Print 116 comment(s) - last by linuxisbest.. on Mar 26 at 10:49 PM

n:vision 23W (100W equivalent) compact fluorescent
New bill would mandate that light bulbs produce 120 lumens per watt by 2020

It looks as though energy efficiency is still a big priority for municipalities and countries across the globe. We've already detailed energy-efficient LED lighting efforts put forth by Raleigh, NC. We've also discussed how Australia and the European Union (EU) plan to get rid of incandescent light bulbs by 2009. The United States is also moving towards ushering out inefficient lighting with H.R. 1547, which was published on March 15, 2007.

The bill (PDF), which was submitted by California representative Jane Harman, indicates that light bulbs which have an overall luminous efficacy of 60 lumens per watt (lm/W) will be prohibited by January 1, 2012. The energy requirements get progressively steeper every four years. On January 1, 2016, the requirement will grow to 90 lm/W and will reach 120 lm/W by 2020.

A traditional 100W tungsten incandescent light has an overall luminous efficacy of 17.5 lm/W. A 23W compact fluorescent (100W equivalent) has an overall luminous efficacy of 60 lm/W.

Exemptions could be made by the Secretary of Energy for certain applications where it wouldn't be feasible to use energy-efficient lighting. These include applications related to military, medical or matters of public safety.

If an exception is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology. The exemption will only be in effect for two years after which the current enacted requirement will have to be adhered to.

The bill also notes that consumers and businesses will be given incentives to encourage the use of energy efficient light bulbs.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By dgingeri on 3/22/2007 12:28:56 PM , Rating: 5
I currently use all compact fluorescent bulbs in my home lighting, and love them. They are the best tech I've seen for lighting.

However, the limits placed for 2016 and 2020 are totally unreasonable. To get equal light to a 100W bulb incandescent, the compact fluorescent with it's transformer uses 23W and costs an average of about $3. an equal light LED based bulb replacement uses 35W once the transformer is figured in and costs around $20.

We would effectively have to develop new technology to reach the 2016 limit, which we may not be able to do.

At the 2020 limit, a light source would have to be around 95% efficiency, which is just not going to happen.

By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 12:33:58 PM , Rating: 2
I thought that the LED bulbs were more efficent than the flourescent but about 5x as expensive?

By Oregonian2 on 3/22/2007 1:49:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, yet another hidden tax (YAHT) by the government where the government mandates we have to pay for.

The previous two threads already fleshed out problem things like oven lights where non-incandescent solutions may be tough along with other specialized lighting where many billions of dollars of equipment may have to be junked due to bulbs no longer being made available (and replacements not likely to happen).

The interesting thing is the exception rule (where Ovens wouldn't be in military or health (?) categories, so it's probably doomed) where even if something is exceptioned, the exception expires in two years anyway. But ovens that cook by heat will probably be banned next so it may not matter. Mmmmmm microwave cooked bread sounds so appealing. Gets rid of that nasty crust for us too!

Can one imagine how many 40-watt ballast fluorescent lamp fixtures there are? Probably a trillion of them. They may all be made obsolete if the 2016 level can't be met in that fixture (remember the ballast too).

I wonder what the financial interests of those who wrote the bill are.

By Christopher1 on 3/22/2007 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Most of them have no financial incentive at all in this.

Frankly, this is one time where 'yet another hidden tax' is okay with me! I'm getting tired of buying regular lightbulbs, that never seem to last for the amount of time that they are supposed to last.

About every three months, the one in my bedroom needs changed. Now, granted, I have it on about 10 hours a day when I am doing things in there. But the lightbulbs that I buy are guaranteed for 1500 hours, and multiply 90 by 10. That's right, 900 hours is what they last on average for me. Every so often I get one that outlives the time limit of 1500 hours, but not very often.

I spend, I would say about 5.00 a year in lightbulbs for just my room. Now, compare that with 5.00 for a bulb that is GUARANTEED to last 9 years....... I think it's worth it!

By Martin Blank on 3/22/2007 5:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
They're not guaranteed for 1500 hours, but rather are rated for 1500 hours, usually based on four hours per day of usage. Even those with lifetimes of nine years are merely rated for that based on a certain number of hours per day of usage.

By Surak on 3/23/2007 4:31:15 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, I agree, government regulations are always bad.

Who cares about all the energy it will save, all the resources that won't have to be consumed, your lower electrical bills ... or the fact that as the new techs become more widespread economies of scale will make them cheaper.

I can think of lots of other government regulations that are just as harmful ... like Seatbelts in cars, food quality standards, blood alcohol limits for drivers ... repeal them all! let the free market work it out!

</sarcasm mode off>

What is it about this tech site that attracts so many closeminded dumbasses.

By hubajube on 3/23/2007 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Now, compare that with 5.00 for a bulb that is GUARANTEED to last 9 years....... I think it's worth it!
Guarantees are for idiots. Nothing is guaranteed. What's really funny is that if the "guarantee" on a product fails, then all these companies have to do apologize and possibly stick a sucker in their mouths and the idiots will accept it.

By Christopher1 on 3/25/2007 1:43:10 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. When something is guaranteed for 9 years, and you are smart enough to keep the receipt and the guarantee for all those 9 years, if the thing breaks beforehand they HAVE TO REPLACE IT.

Just like my parent's cookware that they got 10 years ago was guaranteed for life. We called the manufacturer, they told us they weren't making that brand anymore but would give us ANOTHER brand that was comparable to what we bought in price and excellence 10 years ago.
All we had to do was wait for them to send a box to us, send it back with the old, get the new, which only took surprisingly 4 days.
They even express shipped it to us, which was very nice.

Some companies do not live up to guarantees, others do. You should not say that "Nothing is guaranteed!" until you actually experience trying to get satisfaction on a guarantee.

From the computer that broke, to the phone that broke, to the TV that busted and smoked, etc., my family has NEVER had trouble getting satisfaction on a warranty ever.

By JAB on 3/22/2007 12:37:33 PM , Rating: 3
LED's can achieve most of the goals at least on paper. If you used a transformer to get it though it may only be a paper gain.

I dont think a government mandate is in order though no one should say what we can and cant use- a tax break is another matter or free light bulbs like in Az.

By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 12:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
free light bulbs? how do you get that deal?

By KristopherKubicki on 3/22/2007 7:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
The City of Chicago is giving away 500,000 frees florescent bulbs to residents to reduce electricty (drop in the bucket, but at least its a nice gesture).

A few years ago, you used to be able to get a few free incandescent bulbs per month from ComEd. I dont think they kept that plan when Excelon took over.

By Christopher1 on 3/25/2007 1:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not so sure that it is a 'drop in the bucket'. My father recently told us to only turn lightbulbs on a late-night, when the sun is gone...... our electric bill went down by about 2 dollars.

When he set back the thermometer on the heating unit in our home, it went down 10 dollars.

There are SOME thing that he can't cut down on: the energy usage of my old computer, which is nearly 10 times that of the laptop I am typing on right now, and the laptop is 20 times better than that computer.
Also, the energy usage of our 32' TV's, which suck an awful lot of energy according to a wattage meter he got from a techie at his job.

Things just need to be made more energy efficient today, I mean we STILL have TV's that suck 20 times the energy of newer ones on the market, when they shouldn't be.

By Mitch101 on 3/22/2007 12:42:42 PM , Rating: 3
We need to come up with a new lighting voltage and current. 120VAC is very inneficient when having to convert it. I would like to see a 12VDC light sockets. Might also help solar panels because you would no longer have to convert DC to AC back to possible DC again.

By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 12:46:17 PM , Rating: 4
AC is the most effective way to transfer power over long distances.

By BigT383 on 3/22/2007 1:18:01 PM , Rating: 4
Though, you could start seeing lighting transformers being built into, say, the house- right next to the breaker box in the basement or something.

By borismkv on 3/22/2007 1:44:01 PM , Rating: 2
That would result in even lower efficiency, since the power cables running from the transformer to the light sockets would work as a giant resistor. The longer the cables, the more power you lose. That's the main reason AC is more efficient over long distances, it doesn't lose nearly as much power from cable resistance. Ultimately, you'd need to include the transformers in the light sockets themselves, which would cost a lot more money than just having one transformer.

By repatch on 3/22/2007 2:34:36 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry but you are completely wrong there. Whether AC or DC, the power loss due to the "resistance" of the line is identical (for relatively low power levels).

In fact, if you want to get really technical, the effective resistance of a line is HIGHER for AC then for DC due to the skin effect, however at the power levels we are talking about (wires in a home) the skin effect can be ignored.

The ONLY benefit AC has over DC is you can use a transformer. This allows the power companies to step up and down the voltage very simply and efficiently, reducing the current flowing through the transmission lines.

Since power loss in a wire is I2R you can save alot of power and use much thinner cable by sending a high voltage.

The problems with AC are the skin effect (which, described in a simplistic way, results in AC current only flowing through the outer portion of the wire, giving an effective higher resistance, and higher power loss) and impedance coupling to ground. For VERY long high power lines DC is actually used, an example is the James Bay project transmission line in Quebec Canada.

By borismkv on 3/22/2007 3:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the correction. Now I get to add another thing to the list of reasons I'm glad that particular electronics professor retired :D

By Howard on 3/22/2007 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Skin effect is negligible at 120Hz.

By Howard on 3/22/2007 4:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, meant to say 60Hz. Specifically, the skin depth at 60Hz is about 8.5 (IIRC) mm, meaning that skin effect only kicks in at a diameter of about 17mm. If 17mm wasn't enough for the current, it would probably be at a high voltage anyway.

By Hawkido on 3/22/2007 4:40:59 PM , Rating: 2
The ONLY benefit AC has over DC is you can use a transformer. This allows the power companies to step up and down the voltage very simply and efficiently, reducing the current flowing through the transmission lines.

I can think of another benefit or two:
1. You can easily convert AC to DC, the reverse is incredibly wasteful and complex.

2. When DC shorts out the whole line lightes up like a lightbulb filiment. Causing fires in houses along the entire trail all the way back to the power source. Ever seen a car's DC wiring fry? You gotta replace the entire wiring harness or else use a butt load of electrical tape. When AC shorts out heat is only generated at the short.

3. If you are planning on running DC to everyone's house, I suggest you pay their life/fire insurance for them as well.

Read Tesla's work, he wanted the Hz in the 200 range for Flourescent bulbs. The light emitted is far more solid and brighter and bulbs longer lasting at that Freq.

Also look up the number of technologies that require AC vs. DC. Generators generate AC electricity, you will loose half the generated amount of electricity when you convert it to DC. (Sine wave grounded at <0 vs. current flowing in the reverse direction <0)

By saratoga on 3/22/2007 7:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
When DC shorts out the whole line lightes up like a lightbulb filiment. Causing fires in houses along the entire trail all the way back to the power source. Ever seen a car's DC wiring fry? You gotta replace the entire wiring harness or else use a butt load of electrical tape. When AC shorts out heat is only generated at the short.

AC and DC both do this if theres enough current in the short. Its not like AC doesn't heat the lines too.


Generators generate AC electricity, you will loose half the generated amount of electricity when you convert it to DC. (Sine wave grounded at <0 vs. current flowing in the reverse direction <0)

Rectifiers like you're describing exist in textbooks only. Modern DC supplies are typically 65-90% efficient for consumer level applications.

By knowyourenemy on 3/23/2007 1:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for clarifying. My grandfather was one of those electro engineer guys from ages past, and he has always told me those massive power lines that go cross-country are DC... I knew some information presented here wasn't straight when someone argued AC is better than DC for long distances.

By Scorpion on 3/22/2007 1:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, see the rivalry between Edison and Tesla. AC is far more efficient for transmission.

By mino on 3/22/2007 2:17:20 PM , Rating: 3
Well, actually not.

AC is the most efficient way for <1000km and <1000 distances, for longer distances the DC(at ~1000kV, mind you) is more efficient(even including required conversion at both ends of the line).

I read a paper on this some years ago. It was based on electromagnetic theory aplicated for these scenarious.

The real reason it is no widely used is that in developed countries one usually does not transfer electricity over such a large distance.
AFAIK Russians built some such line in the 60's and 70's when they had many coal plants concentrated in single location and needed to transport the energy for their cities which were across the whole country.

By mino on 3/22/2007 2:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
<1000km and <1000 kV distances

By mino on 3/22/2007 2:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
should have been:
<1000kV and <1000km distanc...

By kensiko on 3/22/2007 7:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is true, I did some research in the past about our line, in Quebec, that starts from the far north and goes to the US. DC is used for many good reasons.

By Oregonian2 on 3/22/2007 1:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
One wants to transport electricity at as high a voltage as possible. Losses are current times current times resistance, where resistance is that of the wire. So lowering the current by a factor of ten reduces the energy lost by a factor of one hundred. Increasing the voltage by a factor of ten reduces the current by ten fold -- for the same amount of energy. That's why the voltage is still pretty high going into the transformer that's usually installed for each very small group of homes and why one doesn't want it too low going into the home either. If anything the higher wall voltage (~220V) used in much of the world would be better (other than being a higher safety risk which is the primary tradeoff).

By repatch on 3/22/2007 2:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
Switching power supply technology reaches efficiencies in the 90%+ range, there is no longer a good reason to use lower voltages.

On top of this, 12V light sockets are foolish. Lower voltages mean higher current flows, higher current flows mean larger wires and higher losses in the wires. On top of this is the complexity of having multiple voltage busses in the home (people get confused enough with 120V and 240V sockets).

Why do you think the car manufacturers are slowly moving away from 12VDC systems in favour of 40V+ systems? Less copper, less weight, less cost.

By Mitch101 on 3/22/2007 2:58:32 PM , Rating: 3
I was thinking recessed 12v lighting with a single solar panel on the roof should collect enough solar energy to power all the lights in my home providing it didnt have to go through the whole DC-AC transformation. I would put up one nice solar panel to have free lighting. They should be able to do it after all they have those driveway lights that are solar panels and small solar panels in usually not direct sunlight do pretty good. When the 12v battery is filled you could then start doing DC-AC conversions selling the electric back to the grid or powering your 120VAC items if you choose.

The problems lie in the solar panels taking energy and doing the whole DC-AC conversion when we should be designing items that would work with the DC power supplied by solar panels collected at a battery point.

My 12V spec was taking FREE energy from sources like wind and sun into the home. Not getting it from the electrical companies 120vac and converting it to 12V.

I also read some time ago about a guy who ran fibre optics through his house and how a single light was lighting all the rooms in his home. Cool but impractical if you wanted to make changes to the home.

If using a source like solar then LED's might be the most practical light sources.

By Fritzr on 3/23/2007 5:24:34 AM , Rating: 3
12v DC appliances are readily available. Original purpose was to allow them to be powered from an automobile cigarette lighter. Solar systems standardized on 12v DC to take advantage of this existing tech base.

A fully solar electric home would use 12v appliances & lighting. A battery room stores excess power and supplies it to the house grid when the demand is above production.

Check back issues of Mother Earth news at to see examples of this in practice. There have been many other publications of this tech, Mother was simply easy to find while I was typing this :)

Here is the url for a quick search of the articles for "Solar Power"

By frobizzle on 3/23/2007 8:17:58 AM , Rating: 1
A fully solar electric home would use 12v appliances & lighting. A battery room stores excess power and supplies it to the house grid when the demand is above production.

A battery room? Let's all hope the batteries are not manufactured by Sony!

(Let the mod downs begin!)

By jtdwab on 3/22/2007 11:59:11 AM , Rating: 1
My problem with the compact florescent light bulbs is that you can't dim them. I have home theater lighting that I like to dim to watch movies. I'm waiting for the LED bulbs which can be dimmed down (I believe).

RE: Dimmable
By Tsuwamono on 3/22/2007 12:04:12 PM , Rating: 2
as far as i know LEDs can be dimmed. All my light bulbs are Florescent except my kitchen cabnet ambient bulbs as they need to dim.

RE: Dimmable
By SiN on 3/22/2007 12:22:30 PM , Rating: 1
My problem is with your one sided comment, they can be dimmed, problem is they cannot be dimmed down to levels as low as indecescent light bulbs. I have had to mention this before on DailyTech forum.
Backing this up - i have the energy efficent bulbs in my home, with dim switch.
Lighting is also my job.
So, thanking you for your misinformation, however, THEY CAN BE DIMMED. Just not as low as you would like. Obviously.
The input:output is such that when you reach a certain level while dimming, the input is below the minimum input to acheive lighting.

RE: Dimmable
By dice1111 on 3/22/2007 12:28:39 PM , Rating: 5
"THEY CAN BE DIMMED. Just not as low as you would like. Obviously.
The input:output is such that when you reach a certain level while dimming, the input is below the minimum input to acheive lighting."
Hence they are still not suitable replacements for a lot of applications. The OP's concern and reason to wait for LED lighting is still valid.

RE: Dimmable
By dgingeri on 3/22/2007 12:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
LED lighting is that efficient on it's own, but once the transformer and rectifier are figured in, they become less efficient than compact fluorescent bulbs, so that's not really a decent replacement.

RE: Dimmable
By saratoga on 3/22/2007 7:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really need a rectifier for an LED? Why not just drive it off AC?

RE: Dimmable
By highlandsun on 3/23/2007 12:02:57 AM , Rating: 2
LEDs burn out pretty rapidly when run with reverse voltage, unlike regular diodes. You have to feed them DC, with the correct polarity, otherwise they die.

RE: Dimmable
By mino on 3/22/2007 1:43:51 PM , Rating: 4
Yes, for instance why would ANYBODY use fluorescent devices in closet they open once a month?
Or a toilet they are lit-up just for a minute (in which it just lights up). My experience is that incadescent bulbs are less susceptible to frequent power pu-down cykles.

This is stupid, there are many application where classic bulbs make every sense. There are environmets where their heat generation is included into the energy budget of the room - especially common in old underground pubs where infra-heating by lightning bulbs is both effective, cheap and provides good atmosphere.

Seems to me just like another decision from the table at a modern 20-story office building with the decision maker having no idea what light bulbs are good for.

If they want to encourage energy-saving tech, then put additional taxes on classic bulbs so they are not used where not beeing the best option. Or better, make energy more expensive so that people have a reason to go efficient.

RE: Dimmable
By Keeir on 3/22/2007 4:22:30 PM , Rating: 1
"Or better, make energy more expensive so that people have a reason to go efficient"

We have a winner! The basic "goal" of this law seems to be to reduce consumption of energy. I would imagine the point of "lower pollution" would also be made. A law banning certain types of light bulbs is just an indirect solution to the underlying problem - a power consumer does not have to pay for all the costs of power production.

Banning certain types of light bulbs across the board is unfairly punative to those that have high sensitivites to certain types of lighting but use significantly less power than say Al Gore.

Lets try to tack on the estimated cost of cleaning up or removing the pollution onto the cost of consuming electricity and force everyone to re-evaluate the choices they make inregards to energy efficient for everything.

RE: Dimmable
By Christopher1 on 3/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dimmable
By robertgu on 3/22/2007 6:23:42 PM , Rating: 3
Why do you feel just because you do not have something that everybody should not have it or make do without it?

Sorry if I'm blunt, but it sounds a little childish and resentful to me.

I don't have dimmers and I have CFLs on every light source in my house. But that's MY choice. What right do you have in knocking someone else's choices? It's their lives, it's their money, and it’s their choices.

All this "you have to chose what we want" or "we'll regulate you into what we want you to do" is my main problem with extreme leftist and rightist. Leftist because they force us to social programs by taxes and regulations to fit their agendas. Rightists by their constant pushing of religious agendas. What ever happen to respecting individual freedoms and choices?

If you want to increase electrical efficiency; take a page out of the oil price hikes, when oil shot up, people that were using ultra-large vehicles for frivolous uses have started trading down in vehicles, with many picking up hybrids. The people that have uses for the large vehicles stuck to them. The hybrids grew into popularity not by regulations but by economics (higher oil prices) and individual choices. The same should happen with electrical efficiency.

Stop with the forcing tight-fitting regulations down people’s throats already!

RE: Dimmable
By dever on 3/23/2007 3:08:38 PM , Rating: 2
Mostly agree, but I know many who call themselves right-winged, and have no desire to force religion on anyone. Aren't libertarians considered far right-winged? (ie believe government's function is to stop the coercion of individuals by other individuals or governments, define property rights and do little else.)

RE: Dimmable
By ElFenix on 3/22/2007 12:34:20 PM , Rating: 2
iirc, interference between the triac and balance makes the bulb die much faster

RE: Dimmable
By rsmech on 3/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: Dimmable
By highlandsun on 3/23/2007 12:24:13 AM , Rating: 3
LEDs and CFLs are two completely different stories.

LEDs can be dimmed to any level you want. You can do this with a simple potentiometer to limit the input current, or you can use pulse-width-modulation. For the high powered LEDs (the type you'd want to use for room lighting) they recommend you use PWM because just decreasing the current also tends to alter the output color. (Of course, dimming an incandescent also alters the color. So no big deal, to me anyway.)

CFLs can only be dimmed with PWM, because below a certain threshold they simply won't light.

None of this is a big deal. You can get a dimmer switch that can dim any kind of light (Maxlite DimAll, e.g.)
All it is is a PWM dimmer in the switch, so that it works with incandescents as well as LEDs and CFLs. It also dims down to 10% intensity, which is as good as any conventional incandescent dimmer.

RE: Dimmable
By caqde on 3/22/2007 12:25:33 PM , Rating: 2
There are dimmable cfl light bulbs just not very many. They seem to be a luxury to find right now but I believe they will be easier to find later on, but you can find them.

So you could try these for your theater although I would use them somewhere else first to see how well they actually dim.

RE: Dimmable
By walk2k on 3/22/2007 4:26:57 PM , Rating: 2

39 dimmable CFLs currently available (2 discontinued), ranging from 495 lumens to 1700 (max, doesn't list minimum though).

If they don't dim low enough you could also add filters/shades/etc..

RE: Dimmable
By jtdwab on 3/23/2007 7:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
I stand corrected. I had never seen one that was dimmable. I will have to buy one and give it "dim". I still like the idea of the LED bulbs as we are at the same level of development in LED technology that we were when we were first able to buy incandesent bulbs so many years ago.

This is NOT necessary. Read below
By BPB on 3/22/2007 12:48:45 PM , Rating: 1
From a recent GE press release:

GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology; New High-Efficiency Lamps Targeted for Market by 2010

Re-inventing Edison: New Light Bulb Will Provide High-Quality Light and Deliver Efficiency Comparable to Compact Fluorescent Lamps

CLEVELAND--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- GE Consumer & Industrial’s Lighting division, a world leader in the development of energy-efficient lighting products, today announced advancements to the light bulb invented by GE’s founder Thomas Edison that potentially will elevate the energy efficiency of this 125-year-old technology to levels comparable to compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), delivering significant environmental benefits. Over the next several years, these advancements will lead to the introduction of high-efficiency incandescent lamps that provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions.
The rest of the release is here:

I'm quite surprised that nobody else has mentioned this. My wife and I prefer incandescent lighting. It's more natural in appearance and just feels warmer. So I'm hoping GE gets this right and they'll be no more bickering over this issue.

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By BMFPitt on 3/22/2007 1:05:52 PM , Rating: 2
How does that make this unnecessary, exactly? If the new incandescents are up to the standards, that just gives us another choice. The old ones still have to go. (I would settle for a 500% tax on them, which should shut up the "I NEED them for some obscure purpose" people.)

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By ZmaxDP on 3/22/2007 1:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad you're not my congressperson...

Incandescents have a higher CRI (color rendering index) than most CFLs. I'm not implying that you can't eventually make CFLs, LEDs and other light sources that perform better, but currently they do not.

Personally, I prefer cool lighting combined with warmer finish colors in a space.

The problem is that for some jobs, having a high CRI is critical. For instance, lighting design for medical applications has requirements for high CRI levels because doctors need to be able to distinguish between fine shades of warm colors. (In other words, when they cut you open a color difference in your flesh can help them find and fix life threatening problems.) Personally, I don't want health care to get any more expensive, so I'd have to request a veto on that 500% tax...

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By BMFPitt on 3/22/2007 2:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
So that light bulb costs the hospital an extra $10 a year. So what? It only takes half of a $20 aspirin to make up the cost.

In the meantime, the 999 non-doctors who "need" it will decide not to put their money where their mouth is, since they most likely won't even notice the difference.

By codeThug on 3/22/2007 6:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
half of a $20 aspirin to make up the cost

laugh my FA Off...

By glennpratt on 3/22/2007 4:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
This is so ridiculous. Exemptions for that sort of purpose are trivial. Besides, I don't know what hospital you go to, but all the ones I've been in are filled with florescent lighting. Perhaps the movable lights are some special incandescents, but as I said, making an exception for this case is easy.

