CFLs are what's hot right now. (legislation banning incandescent bulbs)

[Rubberband Man]

California is trying to outlaw incandescents by 2012. It's too bad it has to be outlawed and the consumers dont just buy CFLs because they're cheaper in the long run.

Then again, if I'm renting a place, I don't know if I'd be too enthusiastic about having to splurge money to replace burnt out CFLs.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2089030,00.asp

LOS ANGELES - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.
ADVERTISEMENT

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.

If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.

Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.

While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.

"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."

Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.

About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.

A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.

Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said. California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.

While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.

"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.

Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.

 

[The Slickster]

If they happen to ban incandescants, the first choice for a replacement will be the halogen sealed bulbs that screw in. Aside from that, people can put HID's or even a 60watt CFL for 200 watts of light. And not everyone wants flouros for an outside light source. There would be so much bulb pollution in the air from dumped flouros. Why not invest in a solar energy program that everyone could use to grow cleanly with? http://www.ecotun.com/en/

It is like sacrificing energy for air pollution, it is absolutely contradictory. A halogen is not an incandescent, so it is a reasonable suggestion. Let there be no mistake, I never said anything about candles. But people would likely use those too if incandescents were banned.

 

[Rubberband Man]

No, you misunderstood. They aren't requiring people to use CFLs, they're just banning incandescents (ie: those cheap 60 watt soft white bulbs you buy for your home). You can use whatever you want to, HID, CFL, Candle, as long as not incandescent.

 

[genkisan]

Thinking that measures like this will help the catastrophic damage we are doing to this planet is like giving a Band-Aid and an asprin to someone who just got their legs blown off.


Try outlawing all engines with a displacement over 2 litres for personal use, cleaning up the factory farming system and banning deep trawl fishing and implementing a hydrogen economy ASAP......for a start.

Then yer talkin'....

 

[dude06version]

are planet is f##ked and there is no saving it..isnt 2012 suppose to be the end of the world..according to the mayans or aztec i forgot..

 

[bounty29]

are planet is f##ked and there is no saving it..isnt 2012 suppose to be the end of the world..according to the mayans or aztec i forgot..

That's the only "end of the world" prediction that I've ever worried about. The way things are going, who knows what's gonna happen in 6~ years from now.

 

[9Lives]

It might be the end of our ''culture'' if you insist on calling it that...Damnit that doesn't leave me much time to prepare...

I agree that it's too little too late...

 

[waydee]

This makes a huge amount of sense and california will be the ones to pioneer it - i say good on them, hopefully the rest of the world will take notice.

All that needs to be done is to ban the sale of incandescants, within a year people are forced to switch to cfls - everyone wins. The average person just needs to think in smaller terms when it comes to watts to understand the difference, like was said in the article - a 20watt CFL produces the same amount of visible light as a 75watt incandescant bulb - thats the reason why incandescant wattage equivalents are printed on all cfl packages, to make it clear to the layman.

2012 is maybe a bit too late however, there is no reason to wait that long. Like I said, all you have to do is ban the sale of the things and within a year people will be forced to replace them with cfls.

 

[mrjim5000]

So they are assuming people will not buy 100 watt CFL's?

What if they have a 60watt CFL, that is the same electricity?

Where is the savings, it might get brighter though!

If they did that, I would put out a 200watt CFL that burned like a 1000 watter.

Do you really need that much light in your living room?

 

[Rubberband Man]

So they are assuming people will not buy 100 watt CFL's?

What if they have a 60watt CFL, that is the same electricity?

Where is the savings, it might get brighter though!

If they did that, I would put out a 200watt CFL that burned like a 1000 watter.

Bro....

13 watt CFL = 60 watt incandescent So that's less watts used, for the same amount of light. Got it slickster?

 

[HCSmyth]

You know that saying there is no such thing as a free lunch?

Well it should be there is no such thing as free energy.

It is irresponsible the way many environmentalists act in their knee jerk manner to blame humans for global warming. The fact is fossil fuels and nuclear power are basically the only two primary ways most communities can meet their power needs. Each way has pollution issues. Dramatically changing governments or economies will not change this simple fact. If you really believe humans are the main cause you might want to address population growth to limit human damage to the Earth along with emissions standards. And not unduly damage an economic system that creates ever increasing technological innovations that might help human’s one day moderate the Earth’s climate and create better sources of energy.

