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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














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