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By Puddleglum1 on 3/22/2007 1:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
BPB, what exactly is not necessary?
The United States is also moving towards ushering out inefficient lighting...
The bill has nothing to do with what style of light is being used, just that the light meet or beat a certain power efficiency.

However, the article you posted has this important detail:
The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens-per-Watt...
That doesn't meet the minimum power efficiency required by the bill.

So, GE may be cutting their research into this based on the fact that incandescent has -- according to their research -- a maximum of 4 times the average incandescent (4 * 15 = 60), which will only get halfway to the requirement.

The magic which affords incandescent lighting is also it's inefficiency.

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By ElFenix on 3/22/2007 4:15:07 PM , Rating: 2
this is just a bill, not a requirement. you can be sure that if it does pass, GE's new bulb will fit into it.

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By dever on 3/23/2007 3:14:28 PM , Rating: 1
There's no guarantee that the new bulb will fit. If there current research only brings them to half the initial requirements, what is there incentive to do this very important work? This really is amazing technological gains and they could be wiped out by foolish dictators tolerated by utterly foolish subjects.

By kattanna on 3/22/2007 1:19:01 PM , Rating: 2
yeah if i am recalling correctly, they made this "announcement" very shortly after australia announced their intention to mandate higher effiencey bulbs.

the 2 big problems with it is, one, its a potential they havent meet yet, but hope to in several years.

second, even if they do approach CFL levels, they still have the burning element which cuts the life drastically compared to CFL.

but innovation is good as is some good ol competition

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By ChristopherO on 3/22/2007 2:15:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm quite surprised that nobody else has mentioned this. My wife and I prefer incandescent lighting. It's more natural in appearance and just feels warmer. So I'm hoping GE gets this right and they'll be no more bickering over this issue.

I'm with you on this issue. I can't stand any fluorescent-type bulb. Even the latest commercially available bulbs make everyone look pale and sickly. The quality of the light is drastically inferior to incandescent. I use GE Reveal for all fixtures except where I use Edison halogens for spots on artwork.

The issue is that the government masking the real problem with ridiculous inconvenient bandages. We should be approving more nuclear power and various other clean sources of energy.

Here is an odd statistic (this was current as of a few years back, not sure how much the percentages have shifted as of late). 16% of California's power production is from nuclear. That's only *2* plants. 50% comes from natural gas turbines, which is from hundreds of plants and thousands of turbines. Certainly nuclear causes waste, but it is a miniscule "local" bundle of waste that is containable and capable of being removed from the planet once the technology exists.

No matter what happens, energy is only as clean as the source. Rather than wasting billions on bandages, we should improve our sources. A nuclear plant is one to three billion -- it would take only 7-8 more to make California completely self-sufficient. Instead we are hemorrhaging cash on trivialities without regards to long-term sustainability (sure, everyone can use fluorescent bulbs but then we'll have mercury problems). Lack of government foresight just blows my mind -- we could spend 15 billion and cut our CO2 emissions by *half*, and only in as many years as it takes for the nuclear plants to come online, say a decade at most. Instead we're talking about much more money, over a longer period of time, and for only a 10-15% improvement over current levels.

RE: This is NOT necessary. Read below
By robertgu on 3/22/2007 6:09:03 PM , Rating: 1
Excellent point.

I would up rate you if I hadn't posted. I agree, nuke power is not perfect; having to deal with waste is the hardest part. Storing it in a safe and secure location has been the sticking point.

But by far it is the less of the evils. With nuke plants running we would have steadier pricing on electricity since it is not dependent on the price fluctuations of oil and gas. Plus nukes are great at producing large amounts of electricity economically, and thus if we had enough, we would be able to cheaply accommodate large fleets of electric cars or pluggable hybrids.

This in turn could also help reduce our dependence on energy from hostile regions and would reduce the amount of airborne pollution. {Point of fact: Electric cars or pluggable hybrids using our current non-nuke dominated power generation methods, would still contribute to pollution and dependence on foreign energy because instead of the energy or airborne pollution being produced at the engine and tailpipe; it would be produced that the power plant. Of course this is a little simplistic as you can probably regulate pollution easier at the plant than at the tailpipe.}

By ChristopherO on 3/22/2007 8:34:03 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for the comment.

I agree nuclear isn't evil, and the foreign energy reduction and positive international implications would be huge.

In my mind, all technological innovation stems from the plentiful availability of cheap power. The more power we have, the more things we create to use that power.

Electric cars for instance. The Tesla car for example is a unique platform ($90,000 sports car based on the Lotus Elise). Vehicles like that wouldn't be available in quantity with our present power generation capabilities. The strain would kill us. The last thing I'd like to see is for everyone to "go green" with their automobiles and cause us to build a slue of new coal plants to support them.

You claim it would be easier to regulate pollution at the plant, but I beg to differ -- those companies are lobbyists. No one will stand for consumers when burdened with regulation (i.e. forcing us to use fluorescent light bulbs), but you can be certain Congress will buckle to millions of dollars from the coal/power industry.

Personally I don't consider myself an "environmentalist" per-se (I'm quite conservative and like taking measured-steps), but there is an obvious pragmatic path forward and the elected officials are doing everything possible to avoid it. Both parties are doing themselves shame by refusing to deviate from idealism and the associated donors.

By nosleep on 3/22/2007 1:28:16 PM , Rating: 1
Just what we need, more mercury in our environment. Surely everyone will recycle them though, so what am I worried about?

RE: Great!
By michal1980 on 3/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great!
By Spivonious on 3/22/2007 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
All my CFL died in about the same time as the old school blub, wheres the savings in that?

Umm...I've had the same CFL bulbs for over 7 years. Show me an incandescent that lasts even 1/4 that long with daily use.

RE: Great!
By rcc on 3/22/2007 2:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is an incandescent bulb that as been in use for 100 years.

So, while I grant that CFL last longer on average, beware of absolutes, they are dangerous.

RE: Great!
By michal1980 on 3/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great!
By glennpratt on 3/22/2007 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, your experience is just that, yours. In mine we've replaced perhaps 2-3 CFL's in 7 years and 2 houses full of them.

Second, the power savings is there and the cost is negligible. In a world full of so many seriously expensive things, $2 light bulbs is just not that hard.

Yes, mercury is a concern, but so is the fact that so many people are just incapable of doing the right thing with their waste, regardless of what it is.

