Learning To Love Big Brother

Writing in the overly-cheery, "just do as I say and all should be well" style of Dolores Umbridge explaining a new regulation from the Ministry of Magic, Brendan Koerner tries to persuade me to stop worrying and embrace "compact fluorescent light bulbs." (Not that I have any choice in the matter.) Why would you want to stick with "inefficient incandescent technology that has barely changed since the invention of the tungsten filament nearly a century ago," he wonders, when you can enjoy the hip and refreshing taste of New Coke - sorry, I mean, the chilly pulse of energy-efficient fluorescence? (It's the official light bulb of Tomorrowland, kids - and the Pruitt-Igoe housing project!)

You might be a little concerned about what to do when a CFL bulb breaks, but not to worry: "Just follow the EPA's easy cleanup guidelines." (Who doesn't want a lightbulb that comes with government-issued "cleanup guidelines"?) True, those guidelines suggest that you flee the room at first, and then use rubber gloves and two sealed plastics bags to clean up the broken bulb, but the good news is that "even a broken CFL bulb won't leak too much toxic metal." And while you might have trouble throwing the broken bulb away, since putting it in the trash is probably, er, illegal, there's hope on the horizon: "Look for several major retailers to set up recycling drop-off boxes this year, in order to goose their CFL sales." (Jonah Goldberg, call your office ... )

Oh, and "use common sense and don't place CFLs where they can be damaged by young children." You know, like in your living room.

Then there's the kicker:

The last, desperate swipe at CFLs ... is that their light is cold and dreadful. Perhaps this was true in years past, but the Lantern just doesn't see it anymore: In a recent test, Popular Mechanics rated CFL light as far superior to that produced by incandescent bulbs. Don't believe the hype? You've got nothing to lose by trying a single CFL bulb (one that's received EnergyStar certification) and seeing for yourself. And then, once you've become a convert, please spread the word.

Also, we have some stress tests you might be interested in ...

For the record, I've seen several of the new CFL bulbs in action, and I'm not a convert. And come 2009, you'll see in my local hardware store, frantically stockpiling incandescent bulbs against the long, dark, environmentally-efficient night to come.

Photo by Flickr user Tiago Daniel used under a Creative Commons license.

Comments

OK, I've heard this several times, and I'm just baffled. We have mostly all CFL lights in our house now and I honestly can't tell the difference at all. What's more, in another room there are two lamps, one of which I know has a CFL and one of which I know has an incandescent light, and I can't tell the difference without looking behind the shade. I personally just can't see the difference.

Posted by Freddie | February 5, 2008 5:41 PM

Yeah, I felt the same way about CFLs when people first started using them, but the ones they make now really are indistinguishable from incandescent bulbs. This post is hysterical and silly.

Posted by Brendan | February 5, 2008 5:49 PM

This is why I don't get Ross. He's fine with giving the President the authority to spy on Americans at will without any sort of judicial oversight...but try and tell him what kind of lightbulb to use and he'll be bustin' out 1984 parallels all over your ass.

Seriously, the lack of perspective is staggering.

Posted by Jeff | February 5, 2008 6:00 PM

Jeff-

What's not to get? Oh, you were under the impression that when conservatives say they are for limited government, they mean it.

Posted by Rickm | February 5, 2008 6:07 PM

I'm sympathetic to Ross's point. Surely the correct approach is to price electricity (and mercury contamination) correctly and then let people make up their minds.

I think people might be over-stating the efficiency gains from CFL's. Remember, whenever you're heating your house, there's no energy loss from incandescent bulbs. They are only less efficient when the extra heat they produce is undesirable. When you add that to the threat of mercury contamination, I think a pretty good case can be made that incandescent bulbs are more socially responsible.

But even if that weren't true, there's simply no reason to use any compulsion beyond the tax system. If CFL's really are as good as incandescents, and if people really don't mind low levels of mercury contamination, then CFL's should be able to compete in the marketplace. If not, then maybe they don't deserve to win.

Posted by minderbender | February 5, 2008 6:11 PM

Compelling people to buy CFL's is awful legislation that props up a fading technology. (LEDs would have superseded them) The ultimate problem with the incandescent ban is that it will lead to more energy consumption. More energy has gone into lighting after the invention of energy-conserving bulbs than did before. The introduction of energy efficient technology is associated with greater energy use not less. This relationship fits our intuition. The Boeing 787 is a heck of a lot more efficient per passenger mile than Orville and Wilbur's Flyer. However, our society now consumes much more petroleum for aviation than we did in 1903.

