Bulbs first, flatscreens second, vacuum cleaners next?

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

In some cases, such as this light bulb one, legislation drives manufacturer innovation. All to often, manufacturers just provide the same old product without innovating.

Do you think that cars would be as efficient as they are today without the government legislating more efficiency. Likewise, (and this is my opinion) car efficiency would be a lot higher yet had the government told car manufacturers that it must be so.

If the government legislated only cars with better gas mileage could be sold, it would be so. Is that necessarily better?

Most (and the easiest) ways to increase gas mileage increase cost and/or decrease vehicle safety. For example, steel parts can be made from aluminum, which weighs less improving gas mileage. But it costs more.

If all cars cost 20% more, a certain segment of the population wouldn't be able to afford them, which limits there employment opportunities.

Increasing regulation causes more and more social inequality, as the increased cost of goods disproportionately harms poorer people.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by jonesy

I'm on the fore front of 'reigning in our energy system' as you say. (its the usage not the system that needs reigning in) That aside, you missed the point. A typical family could live in a European size house with a European sized car which would provide the same levels of service, so it sounds like you would be ok with the govt madating such a thing to help the reign in process.

Or how about limiting use of other products? Nobody NEEDS to watch TV let alone 4 hours a day. Assuming an average LCD TV uses 110W (link) and the average Canadian watches 29 hours a week (link) mandating a maximum national household tv consumption of 1 hour per day would save the equivalent of switching seven 60W light bulbs to their 13W CFL equivalents. (Based on an hour of on time per light which, IMO at least, seems fair when you factor in the lights that rarely get turned on.)

Every little bit counts right?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

If the government legislated only cars with better gas mileage could be sold, it would be so. Is that necessarily better?

Most (and the easiest) ways to increase gas mileage increase cost and/or decrease vehicle safety. For example, steel parts can be made from aluminum, which weighs less improving gas mileage. But it costs more.

If all cars cost 20% more, a certain segment of the population wouldn't be able to afford them, which limits there employment opportunities.

Increasing regulation causes more and more social inequality, as the increased cost of goods disproportionately harms poorer people.

The current auto market keeps coming out with new models that have more power than the one preceeding - "with the same (or slightly better) fuel economy." Why not keep the HP the same, while reducing the fuel usage?

North American cars are generally overpowered - thanks to marketing. The average vehicle in North America has what, roughly double the horsepower that a similar model had 20 years ago? Now, I won't say that cars should only have the same amount of horsepower that cars back then had, since cars are heavier now due to more safety systems. However, if vehicles horsepower only increased at the same rate as the weight has increased in the last 20 years, cars would do substantially better on fuel than they do.

[Flash Walken]

I should be able to use lead pipes in my house for drinking water and non insulated or grounded copper wiring if I damn well choose.

Anything else is COMMUNISM.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I should be able to use lead pipes in my house for drinking water and non insulated or grounded copper wiring if I damn well choose.

Anything else is COMMUNISM.

Not to take anything away from your post but both are still legal to use. You'll be hard pressed to find someone to insure you but if you own your home outright the government isn't going to get in the way.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I should be able to use lead pipes in my house for drinking water and non insulated or grounded copper wiring if I damn well choose.

Anything else is COMMUNISM.

That's a false analogy. Lead pipes and dangerous wiring fundamentally dangerous, incandecent bulbs are not.

Deja vu, because the same argument was made in post #11, in a much more humerous fashion.

It's still ridiculous.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I should be able to use lead pipes in my house for drinking water and non insulated or grounded copper wiring if I damn well choose.

Anything else is COMMUNISM.

And nobody is arguing against all regulation in this thread, just against this specific regulation. I'm not in favour of anarchy, but I'm not in favour of 1984 either.

Where the line gets drawn is a legitimate question, as over and under regulation both have disadvantages. Attempting to de-legitimize the question because you disagree with someone about the answer just makes your position seem absurd.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The current auto market keeps coming out with new models that have more power than the one preceeding - "with the same (or slightly better) fuel economy." Why not keep the HP the same, while reducing the fuel usage?

North American cars are generally overpowered - thanks to marketing. The average vehicle in North America has what, roughly double the horsepower that a similar model had 20 years ago? Now, I won't say that cars should only have the same amount of horsepower that cars back then had, since cars are heavier now due to more safety systems. However, if vehicles horsepower only increased at the same rate as the weight has increased in the last 20 years, cars would do substantially better on fuel than they do.

Car buyers do care about fuel economy, and they care more as the price of fuel goes up. Market based incentives would work in this case.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

And nobody is arguing against all regulation in this thread, just against this specific regulation. I'm not in favour of anarchy, but I'm not in favour of 1984 either.

Where the line gets drawn is a legitimate question, as over and under regulation both have disadvantages. Attempting to de-legitimize the question because you disagree with someone about the answer just makes your position seem absurd.

