Posted on 03/21/2007 8:23:31 AM PDT by CNS
(CNSNews.com) - A Democratic lawmaker has introduced a bill that would ban the sale of traditional incandescent light bulbs - which are less energy-efficient, prompting claims that they contribute to "global warming" - one day after a colleague told a press conference that legislating a ban would be a "last choice."
As Cybercast News Service reported last week, Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Ill.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) held a news conference Wednesday calling for more efficient lighting options, and Manzullo said "the last thing we want to do is force legislation down people's throats."
One day later, Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.) introduced legislation that would set target dates for certain types of light bulbs to be prohibited for sale in the United States.
Harman calls the bill "an important first step toward making every household, business and public building in America more energy-efficient."
"This legislation, while a small step, could have an enormous impact," she said in a posting on the liberal Huffington Post blog. "And hopefully, it can help transform America into an energy-efficient and energy-independent nation."
An average traditional incandescent bulb based on a filament emits 12-15 lumens per watt (a measurement of the bulb's lighting output.) Harman's bill would require all bulbs to produce 60 lumens-per-watt by January 2012; 90 lumens-per-watt by January 2016; and 120 lumens-per-watt by January 2020.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I love no flush toilets. You have to flush them MORE OFTEN and use MORE WATER than before. These lawmakers are clueless.
I used to get dizzy spells when I'd walk into a Walmart with bright lights. It was very strange.
Flourescents are already sold in different color ranges. Some give light very similar to incandescents. And the color rendition is much better than it used to be.
Now if they could just come out with a DC fluorescent bulb which doesn't have that just noticeable flicker.
Most CFL's use electronic ballasts that have such a high frquency that there is no flicker. The same is used for LCD displays.
Fluorescent bulb pass electricity through ionized mercury vapor and generate hard ultraviolet radiation. A phosphor coating on the inside of the glass converts the UV to visible light. The different fluorescent color types are a function of the phosphors used.
"There are cheap one out there that do not last. You get what you pay for. Also, there are ones which you can use a dimmer on."
I bought name brand. I think they were GE.
Those suckers were not cheap. I'll never buy another unless I am forced to do so.
I just checked their website. As of 2006, they no longer use a light bulb. Algore must have gotten to them.
I'm going to buy double (or more) what I consider a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs and they can take their flourescents and stuff them!
Well which is it?
> I'll never buy another unless I am forced to do so.
That's the great thing about liberty, you should be free to waste your money any way you see fit.
Your position IS wasting money, though.
You either got a bad batch of lights, or the power in your house is very dirty if the CFLs didn't last.
but algore can buy carbon offsets and the world will be happy!
all: Who owns the CF patents folks?
I buy name brand CFs for $1.50 each or less. They last much longer and they use far less energy.
A government mandate is stupid, but the use of CFs isn't.
I was gonna say the same - if this bill passes, I am going to Home Depot and buying a lifetime supply of Reveal light bulbs.
Yep I agree. That's why I gave the headsup about IDS.
Florescent lights wont come on in really cold weather. They would be worthless for outdoor use in the northern states.
How about the oven and refrigerator lights? I guess I will have to use my battery-less shake-light led flashlight in the kitchen from now on.
Thanks much!
Just proves my point. When six bulbs at 25 cents can match the $1.50 bulb they will have a free market solution.
The fact is it is still a hit or miss on the CF bulbs. They are only useful for non-living space areas. There is no way to know the lighting quality because there is no uniformity in labeling. It may be ice blue in lighting that is unacceptable and the quality is inconsistent on top of that.
The fact is LED's will surpass CF bulbs in a few years, a mandate will only shift development away from the LEDs.
If anything the ground floor would be in the companies developing LED lighting.
Will the Congress pay for cleaning up the mercury residue from old CF light bulbs?
"The following headline was taken from your House home page: "Manzullo Helps Launch National Coalition to Save Consumers Billions in Electric Costs".
Isn't there more pressing legislation in Congress than the national control of light bulbs? Illegal Immigration comes to mind. Our War on Terror comes to mind. So does Tax Reduction.
I certainly hope your support for such superfluous legislation isn't an indication that you have jumped onto the Global Warming hysteria bandwagon. There are enough mindless robots in congress today, without my own congressman becoming another.
Please! Let's keep on track with what's important. And let's not go overboard with environmentally silly legislative nonsense.
Jim
Rochelle, IL"
Don't these people have anything better to do?
> Will the Congress pay for cleaning up the mercury residue
> from old CF light bulbs?
Just as much as the electrical utilities pay to clean up the mercury they spew from their coal fired plants.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.