I am not in favor of banning these incandescent bulbs outright, rather the government should tax them specifically to make them more expensive at the store then CFLs. This is more responsible government action in my opinion and not the irresponsible brand of California socialism that the article addresses. Because I personally don’t like big government telling me what I can and can not buy.

 

[Guest]

I am not in favor of banning these incandescent bulbs outright, rather the government should tax them specifically to make them more expensive at the store then CFLs. This is more responsible government action in my opinion and not the irresponsible brand of California socialism that the article addresses. Because I personally don’t like big government telling me what I can and can not buy.

I hate big govt. but Yeah lets suggest another govt. induced tax, they will fix the problem,lol

 

[simpleword]

Thinking that measures like this will help the catastrophic damage we are doing to this planet is like giving a Band-Aid and an asprin to someone who just got their legs blown off.


Try outlawing all engines with a displacement over 2 litres for personal use, cleaning up the factory farming system and banning deep trawl fishing and implementing a hydrogen economy ASAP......for a start.

Then yer talkin'....

Laws, laws, laws. Do we really need more laws? Constantly? That is all the government does is make laws. I understand the good intentions you have by proposing things like that, but what we really need is a comet the size of Texas, or a massive pandemic, or total nuclear war. That'll clean the planet right up. Sure it will do some harm at first, but the planet will recover, just like it always does and the human race will have only been a blink of the eye in the planet's life.

 

[Nikijad4210]

I don't see the harm in something that can help cut down energy usage. Our entire house it lit with 16 different bulbs. Before I outright demanded my mom & Wolf switch to something more energy efficient, we were using a minimum of 60 watts per incandecent, not including the 1 150 watt bulb. That used to be a total of 1050 watts. Not all on at the same time, of course, but it still added up. Now our wattage is down to 224 watts for all 16 lighting fixtures & lamps. We use 3/4 less power to light the house now.

A little bit of effort make a bit difference.

 

[HCSmyth]

I don't see the harm in something that can help cut down energy usage.

Exactly and this is what some legislators are thinking as well and this may be good enough reason to justify laws to limit incandescent bulbs but making a heavy-handed law like this causes problems. Will incandescent bulbs still have a small niche that will not be met after the law goes into affect? What is the definition of incandescent bulbs? Everyone here probably quickly thinks will HID’s be affected? All clear examples of how over legislation and bureaucracy can cause uncertainty. This can be limited by taxing rather than banning incandescent bulbs outright.

 

[Berry_Coughin']

Oh god don't tell me they've gotten you all with their "global warming" rhetoric... wisen up people..... they spout all this nonsense about SUV's and Al Gore speaks out about how we're "destroying our planet" then jumps into his private Gulf Stream (that's a plane for those of you not in the know" and hops over to his next venue....... I suppose you all believe that oil is a "fossil fuel" made from Dino bones...... wow

 

[genkisan]

but what we really need is a comet the size of Texas, or a massive pandemic, or total nuclear war. That'll clean the planet right up. Sure it will do some harm at first, but the planet will recover, just like it always does and the human race will have only been a blink of the eye in the planet's life.

Agree with you 100%.....but I can't order one up like a Domino's pizza.........





DANG!!

 

[Deft]

I've seen them cheeper than dirt, cheaper even than regular bulbs! 76c cheep! Here they are in action!




But still any outright ban on somthig like that is a bad idea IMO, I dont like government telling me what I cant do.

 

[Rubberband Man]

Are you f*cking retarded? Can you read? I've explained to you twice now that they aren't mandating CFLS, but banning Incandescents.

Did you read anything I wrote in a very patient response to you. Are you even reading this right now, or do you just post and dont come back unless you want to post an additional thought without reading.

Just move on and stop posting moron.

 

[ChaoticEntity]

eh, all the "regular" lights in my house use up maybe 500-550w total, switching to CFL's wouldn't make a bit of difference in my bill because I still have ~2kw total power going out in the garage for half the day and it's about 1000w the other half.

I simply don't like being flat out told I can't do something, to me this it taking away yet another simple freedom, if they want incadecent lighting to go away it'd be better to subsidize stores for not carrying them, by phasing them out you still have choice. Hopefully you'll come to the conclusion that there are better lights out there, but a law to do it seems like big brother to me.