Re: Cali Initiative
“
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.
Gee, someone at Levine’s office should have checked their facts... much less the news paper could have easily shot down this rational as being stupid. In debate, pull apart a part of an argument as being false and misleading and you with any skill have just won the debate. Who can tear this statement apart, beyond it being a lamp not a
bulb?
"5% of the energy of “heater lamps” converted into the visible light spectrum" I would have to check my facts on that number and it would be dependant on the lamp of course. Anyone up for the challenge in what a lamp manufacturer such as in Osram’s Low
Voltage Filament Lamp
manual on their construction says? None the less, what ever the percentage of energy, it’s a valid reason -
incandescent heater lamps are terribly inefficient. See that earlier post like last month "New Lamp Technology" about the new technology in lamps which in theory would compensate for this. (
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_e...n_news&lang=en) Home Lighting Press Product Innovations Archive 2006 "Ecoboost_technology."
Also the concept of
dichroic coated lamps which reflect the un-used IR spectrum back to the
filament,
halogen, krypton and xenon lamps which absorb the spent
filament and re-deposit it onto the hottest part of the
filament so as to extend the lamp life and boost output, in other types of ways, suppress heat within the
filament so it can burn at a hotter
color temperature and output for less wattage, and in general provide for a lamp that can burn more efficiently. Also into liquid filled xenon
projector lamps which replaces the
halogen effect with a liquid I don’t know much about yet but sounds really good.
Greenhouse emmissions.... not familiar with a specific link between lamp heat off an
incandescent lamp and ozone, but it could be indirectly linked by way of
power generation and heating/cooling. In other words, this background info in California leading the way in cutting greenhouse emissions, while providing background for why California is a trend setter (Hollywierd), and a noble intent also by it’s placement here next to lamps implies a direct link between
incandescent lamps and greenhouse gasses - short of explanation of it not having a direct link to this factor, it is misleading. To some extent it’s both noble and accurate that removing standard
incandescent lamps from household fixtures due to heat and energy efficiency will
play a factor in greenhouse gas generation, specifically there is no direct link, this is simply misleading without explination.
Compact
fluorescent lamps do use about 25% as much energy ... A for instance FLE15/A2/A23/SW/CD from GE for instance will at 15 Watts / 825 Lumens / 6,000 hours replace a few types of 50 to 60w / 800 to 890
Lumen / 1,000 hour lamps. Problem comes in with
voltage drop, cold weather operation, and most especially color
rendering index. The GE lamp with a
CRI of 82 is nice but it’s not 100% that of
daylight and or any
incandescent lamp that gives off a full spectrum of light. Remember them older guys about who went to grade school in the 1970's - 1980's or before and noted over a period of one’s going to classes how the fluorescents’ tended to make one appear “green” under the
fluorescent lighting provided by the school? Now granted the
fluorescent lamps of yesterday used to range in
CRI from say 52 to 70, still we are talking about percentages of green - not so nice looking light coming out of fake light sources in the end. 82% is still 82% that of 100% natural lighting. Unless we all wish to go out and
play in the sun a few hours a day, or install homeopathy “health / healing” light boxes in our houses to sit in front of a few hours a day,
incandescent lighting is healthy to use. 82% of that is 82% as healthy to live under - hmm, California, suppose light boxes will be a tax write off. Wasn’t there a movie from the 1960's where everyone had to
line up and stand in front of such things? Not “Solant Green” (great movie!) but a similar movie I think. Best
CRI I’m aware of is 88 and sometimes down to 62. Are we to assume that those that can afford to specify what specific lamps will say light the Picasso hanging in the
hall - as best one can light such a thing with any
fluorescent lamp, than are to be the of social class healthy ones, the rest of the population that buys their household lamps at the local WalMart are forced to live under un-healthy lighting in taking it to an extreme? Just get out and get more sunlight... and let them eat cake. Again, taking it to an extreme this concept but valid no less than the amount of facts provided in the article.
While it’s good that some are
RFI surpressing we also get into a whole nother ball of wax also in this concept and that of
phase harmonics. The article cites a link to the EPA as helping to persuade the argument against these
incandescent lamps. It is now also implied by providing as written background info on better alternatives, the EPA recommends such a ban on
incandescent light bulbs. Not specifically stated but implied. The EPA recommends it says
CFL’s but does it also recommend a total ban on
incandescent lamps? This granted the past national legislation of IMPACT 1986 which banned over a phased in period of time all 150w
PAR 38 lamps often before then used for
stage lighting and most older forms of 40w T-12
fluorescent lamp including most forms of the warm white lamp. This amongst many other types of lamp - many of which are still on the market, just under a more efficient variation of it.
There is ways around IMPACT 1986 in that only the in general lines of 150w
incandescent PAR 38 lamp was taken off the market in the US at least, and in fact, such rules lead the way beyond the crappy “WattMaster” alternatives available at the time, to our now standard
halogen PAR 38 lamps. Also as specific to IMPACT was not banned various alternate from the norm forms of this lamp such as those of
halogen based / krypton and or
dichroic and other “specialty” lamps not of the norm such as a long life version or even to some extent 130v
PAR 38 lamp as also long life but naturally by way of the market went away. 40w
Fluorescent T-12 four
foot lamps are also still on the market... not the ones banned which were inefficient, more the ones that are worth buying still.
