Slashdot Mirror

Regulations are worse than both Free Market or Tax
http://ceolas.net/#li23x
http://freedomlightbulb.org/ "How bans are wrongly justified" 14 points, referenced (light bulb example, but similarly here)

In summary

1. Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a product, whether video cards, light bulbs (as mentioned in the comments) or anything else

2. Energy saving mandates change product characteristics eg performance, usability, size/weight/appearance as well as price
- or noone would want the products and a ban would not be "needed"
There is no "free lunch".

3. The bans are about saving electricity /CO2 emissions
Video Cards or light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
If there is a problem - Deal with the problem.

4. Normally, mandating resource savings is based on resource shortage.
There is no future low emission and renewable electricity shortage

5. The electricity savings involved are marginal for maany reasons, as linked.
Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation and distribution (eg grid upgrades, smart grids etc)
and alternative consumption savings eg heating/cooling, or unnecessary product use
- than banning the personal choice of products.

6. The product bans are not for usual reason of being unsafe to use - eg like lead paint
The ban is simply to save electricity.
Clearly, electricity or its source eg coal could simply have price increases in that case
- letting people decide for themselves how they wish to use it.

7. Alternatively, the Video Cards could be taxed.
Some comments here imply the "tax would have to be big, and unpopular"
Firstly, being allowed is still better than bans.
Secondly, a tax could be used to lower the price of alternatives ie smaller tax is needed to even up the market,
in fact even a small tax increase likely changes consumption (and people "not just hit by taxes" in having cheaper alternatives)
Government can also gain direct income for other society purposes - unlike with bans.

8. Increase - not decrease- of competition is best of all:
Free market solutions are therefore best - also to save energy
Competition keeps down energy cost among electricity providers and product manufacturers themselves
Rather than ban some Video Cards, the EU could help new alternatives to market (including energy saving ones)
- and they in turn could use energy saving as a prominent advertising feature.
After all - supposedly we have "stupid consumers" who buy the "wrong" products, or a ban would not be "needed".
Given that energy saving is a product and consumer advantage,
then better consumer information (eg "energy star" effortds, product labelling, public campaigns)
along with appropriate "Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run" commercials, ads in Video/computer magazines etc
  (think of Energizer battery, washing up liquid commercials) is the way to go.

Politicians - often heavily lobbied by manufacturers looking for profits on new patented Green Technology -
love simple visible media-friendly report solutions that in reality mean nothing.
It is a pity that so many here in the comments fall for the same trick.

On the American side,
regular incandescent light bulbs are legal for Texas manufacture and sales since June 2011, signed into law by Gov Rick Perry.
Texas also has several Congressmen active federally against it, with bills and amendments
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html
http://freedomlightbulb.org/2012/06/texas-hold-em-and-congressmen-fight-for.html

All the bills in US States, links and updates
http://ceolas.net/#bills

Outside the USA, Canada delayed ban for at least 2 years, BC suspended their ongoing ban: See the above sites for more
Mexico due to implement restricitions but their grid needs upgrading (common CFLs affect grids due to their so-called power factor)

Those interested in the incandescent ban topic can if they want follow
the Incandescent Light Bulb Activist Alliance on Facebook,
started a few days ago, with American and European politicians, lighting designers, writers and others
http://www.facebook.com/groups/bulballiance

Very insightful comments Bedroll!
A tax would be more logical (bulbs just banned to save energy)
but as you say there are industrial-political reasons aganst it.

However, industry did lobby for and welcome the ban on incandescents.
Why welcome a ban on what you can or can't make you say ?
Odd certainly at first sight...but profits of course, from getting rid of the cheap patent expired generic light bulbs (like banning "penicilin"),
a profitability Osram GE and Philips executives have all stated openly.
Congress lighting consultant Howard Brandston was there in the hearings and wrote a book about it, I Light Bulb
- NEMA (manufacturer association) represented the companies in the Legislation talks:
" When I asked NEMA for help in fighting the incandescent light ban, I was politely told that they could not be involved in that" etc
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html#industrypol

That EU site was made in cooperation with the light bulb manufacturers who lobbied for and welcomed the ban in the first place.
http://ceolas.net/#euban

Re the supposed savings quoted:
Whatever about Johnny switching a bulb in his bedroom, he saves less than supposed for many reasons as linked below,
besides he might welcome other qualities in his lighting - eg broad spectrum brightness!
Society laws should of course be about Society savings, and even then only in comparison with other policies.

"The total reduction in energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate.
Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
...This is gesture politics."
Cambridge University Network using official European Commission (VITO) data, and similarly US Dept of Energy and other sources, as referenced.

