# California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

#### Pie4Weebl

##### Well-Known Member
Fight Leukemia
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012

EDIT [[[ Note: Ship has somehow successfully merged two the same topics into one. First two pages might be strange but all is cronoligically ordered according to post so as to be as one.]]]

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.

Last edited by a moderator:

#### What Rigger?

##### I'm so fly....I Neverland.
Yep, I can see it now: a ban on incandescent lighting that's just as effective as the smoking ban in bars!!! Now pass me that S4 and light my Marlboro.

Last edited:

#### Footer

##### Senior Team
Senior Team
Just wait till the studios get a hold of this a shoot it out in .2 seconds. I personally like the idea that I can walk into a space, press 4 buttons, and use the same amount of power in an hour that a house uses in a week. At least it isn't a law trying to switch us all to LED's. The sad thing is though is that most of a home's power is used up in heating/cooling (and for those of us who get to pay those wonderful bills can easily see that). Computers, CRT monitors, TV's, and the like really are the culprits. Yes incandescents pull a lot of power that fluorescents don't, but I see no way of this bill going through and staying there. As I said before, the second you tell a movie studio you can't use incandescent fixture its going to hit the fan...

CB Mods

#### kamikaze

##### Member
I can agree with this in an enviornmentalist view, but then again i also feel for theatre and movie and tv people. Myabe there should be a rider inserted that exempts theatre and concerts and studios. All tours that go through cali will have to completely change their systems if they go through there.

#### Van

##### CBMod
CB Mods
I can agree with this in an enviornmentalist view, but then again i also feel for theatre and movie and tv people. Myabe there should be a rider inserted that exempts theatre and concerts and studios. All tours that go through cali will have to completely change their systems if they go through there.

I agree. From an Enviromental view point, This is a great idea. However from a practicle stand point it doesn't hold water. Make it apply to one industry and not another and trhe courts will toss it out asap. Make it apply only to residential and A. It doesn't do enough and B. enforcement will be next to impossible.

#### Footer

##### Senior Team
Senior Team
I agree. From an Enviromental view point, This is a great idea. However from a practicle stand point it doesn't hold water. Make it apply to one industry and not another and trhe courts will toss it out asap. Make it apply only to residential and A. It doesn't do enough and B. enforcement will be next to impossible.
Well instead of illegal aliens being trucked over from Mexico, now illegal light bulbs will be trucked in from not only Mexico but Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon. That'll show 'em

#### Van

##### CBMod
CB Mods
Well instead of illegal aliens being trucked over from Mexico, now illegal light bulbs will be trucked in from not only Mexico but Nevada, Arizona, and Oregon. That'll show 'em
OOOh I hadn't thought about that, Maybe Gafftaper and I should buy a truck We'll et Ship to send us lightbulbs routing tem from O'hare, to Seatac, then down here. Load them on a truck and sell them for a 500% mark up in Yreaka. Bladerunners ? No. Bulb-runners.

#### CowboyDan

##### Member
A new market for organized crime. I love this country.

#### jwl868

##### Active Member
They can write the legislation to include or exclude any groups they want. (Hazardous waste regulations do not apply to domestic wastes; fluorescent tubes can be tossed in the household trash.) An exemption for the theater and movie industry is technically no problem, assuming it gets passed in the legislature.

[I am trying to imagine some of the indirect results of the law: a misdemeaner for having just enough bulbs for personal use, but a felony for having a quantity with intent to sell. And an entire new genre of police television series...]

Joe

#### Grog12

##### CBMod
CB Mods
Re: Cali Initiative

Oops..just saw that...

#### Grog12

##### CBMod
CB Mods
I just love the fact that its geared at saving the average home 40 or 50 dollars a year......If 40 or 50 a year is gonna make or break you you should probably stop your drug addiction of choice.

#### Schniapereli

##### Active Member
All we have to do is convince the Governator that hees movees vuld not bee zi sem withote zi inkandezent bulbz. Mor lite tu se hees musselz!

#### Footer

##### Senior Team
Senior Team
Re: Cali Initiative

Oops..just saw that...
well all that means is we get to take you out on the dock, lock you in a trunk, and play who can get the cable trunk to fly the farthest of the said dock, and extra points without the dock plates

#### Schniapereli

##### Active Member
Re: Cali Initiative

Kewl. A very dark and sadistic comment for Footer's 666th post...

#### Van

##### CBMod
CB Mods
Re: Cali Initiative

Kewl. A very dark and sadistic comment for Footer's 666th post...
Wow great observation skills I completely missed that.

#### Footer

##### Senior Team
Senior Team
Re: Cali Initiative

Kewl. A very dark and sadistic comment for Footer's 666th post...
Well I guess I should stop being evil now

#### gafftaper

##### Senior Team
Senior Team
Fight Leukemia
Re: Cali Initiative

Well I guess I should stop being evil now
Not until you hit 777 posts... consider yourself in e-purgatory for a while.

#### ship

##### Senior Team Emeritus
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?

Last edited: