How many representatives does it take to change a light bulb? 314 to 100, plus one President!
Rim shot! No, seriously, Bush is taking away your light bulbs, but he's replacing them (or making you replace them) with even better bulbs! A massive energy bill that passed the House on Tuesday and was signed yesterday, set higher fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 years, called for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2022, and, most importantly, set a goal for getting rid of the incandescent light bulb within 10 years.
“Today, we make a major step with the Energy Independence and Security Act,” said Bush. “We make a major step toward reducing our dependence on oil, confronting global climate change, expanding production of renewable fuels and giving future generations a nation that is stronger, cleaner and more secure."
Democrats complained that the bill, while a victory, could have been stronger in other areas, like support for renewable electricity standard or adding incentives for wind and solar power.
Sure, but what about the light bulbs?
Incandescent bulbs create light by running electricity through a tungsten filament that provides resistance and in turn heats up. That's wasteful if your goal is to produce light. Compact fluorescent bulbs, the alternative, are tubes filled with argon and mercury vapors. The bulbs stream electrons through the gas, causing the mercury atoms to excite and then calm down, giving off ultraviolet photons that in turn collide with the phosphor causing it to fluoresce.
We spend a lot of time on energy, global warming, and conservation here, but we never talk about how conservation hurts. I'm all for conservation, but I really like my incandescent bulb. It's got a nice soft glow. Compact fluorescents, do conserve energy and reduce waste with a longer lifecycle, sure, but they also look funny and remind me of hospitals.
Instead of converting bulbs, can't we just convert our electrical sources? I'm all for the eel or, to a lesser degree, the onion and Gatorade method.
Also of note: The environment is certainly one of the big winners in the passing of the bill, but stocks for General Electric and Philips Electronics both rose after the House signed the bill. I'm going to start investing in eel.
[Via New York Times. Check out this comparison guide for compact fluorescents.]
Comments
Christopher Mims
says:
The main problem with this bill is that it calls for a four-fold increase in Ethanol production. Ethanol is an environmental NIGHTMARE.
December 20, 2007 3:35 PM
Randy says:
I live in the far north, and those energy efficient compact fluorescents don't work outdoors in the cold. (I know, I've tried them). Garage, spots, and general outdoor lighting will be a problem.
Looks like I'll be stocking up on incandescents. Now I'll be called an environmental terrorist?
December 20, 2007 5:04 PM
Zifnab says:
As much energy as they save, nobody likes to talk about the environmental impact of disposing of CFLs - mercury is a big problem in landfills.
The real answer is LEDs, which will not have the same problems running in colder temps, but the technology, while rapidly progessing, ain't quite there, yet.
"The road to Hell is paved with . . ."
December 23, 2007 9:40 AM
za says:
interesting topic
December 23, 2007 7:56 PM
wizard says:
I wonder if the comments on your topic have been filtered, if so, I consider such handle improper and unfair. You can e-mail me to discuss about it.
December 23, 2007 8:04 PM
quinn the Eskimo says:
I'm frustrated! As an observer (as opposed to activist) on environmental discussions, I find THIS LIST of posts troubling.
1. Mr. Mims: You don't seem to like oil. Okay, I get that. So? Ethanol? Not good either. Wind? No. Kills birds, unsightly, not reliable. Wave action? Well, recent news lists the myriad problems with the tides. Solar won't work at night or northern latitudes. Guess that leaves NUCLEAR. Buggars! And you still have to build to cover peak demand. Damn buggars.
2. Randy, you want lights outside. Hrumph! Try the living room. Have you tried to read a book under CFL's? Are you over 40? Forgeddaboutit.
3. Zifnab, well now you HAD to go and mention mercury didn't you. I know, lets make thermometers.
No everyone; You hate our technology. Praise be to Gore! So? What are you suggesting?
Before we trash our society, destroy our economy and go live in caves--suggest SOMETHING. Anything. But let us get on with it already.
Oh, electric cars--who's going to build the grid? What's going to power that grid?
From the sidelines: " Quit bitchin' and DO something...help us."
Your turn.
December 24, 2007 12:56 AM
Ed Oleen says:
Yes, N U C L E A R. A whole lot of it. We need electric cars. Short haul ones, to start with: 50 miles on a charge. That would handle most of the auto use in the U.S. - communting to the railroad station, taking the kids to their dance lessons, daily shopping, you name it. Most cars, at least here in the NorthEast, do less than 50 miles a day. A plug-in hybrid would be ideal.
The electric grid needs to be REbuilt - expanded in capacity, not built from scratch.
Wind sucks: I know, I've tried it. Ditto solar. Both suffer from a louse capacity factor.
The "excess" power from building nukes to match the PEAK load can be used to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and its conversion to a stable for for return to long-term (millenia) storage.
December 25, 2007 1:42 PM
Add a comment