Posted on 03/22/2007 2:24:18 AM PDT by Man50D
They're unwanted in Cuba, Hugo Chavez is trying to kick them out of Venezuela, Australia and Canada are on timetables to get rid of them, the European Union says they soon simply won't be available and now the U.S. is considering new rules that effectively would ban the incandescent light bulb.
It's a global sweep so far, triggered by worries that the invention of Thomas Edison uses too much energy or generates too much heat for the earth to tolerate, despite the reports by WND that a member of a congressional committee is challenging the "facts" used by Al Gore in his "An Inconvenient Truth" movie, saying science just doesn't validate concerns that such factors are significant environmentally.
Now the avalanche of new bans may be hard to slow down. In a report in the Times Online, officials said directives from the European Union soon will force manufacturers to produce more efficient bulbs in greater numbers.
"We expect that legally binding eco-standards will be set for energy efficiency and therefore gradually you would only be able to buy those light bulbs that meet the target. So effectively it would phase out the inefficient ones," the official said.
The ban plans already are being implemented in some nations, and in the United States, though it hasn't been enacted nationally yet, several states are well on their way toward such bans, including trend-setting California as well as Connecticut, North Carolina and Rhode Island.
In North Carolina, Rep. Pricey Harrison has suggested a statewide ban starting in 2016 on the sale of incandescent bulbs.
ven local governments are getting into the act. In New York state, a Westchester County plan would ban all incandescents from being used in county facilities at the end of this year, and ban the sale of such bulbs countywide at the end of 2009.
Most of us go through the day in the dark about how our individual habits contribute to global warming," said county legislator Martin Rogowsky. "We need to turn on the light, so to speak, in all of us and get to the point where everyone is aware that simple, painless measures, like switching what kind of light bulb you use, are the kinds of battles that will win the warn on global warming."
"This legislation is an important step toward making every home, business and public building in America more energy efficient," U.S. Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., said in announcing her proposed national ban. "Most of us still use the same glass and filament bulbs that Thomas Edison invented 128 years ago. When it comes to illumination, we still live in a cave."
Her plan technically would ban the sale of any light bulb that fails to meet the standards set by current fluorescent bulbs, but the opinion is nearly unanimous that those targeted would be incandescent bulbs.
It also creates an increasingly higher standard of lumens per watt of illumination for coming years.
It is part of the effort to counter the dire forecasts made by former Vice President Al Gore and others that unless something changes, global warming will melt icecaps and raise ocean levels, drowning out lives and habitat.
U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, has said, however, that the "facts" used in Gore's film simply are not supported by science, and if Gore's plan would be followed specifically, there would be no new businesses, cars or even people allowed in the United States.
"You just gave us an idea for a straight CO2 freeze, if I heard you correctly. I think that's an idea that's flawed. If you take that literally, we can add no new industry, nor new cars and trucks on our streets, and apparently no new people," Barton, who represents the 6th District in Texas, told Gore at a congressional hearing. "People are mobile-source emitters. Every person emits 0.2 tons of CO2 a year, so an absolute true freeze would be no new industry, no new people, and no new cars."
Gore has called such warming "a crisis that is by far the most serious we've faced," and described it as "a true planetary emergency."
Harman, who serves on the Energy & Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Air Quality, said ordinary incandescent light bulbs now generate about 12-15 lumens per watt, but her plan would require all bulbs sold to generate at least 60 lumens per watt, which she said is about the level of output for today's fluorescent bulbs.
By 2016 that level would be raised to 90 lumens per watt, and by 2020, the minimum would be set at 120 lumens, she said.
"Using this standard – create in consultation with technical experts in the environmental community, architects, engineers, and others – the bill does not discriminate against any bulb type or technological composition," said Harman's announcement. "But it does create a standard that makes sense for the market, for the environment, and for America's energy future."
"We must change the way we consume and produce energy in this country. Sometimes the most effective, accessible ideas are the smallest. One small change that everyone can make is as simple as changing a light bulb," Harman said.
She noted the plan does include exemptions for circumstances in the military, medical or public safety fields where other lighting would be needed.
"But these would be small exceptions rather than the rule," she said. In such cases, someone selling such a bulb would be required to seek a waiver and have it approved by a Department of Energy panel, and those waivers would be good only for two years, "pushing the market toward more innovation," she noted.
