This page was last updated on July 18, 2011.
Dimming bulbs and dim bulbs; Editorial; Beaver County Times; July 17, 2011.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.
“The battle of the bulb is over, and like most political battles in Washington these days, it was pointless to the point of silliness.”
[RWC] Not yet. According to Bloomberg, on Friday “The U.S. House approved a provision to save for a year the 100-watt incandescent light bulb.” I’m glad to see the BCT keeps current.
Wow! The name-calling began in the editorial title! Mr. Prose, are you ghostwriting BCT editorials?
The rest of my comments notwithstanding, for now House Republicans are tilting at windmills. There’s no way the Democrat-majority Senate will approve any bill with this provision, and even if it did, President Obama would veto the bill.
“The battle in question was the effort by congressional Republicans to repeal a 2007 law, which was signed by President George W. Bush, that would have stopped enactment of new energy-saving standards for light bulbs.”
[RWC] I get a kick out of serial Bush-bashers invoking Mr. Bush’s name when they want credibility.
“Fortunately, right-wingers couldn’t muster enough House troops around their ‘save the incandescent light’ rally. Although the effort was approved 233-193, it fell short of the two-thirds majority needed for repeal.”
[RWC] Factoid: Then-Senators Joe Biden (D-DE), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), John McCain (R-AZ), Barack Obama (D-IL), and Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) chose not to cast a vote when the 2007 bill came up for a vote. Hmm, what did they all have in common?
“Republicans tried to conflate the new energy standards into what they see as ailing America — government intrusion into the marketplace, government dictating personal choices, etc.”
[RWC] Maybe that’s because the effective ban on selling incandescent bulbs is “government intrusion into the marketplace, government dictating personal choices, etc.”
“Blah-blah, blah-blah, blah-blah.
“Well, here’s what really ails America, at least as far as its power grid goes.
“Americans are consuming electricity at ever increasing levels. Just look at all the electronic devices and trinkets that you have in your home and on your person that you didn’t have two decades ago. Some, such as cable TV boxes, are always on, even when they’re not in use.
“This demand has placed more stress on our nation’s already ailing and aging power grid, which got a D-plus from the American Society of Civil Engineers in their ‘2009 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure.’”
[RWC] Given this, it’s a good thing government isn’t subsidizing electric and plug-in hybrid cars and makers of their batteries. Oh wait, it is.
“One solution would be to build more power plants and transmission lines to carry electricity to where it is needed.
“The problem is that while everybody wants the electricity these plants produce, few are willing to welcome these facilities into their communities — coal-fired or nuclear, anyone? — and they aren’t thrilled at the possibility of transmission lines coming near their homes.
“And let’s not even get into the costs, including environmental, of building plants and power lines.”
[RWC] Did you notice the editorial didn’t mention reluctance “to welcome … facilities” for sources of energy like wind turbine farms, solar farms, hydroelectric plants, et cetera?
I know the BCT must have written a similar editorial regarding increased electricity demand for electric and plug-in hybrid cars, but I can’t find it. Would someone please point me to that editorial? <g>
“That leaves conservation as a valid (and fairly quick) fix. Getting rid of inefficient incandescent light bulbs won’t cure what ails our energy grid, but it won’t hurt it either.”
[RWC] While energy efficiency is part of any plan, I’ll go out on a limb and opine we can’t conserve our way into the future.
As an engineer I’m all for efficient devices. The thing is, I’d like to believe most engineers recognize economic efficiency is as important as technical efficiency and rarely do one-size-fits-all solutions fit all. For example, if a person can’t afford the near-term higher price of a more efficient light bulb, the fact it may save him money over the long term doesn’t matter. Oh no, if lefties don’t already have an entitlement program to subsidize higher-price light bulbs, I just gave them an idea!
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.