Actually, if you look over the post history of Flame of Liberty, you will see a strong argument against any kind of regulation that doesn't involve the government regulating against unwanted pregnancy and probably a couple of other foolish/idiotic perspectives.

He's doing the same thing in this thread, which is as laughable as my stupid drive-by. Actually, this is more stupid.

What is this, Soviet Russia controlling every aspect of our lives? Saving energy? Where does it stop?

Oh the HUMANITY!

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I should be able to use lead pipes in my house for drinking water and non insulated or grounded copper wiring if I damn well choose.

Anything else is COMMUNISM.

the government should remove all sharp objects from your house because aparently you are unfit to live in such anarchy

[Ducay]

Even if it costs $40 more a year to run incandescents, 9/12 of the months those bulbs are just helping to heat the house.

The remaining say ~$20/year in lost energy is well worth it to make my house not feel dingy and unwelcoming.

[photon]

I'm pretty sure heating by electricity is more expensive than natural gas so the increase in natural gas would be more than offset by the savings.

But I haven't done the math for that one.

No reason to have a dingy house.

[bizaro86]

Speaking of energy used to heat houses...

Is anyone in favor of regulating thermostat temperatures? If the government mandated you could only heat your house to 16 degrees centigrade, we'd save a lot of natural gas. (Assorted green house gas and environmental benefits due to less drilling)

The government certainly could pass a law like that. It'd be difficult to enforce, but it's probably nothing that random checks of your house's internal temperature and large fines couldn't solve. 16 is plenty warm enough for sustaining human life, and we could use the savings to buy fair trade sweaters.

Mmmm.... government enforced environmental benefits for all.

(While I realize I'm encroaching on reductio ad absurdum here, the question of "where's the line" for government enforced energy savings is still open)

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm pretty sure heating by electricity is more expensive than natural gas so the increase in natural gas would be more than offset by the savings.

Yeah, Heating by natural gas would be cheaper. Also, it wouldn't just heat the air up by the ceiling, where you really don't care what temperature it is.

Just an example of how much cheaper natural gas is, think of it this way:

We've all seen those big electric heaters, but imagine if you shut off your furnace during the cold winter, and just tried to heat your house using a 1500 watt electric heater? Your house wouldn't get very warm, except for right around the heater. However, if you left that heater on 24/7 for an entire month, the electricity for that heater alone would cost $88. Just for one month. How many of those would you need to keep your whole house warm?

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by kevman

So is anyone else stocking up on incandescent light bulbs?

I like to encourage my basement tenant to use them - they have their own meter so their loss is my gain!

I have the same CFLs still working perfectly from 6 years ago. Why stock up on incandescents?

If they dying soon, make sure they're not on dimmers.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Speaking of energy used to heat houses...

Is anyone in favor of regulating thermostat temperatures? If the government mandated you could only heat your house to 16 degrees centigrade, we'd save a lot of natural gas. (Assorted green house gas and environmental benefits due to less drilling)

I think cost savings to the consumer is the biggest incentive to be eco friendly. And whats 16 degrees in a poorly insulated house versus one that is well insulated. Now, if the gov't said you only are budgetted so much electricity and natural gas for the month that would be different, I suppose.

[Stay Golden]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I've had a lot of problems with cheap CFLs from Costco, including short lifespan, taking several seconds to turn on, and inconsistent brightness, while CFLs I've bought at other stores have been pretty good.

at wallmart the bulbs in the green package not sure the brand just garbage last less than bulbs.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I think cost savings to the consumer is the biggest incentive to be eco friendly.

I definitely agree with this. As energy prices rise, people become naturally more energy conscious. If that's the case, regulation of this type starts becoming unnecessary.

[Devils'Advocate]

Not true. Not true at all. As electricity prices in Ontario are going up, the people are *NOT* becoming more environmentally conscious... they are not buying CFL light bulbs, turning off unused appliances, putting clothes on the clothesline.... When I am sitting with coworkers at lunch or out at a bar with friends what I am hearing is "damn stupid McGinty government should keep those coal power plants going so that electicity is more affordable!!!".

People do *NOT* want to change. No matter what the cost. Electricity costs is a prime reason that McGinty is behind in the polls. The Progressive Conservatives have promised to remove the "debt retirement charge" and the HST from electricity bills - just meaning that there will be a shell game going on. The HST revenues have to be made up somewhere and the Ontario Hydro debt isn't going to magically disappear just because the fund used to pay it off is gone.

Why invest in energy efficient appliances when you can just blame the government and throw them out unless they lower your power bill?

[bizaro86]

Ontario is paying the price for decades of government mismanagement of their electricity industry. Stranded debt from various nuclear debacles, pension and severance for the extra layers of executives they hired, the big becky dig fiasco, the world's worst designed feed-in-tariff (FIT) program, etc.

It's basically a continuing gong show, but that should probably be it's own thread.