She said at the present, only 10 percent of the power used by incandescent bulbs is turned into light, with 90 percent being released as heat. And she said a typical 60 watt bulb lasts up to 1,000 hours, while many fluorescent bulbs can last up to 10 times longer.
"The continued widespread use of incandescent lighting results in low overall efficiency, high energy costs and output, and in the end, tons and tons of harmful carbon emissions," her announcement said. "According to the Department of Energy, one energy efficient bulb can prevent the release of over 450 pounds of greenhouse gases."
U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Ill., also has said the bills Americans have to pay for electricity would drop dramatically if everyone just switched to the more energy efficient light bulbs.
He said the inefficient bulbs would be replaced with fluorescent lamps, halogen lamps, or light-emitting diode lamps.
"In these times of rising energy prices, Americans can dramatically lower their electric bills simply by switching to energy-efficient light bulbs," said Manzullo, "This change can reap significant money savings while reducing our energy use and cleaning our environment."
He estimated the actual energy demand reductions would save consumers and business owners about $18 billion annually, and the annual energy demand for lighting would drop by the equivalent of the generation from 30 nuclear power plants or 60 coal burning power plants.
Harman called her plan a "first step" toward making America more energy-efficient.
"This legislation, while a small step, could have an enormous impact. And hopefully, it can help transform American into an energy-efficient and energy-independent nation," she said.
One United Kingdom consumer, however, said there will be difficulties:
"If we all start using eco bulbs then I suggest we all start using night vision goggles, because the eco bulbs are useless," wrote Peter H., from London. "The box told me that it gave out the same level of light. The box was WRONG. I tried them. The bulbs were terrible, I could barely see to the other side of the room.
"It could save you money on your bills but you would spend the rest off (sic) your life in and out of hospital because you don't have fluorescent walls and furniture," he continued. "Save yourself a trip to the hospital, use normal bulbs.
Among the plans being developed, too, there is no mention of how to handle the mercury from old fluorescent bulbs. Mercury, a highly persistent and toxic chemical, can build up to dangerous concentrations in fish, wildlife, and human beings.
I had one of these bulbs the local utility offered at a reduced price as a gimmick to reduce demand. One day it started sparking and smoking and I had to shut the lite off. If I was away, it might have started a fire. This is not to mention that the light intensity is awful and makes me go blind with eye strain.
I'm all for energy efficiency, but these incandescent fluorescent replacement bulbs are not the answer. I also disagree that the government should have anything to do with it. It ought to be my own decision based on my (non government inflated) electric bill.
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dsr/research/mercury-bulbs.pdf
There's going to be a lot more mercury out there.
We [government] mandate too much. If these CF bulbs are so superior, then why can't the marketplace decide what is best? Polluting vehicles and housing material requirements are more connected to health and safety rather than cost savings.
There are pros and cons associated with CF bulbs. It is an evolving technology that needs to address some of the cons before total conversion could even become a possibility. Let the USG convert all of its facilities to CF bulbs first. Or will they buy CF indulgences from Al Gore?
No wonder the Philips company is trying to get them mandated.
-- the fluorescent bulbs save electricity and last longer. I don't see why incandescent bulbs should be allowed any more. We don't allow smoke belching factories in the hearts of our cities, nor smoke belching cars, so why not retrict these old bulbs?""
I have up close and personal experience with these bulbs that everyone thinks are the latest answer to everything.
They cost my client $8 each for his office. They said they lasted 8000 hours. He was open from 8:30 to 5 every day. Closed for lunch and on weekends. We replaced the bulbs as often as every 3 months, and I don't remember one lasting even as long as 5 months.
Do the math--- that is nowhere near 8000 hours.
They are useless in cold situations. No longer a light in your refrigerator? Nothing in your garage?? How about the security lights on your house or elsewhere on your property??? Is this what you want?
$8 for a bulb instead of about 99 cents. Less actual light output. Much less length of time usage. Doesn't work in cold. Has excess Mercury in it, and, if past history means anything, we will be charged a serious surcharge to dispose of them.
