One of the more curious idiosyncrasies of the American right beyond their gun fetish, bigotry, self-righteousness, and xenophobia is their refusal to endorse
green technology. Symptomatic of this condition is the deliberate misrepresentation of the energy efficiency of a new light bulb which the Department of Energy gave its $10 million
L prize. The light bulb is all-American, assembled in Wisconsin and built with computer chips made in California. Because the technology is break-through, the bulb is pricey at $53. Over time its efficiency should make it less expensive than replacing $1 incandescents over the LED bulb's 30 year long life span.
The Washington Postapparently could not admit that Phillips has succeeded in building a better mouse trap--light bulb, that is. The newspaper used faulty math to complain about the "exorbitant price" without mentioning that it provides equivalent natural color light at only 10 watts of power consumption. That is performance no other light bulb can match, period. Nevertheless, the
Post claimed that the LED is $5 more expensive over time than traditional incandescents. It ran this graphic with its story:
The
Post assumed, incorrectly, that the retail price of electricity is 1¢ per killowatt-hour when the actual average retail price is 12¢. When that fact is taken into the calculation, the new LED bulb is over
$100 cheaper than equivalent incandescent bulbs. This chart was prepared by
ThinkProgressGreenusing a conservative electricity cost of 10¢ per kilowatt/hour:
The attack on the new Phillips light bulb was promoted by the
trashy Drudge Report and echoed by
hysterical right-wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin. This same group-think is responsible for the
poor sales of the Chevy
Volt, another fine example of American green technological prowess. Unfortunately, there will always be ignorant people who want to think the world is flat, or who owe their souls to the fossil-fuel industry.
