Friday, 09 March 2012 14:06
Obama’s green energy-efficient lightbulb not a bright idea
 

light-bulb1On one issue, President Barack Obama is depressingly consistent. Just this week, he once again sounded the alarm about the dangers of fossil fuels and the need to pursue alternative sources of energy. He is also determined to purse “green” energy projects, despite some well publicized disasters such as Solyndra. In spite of $535 million in federal government loans, the solar panel manufacturer went bankrupt. The administration was able to stage some nice photo opportunities, but the public’s money was wasted. 

 

A congressional investigation has been launched about how this project was selected. Ignoring warnings from federal bureaucrats, the politicians in the Obama White House were able to force this loan through, even though a normal vetting process was not followed. It seems that the administration will do almost anything to show the public it is friendly to “green” projects, even if those projects are not economically feasible.

Today, a Washington Post story highlights another laughable waste of public money on a “green” fantasy, affordable and efficient light bulbs. This mess was created back in 2007, when a bill was signed by President George W. Bush to phase out the popular and effective incandescent light bulb. This brilliant invention of Thomas Edison has been successfully lighting our homes and businesses for decades.

Sadly, environmental extremists pressured the Bush White House to agree to a death sentence for this popular bulb. In its place will be LED’s, light emitting diodes, which is wildly expensive. Another “green” bulb is the compact fluorescent. If these bulbs shatter, mercury is released and a potentially hazardous household condition has been created. If incandescent bulbs shatter, homeowners only need a broom, not a hazmat suit.

With energy efficient bulbs costing much more than Edison’s invention, the Obama administration announced it would rectify the problem. The Energy Department announced a $10 million award, the “L Prize” for any manufacturer who could create an affordable LED. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced that the contest would lead to bulbs that would be “affordable for American families.”

Of course the contest sounds good, especially when one of the requirements is that part of the bulb would have to be manufactured in the United States. So, the manufacturers began to work on the project and submit their entries to the Department of Energy.

After many months of supposedly tough competition, Secretary Chu announced the winner, made by Phillips. The bulb will carry the costly price tag of $50 each. What a bargain for consumers! The old, nasty incandescent bulb costs about $.79 each and now consumers, thanks to the U.S. government will be forced to buy bulbs that cost more than fifty times that amount.

This is ludicrous, considering how our economy is in the doldrums and the labor and housing markets have not recovered. Consumers cannot afford to be “green.” Most people would prefer to use the reliable incandescent light bulbs. Sadly, their choices will soon be very limited. The 100-watt incandescent light bulb will be eliminated this year, while the 75-watt bulb is terminated in 2013, soon followed by the 60-watt light bulb.

As noted by Washington Post reporter Peter Whoriskey, “How the expensive bulb won a $10 million government prize meant to foster energy-efficient affordability is one of the curiosities that arise as the country undergoes a massive, mandated turnover from traditional incandescent lamps to more energy-efficient ones.”

Curious indeed! In announcing the prize guidelines, the Energy Department encouraged manufacturers “to offer products at prices that prove cost-effective and attractive to buyers, and therefore more successful in the market.” In contrast, this expensive bulb is an insult to buyers, who will be forced to spend more on bulbs than on lighting fixtures.

In the name of energy efficiency, our federal government is forgetting about the very people it is supposedly serving, the hard working people of this country. Once again our liberal administration is making a sacrifice on the “green” altar. Let’s hope voters are getting tired of this agenda and will choose a more rational and economically feasible approach in November.

 

 

 

 

 

 

--
Jjeffcrouere 150 200eff Crouere is a native of New Orleans, LA and he is the host of a Louisiana based program, “Ringside Politics,” which airs at 7:30 p.m. Fri. and 10:00 p.m. Sun. on WLAE-TV 32, a PBS station, and 7 till 11 a.m.weekdays on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans and the Northshore. For more information, visit his web site at www.ringsidepolitics.com. E-mail him at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Join Our Email List
Email:  


 

 

Media Sources

BayoubuzzSteve

Website: www.bayoubuzz.com
Login to post comments
Powered By JFBConnect
  • Edwards gets Graves challenge on Louisiana flood relief money
  • Gov. Edwards's pugnacious state of union gave wrong Louisiana vision
  • Trump plus 80 days: Jim Brown, Bernie Pinsonat talk US, Louisiana politics
  • Trump should be like Reagan, not like Bush

graves c 3Shades of Katrina?

    Is political partisanship raising its ugly head again in the face of another Louisiana disaster?  Democratic Gov. John Bel Edwards thinks so.

    Edwards got some rough treatment from a congressional committee in Washington, D.C. when he testified before it recently about the state’s response to flood problems.

Read More

jbeWith equal parts pugnaciousness and disingenuousness, Democrat Gov. John Bel Edwards’ highly-politicized 2017 State of the State speech laid out a truly flawed vision for Louisiana going forward.

Read More

jim bernieIs Russia now our enemy, once again?

Did Donald Trump make the right move or was the latest attack, simply some wag the dog?

Read More

Iron nancy reagan 6n 1986, United States President Ronald Reagan authorized military aircraft to unleash a torrent of bombs in Tripoli, Libya to send a strong message to Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The attack was in response to Gaddafi’s involvement in the terrorist bombing of a Berlin disco that resulted in the death of American soldiers. 

Read More

latter-blum2

Sen. Appel talks budget, economy

TRUMP TALK

Dead Pelican

Optimized-DeadPelican2 1 1