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is made by the Secretary of Energy, that still doesn't give entitle the recipient to a free pass to continue using outdated technology.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: led lighting
By highlandsun on 3/23/2007 12:00:46 AM , Rating: 2
As a theater lighting designer, you ought to realize that you only need those full-spectrum lamps because you then filter the hell out of them with various colored gels. Generally of those 500 to 1000W fixtures, you're discarding 70-80% of their light output (which is already only 15-20% of their total energy output). With an array of red, green, blue, and amber LEDs you can produce a wider gamut of colors than any incandescent+gel combination, and you only use as much energy as you need for the intensity of light that you want to project. You of all people should be jumping up and down to get LED lighting into your workplace.

As a stage performer I would also be all over it, because all of the energy output is only produced in the specific designated frequencies. I can't begin to count how much I've baked and sweat to death under bright stage lights, since over 70% of their output is infrared (heat) radiation and not visible light. High power LED arrays would be a godsend for theater work.

For home use it's a different story... And yes, sometimes I turn on an incandescent lamp for its heat output, just as much as for its light output. I.e., one 100W bulb is comfortable, in the winter time.
In the summer, I'm glad I have CFLs and LEDs... I make my own LED arrays for home lighting. The most expensive part is still the DC power supply, and obviously I have to make my own lamp assemblies too. Oh well, it all works.

"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

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