backtop


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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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

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.


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki