California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

blackredyellow
blackredyellow Posts: 5,889
edited February 2007 in A Moving Train
I think that this is a good energy conservation law. Not only does it makes sense in terms of energy, but it also saves people money in the long run.

I was also surprised to read that conventional light bulbs convert only 5% of the energy they receive into light...



California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

By Bernie WoodallTue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET

A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.

If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.

Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.

While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.

"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."

Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.

About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.

A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.

Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.

California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.

While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.

"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.

Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070131/sc_nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc;_ylt=AjGff.ZC7rBtD24.VgrsW7EDW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--
My whole life
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Post edited by Unknown User on
«13

Comments

  • keeponrockin
    keeponrockin Posts: 7,446
    I think that that's a fantastic idea.
    Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
  • macgyver06
    macgyver06 Posts: 2,500
    the conventional lightbulb movement is outraged!
    the CLMO
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Stay tuned for future legislation regarding mandating low-flow showerheads and banning showers longer than 5 mins.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • floyd1975
    floyd1975 Posts: 1,350
    I don't like this idea one bit. I switched to other light bulbs a while ago an it dramatically reduced my electric bill but a ban is ridiculous. It is California though...
  • :rolleyes:
  • know1 wrote:
    Stay tuned for future legislation regarding mandating low-flow showerheads and banning showers longer than 5 mins.

    if the area needs to save energy, is that too much of a sacrifice? that is a "freedom" id be willing to give up.
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • NMyTree
    NMyTree Posts: 2,374
    Don't some CFL bulbs contain mercury?
  • Cosmo
    Cosmo Posts: 12,225
    I'm already doing that.
    and I don't know what the beef is... I think it's great... conservation. Like recycling. Most of the counties in California institute recycling (supplying seperate receptacles for garbage destined for the landfills and dumps or for the recycling center for metal glass and paper).
    Are people against it because they are against conservation... or they just don't like being told to conserve?
    Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
    Hail, Hail!!!
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    if the area needs to save energy, is that too much of a sacrifice? that is a "freedom" id be willing to give up.

    Don't showers pose more of an energy threat than lightbulbs? What if there were legislation saying you could only take 1 per day and it couldn't be longer than 5 mins? I just think it's a slippery slope to start limiting people's energy use.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    Cosmo wrote:
    Are people against it because they are against conservation... or they just don't like being told to conserve?

    Or they don't like being forced.

    I always wore a seatbelt because it was the smart thing to do. When they passed the mandatory seatbelt law in my state I was pissed. Not because it was the right or smart thing to wear a seatbelt, but because the government, through force, demanded that I wear one.

    Same with helmet laws. I'm a rider. I wear a helmet. I do so not because the government forces me to.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    know1 wrote:
    Don't showers pose more of an energy threat than lightbulbs? What if there were legislation saying you could only take 1 per day and it couldn't be longer than 5 mins? I just think it's a slippery slope to start limiting people's energy use.

    Good call. Just like those mandated low volume toilets. Now people have to flush those fuckers 2 or 3 times to do the job an old fashion flush used to.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • know1 wrote:
    Don't showers pose more of an energy threat than lightbulbs? What if there were legislation saying you could only take 1 per day and it couldn't be longer than 5 mins? I just think it's a slippery slope to start limiting people's energy use.

    it could be if they do it in the wrong fashion. maybe they want to start small to see how people react. i have no clue. but, it shouldn't be demanded by gov't that people conserve. people should conserve b/c they care. a lot of people don't care about the energy crisis, so the cali gov't is stepping in,...
    you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
    ~Ron Burgundy
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    jeffbr wrote:
    Good call. Just like those mandated low volume toilets. Now people have to flush those fuckers 2 or 3 times to do the job an old fashion flush used to.

    We have those at work. I definitely flush them at least 3 times.
    The only people we should try to get even with...
    ...are those who've helped us.

    Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    its funny ... many here have no problem with the patriot act but once they start talking lightbulbs - anarchy is the next step ...
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    polaris wrote:
    its funny ... many here have no problem with the patriot act but once they start talking lightbulbs - anarchy is the next step ...

    True. I don't understand that, either. But then again, I'm opposed to the Patriot Act as well.

    Conversely, why do people who like the government telling them what to do when it comes to lightbulbs and smoking and trans fats have a problem with the government telling them the what to do when it comes to reproduction, marriage, or privacy?

    I think the government should stay out of all of it.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jeffbr wrote:
    True. I don't understand that, either. But then again, I'm opposed to the Patriot Act as well.

    Conversely, why do people who like the government telling them what to do when it comes to lightbulbs and smoking and trans fats have a problem with the government telling them the what to do when it comes to reproduction, marriage, or privacy?

    I think the government should stay out of all of it.

    the big difference is some people are only focusing on the fact it is gov't legislation while some look at the impact ...

    someone wrote that they got pissed when the gov't passed a law on something they were doing anyways ... its like the purpose of the law is secondary to the fact they don't like gov't period ...

    these aren't black and white issues ... they should be decided on a case by case basis ...
  • jeffbr
    jeffbr Seattle Posts: 7,177
    polaris wrote:
    the big difference is some people are only focusing on the fact it is gov't legislation while some look at the impact ...

    someone wrote that they got pissed when the gov't passed a law on something they were doing anyways ... its like the purpose of the law is secondary to the fact they don't like gov't period ...

    these aren't black and white issues ... they should be decided on a case by case basis ...

    But in all of these cases, we are allowing the government to set precident and policy where they shouldn't be. So rather than implicitly granting acknowlegement of governments role and looking at these issues case by case, I'll continue to bark about the government being involved in the first place. For some of us it is more black and white than you think. I'm sure for those who relish the nanny state, the only think to decide is how active you want the nanny to be.
    "I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
  • polaris
    polaris Posts: 3,527
    jeffbr wrote:
    But in all of these cases, we are allowing the government to set precident and policy where they shouldn't be. So rather than implicitly granting acknowlegement of governments role and looking at these issues case by case, I'll continue to bark about the government being involved in the first place. For some of us it is more black and white than you think. I'm sure for those who relish the nanny state, the only think to decide is how active you want the nanny to be.

    shouldn't be is subjective ... should there be open speed limits on the road? ... should we allow people to settle disputes with guns? ...

    either way ... putting a ban on conventional lightbulbs is not like banning abortion to me ...
  • polaris wrote:
    shouldn't be is subjective ... should there be open speed limits on the road?

    Yes.
    should we allow people to settle disputes with guns?

    If that's what they want, yes. Dueling should be completely legal.
    either way ... putting a ban on conventional lightbulbs is not like banning abortion to me ...

    Hehe...why not?