now - LED's are still fairly new to the market, so for one thing thats by no means grounds to impose them on people when we still dont know enough about their long term performance. I'm a geek so I like new stuff, and Im also conscious of environmental impact, not because of the global warming propaganda, but because a cleaner environment is a better environment, plus the less energy we consume the better. Switching to an electric car only makes sense environmentally when you get your grid power from clean sources, say hydro or nuclear, but if you on a coal burning grid, you're not helping anything. NOW for an area where an item can be replaced to consume LESS electricity that is good, but big brother government should not be the invisible hand of force in the matter.

[IBCoupe]

And my point is that the price being high isn't really that good an argument, no matter whom it's directed towards.

It is a perfectly good argument for people for whom money is more of an issue.

Or are we supposed to be saying that they can be ignored. Isn't that against the liberal "help the poor" mantra?

Z

Hey, I'm all for subsidies for the poor.

[szh]

It is a perfectly good argument for people for whom money is more of an issue.

Or are we supposed to be saying that they can be ignored. Isn't that against the liberal "help the poor" mantra?

Z

Hey, I'm all for subsidies for the poor.

As long as it is called that, I can sorta agree - depending on the degree of "poorness", I suppose.

For example, idealist that I am, I believe that the mortgage interest deduction should be eliminated from Federal taxes, and people below a certain AGI can then be given a rebate or subsidy on their mortgage payment. That way, we call it what it really is: a "housing ownership handout", not a "interest deduction"!

Z

[szh]

z- you might want to check your wiring.

I don't know how to address this to be honest. My house was built new in 1999 when we bought it, so I assume that the wiring is relatively new, no?

The tiny 13 Watt (no light output worth speaking of) fluorescent bulb in the kitchen and our guest bathroom (using the correct type of plug-in socket, by the way, not a standard bulb twist), have not lasted long either. I just replaced the fourth one in our guest bathroom yesterday - each has lasted about almost four years. These fluorescent bulbs were put in because the California building codes in 1999 required at least one bath and kitchen light to be fluorescent.

The "normal" socket CFL's have all died (or require replacement) in less than 2 years each.

Z

[srellim234]

Our house was built in '62 and they are all normal screw-in sockets. Yours is newer. I guess the old adage must be true: They don't make 'em like they used to!

[AZhitman]

My house was built in 2008, and it has the issue Z speaks of. Also, they don't do well in the first floor of a 2 story house (or ceiling fans) due to vibration.

Plus, I don't deal well with the flicker. Makes me cranky.

Thank goodness I can pop in here and kick telco in the nads. Makes me feel better.

[telcoman]

.

Plus, I don't deal well with the flicker. Makes me cranky.

Thank goodness I can pop in here and kick telco in the nads. Makes me feel better.

Thanks Greg.

Glad to hear you are feeling better

[szh]

Our house was built in '62 and they are all normal screw-in sockets. Yours is newer. I guess the old adage must be true: They don't make 'em like they used to!

Adage must be true.

Z