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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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


"It seems as though my state-funded math degree has failed me. Let the lashings commence." -- DailyTech Editor-in-Chief Kristopher Kubicki














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