AGW Today: Barry’s Forthcoming Green Job Losses And CFL’s

Now, before I get going on the stories, let me say that I approve of green energy and working on alternative sources. I would like to see greener, less pollutant, cost-effective, and cheap alternatives to what we have now. Sources that are reusable like the sun, wind, hydro. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have cheap energy that doesn’t create pollution? And I do not mean CO2 output, but actual pollutants. The problem is, these sources are, for the most part, expensive, inefficient (sure, there are places where they work great. Iceland is really working the geothermal, and consider dams around the world. Of course, try and build a dam today, and envirowacko groups will block you, sometimes violently. Same with solar farms. And, there is a just a wee problem of job loss

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

Doesn’t that sound great? I’m sure the Climahysterics won’t mind, right? Even if it is their job? It gets better

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

So, the cost you would pay for said clean-energy programs, and the leftists pushing this mean good for climate change, mostly, could be 11 times more then you pay now, not to mention how your taxes will surely go up on the front side to the government.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power – – which are charged to consumers in their bills — translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

“The loss of jobs could be greater if you account for the amount of lost industry that moves out of the country due to higher energy prices,” he said in an interview.

This green, read “fixing anthropogenic global warming,” energy really is a boondoggle. Look, they should keep working on it, and use it as a substitute where they can. But, for the US, it is just not ready for prime time. Like CFLs

It sounds like such a simple thing to do: buy some new light bulbs, screw them in, save the planet.

But a lot of people these days are finding the new compact fluorescent bulbs anything but simple. Consumers who are trying them say they sometimes fail to work, or wear out early. At best, people discover that using the bulbs requires learning a long list of dos and don’ts.

Personally, I used to like the CFLs, but, I have notice the same thing: they do not last anymore. I used them for years, because of the power savings (not the silly CO2 savings) and the low heat. I have pretty much switched back to regular bulbs, since the CFLs keep burning out too fast. I was spending more then I was saving. And I was not buying the el cheapo ones, either.

The NY Times points out the difficulties in using these bulbs, and the shoddy construction, and how “In the pursuit of the holy grail, we stepped on the consumer.” When a leftist concern has lost the NY Times…….

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “AGW Today: Barry’s Forthcoming Green Job Losses And CFL’s”

  1. John Ryan says:

    Teach how much MORE do you figure that you personally were spending on CFLs when compared to incandescent ? This is the first time that you have mentioned the adverse impact that CFLs have had on your life, even though you have been using them for “years” Also thanks for not again misstating the potential for toxic mercury being released by these bulbs. There is 100 times as much mercury in a thermometer as in a CFL

  2. I’ve probably mentioned that I have given them up in the comments before, but, look, I liked them. I would typically spend about $7 on one, a bit more for a 3 way, and they would last for years. I learned to like them when I lived in a 3rd floor apartment which had little in the way of insulation in the living room, which had a vaulted ceiling. Could get hot really fast, and, CFLs kept the heat output down. Plus, again, they lasted a long time.

    Nowadays, not so much. There are still about 2 lamps that have them, but, when they burn out, regular lamp time. They were burning out in not much more time then regular bulbs, so, the higher cost wasn’t worth it.

    What I would like to see is better use of regular flourescent types. I have one which has lasted 5 years. One of those floor lamps that shine up, and can change the output. I got it because it put out almost no heat, and provided excellent light.

    Yeah, CFLs do have less mercury then a thermometer (have one of those, but, bought an electric one, too), but, they are more prone to be in a position to be broken if not disposed of correctly. That was another pain with the CFLs, because I will not throw them out in the garbage, instead, driving way up to the landfill disposal site, takes about 20 minutes to get there.

  3. proof says:

    Initially, I bought CFLs for the cost savings, too! I didn’t want to pay the utilities any more than I had to. Now, with the prospect of calling in a Hazmat team every time a bulb breaks, coupled with the idea that the government wants to take away my choice in the matter, is causing me to stock up on Mr. Edison’s incandescent pride and joy!

  4. manbearpig says:

    As nice as the thought of the overall cost savings were when I tried them, I never saw much of a difference in the longevity of the bulbs. Plus, I just couldn’t get past that funky light. They gave me headaches, and I always felt as if I was straining to see when they were on.

    What I would rather see time and energy spent on, is LED lights. They are brighter, and from what I have read, both more efficient and longer lasting than both regular light bulbs and CFLs. But again, they still have that funky light.

  5. One of the probs with CFLs was finding just the right type for a lamp. I spent too much money finding just the right ones for a ceiling fan, but, in that case, was worth it, for their low heat output.

  6. […] the coming nationwide rolling blackouts, being forced to use compact florescent light-bulbs, losing 2 jobs for every 1 “green” created, etc and so on, are basically for […]

Pirate's Cove