Posted by John Sterling | February 5, 2008 6:29 PM

Sorry, I've had my bulbs for 18 months now, and it is my primary after-dark light source (I have very high ceilings so it's a huge pain to get the ladder out to reach the burned out lights) and in fact, have left it on for a month.

And the light is warm in my opinion. I like 'em.

Also people should really read the entire mercury section of the article. Apparently they have less than in the thermometers we got stuck in our mouths as kids. And yes, I got the mercury thermometer when I was a little one in the 1980s.

Posted by MNPundit | February 5, 2008 6:38 PM

Look, about as many people are going to safely throw away their CFL's as people safely dispose of their batteries and old computer equipment - basically none.

Plus, personally, I can't notice any flicker or diminished light quality in CFLs, but I also can't tell the difference between mid-quality MP3s and CDs. But I know a lot of people can in the second case, and it wouldn't surprise me that some people CAN notice a difference and have legitimate reasons for preferring incandescents.

Wouldn't a smarter solution than banning incandescent light bulbs be to heavily tax them? I think if they cost slightly more than CFLs, people would make the switch if they didn't care and it'd let the few who do keep their incandescents. The revenues from the tax could even be used for carbon offsetting or the like.

But of course, instead the nanny-state politicians would rather simply restrict our freedoms to make choices for ourselves rather than game the economic incentives behind those choices. Look for a black market in incandescent light bulbs to spring up soon after the bans go into effect.

Posted by Michael T Sweeney | February 5, 2008 6:45 PM

I agree with people who are saying that harsh regulation isn't the way to spread the use of these bulbs. I just don't buy the argument that they aren't satisfactory as bulbs; I personally can't see the difference.

Posted by Freddie | February 5, 2008 6:48 PM

John Sterling is talking about the Peltzman effect:

http://uchicagolaw.typepad.com/faculty/2007/01/compact_fluores.html

I find it implausible in the case of CFL's. Certainly it's not the sort of thing you can answer in a satisfactory way by analogy to jet fuel.

MNPundit makes the point that CFL's have less mercury than thermometers. First of all, this is only comforting if mercury contamination from thermometers is known to be negligible. Also, I don't think that's quite the right comparison. Sure, the amount of mercury in each bulb may be quite small, but then the question becomes how often lightbulbs break (and whether people will dispose of them properly rather than throwing them away). If a lightbulb has 1/10th the mercury of a thermometer, but the average lightbulb breaks 10 times as often and there are 50 times as many lightbulbs in your house, then you've got 50 times as much mercury contamination as you would get from mercury thermometers (assuming 1 thermometer per house).

Posted by minderbender | February 5, 2008 6:54 PM

I am curious to hear which brand of CFL's result in the repeated "I can't tell any difference" of many of the comments. I bought a set of CFLs (deliberately not chosing the cheapest of the lot) and installed them in our kitchen ceiling lights without telling my wife. She noticed in a heartbeat and demanded I take them back down and replace then with the old lights. I had to agree. Yes, they emit light but it isn't the kind of light that the folks in our house seem to like.

Posted by Kirk Larsen | February 5, 2008 7:26 PM

Actually, it's about 1% of the mercury in a thermometer.

Posted by Freddie | February 5, 2008 8:42 PM

I just have regular 17-watt GE bulbs. The kind that can be turned to three different levels of brightness.

Posted by Freddie | February 5, 2008 8:44 PM

I think people might be over-stating the efficiency gains from CFL's. Remember, whenever you're heating your house, there's no energy loss from incandescent bulbs. They are only less efficient when the extra heat they produce is undesirable.

The great news is, with global warming trends' effect on local US climates, the extra heat from incandescent bulbs will be objectionably fighting your air conditioner more days of the year!

Seriously people, two things to cope with CFLs: 1) With a warm-toned lampshade, they do cast a warm light; 2) the lumens rating sometimes seems optimistic, so use a 20 watt instead of a 15 watt or whatever. This will still be more efficient than the 75W incandescent it replaces.

