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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

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