RE: Great!
By timmiser on 3/22/2007 4:35:47 PM , Rating: 3
i'm just saying that the average life of the CFL is not what the box says

I agree completely. I have these bulbs throughout my entire house and I love the bright white light they put out and the significant energy savings. However, the "guaranteeed 7 years" statement is a joke. Next time you have a package, take a look and try to find any info about how to make a claim on this guarantee. I've never had any of these lights come close to even half of that 7 years.

RE: Great!
By robertgu on 3/22/2007 6:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
I second that.

I love CFLs I have then in every light source in my house. But to say they last 7+ years like they say on the marketing material is a joke. I've replaced some within a year (one was burnt out with black burn markings on the housing), some within 2 years and while most of them are still going strong after 3 years.

I enjoy the savings and with the new cool white CFLs, I enjoy the white light. So even with the unreliable lifespans on CFLs I will not go back to old-school incandescents. But take the marketing material on the lifespans with a LARGE grain of salt.

RE: Great!
By glennpratt on 3/26/2007 4:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I've made a claim on every one thats broken. Just call the company, they usually don't even want the originals back.

RE: Great!
By Hoser McMoose on 3/23/2007 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
8x most cost for 75% power savings? hmm

For a 100W incandescent vs. 25W CFL, assuming 4 hours of lighting per day, 300 days per year, we get the following:

75W * 4 hours/day * 300 days/year = 90kWh/year * $0.10/kWh = $9/year

In fact, to merely break even you only need about 250 hours of lighting, or well under 1 hour per day.

The above does, of course, assuming that you CFL bulbs will last at least a year, which is a very safe assumption for damn near every CFL I've ever encountered. The one CFL light I use most (by my home computer) was purchased about 3 years ago, and I'm quite certain that it sees more then the 1200 hours/year of use I mentioned above. Add in the fact that I pay more then $0.15/kWh in my neck of the woods, and this bulb has paid for itself several times over.

That being said, I think this law is a dumb idea. The real solution is to increase the price of electricity. Even at $0.15/kWh I'm paying a slightly subsidized rate. We *SHOULD* be paying full cost, including a ~$0.05/kWh tax electricity generated from coal or oil (and slightly less for natural gas and dam-based hydro-electric) to help offset the added health and environmental costs they generate. Right now nuclear power is the only source of electricity where the cost of waste by-products is included, coal, oil and gas get a free ride with their pollution.

An outright ban is dumb.
By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 12:21:11 PM , Rating: 4
Instead of banning them, they should encourage their sale by adding taxes to incandescents and offering a tax incentive to buy CFL bulbs. This would make them cheaper and more attractive to consumers, while at the same time allowing people to buy the old bulbs if they still needed them.

RE: An outright ban is dumb.
By MrPickins on 3/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: An outright ban is dumb.
By dever on 3/23/2007 3:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, banning is stupid (well, beyond stupid really). But taxing is not the answer either. Eroding the foundation of the free market is not a trivial matter. It has far-reaching and unintended consequences every time.

RE: An outright ban is dumb.
By Puddleglum1 on 3/22/2007 1:03:50 PM , Rating: 2
That worked for cigarettes, but as light-bulbs don't have measurable chemically addictive qualities, I don't think consumers are going to cry murder against such a ban.

Taxing items also involves a lot of legislation, which could be very costly. I'm not sure if it is or not, but considering that both the consumers and the manufacturers would be hurt (less demand + equal-or-lower price = drop in revenue). The government would be making money, but the consumer and producer would not benefit directly.

What is the correct way of handling this? That's up to debate. Some people like government to mettle, some people like consumers' free-choice, but I think that the real answer lies with the manufacturers ability to produce the new lights and an acceptable cost, and with an acceptable quality for consumers.

RE: An outright ban is dumb.
By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 1:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
so tax the manufacture of the things then. The manufacturer gets a $1 per incandescent bulb tax, while recieving a $1 per bulb tax discount per CFL bulb.

RE: An outright ban is dumb.
By dever on 3/23/2007 3:28:43 PM , Rating: 2
Taxing the manufacturer is the same as taxing the purchaser. No good. You're catoring to one industry lobby over another.

Heat Ratings?
By Mitch101 on 3/22/2007 12:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
I wish they would do a heat conversion rating on both the bulbs and lamps. Like this lamp is rated for 60 watt conventional bulbs and 100 watt incadescent.

Example I have a ceiling fan and the max rated bulbs for use in it are 60 watt. Its not quite as bright as I would like it to be but I also believe this is for heat reasons that they dont want you to use anything more because of the confined space in the dome.

I would love to replace them with energy efficient ones rated at 100 watt light output which is basically 22 watt energy wise. But does this meet the heat issue? I assume it does because I feel I just put in 22 watt bulbs and would use 22 watts as the heat measurement also but Im not the insurance company.

I would hate to have a freak accident burn down my house and someone say well you used 100 watt bulbs in a rated 60 watt unit. Catch my drift.

Simply put can a 100watt light output safely be put into light fixtures rated for 60 watts.

RE: Heat Ratings?
By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 12:44:46 PM , Rating: 3
to answer your question... yes.

The watt rating is the power disapated, a 100W equivalent CFL puts off as much heat as a 23W incandescent.

RE: Heat Ratings?
By Mitch101 on 3/22/2007 12:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
Thankyou. Looks like Im making a trip to the Depot on the way home tonight.

RE: Heat Ratings?
By glennpratt on 3/22/2007 4:18:45 PM , Rating: 2
YMMV, but I put three 18w CFLs in my ceiling fan and it is absolutely blinding whereas the incandescents that came out were dim.

RE: Heat Ratings?
By Fritzr on 3/23/2007 5:46:41 AM , Rating: 2
The language is a bit misleading
A 23w CF that is said to be equivalent to a 100w incandescant is not comparing the wattage. What is supposed to be the same is the lumens. That is the amount of visible light given off. Because of differences in the quality of the light I usually go one step up when swapping a CF for an incandescant ... that is I use 75w equiv CF to replace a 60w incandescant, a 100 to replace a 75 etc. I have found a few that actually do live up to their printed ratings, but to my eyes, very few.