First thing to do: replace your refrigerator lamp with a CFL. I know it's not on very much, but who the heck needs a heat lamp in a refrigerator?

Posted by Ben | February 5, 2008 10:33 PM

You had better vote for Ron Paul, or you have no right to complain.

Why are people so stupid that they keep electing more nannies after we see how much the nannies want to control our lives?

(And I say this as a person who uses mostly CFLs in my apartment).

Posted by Glaivester | February 5, 2008 11:24 PM

I used to buy CFLs, but many would burn out in a week or two.

Why is granting this technology a government-mandated monopoly going to lead the technology to improve faster than open competition with Mr. Edison's invention?

Posted by Steve Sailer | February 6, 2008 3:40 AM

When you add that to the threat of mercury contamination, I think a pretty good case can be made that incandescent bulbs are more socially responsible.

Except that the coal burned to power your incandescent releases mercury into the atmosphere at far greater rates than CFL's are breaking and releasing mercury. If every household in america broke 20 CFLs per year, 10-15 tons of mercury would be released. This unlikely scenario compares favorably to the 48 tons of mercury released by coal fired plants per year, especially when you account for the reduction in coal consumption attributable to CFL use.

In fact, I would expect conservatives like Ross to embrace the fact that the mercury released directly into your house when a CFL breaks actually provides an incentive for individuals to take responsibility for their own mercury contamination. Then again, I've never been too good at following conservative logic.

Posted by DMonteith | February 6, 2008 8:36 AM

You clearly want to set the price of electricity so that consumers take into account its environmental impact. So yeah, if coal power plants release so much mercury, people should probably be paying more for electricity.

As for bulbs in your refrigerator - I'm not entirely certain, but I believe that there's a distinction to be drawn between fixed costs and marginal costs. I think it takes a surge of electricity to turn on a CFL, so you pay a high fixed cost when you turn it on. Once it's on, though, it runs much more efficiently (during the summer) than an incandescent bulb, so you recoup the costs. However, if this is true, CFL's are a poor candidate for refrigerator use, because a refrigerator light is never on for more than a few seconds, not long enough (I'm guessing) to recoup the cost of turning on.

Posted by minderbender | February 6, 2008 9:09 AM

Compelling people to buy CFL's is awful legislation that props up a fading technology. (LEDs would have superseded them)

The legislation doesn't mandate CFLs, it mandates higher efficiency. So LEDs are perfectly acceptable under it.

Posted by wiredog | February 6, 2008 10:18 AM

I think it takes a surge of electricity to turn on a CFL, so you pay a high fixed cost when you turn it on.

Debunked by the Mythbusters, among other places.

Posted by Freddie | February 6, 2008 10:32 AM

It's true Ross, using these lightbulbs is really too much to ask. I mean, Bangledesh could become part of the ocean, and desert might overwhelm good portions of China, but asking people to use more efficient lightbulbs is just too much. My gripe is that they are implementing higher standards for insulation. It is my God-given right as a 'Merican to keep the heat at 72 degrees AND have drafts--keeps the circulation about right.

Posted by David | February 6, 2008 10:50 AM

Wiredog is absolutely right. The legislation mandates efficiency standards, but does NOT pick a technology. LEDs are fine.

Oh, and Steve Sailer, I have been buying CFLs for about 5 years now and i have never had to replace one. Sorry if you got a bad bunch, but I am quite happy with them.

Posted by David | February 6, 2008 10:53 AM

minderbender,

I think Jevon's Paradox is a more parsimonious statement of the outcome I had in mind, although I love how Sam Peltzman recognized that the dynamism of individual behavior upsets conclusions reached via static analysis.

I have no comment on the perceived plausibility of the Jevon/Peltzman argument nor any reason why CFLs might be unique and qualitatively different from transportation or utility markets. However, if CFLs truly do shift the supply curve for electrical illumniation to the right, I think that an increase in the demand for lighting and a concomitant increase in the associated energy consumption should be an obvious result.

Posted by John Sterling | February 6, 2008 11:09 AM

Don't you have something better to talk about?

Posted by Okay . . . | February 6, 2008 11:11 AM

I use 13W GEs without a lampshade.

Perhaps I just prefer more artificial light? I dunno, I never noticed a different.

Posted by MNPundit | February 6, 2008 11:13 AM

I expect a lot of this to get superceded by LED and nanoparticle technology within a few years, anyway.

