Light Bulbs 1ac

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

“Like a sprained ankle, Boy I ain’t nothing to play with.” Opening Quote: “Eager to sustain his regulatory whirlwind, President Obama is now calling for efficiency standards for household and business lighting. As if the climate-themed energy rationing bill that just blew through the House wasn’t enough, the White House now wants to force lamp and light bulb manufacturers to make their products use less energy. This plan appears modeled after the ambitious fuel efficiency standards applied to the now decimated auto industry and Obama’s order to the Department of Energy to mandate increased efficiency for household appliances. It’s almost funny —

the government, of all entities, telling private enterprises to be more efficient.”- Alex Hankins, “Obama’s Call for Light Bulb Regulation Not a New or Bright Idea”, OpenMarket.org, June 30, 2009. It is because we agree with the words of journalist Alex Hankins, that I and my partner stand Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its environmental policy.

Goal: Everyone can agree that too much government is a bad thing.

A government superseding its original intent and trying to force the private market in a direction that it would not otherwise go is even worse. The proper use of governmental interventionism has been a source of many socioeconomic debates since the beginning of government itself; and that is why we ask for this round to be judged on the same premise. Whichever team that can show government intervention into the private lighting sector and households as necessary, or as we believe, unnecessary, should win the round.

Plan Text: Agency: United States congress, the President, and any other necessary federal agency. Mandate 1: Sections 321-325 of the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” entitled “Efficient Light Bulbs” will be removed. Enforcement: None needed. Timeline: Plan will take effect immediately.

1

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

What exactly are the regulations in place? Department Of Energy, “FACT SHEET: General Service Incandescent Lamp Provisions Contained in EISA 2007”, 2008 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/lighting_legislation_ fact_sheet_03_13_08.pdf No, EISA 2007 established minimum efficiency and lifetime requirements which apply to general service incandescent lamps, as defined by the legislation. The standards that were promulgated by the EISA 2007 will require that manufacturers improve the performance of these lamps over two years, starting on January 1, 2012. In responding to the question about whether this is a “phase out” of incandescent technology, it is important to understand that EISA 2007 was not a “design” standard, but was rather a “performance” standard. While a design standard may have been prescriptive about what technologies should be banned, a performance standard focuses on the service of the product. In this case, EISA 2007 established minimum requirements around amount of light delivered per unit of energy consumed. The actual legislation can be reviewed by visiting http://thomas.loc.gov, searching for the “Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” and selecting section 321, Efficient Light Bulbs.

The requirements for EISA 2007 are phased in over two years, between on January 1, 2012 and 2014. For the same lumen output, the minimum requirements represent a reduction of 25% over the incandescent technology in use in 2007. What the current standards do in a very short sentence is this: They ban the use of the ordinary incandescent light bulbs, and replace them with the supposedly more environmentally friendly Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, or CFL’s. While the government seems to have good intentions with this regulation – environmentally friendly, saves energy, and lowers electric bills for families – if you look at the alternative that they present, it’s easy to see that those same good intentions will just make the situation worse.

2

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

Three reasons why the governments intervention should not be allowed: 1: A dangerous alternative: Steven Milloy (Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and is an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute), “Light Bulb Lunacy” The Washington Times, May 3, 2007 Accessed via LexisNexis. How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor - unless you break the bulb. Then you - like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine - could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn't include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health. Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) - a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, European Union and Australia. According to an April 12 article in the

Ellsworth American, Mrs. Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter's bedroom - it dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor. Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Mrs. Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her the CFL contained mercury and she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn, directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The DEP sent a specialist to Mrs. Bridges' house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of 6 times the state's "safe" level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter. The DEP specialist recommended Mrs. Bridges call an environmental clean-up firm which, reportedly, gave her a "low-ball" estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room was then sealed-off with plastic and Mrs. Bridges began "gathering finances" to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn't cover the clean-up costs because mercury is a pollutant. Given that replacing incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs - and assuming Mrs. Bridges doesn't break any more CFLs - it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the clean-up costs in the form of energy savings. Even if you don't go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000-clean-up, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming. Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP's Web page entitled, "What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?" Don't vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask. Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed. The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one - hope you did a good enough clean-up so that you, your family and pets aren't poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed. This of course assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special clean-up procedures in the first place. The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies like Wal-Mart - which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at 5 times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007 and surprisingly, environmentalists. It's quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now, and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in American

households, we're looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous wastes sites like the Bridges' bedroom. Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes. These are the same people that go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs. As the activist group

3

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a "highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children" and as "one of the most poisonous forms of pollution."

