Building a Better Bulb: Lighting Revolution Advances

Sorry mf, I usually use the full name at least once, but have been using it so much lately I forget if I did on a given thread or seed/article.

GAHP is Ground Assisted Heat Pump. It used to be referred to a geothermal heat pump but that gets confusing with geothermal energy that runs off superheated rock and water from nearby magma.

It drives me crazy that the politicians are talking about all the wrong things instead of helping citizens invest in efficiency and conservation. As you point out we have the technology and yet rock-heads in government keep pushing dirty and inefficient energy. Other countries are getting it right but not us for some reason.

Washington Monthly reports subsidies to energy companies is around $20 billion a year. Oil Change International estimates the subsidies to be as high as $41 billion a year if a portion of military expenditures are included. Neither includes environmental or health externalities. But for the purposes of this post I am not going to worry over the exact dollar figure. Lets use the lowest figure.

In my area a GAHP system starting with an existing home with a central forced air oil or gas system runs about $20,000. So $20,000,000,000 a year in energy subsidies to established energy business sector could install 1 million GAHP a year on those house that want this conversion. That is the low number because the program could be set up to cover only the difference in price between a traditional HVAC system and a GAHP. This would be as a direct expense with no recouping of any of the funds, a grant system. This would take approximately 57 years to retrofit 50% of the housing as of 2000.

It could also be set up as an interest free loan that is tied to the site and not the individual: i.e. if the original owner sells the house the loan balance is is assumed by the buyer. The duration of the loan would be determined by the average monthly savings in energy costs. So if this retrofit reduced the energy costs of the house by $200 a month the loan payment would be $150 per month for 134 months or 11 years and 1 month. And the minimum monthly savings to the homeowner is $50 a month and grows as energy prices increase. This would replenish the funds and add to the amount available each year to subsidize further installations. And as demand for retrofits decreases the loan repayments can be applied to lowering deficits and paying off government debt.

This loan program would increase the amount available to loan each year by $1,800,000,000 or another 90,000 homes a year. This cuts the time to retrofit 50% of the 2000 census home count in half and at $50/mo puts close to $10,000,000,000 a year in to individuals hands in energy bill savings.

And this as at about a $50/mo net cash flow increase to the individual. Or 1/4 of the net initial energy bill savings. I would start this program with the elderly and vulnerable first, those with disabilities or eligible for LIHEAP. The savings to annual LiHEAP expenditures should be added to the loan program.

And again this is just from the estimated $20,000,000,000 a year in fossil fuel sector subsidies. We could do the same for solar and wind using monies generated by closing tax code loopholes for other business sectors, like GE, to fund a 0% interest loan program.This would in effect take the GAHP retrofitted homes completely off the grid demand and put them on the net provider side of the grid.

And the program is totally voluntary. Only those that apply for these loans would have these retrofits done. So no mandates for the Libertarian crowd. They can continue to pay the energy monopolies as long as they wish to.

rochart,

Then try the LED lights. My mother has macular degeneration in addition to normal loss of sight with age and she likes the LED light quality, and she needs the clear glass bulb in incandescent lights. The soft white or anything other than clear, colorless glass is inadequate for her. Sure the price per light is a shock to her at $30 to $50 a bulb, but they use 1/10 the energy and last 10 times as long. Not to be morbid, but they could be the last bulbs she has to buy.

I have installed a couple of years ago some of the LED floodlights in her house for her in place of the incandescent foods she had before in some recessed lighting and she still comments on how much better they are. And they don't generate the heat that incandescent or halogen lights produce. They remain warm to the touch. So don't use them in an easy-bake oven, you will never cook your cakes. :-)

I have leds and find the expense of the bulbs ridiculous.

CFLs do not provide the same type of light. Try both in the kitchen cooking, the food looks different colors.

This has nothing to do with my want to change or not presumptuous people, it has to do with light quality and expense.

I was speaking of myself actually, not you.

The new technologies have more up front expense but are less expensive over time

This is about companies recapturing their investment more quickly and gouging the public. I have a local friend who makes lights with leds and the cost does not merit the price difference.

But I guess if one wants to be patriotic and support the profits of GE, Phillips, etc...that is ones choice.

Where I live we have the highest electric rates in the country and would certainly use more if the investment was worthwhile.

However one calculates it lumen are lumen and that is the unit for comparison of brightness.

rochart,

Not to be presumptuous, I was at home depot today and decided to look at the bulb displays. I was surprise to see a cfl that had a very white light. They always struck me as more yellow than incandescent. But this one was nicely white and sharp. Just saying I was surprised at the improvement and shared your opinion of the light quality from them. They also take a while to come to brightness when it is cold, like an outside light in a central NY winter. You have to turn the light on 5 minutes before you go out. The Outdoor LED floods I have come on immediately.

McSpocky, I agree with your comments. Sorry about the trolls.

But, this light bulb faux controversy reminds me of an old science fiction story, maybe by Theodore Sturgen, not sure.

But anyway, aliens are in communication with earth and are planning to visit but they think earthlings are so ugly that they fear that their "ambassadors" will be offended, so they slowly convinced the earthlings to undergo various cosmetic changes. End result: buck teeth and other elements of beauty that earthlings had previously discarded, yet when the aliens land they are "beautiful" i.e. great teeth etc. In essence, because the earthlings were so in awe of the aliens they were willing to change their physical appearance and give up their longstanding concepts of beauty just to please the aliens and in the end, the aliens had made fools of them.