I think there is plenty of customer demand for cheap bulbs that come on instantly, are dim-able, come in plain eco-friendly cardboard packaging ( I can't understand why 'green' bulbs come in tough plastic packaging - I broke one trying to get it out!), and don't contain mercury (and I think the mercury issue is way over-blown, but it's still an issue), or catch on fire (I've had a couple smoke and emit putrid, toxic smelling fumes - very scary).
If there is customer demand, then why are the big box stores dropping them like a hot potato? Some conspiracy where congress is leaning on them? (I'd by that, btw). You customers must not be demanding enough! They should still be available now if you were (according to free market theory and all that) as the phase out isn't here yet. In fact, we should see them on shelves still and prices going up in response to real or perceived scarcity.
also, as an aside, since you mentioned the mercury thing... if you get your power from coal, then that <5mg or mercury in your bulb will save >300mg of mercury from being released into the atmosphere via coal burning. On the other hand, if you get your power from nuclear, then choosing bulbs with mercury in them is a bad tradeoff.
Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge - NYTimes.com
although, of note, check out this from 2007
GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology; New High-Efficiency Lamps Targeted for Market by 2010
compared to this from 2008
GE Suspends Development Of High-Efficiency Incandescent Bulbs · Environmental Management & Energy News · Environmental Leader
It looks like those free market companies freely decided that there was no more market in incandescents even though they were hitting 30% and they could fleece us more by moving their research dollars to LED and OLED (more likely, GE found or was offered another tax loophole for the move)
I though wattage equivalents were based on lumens? What (watt?) other measure would they use?
Go look at packages. You'll see bulbs labeled as 60w equiv with a 100 lumen difference. That's pretty significant. Just in my cupboard, I have a 65w equiv rated at 595 lumens and a 65w equiv rated at 750 lumens. I have a 40w rated at 550 lumnes and a 40w rated at 300 lumens.
By what magic does it bring the cost down? It doesn't, it only changes who pays for it. Subsidies are paid by taxpayers, and we are them. We have met the enemy and he is us! If a bulb doesn't have good payback w/o a subsidy, then it doesn't have a good payback with a subsidy either. It's all money.
If I had known we needed to be pedantic, then I could have said that it significantly brings one immediate out of pocket costs down significantly. However, I would posit that, long term, yes it may actually help with all costs including taxes to support your utility.
Suppose you buy money from an electrical company. Suppose that electrical company needs to build plants as demand for electricity increases. Suppose that it's consumers cutting energy consumption allows it to push off the need for building new plants. Suppose the cost of the rebate to make this happen is significantly lower than the cost of a new plant. In that case, offering the rebate is a much more economical solution as it's effectively freed up a new plant worth of capacity by subsidizing. I suppose that'd probably be a good thing.
In this world, it would also make economic sense for a utility to offer some form of discount on new appliances and HVAC systems if they are significantly more efficient than the system they're replacing. In my area, this is the case. One can be eligible for a rebate on, say, a new HVAC system if the system it's replacing is less efficient. The amount of the rebate is based on the improvement in efficiency (replacing a 12 SEER with a 14 SEER gets you a rebate. Moving to a 16 SEER would get you a bit more. Replacing a 14 SEER with a 13 or 14 SEER does not get you a rebate.)
Encouraging the replacement of inefficient with efficient when the utility sees the benefit over the lifetime of the decision (even if the homeowner doesn't, eg they move) makes economic sense for the utility company.
Please post when they are less than $1, w/o any fuzzy subsidy math.
As you know, I was responding to a comment about LED light bulbs (which are not subsidized, at least around here). My point was, and is, that costs for those are coming down significantly. I know you don't honestly expect a new product to come on the market with a significantly different technology and be substantially cheaper than it's predecessor at the onset. At least recently, we can bear this out by comparing Plasma or LED TVs to tube TVs when they first appeared on the mass market (as in Best Buy selling them)
Also, one should consider their lifetime ownership costs when making a purchase. An LED bulb has a theoretical life of 30,000-50,000 hours (now, I know mean time to failure (MTTF) for a single LED is right around 50k hours but obviously 5*MTTF != 50k). So, one should compare both the expected lifetime of the bulb and the expected lifetime of the incandescent and the expected reduction in operating expenses when making a purchasing decision. Suppose we never get to a point where an LED costs less than an incandescent does today. However, suppose we get to a point where they cost 5x as much. That may still be a net benefit if they last at least 5x longer. Your upfront cost is higher but your MTTF is pushed way into the future. Couple that with usage savings (even if insignificant due to location) and you come out ahead. I'm obviously not saying we're there now, but hopefully it is obvious that one doesn't need to reach an identical cost in order for it to be a cheaper deal.
Subsidized CFL bulbs last month were $3 for 12. Non-subsidized (they were only subsidizing the warm white around here) were $12 for 12.
Economies of scale (more consumers purchasing, more effort going into production to meet demand) dictates that this will happen. It's simple economics.
Agreed, I'd personally much, much rather have seen significantly higher energy cost than a government mandate (in so far as any utilities that are operating as non-profits and actually have thin internal margins and/or having loses subsidized. People make different consumption choices when gas is $4 a gallon and I suspect they'd make different choices with electricity at 30 cents a KW (if they're used to 10 cents, for example). Again, I wouldn't support artificially raising the rate, but I suspect privatizing utilities or eliminating any loss-carrying if it exists would accomplish this.
