|
|
|
| | California implements new light-bulb laws | | 03 Jan 2011 | | California has introduced a new standard for 100W incandescent lamps, one year ahead of the rest of the USA. | | A new federal law introduced on January 1, 2011 in California sets standards for the energy efficiency of incandescent light-bulbs sold in the state.
The law states that a 100-watt bulb manufactured on or after January 1, 2011 must use 28% less energy (i.e. a 100-watt bulb may not use more than 72 watts) in order to provide the same amount of light (in lumens).
This standard does not affect the existing supply of incandescent light bulbs stocked in retail stores or incandescent light bulbs already in use.
The law, resulting from the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), is designed to reduce energy use and associated pollution and make the United States less dependent on foreign sources of energy. It will save California consumers money with new bulbs that offer the same amount of light while using less power.
While the rest of the USA will adopt this standard on January 1, 2012, California was given authority to implement the national standards one year earlier.
More background on the national light-bulb performance standards can be found in a press release from the National Lighting Bureau.
In related news, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released a revised series of recommendations on how to deal with broken compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in the home.
It is estimated that this will avoid the sale of 10.5 million inefficient 100-watt bulbs in 2011, which would cost consumers $35.6 million in higher electricity bills, according to the California Energy Commission (CEC).
New lighting technology has become more efficient than old-fashioned incandescent bulbs. Approximately 90% of the electricity used by traditional incandescent bulbs is wasted as heat instead of visible light. Replacing traditional incandescent light bulbs with more-efficient halogen lamps, CFLs or LED bulbs will save consumers money while still offering same amount of light.
The new standard is technology-neutral and allows consumers to choose among a variety of high-performance products for their replacement lighting. The CEC press release mentions halogen, CFLs and LED lamps.
A new standard covering 75W lamps will be introduced in California on January 1, 2012, and standards for 60W and 40W lamps will follow one year later.
More information on the changes is provided by the CEC and by the US Department of Energy.
| | About the Author | | Tim Whitaker is the Editor of LEDs Magazine. | | COMMENTS | | Name: fraumann Posted: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:01 |
| It would be interesting to hear from health care experts on the advantages of "yellow light" contributing to general feelings of well being, etc. I suspect there is a whole side of the issue for light color, frequency, intensity, etc. for quality living. | | Name: ian ashdown Posted: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 18:01 |
| As an aside, British Columbia banned the sale of both 100 watt and 75 watt incandescent lamps (apart from existing retail stock) beginning January 1st, 2011. (See http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/12/31/bc-lightbulb-cfl-incandescent.html).
The lineups of customers with shopping carts full of incandescent lamps on New Year's Day was quite amusing. Not surprisingly, the hardware stores so far appear to have a limitless supply in their warehouses.
| | Name: mrchips Posted: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:01 |
| How will this law affect all of the billboard owners who are using 250watt MH bulbs or more? Think of the energy output with those babies every day.. | | Name: vitaly_v_ch Posted: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:01 |
| Hm, like marasmus of short-sighted peoples Administrators Reply From Wikipedia: Marasmus is a form of severe protein-energy malnutrition characterized by energy deficiency. | | Name: bob hale Posted: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 17:01 |
| It's just bewildering to me that voters increasingly permit governments to insert themselves into and legislate what must be or cannot be purchased by private individuals. The reason that such an approach is fundamentally flawed is that all governments seem to wrongly believe that they have unlimited resources (just raise taxes and create more bureaucracies). The true costs and the opportunity costs of the legislation itself typically are not evaluated. Governments also tend to wrongly believe that they have all of the answers, despite not knowing what questions need to be addressed, by whom, in what context, and over what applicable time periods. For example, as alluded to by a previous commenter, the psychology and physiology of lighting need to be fully understood before legislating alternative types. Additionally, power factor considerations, net product production and disposal energy requirements/costs, reliability, environmental hazard cost/benefit tradeoffs, systems safety, and economic interrelationships with other associated products-systems-services all must be considered. In my opinion, free market economies have historically been far more effective and efficient than government edicts, especially those which may be based on prevarications, careless thinking, and superficial analyses. | | Name: johnl Posted: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 22:01 |
| I have to disagree with your comments. I share my air with you. You don't have a right to excessively pollute my air any more than I do to piss in your pool.
Smoking, seatbelt usage, underage drinking ... all fine examples of where a freemarket economy is not terribly effective at making needed changes. High taxes on cigarettes, mandated seat belt usage, and laws on underage drinking all benefit society ... of which we are all part.
It has been proven many times that the mercury from generation far exceeds that in CFLs ... most of us work almost all day under florescent lights already (re the health issues) ... and global warming is real. Get with the program and stop whining about personal freedoms that actually do impact others. | | Name: warbam Posted: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 06:01 |
| You folks who let our government jam a law like this down our throat
are short on gray-matter, (brains). Maybe next year they can mandate
how big a house you can buy, or what kind of a car you can own. The
government wants to control everything about our lives, and contrary
to what Glenn Beck thinks, all you homer simpsons are going to let
them do it. Jeffery Immelt pushed to get that bulb law passed. He is
now going to move the production of those bulbs to China. We need
jobs here in the U.S.. GE gets more than three times the money for these new style bulbs. Labor is cheap in China and jobs that should
be here, are leaving our country. Congratulations to all you Simpsons. | | Name: concerned citizen Posted: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 01:04 |
| Not only am I a strong advocate in protecting our rights, but I also feel strongly about being environmentally friendly and creating positive change, but not with out considering all aspects involved. If anything, laws are supposed to be there to protect us as a society at large? Then if anything, there should be a law AGAINST florescent lights. The institution that enacted the law, and all the so-called "Green" supporters who also thought it was a great idea never stopped to think if it was actually a better solution. The total carbon footprint of these new lamps was not realistically considered. Not only is it unhealthy, unnatural lighting, it is also very poisonous lighting which we must intrust society as a whole to dispose of properly- like that's going to happen! How much you want to bet people in general will be tossing these babies down storm drains and illegally dumping them along natural habitats as they already do? Not to mention all the energy we are supposed to be saving using these bulbs is offset by all the pollution in China caused to make them. So next time you're looking into cleaning your world for a better tomorrow, don't just hop on the next "Green" bandwagon without thinking if you are truly being environmentally friendly. People need to wake up to the dumbing down of our society and what we have allowed our governments and major corporations to do to not only the US, but the rest of the world. We spend more money on prisons then education in this country alone. Am I the only one who sees something wrong with this picture? Or is everyone just too concerned with "Keeping Up with the Kardashians"? Makes me ill. |
| | | |
