Posted on 01/23/2011 10:17:15 AM PST by TaxPayer2000
The brightest bulb in most homes for more than a century is fading toward darkness this year as California turns out the light on the century-old incandescent.
Beginning Jan. 1, the state began phasing out certain energy-sucking bulbs, federal standards the rest of the country will enact next year.
Manufacturers will no longer make the traditional 100-watt bulb and stores will eventually sell out of current supplies. Consumers will have to choose from more efficient bulbs that use no more than 72 watts, including halogen incandescents, compact fluorescents and light-emitting diode, or LED, bulbs.
"These standards will help cut our nation's electric bill by over $10 billion a year and will save the equivalent electricity as 30 large power plants," said Noah Horowitz a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "That translates into a whole lot less global warming pollution being emitted."
The change is part of the federal Energy Independence and Security Act that President George Bush signed in 2007, to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. California was allowed to adopt the national standard one year earlier.
The act requires new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy beginning in 2012 nationally — starting with the 100-watt bulb. By 2014, other incandescent bulbs, including the 75-, 60- and 40-watt, will also be phased out across the country.
Some specialty bulbs, however, will continue to be available. Consumers will still be able to get smaller lights such as yellow bug lights and aquarium bulbs.
Light bulb manufacturers said they haven't gotten any reports of customers hoarding 100-watt bulbs yet, though that may change once supplies begin to dry up and word gets out.
Nick Reynoza, manager at Royal Lighting in Los Angeles, said it's a shame the transition comes at a time when alternatives are so much more expensive.
"It's not really an option — you have this or you don't get anything," he said. "The options are more expensive. Four incandescents are $1.00, the halogens are $5.99 and the LED are like $20."
While conservation groups back the change and the lighting industry has invested heavily in new technology, not everyone supports the law. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, who could not immediately be reached for comment, reintroduced legislation this year to repeal the law.
"People don't want Congress dictating what light fixtures they can use," said Rep. Barton on his website. "Traditional incandescent bulbs are cheap and reliable."
Adam Gottlieb, spokesman for the California Energy Commission, acknowledged that the change has resulted in a "great deal of hue and cry" on some blogs as well. Recent postings have included the titles "More dim bulbs: California banning 100-watt incandescent light bulbs" and "More evidence that California is nuts."
Gottlieb, however, said it was not a ban and that consumers can still buy whatever bulbs they want as long as they meet the new standards.
"After 130 years Tom Edison's old-fashioned light bulb is getting a 20th century makeover," he said. "The simple truth is consumers will save money."
The newer bulbs are more expensive than incandescents, but supporters of the technology say they last so much longer that there is a financial savings in the end. For example, while incandescents provide as much as 2,000 hours of light, compact fluorescents can provide light for six times longer.
Incandescents, which create light by passing an electric current through a tungsten wire filament, also waste 90 percent of the electricity they use as heat instead of light. Fluorescents, by comparison, apply an electrical current to different types of phosphers to produce light and produce less heat.
But fans of the traditional bulb say they provide a softer, more natural light and turn on more quickly. Michael Petras, president of GE Lighting, said the industry is aware of the shortcomings and is working to refine the technology.
"We've got compact fluorescents that look like incandescents," he said from the company's headquarters in Cleveland. "We have a product coming out this spring that's a hybrid of compact fluorescent and halogen that will provide energy savings and a better start up time."
Australia was the first to begin phasing out incandescents beginning in 2009, followed by the European Union, the Philippines and Argentina, said Petras. Mexico and Brazil are expected to follow the U.S.
Last one out of California can turn it off.
Consumers will save money....especially when they all plug in their electric cars and they have to pay for the electric AND for the expansion of the Grid AND for new stringent criteria by the EPA.
The headlong drive to the stone age continues unabated.
Hmm. Think about that a while ~ electric lighting is totally man-made ~ it's no more natural than that pre-cooked artificial bacon and bacon byproduct stuff sold in boxes at room temperature!