An incandescant bulb puts a lot of it's power into infrared light (heat) the CF equivalent does not. So while you can use a 100w incandescant to bake a cake (Easy Bake Oven) you can't cook with the CF equivalent.

government at it again
By RamarC on 3/22/2007 12:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
they'll force consumers to do what's "best", but seem to be unable to set (and enforce) strict environmental guidelines on corporations. smoke-scrubbers too expensive? that's alright mr.corporation... we'll relax the regs. lightbulbs to expensive? too bad ms.taxpayer... it's for your own good.

RE: government at it again
By Lord Sear on 3/22/2007 1:27:02 PM , Rating: 1
Bitching & moaning - is that all you lot seem to do :)

You don't realise how lucky you are? The EU outlaws said bulbs by 2009.

If that didn't get us down - the UK government has threatened to sell off the analogue terrestrial spectrum to the highest bidder when all such transmissions finally cease in 2012. So no free terrestial HD - just have to put up with the Sky or the Virgin monopolies.

Better still they're thinking of selling off a whole chunk of the VHF spectrum so no more wireless mics, back to cables. It'll be like watching Borat TV!!!

RE: government at it again
By Wonga on 3/22/2007 6:19:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the old analogue spectrum will be sold off, but can be bought by the BBC, ITV, C4, Five or whoever. Since they all offer free channels (minus the TV licence), I don't see your problem here.

Anyway, outlawing the lightbulbs: Well, some people can't do the maths with regards to using appropriate bulbs for general lighting tasks, so the EU (and other authorities) are going to make the correct decision for them.

RE: government at it again
By ElFenix on 3/22/2007 4:32:32 PM , Rating: 2
companies leave, people generally don't.

What about flicker?
By AMDfreak on 3/22/2007 12:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
Unless I'm mistaken, traditional fluorescent lighting has a 60Hz flicker. Is the same true for the compact fluorescent bulbs?

RE: What about flicker?
By saratoga on 3/22/2007 12:10:24 PM , Rating: 2
You are. Its 120Hz, not 60Hz :)

Cheap fluorescents will also have this, more expensive ones probably won't.

RE: What about flicker?
By MrBungle123 on 3/22/2007 12:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
the 60Hz flicker is with the older flourescent bulbs using a mechanical balast... newer bulbs that have an electronic balast flicker somewhere in the KHz range. I think its at 20KHz but im not sure.

That will help . . .
By vanka on 3/22/2007 4:35:11 PM , Rating: 2
I just love how government has the audacity to mandate future technological innovation. (It sure worked in California with the electric cars didn't it?) That's doesn't mean that I'm against the "clean" technologies - under closer scrutiny most of them are not as clean as they first appear - but when politicians that have a basic grasp of high school science at best start mandating deadlines by which a certain technology must exist, it gets to me.

Now CF technology may already be at the level that is required to meet the proposed standards - but will they be economically viable? Remember someone must always foot the bill for higher priced technology. Car companies are able to sell hybrids at a loss because the profits from regular car sales covers the cost and they get CAFE credits (the average fuel-economy of all the cars a company sells must be at a certain level - a hybrid can compensate for the low MPG of another car so the company avoids fines); while many consumers are willing to pay a premium for the tax-break that comes with a hybrid. But in this case the driving force is the free market, not government mandates. The government did not mandate that all cars must be hybrids - it provided R&D money for battery research (during the electric car heyday and this carried over to hybrids) and monetary incentives in the form of tax-breaks and so forth.

What does not work is to mandate some desired outcome and hope that technology catches up in time to fulfill that dream. But knowing politicians, the next bill will require NASA, Boeing, etc to have developed a warp drive by 2020 and teleportation by 2025 so that we can start mining the asteroids instead of depleting Earth's limited resources.

RE: That will help . . .
By Fritzr on 3/23/2007 5:57:36 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the next bill will take notice of the delay in developing the next generation of the energy efficient light bulb and extend all the deadlines by 50yrs ... look at the history of the CAFE law, HDTV transition & similar date setting where Congress has relied on R&D that hasn't been done yet :)

RE: That will help . . .
By vanka on 3/23/2007 5:43:56 PM , Rating: 2
Good point, but most of the extensions were not written into the law in the beginning; they were added later as manufactures and common sense said that technology wasn't there yet. I'm specifically talking about the CARB (California Air Resource Board) mandate for zero-emission cars. It was supposed to require the top five or so car manufactures to have a certain percentage of the cars sold by them in the state be zero-emission vehicles. This was supposed to be a gradual, step-like process with the percentage increasing every year to a set minimum.

Guess what? It didn't work. The manufactures came and begged CARB to extend the deadline; which CARB did - but only the incremental deadlines, not the final one. What CARB refused to believe was that zero-emission tech was nowhere near maturity; they choose to believe that the manufactures were dragging their feet. While many people say they would love to have an electric car; do they really want a subcompact that travels a maximum of 120 miles per charge under perfect driving conditions (no AC, no hills, very little stop-and-go), takes 6+ hours to charge, and cost $250,000? All this was true of GM's second generation electric car; the first was even worse. The reason people loved GM's EV1 was that the car was leased (and GM lost massive amounts of cash) and the leasing process was very thorough; people were approved for a lease only if their daily drive was under what the battery could support, if they had another car, and met other conditions to insure that the limitations of the EV1 would not be a concern. Hydrogen has also been getting a lot of attention lately; but it is nowhere near ready for prime-time. But CARB refused to even consider that there may be valid reasons for the lack of zero-emission vehicles; last I heard the manufactures were suing CARB to have the law declared invalid.

My question is does government meddling speed the transition to a newer and/or cleaner technology? You mention CAFE which was implemented in the 70s to combat high gas prices. The thing one needs to remember is that people are not complete and utter morons who don't know what's good for them (as a fair percentage of our politicians seem to think); but they are usually pretty good at choosing the correct course of action - especially when it involves their wallet. When the gas prices jumped up 5-6 years ago, people felt the hit to their wallets and full-size SUV sales decreased. Those who needed them or could afford to pay the higher prices continued to buy them; while those couldn't didn't. The market works. We seem to have made the switch from candles to electric lights; from outhouses to indoor plumbing; from buggies to cars; etc pretty well on our own without government's heavy hand guiding us. Imagine if government had required the whole nation to be wired with electric lights five years after Edison perfected his light bulb; can you imagine the result - when I try I start to shiver. My whole point is that it is foolish and wasteful at best for government to mandate the use of technology that is immature or nonexistent at present. I have no problem with a requirement for more efficient and clean lighting, cars, whatever; as long as the technology exists, is mature, and affordable for the average citizen. Until then the government should either invest in the research of said technology or help to offset the cost to the average user.

not good
By OrSin on 3/22/2007 12:04:17 PM , Rating: 2
I cna uderstand the 2012 limits, but after that they are making assumes that the tech will double efficanty of bulds. I undestand that it easy to relugalate all at once then pell back if its not possible but I think this is little too far. My other with this is if you can do this to buld why have it not been done to cars and a dozen other this that are drain our resources. I person dont mind the low walt bulds but i know alot of people that just hate them. I guess the law is process the technolony for once as force intevention.

