Reply With Quote
Nope, but if efficiency regulations are passed to save responsible people from irresponsible people, and Hummers can't meet these standards, then they should not be allowed to be sold until they can meet such standards.
If Congress decides they should meet some standard they cannot meet, they shouldn't be outlawed?
Nope, but if efficiency regulations are passed to save responsible people from irresponsible people, and Hummers can't meet these standards, then they should not be allowed to be sold until they can meet such standards.
Why is the Tea Party suddenly obsessed with light bulbs?
Suddenly, saving the old-fashioned 100-watt bulb -- which wastes most of the energy it consumes and costs households more in energy bills than the new model -- has become a matter of personal liberty.
Nobody makes a led coffee roaster worth a .
Laser roasters?
The government should do something about that.Nobody makes a led coffee roaster worth a .
It's such a better product that the consumers have to be forced to enjoy the rewards of it. Don't forget the exception for Hollywood though.
Ladies and gentlemen, spursncowboys, a very funny man!
Don't forget to tip your waitresses and bartenders, they're workin hard for you tonight.
Nice to see you back on the board. Sup?
Engery Star appliances and gadgets, and imposed gas mileage per fleet have been around for decades, not a peep.
A little bit like consumers were forced to enjoy the benefits of paint without lead in it.
The paint with lead in it spread better, and dried cleaner, and looked nicer. If I want to have lead in my house, who is it hurting?
It was a massive government overreach to ban paint with lead in it.
Not sure a conversion to NPV would be entirely helpful.
In all likelihood though, the price of electricity and its projected rises are more important, since it is the price of electricity that forms the most important variable, since it forms the larger cost.
Since any cost modeling use the same timeline, one would not reach any materially different conclusion, other than a small discount for the incandescant bulbs purchased years from now. Any rises in the costs of electricity due to the time value of money would cancel out when converted to NPV.
http://news.yahoo.com/house-vote-ban...071755937.htmlDemocrats waved new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs made in the United States and costing in the $1.50 range. "Yes, this costs a few dimes more. But let me tell you, you start saving dimes the moment you screw these into the socket," said Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J.
Those backing the new standards say the mercury risk is negligible and say new incandescent and LED bulbs contain no mercury.
The Obama administration, in a statement released Monday, said it opposes the bill because it would repeal standards that are driving U.S. innovation, creating new manufacturing jobs and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The White House said the bulbs will save American households nearly $6 billion in 2015 alone.
The Energy Department pointed out that energy-saving improvements in refrigerators carried out since the 1970s now save Americans $20 billion a year, or $150 a family.
Why do Republicans want everybody to be poorer?
"It was a massive government overreach to ban paint with lead in it."
Same with lead as a anti-knock gasoline additive.
There are "some who say" that the drop in crime the last couple decades could be associated with the drop in lead in humans.
Bad news is the they replaced lead with in gasoline ain't nice.
MMT
Methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl (MMT) has been used for many years in Canada and recently in Australia to boost octane. It also helps old cars designed for leaded fuel run on unleaded fuel without need for additives to prevent valve problems.
US Federal sources state MMT is suspected to be a powerful neurotoxin and respiratory toxin,[23] and a large Canadian study concluded that MMT impairs the effectiveness of automobile emission controls and increases pollution from motor vehicles.[24]
In 1977, use of MMT was banned in the US by the Clean Air Act until the Ethyl Corporation could prove the additive would not lead to failure of new car emission-control systems. As a result of this ruling, the Ethyl Corporation began a legal battle with the EPA, presenting evidence that MMT was harmless to automobile emissions-control systems. In 1995, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the EPA had exceeded its authority, and MMT became a legal fuel additive in the US. MMT is now manufactured by the Afton Chemical Corporation division of Newmarket Corporation.[25]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline#Lead
I went ahead and did this. These are my assumptions, I will summarize and poke holes in my method.
Went to lowes.com for bulb prices I used 60 watts as my baseline and found the cheapest of each bulb that was on lowes.com. wattage and life was found in the description of each bulb.
Incandescent - Lowes Sylvania 8-pack 2.48: $0.31/bulb, 1000 hour life, 60 watts
CFL - Lowes Utilitech 4-pack 7.98: $1.995/bulb, 8000 hour life, 15 watts
LED - Lowes Sylvania 1-pack 39.98: $39.98/bulb, 25000 hour life, 12 watts
I assumed that each bulb was on for 1000 hours per year. I used peak charge for my cost/KwH which I think is fair because I didn't take into account any fuel surcharges. The amount I used according to RG's link and my bill was .0843/KwH. (.0668 normal + .0175 peak). I assumed an increase in electricity rates of 2%/year and an inflation rate of 3%/year. I bought 1 incandescent bulb every year, but kept the cost constant (not affected by inflation). I bought one CFL bulb after ever eighth year (not affected by inflation). I bought one LED bulb. The cost of the last CFL bulb was prorated since it would have most of its life left at the end of the 25 year span. Electricity costs were paid at the end of each year.
The answers I came up with were
NPV - Incandescent: 115.08
NPV - CFL: 32.22
NPV - LED: 61.87
The main problem (as RG pointed out) is determining an appropriate growth rate for electricity prices. The reason being, each of those three paths (incandescent, cfl, and LED) will represent exponentially different growth rates in electricity demand, and therefore different growth rates in energy prices. All other things being equal, electricity rates will increase at a much higher rate if everyone continued using Incandescents as opposed to the other two. I used 2% (avg growth rate of electricity prices has been 2.5% since 2000 Link ) across all three examples even though it may look more like 3.5%/year for incandescents, 2% for CFLs, and 1.8% for LEDs (note these numbers are just an example).
By the end of year 10 the NPV of incandescents surpasses that of LEDs (obviously by the end of year one, the CFL is already cheaper).
I think that was all, but if you have a question, let me know.
Pfft only $150 a family! How many businesses went bankrupt due to these authoritarian regulations? I'm guessing that said businesses would put more than $150 into a family's pocket. [/wc]
The lesson to be learned here is that only republican presidents are allowed to use oppressive, authoritarian tactics to force Americans into saving money on energy costs.
"How many businesses went bankrupt due to these authoritarian regulations"
dunno, how many?
Isn't that what the economist call "creative destruction" in a dynamic economy.
Hey WH. Hope all is well.
No that is no way a good comparison. Regular light bulbs that I guarentee you are in every congressmans office lights and hollywoods make up mirrors are not harmful
Pretty good, thx. Are you back in Texas?
Prove it.
In fact, it looks like Congress has gone a bit further than just replacing a few bulbs in their offices.
http://www.aoc.gov/aoc/magazine/Shed...-Reduction.cfm
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