Then there's "Wheat and Polenta Bread" used to make French Toast. Sure, that'll work ~ but why?
“energy-sucking”
Heh.
It has NOTHING to do with saving consumers money;it is ,like the government mandated digital TV and radio,simply a way to FORCE the consumer to spend more,thus keeping the factories in business.(Chinese factories,at that.)
“”These standards will help cut our nation’s electric bill by over $10 billion a year and will save the equivalent electricity as 30 large power plants,” said Noah Horowitz a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “That translates into a whole lot less global warming pollution being emitted.”
The left is telling a fairy tale about lighting technology. Consumers are rational for the large part. They will choose the lighting technology that best satisfies their needs. Consumers consider purchase price, longetivity, lighting quality, energy consumption and other features. Consumers would choose CFL, LED, and other new technologies appropriately. For prolonged lighting situations, these new technologies often are good alternatives. For non prolonged lighting situations, incandescants are often better.
There is no net benefit from restricting consumer choices. Consumers would already choose new technologies when appropriate. The left is forcing inappropriate choices, costing consumers large amounts. For a bathroom fixture that is operated for only short periods, new lighting technologies deliver little if any energy gains but cost consumers much higher amounts. In addition, some consumers value the light quality of incandescants. These consumers are willing to incur more energy energy usage for better light quality.
The incandescant ban is just another energy boondoggle alongside a growing list including ethanol, biofuels, wind power, solar power, ...
Good point. How many of these people pushing the mercury-laden (man-made) bulbs are also devotees of fake, soy-based “meat” products?
“The headlong drive to the stone age continues unabated.”
THAT is the real objective, turn CA and the USA into a third world stone age nation, by destroying our economy with insane government regulations.
The worst is that people are just sitting tight and putting up with it, and we’ll all be like frogs, getting slowly cooked to death, because this infringement on our freedoms is incremental — why should people get upset if the government tells you how much water you can use in your toilet, shower, what lightbulbs to use in your own house, these are just “small” things, and next thing we know we won’t have ANY freedoms left.
“federal standards the rest of the country will enact next year.”
And nobody is fighting this...
So will CA set up border stations to check people coming in for the old bulbs??
“No freedoms left” is exactly right, and furthermore, elections will be so rigged we won’t have a Congress to overturn anything.
“No freedoms left” is exactly right, and furthermore, elections will be so rigged we won’t have a Congress to overturn anything.
Rush Limbaugh had this video of a fireplace with a log burning ~ now that's "natural" ~ the rest is totally fake!
There's even fake bacon, and fake beef ~ they make "fake beef flavor" to put in the Heinz "pure nachurl" ketchup packets at McDonalds ~ but that beef flavor is made out of WHEAT and 3.54% of us can't eat wheat!
I have to take my own ketchup to McDonalds!
And you might ask why McDonald's put artificial beef flavor in ketchup? It was to make up for the fact they took the tallow out of the pure, vegetarian oil they fried their pure vegetarian potatoes in ~ and you know what tallow comes from, right? TRIGLYCERIDE FACTORIES (of course)!
NO IT DOESN'T. Tallow comes from cows! MOOOOOOOOOO! Cows make tallow. McDonald's melted it down and put it in oil. That flavored the french fries. Then, they took the tallow out of the french fry oil, so to "flavor" the fries they added it to the ketchup.
Fake. Fake. Fake and people are kvetching about their lightbulbs? They've even forgotten ALL LIGHTBULBS are fake.
Give me a firebrand anytime!
“These standards will help cut our nation’s electric bill by over $10 billion a year and will save the equivalent electricity as 30 large power plants,”
And they’ll spend all that and more by buying double lights and cleaning the toxic metals out of landfills.
Oh, and people will have less to pay for it as the new bulbs are only made in countries like China. The American incandescent bulb plants are all closing.
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.