The light bulb deal (las week's news)

[J D Sauser]

96 SYLVANIA 13 WATT COMPACT FLUORESCENT LIGHT BULBS CFL - eBay (item 320283417817 end time Aug-06-08 19:24:31 PDT)

after yesterday's 5 minute "search"

... J-D.

[cobraboy]

Go place a bid for 10,000,000 on ebay.

[cobraboy]

Since CFL's are not exactly the brightest source of light, perhaps those who love gubmint expansion can lobby for the creation of a Ministry of Dim Bulbs. No doubt there are ample qualified candidates, myself being one...

(Why is it no surprise that gubmint, even with good intentions, screws things up...)

[Keith R]

Interesting (but not surprising) to me that this discussion has so focused on the whether the government paid a good price for the bulbs (probably not) and who profited from the deal (as HB says, always happened in the DR), and not on the other key caveats mentioned in the Green Team article: mercury/proper disposal and whether the bulbs will result in net energy savings for the DR.

[Frank the Tank]

I am sure one of Leonel's panas bought new jeepetas for his whole family off of that deal.

[J D Sauser]

Originally Posted by Keith R

Interesting (but not surprising) to me that this discussion has so focused on the whether the government paid a good price for the bulbs (probably not) and who profited from the deal (as HB says, always happened in the DR), and not on the other key caveats mentioned in the Green Team article: mercury/proper disposal and whether the bulbs will result in net energy savings for the DR.

Keith, while I opened this thread intentionally about the numbers made public about that deal, I do share your concern, interest or focus on the ecological point of view of it all. Thus I don't mind if the thread slowly migrates in a more global discussion about this program.
The article on the Green Team page is well presented, I like it, but I would only take exception with one "argument"

Then There's the Energy "Savings"...

CFLs are certainly more energy efficient than the incandescent bulbs, and in theory can save everyone energy (and therefore money). But that's only if you actually cut your consumption. If the energy saved by the CFLs is simply replaced by consumption elsewhere (whether we're talking elsewhere in the home or elsewhere on the power grid), then no net energy savings result (and many of the actors will not have net budgetary savings either).

I don't want to use any derogative terms to share my view about that particular "argument"... but I don't think it's a valid nor constructive argument, then would it be so, we'd have to leave everything as it is, forget about hybrid vehicles, and so forth... people may just misuse it all to drive more, consume more, go farther because it's cheaper? While in the short run this effect may be tempting a few, in the long run, it won't, because as energy consumption will come down (it must) energy is also getting more expensive. At the end, mile per mile, next decade's Toyota Prius' drivers will most likely find themselves paying as much in energy costs per mile as today's driver of a comparable standard engine driver... and so it will be with light coming form low consumption bulbs... what ever the technology will be, energy will become more costly, for either the slow decline or higher expense of some forms currently in use, or the cost of newer, renewable and more eco friendly forms.
Recycling and proper disposal WILL come to these countries, and I am almost afraid to reckon, sooner than we may think... then it will soon enough become a question of survival... for this island too.

... J-D.

[J D Sauser]

Originally Posted by cobraboy

Go place a bid for 10,000,000 on ebay.

CoralBoy, you forgot to place a smiley after your sentence above... people may not grasp (somewhat dry) your sense of humor...

... J-D.

[Keith R]

Originally Posted by J D Sauser

I don't want to use any derogative terms to share my view about that particular "argument"... but I don't think it's a valid nor constructive argument, then would it be so, we'd have to leave everything as it is, forget about hybrid vehicles, and so forth... people may just misuse it all to drive more, consume more, go farther because it's cheaper? While in the short run this effect may be tempting a few, in the long run, it won't, because as energy consumption will come down (it must) energy is also getting more expensive. At the end, mile per mile, next decade's Toyota Prius' drivers will most likely find themselves paying as much in energy costs per mile as today's driver of a comparable standard engine driver... and so it will be with light coming form low consumption bulbs... what ever the technology will be, energy will become more costly, for either the slow decline or higher expense of some forms currently in use, or the cost of newer, renewable and more eco friendly forms.

Well, then maybe I didn't present the argument well after all, despite your kind words in the early part of your post.

I am not advocating to refrain from replacing incandescents with CFLs, or any other other energy saving or energy efficiency measures! Not at all! Actually, if you read earlier posts on the blog about energy, such as the one about green cooling or greening the wash day in the DR, quite the opposite!

What I was trying to say was that, with energy inefficiencies and energy losses so high, and the government doing all too little to encourage lasting changes in energy consumption habits, any savings gained by the switch to CFLs will quickly be wiped out, negated. In other words, it's not enough just to change light bulbs. You have to complement, supplement, and build on such actions.

Hopefully that is as clear as mud!

[sollie]

Originally Posted by J D Sauser

CoralBoy, you forgot to place a smiley after your sentence above... people may not grasp (somewhat dry) your sense of humor...

... J-D.

... Coralboys' dry sense of humor.

[cobraboy]

Originally Posted by J D Sauser

CoralBoy, you forgot to place a smiley after your sentence above... people may not grasp (somewhat dry) your sense of humor...

... J-D.

There.