No First Energy discussion?

[Roy Pitchford]

I can't seem to find any discussion about the First Energy CFL giveaway.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/10/firstenergy_light_bulbs.html

What say you?

[Ryan Salo]

http://www.puco.ohio.gov/PUCO/MediaRoom ... fm?id=9732

It is on hold, thankfully.

[Roy Pitchford]

I'm aware that its on hold (and I agree, I'm thankful that it is). That doesn't reduce the potential for discussion.

[Brian Pedaci]

Hard to discuss something when everyone is universally revulsed by the practice. I don't expect to see anyone defending FE here. Still, more people need to know about it, so thanks for posting.

[Jim DeVito]

Hard to discuss something when everyone is universally revulsed by the practice. I don't expect to see anyone defending FE here. Still, more people need to know about it, so thanks for posting.

I agree. I heard part of the sound of ideas this morning in witch this was the topic. From what I heard the only person who remotely thought this was a good idea was the nice lady from FE. With all that said apparently there is some government mandate that says they need to reduce the amount of electricity they are producing. So how do they do it?

[Christopher Bindel]

This may be a little off topic, but has anyone been able to find a a CFL that is ACTUALLY equal to 100 watts? I know the 23 Watt CFL's are supposed to be, but We bought 2 to replace our 100w incandescent and they weren't anywhere close to as bright. And it is nearly impossible to find any that say they are equal to 150w, so I haven't tried to see if those are any closer.

[Ryan Salo]

Christopher,

Are you trying to cut down on your interrogation costs?

[Roy Pitchford]

Hard to discuss something when everyone is universally revulsed by the practice. I don't expect to see anyone defending FE here. Still, more people need to know about it, so thanks for posting.

I agree. I heard part of the sound of ideas this morning in witch this was the topic. From what I heard the only person who remotely thought this was a good idea was the nice lady from FE. With all that said apparently there is some government mandate that says they need to reduce the amount of electricity they are producing. So how do they do it?

FirstEnergy is distributing the 3.75 million bulbs to comply in part with an energy law enacted in Ohio last year. The law requires utilities to cut their customers' energy use by 22 percent by 2025.

You know, it just dawned on me...the bold portion. Why is the government requiring them to cut our costs.
Its an end-around. If the legislation limited consumers directly, there would be a huge fight over it. Instead, they push it on the energy companies.
If the energy companies do nothing, they get hit by the government.
If the energy companies do something (like this), they're the bad guys to the consumers.

I don't know, I think the real outrage should be focused at the state government for forcing FE into this situation.

[Jim DeVito]

Well played Roy...

To stem the effects of global warming, at some point the government is going to have to regulate stuff like this. Unless you think americans are going to reduce their power consumption on their own. That said, I see two problems with the government's response here. A. perhaps they should have added some funds from some ware to ofset the "direct" cost to the consumer. B. The problem FE is in is of their own making. The cost of the lightbulbs and distribution and all that is about $3.and some change. FE get the 22 some dollars over 3 year figure by trying to recoup "lost profits". Apparently there is some law that lets them do that if the cost is incurred as part of a government regulation.

[Jim DeVito]

http://www.wcpn.org/WCPN/soi/28101

The link to the radio show where I got most of the above information.

[Stan Austin]

I've been following this in the last several days mostly because I was just flabbergasted that FE would try such a stupid stunt.
That having been said----saving energy will become increasingly important. After all, the most non polluting energy is that which isn't used.
CFLs are a good way to achieve this. I have installed several and in as direct a comparison of electrical usage as I could make, I truly think I saved about $5/month with a changeover of only 3 bulbs.
Now we get to the FE scheme. They are probably correct in their assertions that they are allowed to recoup lost costs and profits, etc.
But jeez louise---- what an absolutely dumb trick to try and play from a company that isn't highly regarded in the first place!
Stan Austin

[Bret Callentine]

I'm wondering why the government thinks the answer is to cut back on use.

My solution: Build a huge dam and hydroelectric power plant on the Ohio River near East Liverpool Ohio. Sure, some of the cities up river would be lost to the resulting man made lake, but I think that's a sacrifice we Ohioans are prepared to make in order to obtain cheap electrical power.

[Stan Austin]

Bret---- would that city to be submerged just happen to be Pittsburgh

[Brad Hutchison]

Personally, I didn't really think this was that big a deal. It seemed like a proactive way to cut energy use while asking us all to make a minimal, pro-rated sacrifice. Not sure what all the fuss is about.

[Roy Pitchford]

Well played Roy...

To stem the effects of global warming, at some point the government is going to have to regulate stuff like this. Unless you think americans are going to reduce their power consumption on their own. That said, I see two problems with the government's response here.

I guess you consider the science settled then.

A. perhaps they should have added some funds from some ware to ofset the "direct" cost to the consumer. B. The problem FE is in is of their own making. The cost of the lightbulbs and distribution and all that is about $3.and some change. FE get the 22 some dollars over 3 year figure by trying to recoup "lost profits". Apparently there is some law that lets them do that if the cost is incurred as part of a government regulation.

Regarding A: How exactly would the government offset those costs? Raise taxes or cut programs? Or am I misinterpreting what you mean.

I'm wondering why the government thinks the answer is to cut back on use.

My solution: Build a huge dam and hydroelectric power plant on the Ohio River near East Liverpool Ohio. Sure, some of the cities up river would be lost to the resulting man made lake, but I think that's a sacrifice we Ohioans are prepared to make in order to obtain cheap electrical power.

I've got some ideas too, Bret.

More nuclear power. France can do it (That hurts to say).
Wind power. I live on the lake and I can tell you, first-hand, that wind could be harnessed.
Wave power. Again, watch the lake. The wave action could be harnessed and I've seen a number of methods theorized about.

There's a huge number of ways we can harness energy so we don't have to cut down.