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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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: Great!
By Spivonious on 3/22/2007 2:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
All my CFL died in about the same time as the old school blub, wheres the savings in that?

Umm...I've had the same CFL bulbs for over 7 years. Show me an incandescent that lasts even 1/4 that long with daily use.

RE: Great!
By rcc on 3/22/2007 2:57:59 PM , Rating: 2
There is an incandescent bulb that as been in use for 100 years.

So, while I grant that CFL last longer on average, beware of absolutes, they are dangerous.

RE: Great!
By michal1980 on 3/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Great!
By glennpratt on 3/22/2007 4:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, your experience is just that, yours. In mine we've replaced perhaps 2-3 CFL's in 7 years and 2 houses full of them.

Second, the power savings is there and the cost is negligible. In a world full of so many seriously expensive things, $2 light bulbs is just not that hard.

Yes, mercury is a concern, but so is the fact that so many people are just incapable of doing the right thing with their waste, regardless of what it is.

RE: Great!
By timmiser on 3/22/2007 4:35:47 PM , Rating: 3
i'm just saying that the average life of the CFL is not what the box says

I agree completely. I have these bulbs throughout my entire house and I love the bright white light they put out and the significant energy savings. However, the "guaranteeed 7 years" statement is a joke. Next time you have a package, take a look and try to find any info about how to make a claim on this guarantee. I've never had any of these lights come close to even half of that 7 years.

RE: Great!
By robertgu on 3/22/2007 6:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
I second that.

I love CFLs I have then in every light source in my house. But to say they last 7+ years like they say on the marketing material is a joke. I've replaced some within a year (one was burnt out with black burn markings on the housing), some within 2 years and while most of them are still going strong after 3 years.

I enjoy the savings and with the new cool white CFLs, I enjoy the white light. So even with the unreliable lifespans on CFLs I will not go back to old-school incandescents. But take the marketing material on the lifespans with a LARGE grain of salt.

RE: Great!
By glennpratt on 3/26/2007 4:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
I've made a claim on every one thats broken. Just call the company, they usually don't even want the originals back.

RE: Great!
By Hoser McMoose on 3/23/2007 2:42:23 PM , Rating: 2
8x most cost for 75% power savings? hmm

For a 100W incandescent vs. 25W CFL, assuming 4 hours of lighting per day, 300 days per year, we get the following:

75W * 4 hours/day * 300 days/year = 90kWh/year * $0.10/kWh = $9/year

In fact, to merely break even you only need about 250 hours of lighting, or well under 1 hour per day.

The above does, of course, assuming that you CFL bulbs will last at least a year, which is a very safe assumption for damn near every CFL I've ever encountered. The one CFL light I use most (by my home computer) was purchased about 3 years ago, and I'm quite certain that it sees more then the 1200 hours/year of use I mentioned above. Add in the fact that I pay more then $0.15/kWh in my neck of the woods, and this bulb has paid for itself several times over.

That being said, I think this law is a dumb idea. The real solution is to increase the price of electricity. Even at $0.15/kWh I'm paying a slightly subsidized rate. We *SHOULD* be paying full cost, including a ~$0.05/kWh tax electricity generated from coal or oil (and slightly less for natural gas and dam-based hydro-electric) to help offset the added health and environmental costs they generate. Right now nuclear power is the only source of electricity where the cost of waste by-products is included, coal, oil and gas get a free ride with their pollution.

"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

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