That's not all.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
Power plants might, and might not.
If there's a problem - Deal with the problem

Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation, grid upgrades, smart grids, alternative consumption savings, as referenced

Not only is the overall saving negligible.
In effect it can be non-existent, and CO2 emissions may increase from a ban

Since "coal" use is the main environmental issue, and main usage of targeted incandescent bulbs is at night:
Coal plant night surplus output operation (hard to turn coal plants up and down also with newer "cycling" plants) means effectively the same coal is often burned - whatever the light bulb or even if it's on or off
Nightime electricity also from other sources, is cheap for a reason.
(DEFRA, APTECH data)

As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs, especially in cooler climates, as shown by linked Canadian, Finnish and Icelandic research, independently of one another (also see http://ceolas.net/#li11x).
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).

How Light Bulb and similar Regulations are Wrongly Justifed
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html
14 points, referenced
.

That EU site was made in cooperation with the light bulb manufacturers who lobbied for and welcomed the ban in the first place.
http://ceolas.net/#euban

Re the supposed savings quoted:
Whatever about Johnny switching a bulb in his bedroom, he saves less than supposed for many reasons as linked below,
besides he might welcome other qualities in his lighting - eg broad spectrum brightness!
Society laws should of course be about Society savings, and even then only in comparison with other policies.

"The total reduction in energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate.
Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
...This is gesture politics."
Cambridge University Network using official European Commission (VITO) data, and similarly US Dept of Energy and other sources, as referenced.

That's not all.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
Power plants might, and might not.
If there's a problem - Deal with the problem

Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation, grid upgrades, smart grids, alternative consumption savings, as referenced

Not only is the overall saving negligible.
In effect it can be non-existent, and CO2 emissions may increase from a ban

Since "coal" use is the main environmental issue, and main usage of targeted incandescent bulbs is at night:
Coal plant night surplus output operation (hard to turn coal plants up and down also with newer "cycling" plants) means effectively the same coal is often burned - whatever the light bulb or even if it's on or off
Nightime electricity also from other sources, is cheap for a reason.
(DEFRA, APTECH data)

As it happens, CO2 and other gas emissions may increase by switching away from incandescent light bulbs, especially in cooler climates, as shown by linked Canadian, Finnish and Icelandic research, independently of one another (also see http://ceolas.net/#li11x).
That is, when the electric light bulb heat from a low carbon emission (like nuclear, hydro, solar, wind) power plant source is replaced by CO2 emitting heat fuel (like coal, gas, oil).

How Light Bulb and similar Regulations are Wrongly Justifed
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html
14 points, referenced
.

Yes it is a ban on regular incandescents and the touted halogen type replacements

45 lumen per watt end regulation applying after 2014, EISA phase 2 (EU by 2016, similar law)

http://ceolas.net/#li01inx
US EU etc regulations linked and explained

Energy saving is not the only reason to choose a bulb.
Moreover, consumers pay for electricity of which there is no future shortage given all the low emission and renewable development - and if there was a shortage of say coal, the price rise would reduce use anyway!

Why did the major Manufacturers lobby for and welcome the ban?
Would you welcome being told what you can make?
If so, why? :-)
Yes, profits from a ban on cheap generic patent expired bulbs
http://ceolas.net/#li12ax referenced

But OK - just taking the savings side of things:
Whatever about Johnny switching a bulb in his bedroom, if he wants energy saving rather than other qualities:
Society laws should of course be about Society savings
"The total reduction in energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%,
This figure is almost certainly an overestimate.
Which begs the question: is it really worth it?
Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages.
The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy...
...This is gesture politics."
Cambridge University Network, and similarly US Dept of Energy and other data, as referenced

That's not all.

Light bulbs don't burn coal or release CO2 gas
Power plants might, and might not.
If there's a problem - Deal with the problem

Far more relevant to deal with electricity generation, grid upgrades, smart grids, alternative consumption savings, as referenced via the previous links.

Not only is the overall saving negligible.
In effect it can be non-existent!

Since "coal" use is the main environmental issue, and main usage of targeted incandescent bulbs is at night:
Coal plant night surplus output operation (hard to turn coal plants up and down also with newer "cycling" plants) means effectively the same coal is often burned - whatever the light bulb or even if it's on or off !
Nightime electricity also from other sources, is cheap for a reason.
(DEFRA, APTECH data)

How Light Bulb and similar Regulations are Wrongly Justifed
http://freedomlightbulb.org/p/how-bans-are-wrongly-justified.html
14 points, referenced
.

Have you ever taken a CFL apart? I have. There's an astonishing amount of electronics in that small base; it's required to transform line voltage into a potential sufficiently high to ionize the gas in the fluorescent tube. How much energy goes into the manufacture of these electronic components? How much of the electronics is either re-used or recovered as raw material when these bulbs are 'recycled', as opposed to the materials, (and the energy that went into their manufacture), being disposed of in landfills? I have been unable to find answers to these questions, and I think they're important. There's a lot more 'stuff', in a CFL, with a much wider range of chemical compositions, than in an incandescent bulb, so it's harder and more energy-intensive to fully recycle.

