Posted on 04/28/2014 12:33:37 PM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The Department of Energy is looking to regulate two types of household lamps.
The Energy Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy announced Monday in the Federal Register it is considering new energy conservation standards for general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs).
The Energy Department estimates the rules will save the public billions in energy bills over the next three decades and have substantial environmental benefits. But the agency also expects the rules will cost manufacturers more than $90 million, which could lead some to close up shop and cut jobs. It is weighing the costs with the benefits.
"The (Energy Policy and Conservation Act) requires the U.S. Department of Energy to determine whether more-stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, and would save a significant amount of energy," the agency wrote.
This is the Energy Department's latest effort to reform the lighting industry. In January, the agency began enforcing new rules that effectively ban the most popular type of incandescent light bulbs, which Thomas Edison made famous in the late 1800s.
The proposed rules would apply to general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps, which fall under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.
They would establish more stringent requirements for these types of lamps.
The incandescent reflector lamps would be the most affected by the new rules. The agency estimates the industry could lose nearly 30 percent of its value, or about $52 million, because of the rules.
"Additionally, manufacturers of IRLs stated in interviews with (the Energy Department) that there is the potential for IRL manufacturers to close existing U.S. manufacturing plants or for a potential loss of domestic IRL manufacturing employment based on the energy conservation standards proposed for IRLs," the agency wrote.
The general service fluorescent lamps are more widely circulated, so the rules are not expected to have as big of an impact on this industry and no job losses are anticipated. But the industry could still lose nearly $40 million, the agency estimates.
On the flip side, the proposed standards for the general service fluorescent lamps would save consumers between $3.1 billion and $8.1 billion, while the incandescent reflector lamps rules would save the public between $180 million and $280 million, the agency estimates.
Furthermore, the rules would have significant environmental benefits. Carbon dioxide reductions from the GSFL standards would save the government between $1.3 billion and $17 billion, the agency estimates.
The Energy Department will hold a public hearing on Thursday to discuss the proposed rules. The public has 60 days to comment.
No Lamps and No Fires!
No one has a pair...against the government industrial complex.
I agree. I recently began doing some more than casual work in my garage, building some things, and the difference between a 60 watt incandescent bulb and a CFL of any strength is remarkable.
And the wavelength of the incandescent is much more comfortable for me. I have always thought it was because of the way we have always seen things by the light of the sun, which is closer to the type of light which is cast by an incandescent process, than that cast by a CFL.
In my opinion a CFL (HP sodium, fluorescent) is fine for the mud room, laundry room, parking garage, street lights, etc. Let the market work (leftist blasphemy) and you’ll notice this is exactly where they are employed. => It’s working now!
Eventually we will all be back to candlelight.
Further, if a person has lupus, the CFL will bring them to their knees. (learned this the hard way)
True.
If only the statists could control their urges to control the lives of others. But it just isn’t so.
|
Are you still killing your unborn? -- GOD |
I'm sure that the 55,000,000 killed by choosey American Mothers would GLADLY pay about $2 each to pay for the new lights!
HUH?
The first LED lamps were INSANELY expensive!!
Now the price is dropping quite fast, and I have picked a few to use in places that are difficult gain access to replace the bulb.
My chickens want me to do the same!
It is known as FOOD!
Don’t ALL new cars have this little tattletale in each tire?
They HAVE saved the cost of a new tire for me, as the wife can’t tell from feel if the tire is low.
And school shooting deaths are a drop in the bucket compared to CHOICE.
The most efficient thing I know to do is close the parasitic Department of Energy Nazism down. It would save this nation hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars over the next decade or two. The worst thing is it was a Republican Moron {Congressman???} who started all the light bulb laws.
It would be so refreshing if the free market could decide. If there is a lightbulb that will save me money, won’t poison me if I break it and I can dispose of in my trash, I’ll by the damn thing.
Those are good graphics. Regarding the assumptions about the “savings” from CFL bulbs: 1)Incandescent bulbs are about 25% (not 10%) as “efficient” (with respect to emitting visible light) as CFLs; and, 2) “Savings” only accrue during non-heating season — when space heating is required, incandescent bulbs are 100% efficient.
IOW, the benefits are even smaller than the diagrams show.
Thanks...that info makes the point even better. (I can’t remember where I got that 10% number from, but it could have been some government report where they were trying to make CFLs sound even better...)
My “4 times” figure was also over-simplifying things. Incandescent bulbs emit less visible light per Watt, as the wattage goes down. For instance, a single 100 W bulb emits about twice the light of a 60 W bulb. The (light emitting) efficiency of LEDs and CLF bulbs don’t vary that much by capacity. 100 W bulbs use about 4 times the Watts/lumen as CFLs or LEDs; but 40 W bulbs use about 5 or 6 times as much. Flashlight LEDs use about 1/10 as much juice as an incandescent flashlight bulb. Christmas tree LEDs can be even more “efficient” than flashlight LEDs; because their light doesn’t have to be filtered, to produce the different colours.
That said; I think you’re right — the report you read spun things to cast the most favourable light (ahem) on CFLs or LEDs. They weren’t entirely wrong — just misleading. The 10% figure applies to flashlights and Christmas lighting. For standard room lighting, 25% is a more accurate estimate.
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.