Sales tax lights according to their inefficiency, then get out of the way.

Either that, or hike electricity prices by 200%.

Lived in Japan for 12 years surrounded by energy-sipping technology. Compact fluorescent stuff standard everywhere anyway. Americans, quityetbitchen.

Posted by grumpy realist | February 6, 2008 11:55 AM

"come 2009, you'll see in my local hardware store, frantically stockpiling incandescent bulbs against the long, dark, environmentally-efficient night to come"

Me, too.

Posted by dbl | February 6, 2008 2:01 PM

Shit like this is why I can never take "small government conservatives" seriously.

Posted by Chris | February 6, 2008 2:10 PM

Go back to candles, Ross. You know it's the only way to ensure the appropriate glibertarian frisson.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 10, 2008 2:48 PM

Burnt out within a week? I've been using CFLs for two years now and have never had one burn out on me.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 10, 2008 5:09 PM

If we could just get conservative ninnies to believe that liberals think respiration is teh awesome...

Posted by jimbo | February 10, 2008 5:21 PM

I thought I hated florescents, remembering the flickering light of school days.

However I had some overloaded circuits that meant that if I was to have things as bright as I like with incandescents, breakers would pop.

So I replaced 250 watt incandescents with a variety of retail and industrial CFLs averaging 45 watts (found at farmteck.com) The cheap ones have a warm (red end of the spectrum) light while the expensive full spectrum bulbs have a harsher light. No flicker I can detect and much brighter. I'm switching everything over, choosing full for the shop and reading and warm for other areas

Posted by wrb | February 10, 2008 5:33 PM

I thought I hated florescents, remembering the flickering light of school days.

However I had some overloaded circuits that meant that if I was to have things as bright as I like with incandescents, breakers would pop.

So I replaced 250 watt incandescents with a variety of retail and industrial CFLs averaging 45 watts (found at farmteck.com) The cheap ones have a warm (red end of the spectrum) light while the expensive full spectrum bulbs have a harsher light. No flicker I can detect and much brighter. I'm switching everything over, choosing full for the shop and reading and warm for other areas

Posted by wrb | February 10, 2008 5:33 PM

Steve Sailer:

Go to your local $.99 Store. They occasionally gave these 23W florescent bulbs dumped there, courtesy of the power company. They last years so far. Warm light color. You will likely have to deal with those brown Spanish-speaking folks, though.

The only problem I have with these things are that they don't fit in some of my fixtures, being a bit larger than comparable incandescents.

It is interesting that all the lights I bought cheap at either the $.99 Store or Big Lots have both lasted a long time and gave very nice warm colored light. About a month ago, I assembled a multi lamp fixture for my Mom, and went to Walmart to buy some relatively low powered CFLs. Not only were they kinda pricey compared to what I was used to, they gave off ugly light.

I did notice they now have CFLs that seem intended to run off dimmer switches, which is kinda nice. No word yet on the color of the light produced or performance.

Posted by shecky | February 10, 2008 6:56 PM

I can tell the difference between CFL bulbs and regular ones, since most of the CFL bulbs emit annoyingly yellow light. I normally bought those "natural light" incandescent bulbs (they appear periwinkle blue when turned off).

But, in theory you can buy color-tuned CFL bulbs that emit light of the right color. So if I were you I'd experiment with different shades of CFL bulb.

I don't think they should be banned either, but what would make more sense would be to charge an upfront tax to bring their cost in line with CFL bulbs.

Posted by example | February 10, 2008 7:55 PM

Ross:

Grow up, you big fucking baby.

Posted by Jamey | February 10, 2008 8:24 PM

This is the dumbest blog post I've ever read.

CFLs are made in plenty of color temperatures; far more than incandescents. Have you heard of Kino-Flos? They're the fluorescent lights used to shoot movies.

Can conservatives not do research? Or do they fear the responsibility of choosing their own color temperatures?

Posted by Luke | February 10, 2008 10:57 PM

Anyone, you know, read the Energy bill? It does not ban incandescents, it requires that incandescents improve their efficiency by 30% to be sold. According to both GE and Phillps this is possible.

Luke's post on doing research sure resonates on doing research.

Posted by notchris | February 11, 2008 11:40 AM