Then there are the special interests of the various stakeholders and their lobbyists - for a discussion of this, see http://ceolas.net/#li1ax . Does anyone really believe that 'saving energy' is a primary, or even an important, motivation for the manufacturers and patent holders of CFLs? Given that, what might they be hiding, and how much spin has been applied to the figures the provide vis-a-vis total energy savings?

If the powers that be were really serious about saving energy and the environment by encouraging CFL use, they would mandate two things: 1) A a high minimum standard of longevity for the electronics in the bases of CFLs, and 2) A means of replacing the tube only when it burns out, so the most complex and least homogeneous part of the bulb, (the base with its electronic circuitry), can be re-used numerous times. But guess what? That reduces the profit margins and raises both the cost and the price, making the whole proposition both less economically attractive and less politically palatable. If 'energy saving' was the true motive behind this legislation, these things would have been incorporated into CFL design by now.

The problems of the EMI and RFI that CFLs generate, and their crappy power factor, are points for further investigation for those interested. As are the problems with LED lights and their greater negative effects on melatonin production, with the accompanying decrease in health for those exposed to them.

This whole topic is a lot more complex and nuanced than most people realize, and I suggest that anyone reading this might want to do a little digging before giving in to a knee-jerk reaction of either "But, but... the environment!" or "But, but... I like the old ones!"

Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned. TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice. This also applies generally, to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc, where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use. Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them. Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making them cheaper than today. People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.

Moreover, taxes are easier to apply and adaopt than bans, and can be lifted when no longer required, for example when sufficient low emisssion energy is in place, without having lost manufacture of the underlying product -unlike with bans

I have also extensively covered taxation compared to bans here:
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html (relates to light bulbs, but same principles)

Guess what?

Other factors contribute to a lack of savings too!

If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.

__________________________________________________________
Why all energy efficiency regulations are wrong
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x

Summary: Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.

--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected

-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing

--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence

--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs

Guess what?

Other factors contribute to a lack of savings too!

If households use less energy,
then utility companies make less money,
and will just raise electricity prices to cover their costs.
So people don't save as much money as they thought.

Conversely,
energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
so people just leave TV sets etc on more, knowing that energy bills are lower,
as also shown by Scottish and Cambridge research
http://ceolas.net/#cc214x

Either way, supposed energy - or money - savings aren't there.

__________________________________________________________
Why all energy efficiency regulations are wrong
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x

Summary: Politicians don't object to energy efficiency as it sounds too good to be true. It is.

--The Consumer Side
Product Performance -- Construction and Appearance
Price Increase -- Lack of Actual Savings: Money, Energy or Emissions. Choice and Quality affected

-- The Manufacturer Side
Meeting Consumer Demand -- Green Technology -- Green Marketing

--The Energy Side
Energy Supply -- Energy Security -- Cars and Oil Dependence

--The Emission Side
Buildings -- Industry -- Power Stations -- Light Bulbs

Are you guys living in the 'Free America' or are you wannabees to join our Bureaucratic ban-loving EU? :-)

Governor Schwarzenegger is shooting himself in the foot!

1.
Taxation, while still wrong, is better than bans for all concerned.
TV set taxation based on energy efficiency - unlike bans - gives Governor Schwarzenegger's impoverished California Government income on the reduced sales, while consumers keep choice.
This also applies generally,
to CARS (with emission tax or gas tax), BUILDINGS, DISHWASHERS, LIGHT BULBS etc,
where politicians instead keep trying to define what people can or can't use.
Politicians can use the tax money raised to fund home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc that lower energy use and emissions more than remaining product use raises them.
Energy efficient products can have any sales taxes lowered, making them cheaper than today.
People are not just hit by taxes, they don't have to buy the higher taxed products - and at least they CAN still buy them.

2.
Product regulation, bans or taxation, are however unwarranted:
Where there is a problem - deal with the problem!

Energy: there is no energy shortage
(given renewable/nuclear development possibilities, with set emission limits)
and consumers - not politicians - pay for energy and how they wish to use it.

It might sound great to "Let everyone save money by only allowing energy efficient products"

However:
Inefficient products that use more energy can have performance, appearance and construction advantages
Examples (using cars, buildings, dishwashers, TV sets, light bulbs etc):
http://ceolas.net/#cc211x
For example, big plasma TV screens have image contrast and other advantages along with their large image sizes.

Products using more energy usually cost less, or they'd be more energy efficient already.
Depending on how much they are used, there might therefore not be any running cost savings either.

(continued)