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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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

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.

“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM

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