From the Department of Unintended Consequences
From today's Wall Street Journal:
The New Light Bulbs Lose a Little Shine
Compact Fluorescent Lamps Burn Out Faster Than Expected, Limiting Energy Savings in California's Efficiency Program
When it set up its bulb program in 2006, PG&E Corp.[the California utility company] thought its customers would buy 53 million compact fluorescent bulbs by 2008. It allotted $92 million for rebates, the most of any utility in the state. Researchers hired by the California Public Utilities Commission concluded earlier this year that fewer bulbs were sold, fewer were screwed in, and they saved less energy than PG&E anticipated.
As a result of these and other adjustments, energy savings attributed to PG&E were pegged at 451.6 million kilowatt hours by regulators, or 73% less than the 1.7 billion kilowatt hours projected by PG&E for the 2006-2008 program.
Paules? Kenneth? Are you surprised?
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
May '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
It takes a lot of time to browse everything that's been posted here recently, I know, but...
dxturner beat you to it.
May '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
In answer to Peter's question:
I'm not.
Lighting just doesn't take up much of the electrical usage of a household. And those bulbs seriously suck (sorry for the language). I've been stockpiling incandescent bulbs for the last couple of years. We have a >100 year old house and I'll be damned if I have to put those nasty, ugly things in my chandeliers and wall sconces! Just don't know what I'll do when the pile runs out. Maybe repealing the lightbulb ban before it causes any more problems is a small, do-able task for the new congress... And the low flow toilets (which, fortunately, I don't have in my nice, old house). Rob?
May '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
This whole environmental crusade is a farce. The BBC wanted to show that an electric car (an oh, so comfortable Cooper Mini) could be driven from London to Edinburgh - it took four days and stops of nine hours to recharge the fossil-fuel driven electric cells. In 1830 it took a stage coach to make the same trip on dirt roads a mere two days.
This is progress?
Aug '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
We've had several of those flourescent monstrosities burn out as fast or faster than incandescent bulbs.
Just another case of the Left putting ideology ahead of science - something they always love to pin on conservatives...
Dec '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
I agree that the bulbs were and are a bad idea ... but I don't think the consequences were unintended. Anyone with brain function could see where this was headed.
Jul '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Well, let's hope the GOP repeals the national ban on incandescent bulbs.
Of course, what this story highlights is that states' rights cuts both ways. Though citizens might be able to beat back some of the looniest environmental initiatives at the national level, we still have to contend with them locally.
And the problem is once this stuff is enacted at any level, it's almost impossible to reverse.
Sep '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
The ban of incandescent light bulbs in California has more to do with conditioning the populace to government control than it has to do with energy efficiency. Same with CAFE standards. Applying the yolk, so to speak.
Having worked in the California energy scene for a good portion of my career, it's very amusing to see the central planners (the California Energy Commission) react in horror with the advent of large screen TVs and all of the other new energy using devices that appear as a result of our rising standard of living (though I must admit it hasn't been rising of late).
Of course, the central planning solution to rising incomes causing more electricity use is to assault wealth creation. California seems headed down that path.
Dec '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Can't say I am surprised, but at least this one was less expensive than Congress's "lets change daylight savings time" fiasco.
Nov '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Those numbers look even worse when viewed under a sickly bluish-white light.
Dec '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Well, it certainly shows that mandates or incentive programs are never as succesfull as anticipated.
However, energy savings is, important; it just makes cents. Forget the gummint or be-greened utilities and find your own ways to save. Where lighting is concerned, I just do without most of it. There are a few key spots in the house where I need lights that burn cheaply, so there I use CFLs. One is a hallway where kids tend to leave the lights on (grrrr). Here is an alternative solution. I would never have seriously considered this solution, but Anthony Watts has done the homework and demonstration for us. The purchase cost is daunting, but I figure I could save that in one year of use, compared to incandescents.
May '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
"This little light of mine
I'm going to let it shine"
... until the government orders me to turn it off, or I die of mercury poisoning.
Dec '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
All I know is this policy farce has resulted in my picking up a few packages of incandescent light bulbs whenever I go to Lowes or Home Depot.
Dec '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Jan '11
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
There's something begging the question here. The benefit of the program is only realized if the public accepts it, but the public acceptance is based on whether it has any benefit.
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Another consequence I heard last winter was the non-incandescent bulbs used in traffic lights don't burn hot enough to melt snow, thus they get covered up and not seen by motorists. How much energy gets used untangling pile-ups?
May '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
The really sad thing about this is that most of the folks I've talked to about it were completely unaware of the bulb ban. Someone responded to me today with wide eyes and, "I had noticed those bulbs were getting harder to find, but..."
Good job, GOP.
Sep '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Ah utilities, this is such a case of regulatory capture. Any utility such as PGE is allowed a fixed return on its invested capital (commonly called a rate base). There is not normally an incentive for PGE to encourage savings because they make their money only on investment (efficiency has no return in the utility sense). In this case, however, the state will allow them to collect on this "investment" in energy savings because it will put off the construction of new power plants and infrastructure to deliver the incremental power that would be required without the energy savings. But since most of the savings did not materialize they get both the return on the rebates plus they have to build the most of the infrastructure anyway. It is win win for PGE. Ratepayers not so much.
Sep '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
$92 million dollars for a savings of 451.6 million kW-hrs comes to about $0.20 per kW-hr.
CA pays about 15 cents on average with the nation as a whole averaging 10 cents per kW-hr. Best of luck to the Golden State.
May '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
To PG & E: Just generate the electricity, sell it to us, and leave it to us what we do with it. Sheesh!
Jun '10
Re: From the Department of Unintended Consequences
Allow me to coin a new term: "anticipatory spending." Since I've been nominally employed for the past 9 months, my consumer spending is almost nil. Nearly everything I spend on now is based on anticipating how government rules and regs will impact my future spending. This includes everything from home infrastructure (wood stove, vegetable & fruit gardens, home brewery) to my investing choices (energy, gold, and natural resources). I assume most people are doing the same.
What I've described above is a perfect illustration of why central planning never works. No matter what government does, the free market answers with adjustments. In extreme cases you see the creation of black markets which is the purest expression of laissez-faire capitalism on the planet. Of course, the futility of government planning is completely lost to the bureaucrats who write the rules.
I'll make a prediction. When gas hits $5 at the pump, millions of backyard mechanics will create modified engines that run on everything from corn squeezins to manure. Bet on it.
Government can't stop free-market capitalism. It can only impede it.