| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Congress Votes To Outlaw Light Bulbs |
| 2007-12-18 |
| Turn out the lights on traditional incandescent bulbs. A little-noticed provision of the energy bill, which is expected to become law, phases out the 125-year-old bulb in the next four to 12 years in favor of a new generation of energy-efficient lights that will cost consumers more but return their investment in a few months. The new devices include current products such as compact fluorescents and halogens, as well as emerging products such as light-emitting diodes and energy-saving incandescent bulbs. "This will get us in line with the rest of the advanced industrial world in moving toward more efficient lighting," says Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., chairman of the Senate energy committee and author of the Senate measure requiring the tougher standards. The energy bill passed the Senate last week and is expected to clear the House this week. President Bush has said he will sign it. Under the measure, all light bulbs must use 25% to 30% less energy than today's products by 2012 to 2014. The phase-in will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, bulbs must be 70% more efficient. Compact fluorescent bulbs already meet the 70% efficiency standard. A compact fluorescent costs about $2, vs. about 50 cents for an incandescent. While an incandescent lasts about seven months, a fluorescent burns six times longer. It also saves about $5 a year in electricity costs, paying for itself in as little as four months, says Steve Nadel, head of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE). Other bulbs are emerging. Home Depot (HD) has started selling a $5 Philips halogen that's 30% more efficient than incandescents. Its advantage: It doesn't emit the yellowish tints that can characterizes fluorescents, and it can easily be used with a dimmer. General Electric (GE) says it'll develop an incandescent that's 30% stingier than today's bulbs by 2010. Earl Jones, a GE senior counsel, says it likely will cost more than current bulbs but less than a fluorescent. Also in the pipeline: light-emitting diodes that cost much more but last about 12 years. The new rules will save consumers $40 billion in energy and other costs from 2012 to 2030, avoid construction of 14 coal-fired power plants, and cut global-warming emissions by at least 51 million tons of carbon annually, ACEEE says. "This is one of the most significant policies Â… in terms of reducing electric demand and addressing global warming," says Lowell Ungar of the Alliance to Save Energy. A version of the bill the House passed last summer would have exempted bulbs with odd shapes, such as globular lights on make-up mirrors. That could have led small makers to market such bulbs as cheaper options. The new measure largely closes such loopholes by exempting, for example, only larger globular bulbs, which don't fit in most lamps. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #9 Interesting, Anonymoose. LEDs aren't quite ready for the retail consumer, but it's coming fairly quickly, I think. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-18 22:57 |
| #8 A friend elsewhere has suggested that we are doing this because tungsten is too valuable to be used for light bulbs any more. The US supply is too small, and the Chinese don't want to export it, because they want it for their stuff. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-12-18 22:39 |
| #7 LED is the way to go |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2007-12-18 22:26 |
| #6 Better would have been massive subsidies for LED bulbs .. GE would hate it as they have a 100 year lifetime. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2007-12-18 22:12 |
| #5 WTF, I totally agree with you on both counts: I started using these bulbs two years ago, and have a basket full of burnt-out ones. They don't go into the trash because of the mercury. This is definite proof that senators are so estranged from the common experience of the people: if they had to pay for and install their own light bulbs, they'd know this stuff is shit. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-12-18 21:25 |
| #4 Can we outlaw congress? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-12-18 21:24 |
| #3 Not that I'm against saving energy, mind you. But the pushers of compact fluorescent bulbs haven't come up with a good recycling plan for them when they burn out - and they do burn out - I don't believe the life statistics since I've used them for the last 5 years and know their durability first-hand. The recycling problem is that they contain a small amount of mercury. Normal disposal of regular fluorescent tubes requires purchasing a box at a price (ca. $50) from a hazardous waste hauler which can hold maybe a dozen or so tubes. When the CF bulb pushers discover this problem, it'll be about 2 years into the program. Mark my words. |
| Posted by: WTF 2007-12-18 21:02 |
| #2 save consumers $40 billion in energy and other costs from 2012 to 2030, avoid construction of 14 coal-fired power plants How much in the way of petroleum products would be saved? Not having to build new power plants, with commensurate improvements in the power lines and such, is good, too. In a similar vein, my energy company asked us to accept some sort of thingy that would turn off the air conditioner for a minute or two every hour during high energy draw periods in the summer. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-12-18 20:22 |
| #1 Lest we fergit, GLOBAL ANALYSIS > THE SOVIETIZATION OF AMERICA. Post-Cold War, in the name of War = GWOT + National Security + Defense of Liberty/Freedom. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-12-18 19:31 |