Re: Cheap CFL teardown after failure
1.) As mentioned, building new generating capacity is very expensive;
2.) Adding to the power distribution infrastructure is also very expensive.
Both of those assume that electricity usage is increasing rather than static or decreasing. That is the case in most of the world. And both assume that generation and distribution are being run close to full capacity, which is often the case (California, where I live, "imports" electricity from neighboring states, and various government regulations make adding distribution capacity difficult, slow and expensive).
Putting it simply, electric utilities have significant economic incentive, under current conditions, to encourage energy conservation, even without the government programs that force utilities to subsidize things like CFLs, and uneconomic boondoggles like wind and solar power.
Why would an energy company subsidise something that causes a reduction in energy usage?
2.) Adding to the power distribution infrastructure is also very expensive.
Both of those assume that electricity usage is increasing rather than static or decreasing. That is the case in most of the world. And both assume that generation and distribution are being run close to full capacity, which is often the case (California, where I live, "imports" electricity from neighboring states, and various government regulations make adding distribution capacity difficult, slow and expensive).
Putting it simply, electric utilities have significant economic incentive, under current conditions, to encourage energy conservation, even without the government programs that force utilities to subsidize things like CFLs, and uneconomic boondoggles like wind and solar power.
Comment