I’m not sure I can do this article justice. Even though it is the WSJ, it has the feel of trying to make silk out of sow’s ear.
In summary, the spirally stupid lights that liberal idiots mandate we use die sooner than expected and save less energy. That means, of course, that the entire model upon which they told us the carbon savings is suspect. I particularly love this line: “Turning them on and off a lot also appears to impair longevity.” No shit, Sherlock. It’s basic reliability analysis. But mentioning it suggests to me that the underlying model did not anticipate the bulbs being subjected to such variable use as being off upon occasion. So when you write “a lot” does that mean that we need to extend our time in the bathroom to lessen “a lot”? Isn’t there a medical condition that results from squatting for extended periods? Is that what liberals call a “trade-off”?
Expected life span was off by 33%. Overall energy savings were off by over 70%. Nice.
But the best part is saved for last. California, you see, wanted to give the utility companies financial incentives for pimping these pathetic excuses for electrical lights. And the regulators actually used their heads when designing the incentives: Money given for energy saved. Problem is that the calculation of just what was saved is complicated, and the unreliability of the lights dampened the savings. So they gave the utilities the money anyway, and now have a different approach:
Utilities would be judged, henceforth, for technology installation rates, but not for the amount of energy actually saved by their efforts.
Forget the energy savings, just sell the fucking things.
Thanks, guys. Losers. Oh, did I mention that these bulbs, mercury and all, are manufactured in China?
No comments:
Post a Comment