Basic physics tells you that if a bulb produces the same amount of light while using less energy, it must necessarily be generating less waste heat. If anti-efficiency jihadists were really concerned about people burning themselves, they’d be all in favor of more efficient bulbs.

Those bulbs are all banned before 2020 anyway in the 2007 Energy Act.
45 lumen per Watt specification.

The Energy Information Administration at Dept of Energy (see their
press releases) also confirm that any lamp on the market in 2020
“will have to be as efficient as CFLs” by such time.

The halogen replacements have different light quality anyway and cost
much more for marginal savings, so neither Govmts or Users like them -
as seen in the poor availability, in small ranges, in post-ban EU.

The industrial politics behind the ban,
with references and copies of official communications
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
.

http://205.254.135.24/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html

Millions of bulbs will make a nice dent in that, and save people money. Somehow, I’m not outraged.

You appear to have demonstrated that it is impossible for the American people to use any more energy, because there are no longer enough hours in the day, or room left in their house, for them to use it. Hurrah! An end to the endless growth in energy consumption!

Now we can all relax, and go worry about something else, yes?

#16,

Interesting article. The logic appears to be that in one particular case efficiency was improved, and energy use did indeed go up, but that it happened not because it was cheaper, but because of all the other things that happen when energy and the things made with it get cheaper – like greater average income, bigger houses, and cheaper appliances. (Or does he think that such things have nothing to do with energy efficiency improvements?)

He’s also making the same mistake of picking a single application of energy in isolation – lightbulbs in TTT’s case, air conditioners in James’s. It’s not that more efficient lightbulbs make people buy more lightbulbs. (Although they do.) It’s that more efficient lightbulbs allow people to use more energy. And they do. All sorts of technology has got vastly more efficient over the decades, and we use more energy now (more or less) than we ever did.

You can continue to believe that making stuff cheaper will lead people to consume less, if you like. Like I said, I’m all in favour of making stuff cheaper and more efficient. I’m not fighting you on that one.

I can only stand back in admiration and marvel at the way the big corporations have sold the idea to the Left. Totally awesome!

Where? Where will they use more lightbulbs than they used to? Will they build a bigger house to accommodate an extra bulb to take advantage of these savings?

I’ve similarly been assured that if hybrid cars really did have cheaper operating costs, overall pollution outputs would be about the same because people would take advantage of lower fuel costs by driving more. During what newly-invented hours? Where in the Econ 101 textbook supply-demand curve does it give the name of the person who sees which car you own and reduces your job and family responsibilities accordingly?

Thank you.

“Why it would take millions of bulbs to have…”

Trillions.

“Now he’s arguing the use rate will triple when people switch to CFLs.”

I said energy use, not lightbulb use, and the effect will be small.

And yes, the Jevons data-free argument. Of course in a previous thread Nullius was arguing that people couldn’t be using light bulbs at the rate to generate the estimated monetary savings. Now he’s arguing the use rate will triple when people switch to CFLs. When we switch to LEDs I guess every block will look like Times Square.

Here’s Rush Limbaugh:

As you know, liberal Democrats have targeted for extinction one of the greatest inventions in history. Unless there’s a policy reversal, next year the 100-watt incandescent light bulb will be banned. Two years after that, 75-, 60-, and 40-watt incandescent bulbs will go away.

Without quibbling over language, what does that imply? After that, Rush discusses being forced to use CFL’s. I suppose inefficient light bulbs are being “banned”. But you could also say some cars are “banned” when you raise CAFE standards, or household appliances are “banned” when you raise their standards.

–Jon Winsor