Re: d-day

[Charles Sullivan <cwsulliv@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:41 +0000, Dave Houston wrote:

> D is for dumb.
>
> The energy bill now makes it official that the sale of traditional
> incandescent light bulbs will be illegal in the USA in a few years.
>
> This article in U.S. News & World Report is far more accurate that those
> that have appeared over the past several months in the NYT and other
> publications. It gives realistic figures on prices and CFL life and cites
> actual facts about limited warranties.
>
> http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html?PageNr=2
>
> It's figure for the potential energy savings from a 60-70% reduction in US
> energy used for lighting is very close to the back-of-the-envelope
> calculations I've posted previously on this topic. Texas uses 12% of US
> energy which is far short of the 22% and higher numbers spouted by the NYT
> and certain eco-terrorists. And even the 12% is probably off by at least
> half because 2/3 of US energy is used by industrial and commercial
> facilities, most of which already use fluorescents or other high-efficiency
> lighting, so there's little chance of actually seeing a 60-70% reduction -
> 20-25% for lighting (6-8% overall and much less worldwide) is probably
> overly optimistic. That won't save many polar bears but the Philips
> lobbyists have certainly earned their fees.

If candelabra-base and low voltage landscape lighting bulbs are
included in the ban, it'll probably cost $5K to $8K to replace
fixtures in the house I'm occupying.

> Of course, any reduction will affect the utilities' bottom lines so they
> will find ways (service fees, minimum bills, etc.) to recoup their
> losses.

They won't have to do anything creative, just apply for a rate
hike on the grounds of maintaining their return on investment.