Engineers Behaving Badly:
Lighting Science Group Corporation Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jim Haworth issued the following statement regarding the movement to pass the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act, H.R. 2417…
"Blah blah blah, my business needs a Government handout because I can't compete on the marketplace."
Engineers like Haworth make the whole profession look lbad, as he portays us as having our hands out to subsidize Bad Products. He needs to go back to the drawing board, and find a way to produce his wares at a competitive price.
Dan Schwartz, E.I.T.
Cherry Hill, NJ
I will respectfully disagree. In this particular case, the cost effectiveness appears to be there. Depending on the initial cost of the bulb, an existing, LED bulb at 700 to 800 lumens (about the same as a 60W incandescent) pays out in 1 to 2 years.
The problem is that consumers don't yet think of the bulb as other than a consumable. With a 10k hour lifetime and consuming about 1/6th the power compared to an incandescent alternative.
This is a way for the government to help the market understand that. The thinking being that the normal consumer may not be doing a cost benefit analysis when they are purchasing a light bulb.
Thry looking here... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ssl/sslbasics_whyssl.html
We do .NOT. need "for the government to help the market understand" anything, whether it is the food we eat, the light bulbs we buy, the cars we drive.
*I* earn the money in my paycheck, and *I'll* choose to spend it the way I see fit… Not some ne'er-do-well nanny-state bureaucrat.
Americans can tolerate the rumpsprung Michelle Obama telling us to eat our peas… But we draw the line when we have money we earned through the fruits of our labor stolen from our pockets and then doled back to us only if we do what someone else thinks is "good for us."
That might work for UK or EU; but we settled that argument 235 years and 7 days ago.
Oh, and one inconvenient fact the Green ignorati overlook:
Except when the windows are open or the air conditioner is running, the efficiency of the much-maligned incandescent light bulb is 100%: Any electrical energy not turned into light is, by definition turned into heat. As long as the heat is needed, there is ZERO energy wasted.
Someone ought to remind Nobel Prize winner and Energy Sec'y Steven Chu of the sophomore-level Laws of Thermodynamics~
We are in agreement that people should be able to do as they please as long as they don't harm others.
I guess we would disagree that people should be able to waste resources as long as they are willing to pay for them.
Personally, I think it is great the there is a new technology, and that there are American companies that are not only competitive, but are leaders in those industries. I think it appropriate that a spokesman for that company tell that to congress that something they are going to do will adversely effect his company.
For the record, the fact that incandescent light bulb waste heat heats homes in the winter IS accounted for in the DoE reports on the link I provided.
@TK1: You don't make sense when you first write,
"Personally, I think it is great the there is a new technology, and that there are American companies that are not only competitive, but are leaders in those industries."
and then you go on to say,
"I think it appropriate that a spokesman for that company tell that to congress that something they are going to do will adversely effect [sic] his company."
Yes: Congress wants to take away his security blanket by making his companys' products actually *compete* in the marketplace without subsidies.
Incandescent bulbs can be taxed to compensate for their social costs, kind of like cigarettes. The revenues could subsidize the drive for higher efficiency. At least, in a political system that isn't broken.
1) "Congress is taking away his security blanket..." Or is that that Congress previously thought they would stimulate economic activity in this area, and now they are renegging on that. We both agree on the fact of what is happening. Congress is talking about removing some incentives. I wonder if people that invested their efforts and money based on the laws as it stands feel the same way.... The government subsidy was originally placed to off set some risk, so now that these guys over came that risk its okay to bait and switch on him? I guess that depends on your view point.
2) That guy IS competing in a market as it exists. Congress is talking about changing that market. Individuals invested both money and effort based on the rules that are now being changed. And let's not talk about his competitors' governments actually directly investing...
3) While never addressed, the problem of wasting resources just because you can pay for them is like thinking no one should step in when people want to wash their cars (or water their lawns) in a drought. There IS such a thing as a common good. Does energy comsumption fall into that same category? It is probably something on which both reasonable and unreasonable people can disagree.
Why not just make this a zero sum game with lightbulb taxes paying for subsidized LED lighting?
Leave it all at the register, we have the technlogy now, on our phones, on our credit terminals, and cash registers.
Make the tax proportional to the losses of the light source? eficiency of the best device minus the efficiency of the device being purchased.
Keep government out of the money handling biz and just implement the standards. We all know that they can't manage money well so why allow them to control it! Just control the zero sum transfer algorithm. Make it change slowly so that biz can plan. We ned biz to plan so we can have job!