Will the share holders in the electricity companies be happy to take a reduction in their returns. Or will the energy companies just increase the price making us pay the shortfall?
2007-03-10 00:57:12 · 6 answers · asked by JoJo 4 in Social Science ➔ Economics
The rate of increase in demand will change, but the demand will still be increasing (just more slowly). This is because lighting alternatives (especially residential), although an important way to reduce energy, aren't a significant method of energy mitigation.
As to the gist of your question (ie. if demand falls will price fall too?), in a free market system, one should expect a fall in prices with an inward shift in demand. But then, who ever said we live in a perfectly competitive market society? Maybe the reduction in power consumption would cause a greater increase of widget malfunctions in the grid? (or some other dumb excuse).
BTW, I heard that mini-fluorescent bulbs are just a stop-gap technology, and LED lights for regular fixtures will be soon on their way: last 10 years and only about 1/10 the power for a regular bulb.
Peace
2007-03-10 11:12:14 · answer #1 · answered by zingis 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no danger of us using LESS total electricity any time soon, fluorescent bulbs or not. Utility companies will continue see growing demand for electricity even if we replace all our bulbs.
A company's typical reaction to falling demand, once they've built capacity, is not to raise prices, but to LOWER them. For electricity, it is high marginal demand at peak times that cause it to be expensive. Think about it.
I like the new bulbs and use them in my place for all the lights that I tend to leave on for more than a minute. The free market likes them apparently, because they are far more widely available and sell far more volume than in years past. They do not cost $11 or $12, they cost from about $3 - $6, or a bit more for some.
They provide adequate light for most households needs, and you DO NOT EVER HAVE TO REPLACE THEM. (OK, technically they do go out eventually, but I have never yet witnessed that after several years of using them).
2007-03-10 05:57:09 · answer #2 · answered by KevinStud99 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
"energy saving light bulbs' are expensive 11-20 dollar per bulb the average household can't pay such exhorbinant prices.
They are obviously made differently and they are heavier than normal incandencent bulbs. I would stock up on the incandencents while you can the nut cases in the California state legislature voted to ban them by 2008 or something like that.. which means the other states will follow like sheep.
The legislatures makes more salary than most people and can afford to buy those stupid bulbs, they will find a way to buy them for the poor but the middle class, as usual, gets no breaks.
2007-03-10 01:03:34 · answer #3 · answered by Tapestry6 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
This is a good question. I don't know the answer, but I am HOPING that the governments of every country will subsidise energy saving lightbulbs, and in poor countries, provide them.
If we all used them it would make a difference. But I do take your point about the cynical energy companies!
2007-03-10 01:05:48 · answer #4 · answered by Suzita 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well perhaps the current "eslb's" are actually MORE DANGEROUS b/c of the HAZARDOUS material that they contain. And so maybe in reality it is not a "consideration" of "savings" but rather "HOW WE PRODUCE OUR ENERGY/ELECTRICITY in the first place.
Hope in cleanly produced forms of electricity.
www.link.20fr.com
2007-03-10 01:32:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
enerygy efficients are good because a normal lightbulb wastes 95% as heat and 5% as light but an efficient one uses 65% as heat and 35% as light
2007-03-10 01:04:01 · answer #6 · answered by meyeeee 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