Incandescent Bulb Banning Discussions - Merged

Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

Agreed, CA and CA wanna-be states are beginning to meddle in areas OUR gov't has no business wasting our tax money in pursuing.
With their logic, how come there isn't a bill to ban SUVs?
Heh, Mr. Governator?

The free-market takes care of itself.
 
No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

New opportunity for LED bulbs in CA...?

--------------

California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc

Tue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - 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.
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.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

LED's are still way too exotic and expensive, and indoor lighting usually doesn't need a pinpoint source like a LED. As my incan bulbs burn out I've been replacing them with CFL's one by one. I think I have just one incan left, in a closet where it's only rarely activated.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

paulr said:
LED's are still way too exotic and expensive, and indoor lighting usually doesn't need a pinpoint source like a LED. As my incan bulbs burn out I've been replacing them with CFL's one by one. I think I have just one incan left, in a closet where it's only rarely activated.

By 2012 LED's may be more practical for indoor lighting than they are now. I'm also using CFL's almost exclusively.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Unless something has changed, this is another attempt at an ignorant politician tring to do the politically correct thing. Every CFL light I have looked and purchased (at a reasonable cost) requires ventilation. They will not work reliably in sealed housings or other fixtures/sockets that have restricted airflow. I learned that lesson the hard way. But, knowing how California makes laws they will probably expect the homeowner to modify any "noncompliant" fixtures/sockets. In my house, that would be about 50% of the light fixtures.

I would love to use LED bulbs. So far the only resonably priced lamps I have seen are rated at about the same light output as a ten watt incan. And that's at $12 a bulb. I am considering using one to light the area around the dog door, as that light runs all night long and there's a chance that I might break even in the long run. I use a 15 watt incan there now.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Good and bad idea... how far will this law go? There are some places where incandescent lightbulbs are hard to replace such as in projectors - TV and stage lighting - and headlamps in cars... bulbs of similar power are hard to come by. Then what about small bulbs such as christmas bulbs - are they going to also be banned + people forced to throw away + buy led bulbs? I could see a major headache for businesses... I see conventinal bulbs in telephones, exit sighs, and an old digital thermostat... and that's just where I'm sitting.

I'm convinced that replacing incandescent bulbs is a good thing, I just don't believe that banning incandescent bulbs is the answer.

One question - are the compact fluorescent bulbs dimmable? I've got lightswitches at home that are dimmable + i have not put fluorescent bulbs there yet b/c I'm afraid of breaking either the switch or the bulb.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

teststrips said:
Good and bad idea... how far will this law go? There are some places where incandescent lightbulbs are hard to replace such as in projectors - TV and stage lighting - and headlamps in cars... bulbs of similar power are hard to come by. Then what about small bulbs such as christmas bulbs - are they going to also be banned + people forced to throw away + buy led bulbs? I could see a major headache for businesses... I see conventinal bulbs in telephones, exit sighs, and an old digital thermostat... and that's just where I'm sitting.

I'm convinced that replacing incandescent bulbs is a good thing, I just don't believe that banning incandescent bulbs is the answer.

One question - are the compact fluorescent bulbs dimmable? I've got lightswitches at home that are dimmable + i have not put fluorescent bulbs there yet b/c I'm afraid of breaking either the switch or the bulb.

There are dimmable CFLs and Special dimmers for old fashion tubes. All of them use some form of PWM, as long as the cycle is set fast enough it'll be better than the 60hz deals we have now.
 
Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

*
Did you know…?

If every American family switched to CFLs, we could save 31.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity every year - enough to light about one third of all U.S. households for an entire year.

A 20-watt compact fluorescent lamp used in place of a 75-watt incandescent will save about 550 kilowatt-hours over its lifetime.

Saving 550 kilowatt hours means 50 Gallons of oil*not burned, which means that 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and 20 pounds of sulfur dioxide will not get into the atmosphere.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Have yet to see a non-incandescent light source I find pleasing to the eye. Tolerable: Yes. Pleasing: No. Furthermore: Is anything other than incan dim-able? I have X-10 all over the place, with many of the lights on dimmers--particularly in the "home theater" area.

I suspect this lawmaker is jumping the gun a bit.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

I don't want to see it happen because an authoritarian decree by government. STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE EVERY DAMNED ASPECT OF LIFE, you power-hungry ZEALOTS!! :scowl:
 
Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs

That bill will be D.O.A. as soon as the legislators' wives get wind of it
and contemplate putting on their makeup under fluorescent lights.

What I would support (and has more likelihood of passing):
Expand the rebate currently on CFs to include LED lightbulbs, and eliminate sales taxes on both.
A higher rebate could be justified on LEDs due to their better lifetime and lack of waste disposal issues compared to CFs.
Tax incandescents at 25% to fund the above, and increase that each year.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

I don't get why people here get so hyped about LEDs for general lighting.

You can get a light bulb shaped LED replacement and even though they claim to use way less power, they also make way less output.

To favor LED based lamp module over CFL, all these criteria must be met in my opinion:

Efficacy equal to or grater than CFL throughout lifetime. Current ~100 or so LED bulb deteriorates and depreciates in output faster than a CFL.

Output must be comparable to an incandescent/CFL it's replacing. If it's 100W replacement, it needs to make 1100 lumens. Not "it takes a lot less power but the light is whiter, blah blah blah 250 lumen" junk.

Cost: should be comparable to a CFL of equivalent output. Some might buy it for nostalgia if it's only slightly more expensive, but make it any more than $10 ea and you likely won't get any average consumer attention.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

peacefuljeffrey said:
I don't want to see it happen because an authoritarian decree by government. STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE EVERY DAMNED ASPECT OF LIFE, you power-hungry ZEALOTS!! :scowl:

Now your username + comments don't seem to match. NotSoPeacefulJeffrey :)
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

peacefuljeff said it best. take a bow.

the road to hell is paved with best intentions, I'm sure this idea looks great to this California lawmaker, but he is not seeing the big picture.. which is as follows:

with each increase in technology, governing bodies will feel the need to regulate the peoples use of that technology. Increase in technology will inevitably result in our dependence on it. Our dependence on regulated technology will reduce our freedom more and more with each advancement.

I'm all for better technology, but I want to be free to choose whether I should have to use it or not. supply and demand. The solution to the power problem is not necessarily to use less, but to find a way to make more in a cleaner fashion, allowing the people to choose to buy more power and use it as they please.


now... Obviously, in California, the heat a light bulb generates is probably a negative more than anything else... but in many places, leaving the lights on, is just another source of heat, people run space heaters, and furnaces in the winter, the inefficient bulbs are just allowing the heaters to run less, if you look at the whole picture, the loss isn't as great as it appears if you look only at the efficiency of the bulb at generating light. (Obviously, a natural gas heater, is a more cost effective way to heat a house than electric heating, but the point still stands that the power is not going to waste when it is used to heat a cold house)..
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Am I right in thinking that compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) may use less energy than conventional bulbs, but they become toxic waste the minute you want to throw them out?

Wouldn't this be creating landfil problems, somewhere down the line?
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

The money that would be wasted by enforcing this law would be much better spent on advertizing campaigns on TV/radio - targeted at people who don't understand + therefore don't already use this technology in their homes.

How about a small tax break for those who put 10 or more of these on there state income tax forms.

Promote technology - don't force it.
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Pax et Lux said:
Am I right in thinking that compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) may use less energy than conventional bulbs, but they become toxic waste the minute you want to throw them out?

Wouldn't this be creating landfil problems, somewhere down the line?

I think you are supposed to recycle them or something. Yay, mercury!

Time to start bootlegging incan's. :laughing:
 
Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law

Pax et Lux said:
Am I right in thinking that compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) may use less energy than conventional bulbs, but they become toxic waste the minute you want to throw them out?

Wouldn't this be creating landfil problems, somewhere down the line?

What about the landfill problems that throwing away a million or more regular lightbulbs away would cause
 
Top