ANALYSIS: Not only are CFL’s more expensive than the normal incandescent bulbs, but they offer health threats to anyone who chooses to uses them. When the government steps into the market to better our environment, they end up endangering the health of their own citizens.

4

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

2: CFL’s actually use up to TWICE the amount of power than incandescent bulbs: Through a technical term that electric companies call “Power Factor”, we can see that prices will actually RISE if everyone switches to CFL bulbs. 2A: What is Power Factor? Sylvania Electric (Osram Sylvania Inc. is the North American operation of lighting manufacturer Osram GmbH, which is owned by Siemens AG. It was established in January 1993, with the acquisition of GTE’s Sylvania lighting division by Osram GmbH), “Power Factor: What is power factor?”, 2000 http://www.sylvania.com/content/display.scfx?id=003680184 This is a very involved subject that will be dealt with in terms of field application and typical questions from endusers. Power factor is characteristic of alternating current (AC) circuits. Always a value between (0.0) and (1.0), the higher the number the greater/better the power factor. Circuits containing only heating elements (filament lamps, strip heaters, cooking stoves, etc.) have a power factor of 1.0. Other circuits containing inductive or capacitive elements (ballasts, motors, personal computer, etc.) usually have a power factor below 1.0. Normal power factor ballasts (NPF) typically have a value of (0.4) - (0.6). Ballasts with a power factor greater than (0.9) are considered high power factor ballasts (HPF). The significance of power

factor lies in the fact that utility companies supply customers with volt-amperes, but bill them for watts. The relationship is (watts = volts x amperes x power factor). It is clear that power factors below 1.0 require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes necessary to supply the power (watts). This increases generation and transmission costs. Good power factor is considered to be greater than 0.85 or 85%. Utilities may impose penalties on customers who do not have good power factors on their overall buildings. Watts, or real power, is what a customer pays

for. VARS is the extra “power” transmitted to compensate for a power factor less than 1.0. The combination of the two is called "apparent" power (VA or volt-amperes). Consider this popular analogy to clarify the relationship between real and apparent power. We all know a glass of draft beer generally has a "head" on it. Let's say your favorite pub institutes a new policy - you only pay for the beer, not the foam. While the foam is just aerated beer, it is not really usable in that form. If the glass of beer is half foam, you pay half the price. This is the same principle as electricity generation - the consumer only pays for the beer (real power), not the foam (the "VARS" mentioned above).

5

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

2BMPX: Impacts of low Power Factor for CFL light bulbs: 1: High CFL grid compensation, 2: Grid transmission loss compensation, 3: Electricity generation capacitance compensation. Dr. Peter Thornes, “NEW ELECTRIC POLITICS” September 12, 2009 http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax Power companies typically need to generate more than twice as as much power to operate a typical CFL than what the electricity meter - or CFL rating - shows, taking everything into consideration. Without going into technicalities, this has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used. Of course, whatever the electricity meter says, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The consumer ends up having to pay anyway for the power stations increased supply, in higher electricity charges. The problem is defined by the socalled "power factor" (PF) of the lighting used. As in the Wikipedia explanation: "The significance of power factor lies in the fact that utility companies supply customers with volt-amperes, but bill them for watts. Power factors below 1.0 require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes necessary to supply the real power (watts). This increases generation and transmission costs" While industrial electricity company customers are cost penalized if they present a low power factor load to electricity companies, until now that has not been considered a problem with ordinary households. Explaining power factor is not easy…but people do their best. The US Department of Energy compares with a horse pulling a load, while Sylvania light bulb manufacturer uses a foamy glass of beer analogy, before going into technical details - and light bulb comparisons. There are several reasons why extra power is needed from power stations, arising from a CFL low power factor:

1. The direct CFL power factor compensation.

The typical CFL PF of 0.5 to 0.55 means nearly twice the power supply is needed, as is what the CFL wattage says. CFLs that have the same power factor as ordinary incandescent lights (PF=1) are expensive, and the power factor of such CFLs tends to decrease with age anyway, due to the heat effect on the internal (ballast) components. 2. Grid transmission loss compensation Every transmission line and every transformer in the grid is subjected to resistive losses in the wire that are related to the current being drawn by every customer attached to the power grid. A bad power factor increases the losses by a ratio that is inversely proportional to the total power factor of the attached loads. A total PF of 0.5 means that twice the current is drawn for the power delivered, and the [transmission] losses are not merely doubled, they are quadrupled. 3. Electricity generation capacitance compensation A poor power factor will also reduce the capacity of power generating equipment, so more machines [and inductors, capacitors] are needed to provide the same total load power.

ANANLYSIS: Again, it’s not easy to miss how the alterative that the government offers us, or rather requires us to purchase, not only is a threat to our well being, but will increase energy prices over the long run. By not allowing people to choose which bulbs they want, the government effectively causes more harm than good.

6

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

3: Past examples have failed. America is one of the last major countries to regulate lighting, so we must look at the results of other countries that have instituted nearly identical policies. A great example is the European Union: Reduction in EU energy use AFTER ban only 0.33%, and that’s pushing it. Scientific Alliance and the Cambridge Network, Alec Broers (1959 BSc degree in physics from Melbourne University, 1962 MSc degree in electrical sciences from the University of Cambridge, 1965 PhD degree at University of Cambridge, 1965 Researcher at IBM USA, later becoming an IBM Fellow, 1990 Master of Churchill College, 1992 Head of Cambridge University Engineering Department, 1998 Knighted for services to education, 2001 President of The Royal Academy of Engineering, 2004 Becomes Chairman of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 2008 Becomes Chairman of Diamond Light Source Ltd., United Kingdom's largest new scientific facility for 30 years.) September 3, 2009 http://www.cambridgenetwork.co.uk/news/article/default.aspx?objid=62633 A study by VITO consultants showed the following breakdown of lamp use in European homes in 2007: • 54% incandescent (down from 85% in 1995 and still decreasing) • 18% low-voltage halogen (and increasing) • 5% mains-voltage halogen (and growing) • 8% linear fluorescent • 15% CFL So, if we assume that all remaining filament bulbs are replaced by CFL at some point in the future (unlikely, as use of halogen bulbs is likely to increase), that these bulbs are used to the same

extent as those they replace and that the energy reduction per bulb is 80%, the total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%. This figure is almost certainly an overestimate, particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter. Which begs the question: is it really worth it?

ANALYSIS:

The philosopher Junious once said: “One precedent creates another and they soon accumulate and constitute law. What yesterday was a fact, today is doctrine.” Historical precedent alone is a worthy weighing mechanism on whether this policy should be enacted. There’s no point in considering a policy that has past examples, and past example that have all failed.

7

Austin Heath

Laiightt Bullbs

2009

Conclusion: This policy asks us as citizens to: 1. Put our health at risk 2. Pay higher electric prices 3. And accept a policy that has no historical precedent of working. This type of policy is not the reason our publicly elected congressmen were placed in office. Dictatorship of not only the free market, but of our everyday life is something that should not be tolerated. Any one of the three reasons presented is significant enough to vote affirmative. We challenge the negative team to give us three, two, or even one reason why we should continue this violation of personal choice. We leave you with a quote from one of the many concerned citizens: “Is this the New America? You can buy any car, as long as it is a government approved car? You can buy any light bulb, as long as it is a government approved light bulb?”

8