GOP wants Americans to pay more for light

So Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) (of BP apology fame - he apologized to BP after the oil spill) has decided to save us all from the horrors of more efficient light bulbs. Yes folks, the GOP wants to make sure that you can continue to waste money buying light bulbs using technology from the 19th century. (Note to the GOP: We are in the 21st century now).

Some facts: There is no light bulb ban, just an efficiency standard. There are far more choices for light bulbs now than there were in 2007 when the standard was passed and signed by President George W. Bush. Major manufacturers are FOR the standard, so are environmental and consumer groups. It's a win-win-win. Apparently four years after it passed, GOP lawmakers are just realizing that they are against it? Apparently they think it is some kind of 'nanny state' issue where the big bad government is telling us what kind of light bulbs we can buy.

More facts: By reducing power use, efficient bulbs PAY FOR THEMSELVES in a very short time. People will spend less money and waste less power, leaving us all with a few more dollars to spend on something else. Wouldn't that be good for the economy and create jobs? Why is the GOP against job creation?

If you don't like CFLs, buy a 72W halogen bulb to replace your 100W Edison bulb. I have one in a lamp in the living room that has a dimmer control. CFLs are not dimmable (even the ones that are, really aren't). Until the 100W LED equivalent his the market next year, I'll use the halogen. Memo to GOP: The halogen bulb is exactly like the old Edison bulb, it costs more up front, but lasts longer and uses less power. A little algebra proves the lifetime cost is roughly the same (thanks to my very low electric rates), and will only get less as bulb costs go down and electricity prices go up.

Finally, it is worth pointing out the interdependence of our electric use. There is an argument that whatever kind of light bulb one person has doesn't affect anyone else. This is false. Energy efficiency lowers demand for power. This delays or eliminates the need for new power plants. When a utility needs a new power plant, they fund it by asking for a rate increase. In the long term one persons excessive energy use pushes rates up which effects everyone else. So the more efficient we all are, the lower our rates will be.

Uranium Mining in Viriginia?

If you haven't heard, a company called "Virginia Uranium" is lobbying our state legislature to end the 30 year ban on uranium mining in Virginia.Although the mine will be located in southern Virginia, far from Loudoun County, this is a state decision that affects us all. There are arguments on both sides of the issue.

First, uranium is used to fuel nuclear reactors, which produce power without emitting greenhouse gases or any other noxious pollutants. This is much better for the climate than say, coal. We have a nuclear power station at Lake Anna which supplies a significant part of our electricity.

However nuclear power has it's own issues, as the recent disaster at Fukishima in Japan has reminded us. There is also the unsolved problem of nuclear waste. Uranium mining has its own risks, including tailings impoundments and the potential for water contamination. What you may not know is that, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, "Uranium comes in two forms, U-235 and U-238. As found in nature, uranium is more than 99 percent U-238; unfortunately U-235 is what is used in power plants." So, of all the uranium that is extracted, only 1% or so can actually be used to generate power! Perhaps we should ask Virginia Uranium Inc. where all the rest goes?

Sustainable Loudoun will be hosting a community forum on this important issue in the fall. We hope that all citizens will educate themselves on this important issue and let their representatives know what they think.