The biggest parts of your electric bill are: Air conditioning-----Heat in all electric homes---Hair dryers---toasters---electric range--electric clothes dryer.
I don't have air conditioning. I have a house equal in size to my neighbors. We obviously have very similar weather circumstances. My summer electric bill has only once been $125.00, and I pump my own water, as do they. Neighbors with A/C have bills between $475.00 and $600.00 a month in the summer.
We have created a society that wants to be in a narrow "comfort zone" at all times. I grew up without anything close to air conditioning. Now EVERY dwelling/business/automobile MUST have A/C. We have become pampered beyond belief. Now you are attacking light bulbs over pennies, while stepping over dollars.
All of the followers of this theory are just plain nuts.
Now tell me again about how much money I am going to save by changing from 99 cents bulbs to $8 bulbs... $8 bulbs which don't last as long.
Have you ever tried one of those fluorescents in your cold garage? On the front porch? As security "motion detected" lighting outdoors? In a cold cellar?
Sure, you could replace some of those applications with MUCH higher wattage bulbs, or multiple bulbs and fixtures, or mercury vapor, etc... but fluorescents don't hack it in many applications.
Any time the on/off cycle that is short is inherently bad, VERY BAD, for the fluorescents. They have a very long warm up time during which they are dim, and each time they are cycled it greatly shortens their lifetime. Turn them on and off enough, and the additional energy it costs to make them exceeds the electricity they "save".
I USE the compact fluorescents in several areas of my home: where they are turned on and will remain on for hours. That is where they shine.
Banning them will result in inefficiency.
What about the mercury, and the headaches"
For those of us with eyeglasses, the coating against CF's is very expensive. I need to pay $175 more just to get that protective coating when I buy glasses. Since I am basically retired, I skipped it on my last pair, and now the government is mandating I get headaches????
They work fine outdoors when you give them a long time to warm up. Usually, when I go out to the porch or garage at night, it is for short periods - say, five or so minutes. By the time I turn the light back off, a CF will barely have reached reasonable light. Big tube fluorescents are only a little better.
Sorry... for many of us, CFs are not good options for many of the applications we have in our homes.
Those stupid waterbased paints are not even close to being as good as the oil based paints when you go to paint your house. "
Thank you for reminding me about that.
The enviros forced changes in paint formulas, and they made the problem worse:
Say that an old style gallon of paint contained 100 units of pollutants.
Say that the new style gallon of paint now mandated contains 50 units of same pollutants.
Old style paint lasted 15 to 20 years, and often better brands guaranteed long life with their paints.
New style gallon of paint lasts 3-4 yers at best, and coverage is not satisfactory.
So--the enviros have made you change from a 15-20 year paint to a 3-4 year paint.
You are painting 4-5 times as often, using 4-5 times more paint.
100 units once every 15 years.
50 units every 3-4 years.
Uses 4-5 times the gallons of paint, so now you have created up to 250 units of pollution instead of 100 units.
I haven't even factored into the math the poor coverage of the newer style of paint. That increases the pollution in the new style even more.
These light bulbs are no different.
The Government is hawking a policy similar to the Emperor's new clothes.
I forgot to discuss the 4-5 times labor costs if the homeowner isn't doing the painting himself.
Sure hurts the homeowner who is living on a fixed income.
For many of us, the cost of living isn't very fixed, but the money we have to do it with is VERY fixed.
If they're worried about the heat generated by incandescent bulbs, can a move on halogens be far behind?
Wait 'til they come after hot water. You ain't seen nutin' yet.
Of late I've been in the shower (pending crisis or not ;-) noting how much energy goes into heating the hot water source, only to be negated by mixing with cold water to adjust it to "just right". One shower per person per day times a billion or so makes that a LOT of wasted energy. Hilarity will ensue when they come after showers...
Ask the advocates if the type of one's light bulb is so important as to warrant fines, imprisonment or (if the former two are sufficiently resisted) death.
Or photography? or any other normal application where the type of light source is vital?
Idiots think they can, with a few minutes pondering, cover all the impact of such laws.
Umm...because the alternatives suck? I keep trying CFLs, and keep regretting it. The color is bad, the startup flicker is bad, the price is high, disposal is toxic, the brightness isn't, ... frankly the emitted light itself seems toxic.
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.