Bans on lamps are not so unusual, in fact it’s about time that more lamps were banned for the most part. Sure the say 60w
incandescent lamp is inefficient and there is lots on the market more efficient. At times it also takes a national or in this case local push to remove such things from the market so as to push the manufacturers away from marketing what’s cheap and easy and onto other things that are better and or pushing technology for better replacements. Such a ban on lamps - given The Bush leadership would never... is as similar to IMPACT nationally kind of a good thing. It will further push technology in refining better compact
fluorescent lamps, also push the market towards better other than normal
incandescent or compact
fluorescent as we now know them lamp improvements. Don’t worry, as with IMPACT, such lamps in a class such as the “
Reveal” type lamp that color corrects and lots of other versions of lamp such as
halogen or krypton filled will always be around (or at least for the next few generations), so will such lamps as a 20,000 hour
incandescent lamp and some of the 4,000 hour if not most 2,000 hour lamps in such a lamp type still be available. On the other
hand, think of how mounmental it would be if say the 25, 40, 60, and 100 A-19 standard household grade
incandescent frosted lamp could at some
point be removed from the market. I already have a flip phone that does more than the ones on Star Trek, why not get the lamps part of the concept show moving? Does it mean cold
cathode as a further development item? This movement towards the future and getting rid of what's easy and innefficient but only that and not the better lamps of similar classes - I would fully expect once the general concept people wishing to just get rid of it all be done with their headlines, and detail people take over. Too
broad and sweeping the law and it's hurting not just the people that have to now live with such rules but also the market with better replacement technology already out there in limitating what can be brought to bear. As with the past I would hope, only the main common lamps are discontinued - the special lamps - makes you look "natural" soft pink color correcting types amongst lots of others including "antique reproduction" now also popular would tend to have an exception.
On lamp life... a normal
incandescent lamp is rated for about 1,000 hours, a compact
fluorescent for about 8,000 hours. Correct me if I’m wrong but that’s not 13x longer as stated in the article as a further fact check. Often that figure is 6,000 and just as often 12,000 hours in life. I believe that this quoted “Rocky Mountain Institute” is optimizing the facts a
bit. There are some 40,000 and 50,000 hour compact
fluorescent lamps out there on the market, they are more rarities and would rate to the 20,000 hour
incandescent lamps of the same long life type how?
Again,
CFL’s are more cost effective and energy efficient to use. Cost savings on
CFL’s as stated by way of $40.00 to $50.00 per year also depends upon average lamp life and "start up price" in conversion as modified by amount of start up’s that compact
fluorescent has struck an arc in playing against lamp life. Your washroom or closet lamp... is it really going to live up to it’s expected lamp life in hours or cost more in the long run given it’s not left on long and each time you
strike an arc in it, you defeated a part of the expected lamp life? Might the cost of persay having to replace more closet lamps than
incandescent lamps in the same location
play a factor in say that long run savings? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t in general have a problem with compact
fluorescent lamps as a lamp type - nice, all lamps have a purpose... just think that this article and rational for velleity in legislation is very slanted.
CFL lamps have improved, they have a way to go yet before I’ll start using them at home. This granted at home I can probably count on one
hand how many normal
incandescent lamps I’m using. This by education, design and choice not legislation. This granted that 1986 IMPACT did by way of
PAR 38 and 40wT12 lamps
play a
role in my life by way of my seeking to find alternatives once forced into learning.
“Clearly an idea whose time has come” - Rosenfeld... Yes and no in my opinion. Yes in it’s time that the country as often
led by California did some to save the environment and yes, I would be willing to start getting rid of normal
incandescent lamps. Still, above is a presentation of concepts to consider in what’s available now, what will easily replace such lamps but also as opposed to a few cents per lamp, what will also burden those who often cannot afford such things to new laws making them pay more in not fully solving all the problems by way of easy replacement.
For it, yes... but for the rational and politics in arguement... I’ll leave that open and subject for debate. There is technology on the horizon which is already changing the market and will further. Such a law would no doubt help get it on the market sooner and get the old stuff off the market also sooner. Beyond that, the new stuff is coming anyway but it probably would be good as long as the ban has a decent length
phase in period, not mean much and be only sufficient to force those stuck on old technology, to change to better gear. At some
point one can safely give up the push lawnmower for the gas one. Note no bans on gas lawnmowers - that would be un-American... But such as technology leads away from the floor sweeper towards the vacuum, the market and customers will follow technology or in me some day either having to buy an
adaptor or a HD TV, at times the market has to be forced into improving stuff. Bata went to VCR went to Compact Disc went to ... Market can do it, government can push it sooner than the market in helping. Just a question of if the market is or will be ready by the time government lays it’s
foot down. Otherwise it’s not the rich donars to such policy or the well intended legislators that hurt, but those that cannot afford a few bucks per lamp that will pay and not see any real benefit.
On the fence on this post. Yep, for and in certain ways against it. The Devil is in the detail. Most likely if or even if not this legislation is passed we will owe a debt of gratitude to this grand standing poitician for if nothing else, pushing the market to it's enevitable end result faster and in concern for the planet. On the other
hand, such a politician does not take into account where the industry is already naturally going, and what sort of problems such taking a stand - "dam the torpeods, full steam ahead" approach would have on those who cannot afford food on the table but needing to fork over more cash for at times limited of use lamps now that more economical lamps that would in certain instances work better potentially for now mean to them. Un-funded legislation I would think is something as a concept this rep. would be against, would as part of this law, the price on compact
fluorescent lamps = supposedly the optimum lamp to replace such inefficient heater lamps, also be willing to subsidize the price of
CFL's?