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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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

By Christopher1 on 3/22/2007 5:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Most of them have no financial incentive at all in this.

Frankly, this is one time where 'yet another hidden tax' is okay with me! I'm getting tired of buying regular lightbulbs, that never seem to last for the amount of time that they are supposed to last.

About every three months, the one in my bedroom needs changed. Now, granted, I have it on about 10 hours a day when I am doing things in there. But the lightbulbs that I buy are guaranteed for 1500 hours, and multiply 90 by 10. That's right, 900 hours is what they last on average for me. Every so often I get one that outlives the time limit of 1500 hours, but not very often.

I spend, I would say about 5.00 a year in lightbulbs for just my room. Now, compare that with 5.00 for a bulb that is GUARANTEED to last 9 years....... I think it's worth it!

By Martin Blank on 3/22/2007 5:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
They're not guaranteed for 1500 hours, but rather are rated for 1500 hours, usually based on four hours per day of usage. Even those with lifetimes of nine years are merely rated for that based on a certain number of hours per day of usage.

By Surak on 3/23/2007 4:31:15 PM , Rating: 5
Yup, I agree, government regulations are always bad.

Who cares about all the energy it will save, all the resources that won't have to be consumed, your lower electrical bills ... or the fact that as the new techs become more widespread economies of scale will make them cheaper.

I can think of lots of other government regulations that are just as harmful ... like Seatbelts in cars, food quality standards, blood alcohol limits for drivers ... repeal them all! let the free market work it out!

</sarcasm mode off>

What is it about this tech site that attracts so many closeminded dumbasses.

By hubajube on 3/23/2007 11:26:36 AM , Rating: 2
Now, compare that with 5.00 for a bulb that is GUARANTEED to last 9 years....... I think it's worth it!
Guarantees are for idiots. Nothing is guaranteed. What's really funny is that if the "guarantee" on a product fails, then all these companies have to do apologize and possibly stick a sucker in their mouths and the idiots will accept it.

By Christopher1 on 3/25/2007 1:43:10 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. When something is guaranteed for 9 years, and you are smart enough to keep the receipt and the guarantee for all those 9 years, if the thing breaks beforehand they HAVE TO REPLACE IT.

Just like my parent's cookware that they got 10 years ago was guaranteed for life. We called the manufacturer, they told us they weren't making that brand anymore but would give us ANOTHER brand that was comparable to what we bought in price and excellence 10 years ago.
All we had to do was wait for them to send a box to us, send it back with the old, get the new, which only took surprisingly 4 days.
They even express shipped it to us, which was very nice.

Some companies do not live up to guarantees, others do. You should not say that "Nothing is guaranteed!" until you actually experience trying to get satisfaction on a guarantee.

From the computer that broke, to the phone that broke, to the TV that busted and smoked, etc., my family has NEVER had trouble getting satisfaction on a warranty ever.

"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein

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