AT&T Tech Support 360
May 8, 2007 12:00 PM PDT
Will the feds phase out traditional lightbulbs?
- Related Stories
-
Bright ideas for energy efficiency
May 1, 2007 -
Cheaper LEDs to light a green path?
January 19, 2007
The Energy Committee of the Senate is working on a bill, which may hit the Senate floor later this month, that will ask the federal government to set national standards for energy efficiency. A coalition of consumer groups and manufacturers is now trying to come up with standards for lighting to support that goal. Among the ideas being discussed is phasing out standard incandescent bulbs over the course of about a decade.
The move builds on the momentum to phase out incandescent bulbs, which are less expensive but consume far more power than do compact fluorescent bulbs,
In February, California Assemblyman
There are about 4 billion screw-in sockets containing incandescent bulbs in the United States, according to a spokesman for the Energy Committee. Incandescent bulbs are also incredibly inefficient.
Some researchers estimate that more than 90 percent of the energy that goes into these bulbs
Approximately 22 percent of the energy consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the Department of Energy. Approximately 52 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is produced by coal. The hope is that the
If legislation is passed, the most likely immediate beneficiaries will be manufacturers of compact fluorescent bulbs, those curlicue bulbs promoted by retailers like Wal-Mart Stores. Compact fluorescent bulbs cost more, but they use about 25 percent of the energy of an equivalent incandescent.
LED manufacturers, though, would likely benefit too. LED bulbs are actually somewhat rare right now, and they cost significantly more than regular lightbulbs. LED lamps, though, are coming down in price. Advocates also say the quality of light is better than what's available from fluorescents.
But don't count out incandescent bulbs completely. General Electric says it plans to come out with incandescent
Some manufacturers actually make all of these types of lights.
Then there are the more novel ideas.
Legislation banning products has often come under fire from some politicians and economists, but it has worked. In the mid-1970s, appliance manufacturers vigorously fought energy efficiency
The regulations passed and led to a creative wellspring in appliance design. Now refrigerators consume less than half the electricity of older models but hold more food and cost less, in terms of real dollars.
See more CNET content tagged:
lightbulb,
lamp,
light-emitting diode,
legislation,
diode
I intend to light my house with a 1w white argon laser.. I can route little mittors all over the house to light in every room. Ok I'm jokeing but it would be cool.
in an alternative universe where laws are never stupid, as this
one certainly is.
Half the lights in my apartment are fluorescent because they
stay on for a long time each day in areas where a lot of light is
needed. There they make sense.
Half the lights in my apartment are incandescent because little
light is needed in those areas and, unlike fluorescents,
incandescents can be dimed down to use less power. They're
attached to dimming controls.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS: This illustrates a point that comes up
often in our relationship. I'm smart and you're stupid. There's no
need for you to keep coming up with these dumb ideas to
demonstrate that point yet one more time. It's a fact that we
both must live with.
If you're absolutely obessed with saving electricity because you
think the earth's about to become a cinder ball, adopt two
policies that'll only affect you and your rich celebrity buddies:
1. Turn off all the lights that illuminate government buildings in
DC, particularly the Capitol dome. And never, never, never fly by
private jet.
2. Take up Michael Crieghton's suggestion and ban all private
jets in the US except for medical transport. Let your rich and
celebrity buddies fly commercial like the rest of us.
--Mike Perry, Seattle
I honestly don't see how the florescent bulbs are any better. Sure they save power but they are toxic, incandescent aren't. With all of the extra driving need to dispose of the florescent ones that is going to add to the pollution.
I think it is a bunch of pooh! myself.
Robert
I can hardly wait for the solid state lamps that are even more efficient.
Disclosure: I own stock in four electric companies and it will be advantage to them (and our dividends) in not building ever larger generation plants, transmission lines and pollution controls.
Perhaps a wattage tax on hot filament lamps would speed the transition. Consider that California has about a tenth the population of US it alone might be the trigger to make change over a done deal.
Final thought: Since the lower power used and lack of hot filament, the surface is only warm to the touch. That should reduce fire risks significantly. Our bed lamps are cool, and unlikely to start a bedding fire compared to ordinary lamps.
It would be far more effective to state that the energy efficiency of a light bulb producing X lumens must be Y as even if incadescent light bulbs can not produce this level of efficiency today as it would allow companies (like GE) the flexibility to improve the incandescent light bulb if they think they can make it efficient enough.
our sun where as fluorescent bulbs create an unnatural greenish
light. If incandescent bulbs are to be removed from the shelves
before an exact replacement (power saving) bulb is developed you
can be sure I'll be buying hundreds of incandescent bulbs in
advance of such a ban.
Our lighting project benefit as well!
Flourescent light bulbs in a house cause too much shortwave and AM radio interference (yes, there are some of us who care about that). The light produced by them is not full spectrum either.
Getting rid of incandescent bulbs is not the total answer. Unless a new type of bulb is invented that does as well as incandescent bulbs, don't ban them!
Candle Manufacturers [b]GET READY TO RU-U-U-MMMMBLLLLLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
very misleading statistic with respect to these flourescent bulbs, since most of the energy for lighting involves office buildings , highways, etc. that already use flourescent fixytures. Residential lighting is where you find the vast bulk of incandescents, and there 8.8% of U.S. energy is used for lighting. Of course, residential lighting also includes some flourescent which wouldn't be affected.
Another problem with these bulbs is that they use mercury and would have to be recycled. Another problem is that there are no versions at the present that are 3 way bulbs and none that can be used to replace candelabra and other specialty type bulbs. I use the new bulbs msot places in my home - they save money and last a very long time-
a 60 watt equivalent bulb only uses 12 watts. I do want three way bulbs, however.
Global warming
or
Mercury Poisoning.
I'll stick to Incandescents.
- On, off, speed controls, and cold
-
by Phillep_H
May 10, 2007 9:31 AM PDT
- The CFLs I've tried burned out quick when used where I only needed it on for a couple of minutes to find something. They also seem to burn out when plugged into the same outlet as an electronic speed control for a motor. These design flaws need to be addressed.
-
Reply to this comment
View
all 2 replies
-
-
See all 77 Comments >>I doubt CFLs will ever work very well in an area subject to temperature extremes, like a front porch in northern climates. The bulbs start out dim and get stronger as the bulb warms. It's going to overheat if it starts bright at -20F.