RE: not good
By BMFPitt on 3/22/2007 12:28:53 PM , Rating: 2
Because this is the lowest hanging fruit, and this bill can actually pass. Even the total wingnuts will have a hard time finding a reason to claim that efficient light bulbs will destroy the economy.

And light bulbs have a short lifespan when compared to cars, so the replacement would happen over a few years rather than a few decades at minimal cost to people (which will end up being cheaper for them in the long term anyway.)

I use them already
By DFranch on 3/22/2007 12:11:05 PM , Rating: 2
I have several of these bulbs in my house, and I don't notice a difference between normal bulbs. I can see where not being able to dim the light would be a problem, but I don't have any dimmers in my house. I have not replaced all the bulbs in my house, just the one's I use a majority of the time. Also, what about decorative lights like on a chandelier?

RE: I use them already
By NARC4457 on 3/22/2007 1:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
I have CFL chandelier bulbs from Ikea. They take a LONG time to warm up, and they aren't as bright as I want, but they do the job.

It's a significant wattage difference for me:
5x40W = 200W
5x7W = 35W

I hope LED's are viable by then
By Cogman on 3/22/2007 12:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
while I don't have any huge quarrels with Florescent lightning, I sure hope that LED becomes a viable alternative by then. Right now they are just too expensive for the amount of light they produce. However, If they bring the cost down then you will see a light bulb that is far superior to the competition in all ways.

By highlandsun on 3/22/2007 11:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
Last I checked, CFLs are still more efficient than LEDs in larger sizes.

I like LEDs a lot, but they're only a win right now in small lamps and torches. Something that could light up a room like a 300W halogen lamp would be extremely inefficient in an LED.

Fiber Optics
By timmiser on 3/22/2007 4:39:59 PM , Rating: 2
You guys need to think outside the box. Instead of buying light bulbs and electricity from the power company, maybe the future is buying the light that would be piped to your home through fiber optic cables? Or even one bulb providing all the light for your house via fiber optics.

RE: Fiber Optics
By osalcido on 3/22/2007 6:12:09 PM , Rating: 2
that'd be pretty sweet...... then we could all have fiber optic internet

ah screw it lets just have a giant mirror satellite orbiting over america that reflects sunlight and get rid of night altogether

led lighting
By herm0016 on 3/22/2007 8:51:50 PM , Rating: 2
the major problem with led lighting is the light normal leds give off a very small frequency range. An incandescent lamp puts out all of the visible and much of the invisible spectrum, such and IR and UV. I work in a Theater as a lighting designer. we use halogen Incandescent type lamps in our fixtures ranging from 500 to 1000 watts. they are very reliable and they produce a full spectrum of light unlike the few small led fixtures we have that produce a very flat, cool light quality. This can be made better by combining different color leds in a single package but i have yet to find a good screw base lamp (for home use) that has this feature. I also don't think that this is something the government should regulate.

RE: led lighting
By highlandsun on 3/23/2007 12:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
As a theater lighting designer, you ought to realize that you only need those full-spectrum lamps because you then filter the hell out of them with various colored gels. Generally of those 500 to 1000W fixtures, you're discarding 70-80% of their light output (which is already only 15-20% of their total energy output). With an array of red, green, blue, and amber LEDs you can produce a wider gamut of colors than any incandescent+gel combination, and you only use as much energy as you need for the intensity of light that you want to project. You of all people should be jumping up and down to get LED lighting into your workplace.

As a stage performer I would also be all over it, because all of the energy output is only produced in the specific designated frequencies. I can't begin to count how much I've baked and sweat to death under bright stage lights, since over 70% of their output is infrared (heat) radiation and not visible light. High power LED arrays would be a godsend for theater work.

For home use it's a different story... And yes, sometimes I turn on an incandescent lamp for its heat output, just as much as for its light output. I.e., one 100W bulb is comfortable, in the winter time.
In the summer, I'm glad I have CFLs and LEDs... I make my own LED arrays for home lighting. The most expensive part is still the DC power supply, and obviously I have to make my own lamp assemblies too. Oh well, it all works.

CFL Warmup time sucks
By ClockerXP on 3/23/2007 9:53:06 AM , Rating: 2
I have CFLs in my basement. I like them in a lot of ways but I hate how it takes them a minute or two to warm up to full brightness. I hope they can improve that in the future.

long ago
By EBH on 3/23/2007 12:38:55 PM , Rating: 2
i heard a rumor that there was in existance light bulbs that never burn out, but since no money could be made of such a bulb it has been hidden from the public

2012 is too little too late if they already have the tech to solve the problem

to me it seems the greed is > than the need for things that work efficiently

Thanks Big Brother
By mindless1 on 3/23/2007 1:36:04 PM , Rating: 2
I use CF lightbulbs and find them a good power savings. I advocate their use and feel those who had bad experiences in the past should check out some of the newer models now available.


Yes, but...
By Binkt on 3/23/2007 1:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
As much as this action may/maynot do for national energy conservation, it will do nothing to remove the dim-bulbs in the capitol, where they do the most harm.

Meanwhile, I will continue to light/heat my home using halogen lamps and CPU-cycles.

How about...
By INeedCache on 3/26/2007 6:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
we have a bill to rid the U.S. of inefficient and corrupt politicians by 2012? That would save us much more money than the light bulbs.

It's all due to PEAK OIL!
By linuxisbest on 3/26/2007 10:49:35 PM , Rating: 2
This all comes from PEAK OIL which trickles down to PEAK ENERGY. It has started, the mandates will only get worse, Hummers and gas guzzlers are next to be outlawed, they should have been first but congress wants to be subtle at first.

They should ban SLI next
By Sharky974 on 3/23/07, Rating: 0
"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki