We don't know. These products have NOT had the opportunity to be proven in mass use applications for lighting. [Do I sound like a parrot yet?] We only know that these LEDs have similarities and differences to LEDs of other designs, styles and purpose.
And that's fine. However, I don't see any need to halt productions and suspect that there are additional health risks associated with these bulbs simply because the gap size has increased, the solid metal used as a semiconductor has changed, etc. I'm fine with these products being
further tested, but based upon the fact that A) testing has occurred, and health hazards seem to be minimal and on par with comparable products, and B) the design contains much of what other current LEDs contain, I don't see any reason to say that they're not ready for consumer purchases. At least, not without going back and also saying that other LEDs already on the market are not ready for consumer purchases.
The document that you finally posted in your last message proved that your $15B annual savings was actually a forecast for 2030.
Which is still an eventual $15 billion savings annually. I don't think I ever said anywhere that it would be an instant reduction of $15 billion in energy savings, only that the ultimate switch to more cost efficient bulbs would result in that amount of savings.
So, let's stick it to Joe Sixpack and Suzie Homemaker. That makes a lot of sense!
Joe Sixpack is a closet homosexual, and Suzie Homemaker is the town whore. Aside from that, I never said that the government should mandate anything. In fact, I said that this mandate was far too early, and probably not even necessary down the road. Government intervention
may need to take place years down the road, but it likely should not have to be in the form of any mandate. My response was merely to your hyperbolic hypothetical that if the government had to pass legislation on this, that it would somehow prevent them from having the time to pass legislation on more beneficial issues.
Now, you're even playing the numbers like a crooked politician. Your $15B savings was over-inflated. Your average annual savings of $6B is even incorrect, particularly for the first several years. And finally, there's minimal accounting for the investment required to purchase these new technology lights as well as the periodic expenses for failure replacements and other activities. If you're not being intentionaly dishonest, you don't really understand how to adequately analyze this.
It's not my estimate, but regardless, what is the reason for the reduced savings in 2010 - 2030? My guess would be that they've taken into account the initial investments. I can't find a full report which details how they got the figures, but the consumption of electricity would decrease once the bulbs have been replaced. It's not as if an LED bulb will initially use the same amount of electricity as an incandescent bulb, and will only decrease it's consumption over the following 20 years; the energy consumption would be immediately reduced. Thus, the only logical conclusion I can make based upon the scant figures we're given is that the initially lower savings increase over time after the initial costs have been recuperated.
63 Replies
8875 Views