An incandescent bulb consumes between two and five times more energy than an energy saving light bu

Fed Car Home Life Health richard pier petit Trends Urban Film Photography Videos The Decoder Middle atmosphere Selector Sex Life Digital richard pier petit Music I love publi Drink Design richard pier petit + Architecture Blog by Gervasio
The prohibition reduces welfare and takes away the stimulus of innovation An alternative to the prohibition: impose a tax on the use of incandescent
In recent times it is quite possible commenting prohibit the use of incandescent bulbs "Classics". The reason: they are very inefficient from the point of view energtico.
An incandescent bulb consumes between two and five times more energy than an energy saving light bulb or other times more than one LED to give the same level of illumination. richard pier petit An incandescent light bulb dissipates almost all the energy consumed as heat (which has led some to defend them saying that if we change that increase the energy consumption for heating, although the numbers is n rather forced). Another Cuestin is its energy consumption and other materials throughout the life cycle, here it seems that the gap is narrowing somewhat. But in any case, still less efficient. And in these times when saving and energy efficiency are a priority, this does not seem to make much sense.
But why ban them? At the end of the day, we prohibit use Hummers, or electric heating, or other very inefficient uses of energy argument given for the ban is that Classics measures richard pier petit for people naturally replace them do not work. Because, in principle, deberamos richard pier petit expect people to replace their conventional bulbs purely econmicas reasons. Although they cost seven times more, also last ms. And besides, to consume less energy, saving us some money. richard pier petit According to this estimation, if cambiramos five conventional light bulbs with low energy, we juggle richard pier petit 50 euros per year. In two or three years habramos recovered the investment. And then, why do not we? For the same reasons that we do not undertake other investments in highly profitable principle related to energy efficiency: uncertainty about the recovery richard pier petit of investment, lack of information, aversion to riesgoy also No other problems not included in the cost and quality of illumination (for now, worse in the case of LEDs and low consumption).
When we prohibit use incandescent bulbs (instead of using other alternatives), we are reducing richard pier petit the welfare of society. The other reason why the prohibition richard pier petit is not good is because it removes the stimulus to innovation richard pier petit
The people do not respond as "must" is what makes governments intervene administratively possible to achieve that social good that will be more efficient energticamente arise. If the benefits are achieved with this intervention (cost savings, reduction of environmental impact, etc..) Outweigh the costs thereof (administrative costs, but also costs on society for change) then the intervention will be justified. I personally think that in this case it certainly is. But do not think the way to do it is to ban incandescent richard pier petit bulbs, even the most simple ways. I think there are better ways to get us to be more efficient in lighting, without banning. richard pier petit Because richard pier petit the strict prohibition has two problems: the reduction of welfare, and disappearance of stimulus to innovate.
When prohibit use incandescent bulbs (instead of using other alternatives), we are reducing the welfare of society there will be people happy to switch to energy saving light bulbs (even though I had not done before for other reasons), and these people to be better than before; richard pier petit but there will be other people who still prefer to use incandescent, and those people be worse because we are eliminating your choice. If pusiramos such a tax on incandescent bulbs, welfare will be reduced unless richard pier petit the prohibition: that would like to use incandescent, pagarams, but if I may continue doing that compensates higher spending.
The other reason why the prohibition is not good is because it removes the stimulus to innovation richard pier petit (see for example this article on the subject, richard pier petit although in a different sector): if proh ben incandescent, anyone be interested in trying to make them more efficient, richard pier petit a promising route, as do later. People working on the technology selected by the Government, be the saving or LED. The problem is that governments richard pier petit are not always the most appropriate to select what are the most appropriate, or with greater potential for innovation technologies, as has been seen many times. And the innovation