# Incandescent Bulb Banning Discussions - Merged



## CLHC (Jan 31, 2007)

*California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/gen?guid=20070131/45c02250_3ca6_1552620070131-2054994290

The following news article says that the California Legislature plans to introduce a bill that would ban the 125 year old light bulb in favor of energy efficient ones. . .I wonder how this would fare—:thinking:


----------



## tradderran (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*



CHC said:


> http://enews.earthlink.net/article/gen?guid=20070131/45c02250_3ca6_1552620070131-2054994290
> 
> The following news article says that the California Legislature plans to introduce a bill that would ban the 125 year old light bulb in favor of energy efficient ones. . .I wonder how this would fare—:thinking:


We just need to ban the peoples state of california.


----------



## WNG (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

Agreed, CA and CA wanna-be states are beginning to meddle in areas OUR gov't has no business wasting our tax money in pursuing.
With their logic, how come there isn't a bill to ban SUVs?
Heh, Mr. Governator?

The free-market takes care of itself.


----------



## C4LED (Jan 31, 2007)

*No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

New opportunity for LED bulbs in CA...?

--------------

California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc

Tue Jan 30, 9:05 PM ET

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - 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.


----------



## paulr (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

LED's are still way too exotic and expensive, and indoor lighting usually doesn't need a pinpoint source like a LED. As my incan bulbs burn out I've been replacing them with CFL's one by one. I think I have just one incan left, in a closet where it's only rarely activated.


----------



## C4LED (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



paulr said:


> LED's are still way too exotic and expensive, and indoor lighting usually doesn't need a pinpoint source like a LED. As my incan bulbs burn out I've been replacing them with CFL's one by one. I think I have just one incan left, in a closet where it's only rarely activated.



By 2012 LED's may be more practical for indoor lighting than they are now. I'm also using CFL's almost exclusively.


----------



## GreySave (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Unless something has changed, this is another attempt at an ignorant politician tring to do the politically correct thing. Every CFL light I have looked and purchased (at a reasonable cost) requires ventilation. They will not work reliably in sealed housings or other fixtures/sockets that have restricted airflow. I learned that lesson the hard way. But, knowing how California makes laws they will probably expect the homeowner to modify any "noncompliant" fixtures/sockets. In my house, that would be about 50% of the light fixtures. 

I would love to use LED bulbs. So far the only resonably priced lamps I have seen are rated at about the same light output as a ten watt incan. And that's at $12 a bulb. I am considering using one to light the area around the dog door, as that light runs all night long and there's a chance that I might break even in the long run. I use a 15 watt incan there now.


----------



## teststrips (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Good and bad idea... how far will this law go? There are some places where incandescent lightbulbs are hard to replace such as in projectors - TV and stage lighting - and headlamps in cars... bulbs of similar power are hard to come by. Then what about small bulbs such as christmas bulbs - are they going to also be banned + people forced to throw away + buy led bulbs? I could see a major headache for businesses... I see conventinal bulbs in telephones, exit sighs, and an old digital thermostat... and that's just where I'm sitting.

I'm convinced that replacing incandescent bulbs is a good thing, I just don't believe that banning incandescent bulbs is the answer.

One question - are the compact fluorescent bulbs dimmable? I've got lightswitches at home that are dimmable + i have not put fluorescent bulbs there yet b/c I'm afraid of breaking either the switch or the bulb.


----------



## tebore (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



teststrips said:


> Good and bad idea... how far will this law go? There are some places where incandescent lightbulbs are hard to replace such as in projectors - TV and stage lighting - and headlamps in cars... bulbs of similar power are hard to come by. Then what about small bulbs such as christmas bulbs - are they going to also be banned + people forced to throw away + buy led bulbs? I could see a major headache for businesses... I see conventinal bulbs in telephones, exit sighs, and an old digital thermostat... and that's just where I'm sitting.
> 
> I'm convinced that replacing incandescent bulbs is a good thing, I just don't believe that banning incandescent bulbs is the answer.
> 
> One question - are the compact fluorescent bulbs dimmable? I've got lightswitches at home that are dimmable + i have not put fluorescent bulbs there yet b/c I'm afraid of breaking either the switch or the bulb.


 
There are dimmable CFLs and Special dimmers for old fashion tubes. All of them use some form of PWM, as long as the cycle is set fast enough it'll be better than the 60hz deals we have now.


----------



## TedTheLed (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

*
Did you know…?

If every American family switched to CFLs, we could save 31.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity every year - enough to light about one third of all U.S. households for an entire year.

A 20-watt compact fluorescent lamp used in place of a 75-watt incandescent will save about 550 kilowatt-hours over its lifetime.

Saving 550 kilowatt hours means 50 Gallons of oil*not burned, which means that 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and 20 pounds of sulfur dioxide will not get into the atmosphere.


----------



## SEMIJim (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Have yet to see a non-incandescent light source I find pleasing to the eye. Tolerable: Yes. Pleasing: No. Furthermore: Is anything other than incan dim-able? I have X-10 all over the place, with many of the lights on dimmers--particularly in the "home theater" area.

I suspect this lawmaker is jumping the gun a bit.


----------



## peacefuljeffrey (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I don't want to see it happen because an authoritarian decree by government. STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE EVERY DAMNED ASPECT OF LIFE, you power-hungry ZEALOTS!! :scowl:


----------



## AndyTiedye (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

That bill will be D.O.A. as soon as the legislators' wives get wind of it
and contemplate putting on their makeup under fluorescent lights.

What I would support (and has more likelihood of passing):
Expand the rebate currently on CFs to include LED lightbulbs, and eliminate sales taxes on both.
A higher rebate could be justified on LEDs due to their better lifetime and lack of waste disposal issues compared to CFs.
Tax incandescents at 25% to fund the above, and increase that each year.


----------



## Handlobraesing (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I don't get why people here get so hyped about LEDs for general lighting. 

You can get a light bulb shaped LED replacement and even though they claim to use way less power, they also make way less output.

To favor LED based lamp module over CFL, all these criteria must be met in my opinion:

Efficacy equal to or grater than CFL throughout lifetime. Current ~100 or so LED bulb deteriorates and depreciates in output faster than a CFL.

Output must be comparable to an incandescent/CFL it's replacing. If it's 100W replacement, it needs to make 1100 lumens. Not "it takes a lot less power but the light is whiter, blah blah blah 250 lumen" junk.

Cost: should be comparable to a CFL of equivalent output. Some might buy it for nostalgia if it's only slightly more expensive, but make it any more than $10 ea and you likely won't get any average consumer attention.


----------



## teststrips (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



peacefuljeffrey said:


> I don't want to see it happen because an authoritarian decree by government. STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE EVERY DAMNED ASPECT OF LIFE, you power-hungry ZEALOTS!! :scowl:



Now your username + comments don't seem to match. NotSoPeacefulJeffrey


----------



## mdocod (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

peacefuljeff said it best. take a bow.

the road to hell is paved with best intentions, I'm sure this idea looks great to this California lawmaker, but he is not seeing the big picture.. which is as follows:

with each increase in technology, governing bodies will feel the need to regulate the peoples use of that technology. Increase in technology will inevitably result in our dependence on it. Our dependence on regulated technology will reduce our freedom more and more with each advancement. 

I'm all for better technology, but I want to be free to choose whether I should have to use it or not. supply and demand. The solution to the power problem is not necessarily to use less, but to find a way to make more in a cleaner fashion, allowing the people to choose to buy more power and use it as they please. 


now... Obviously, in California, the heat a light bulb generates is probably a negative more than anything else... but in many places, leaving the lights on, is just another source of heat, people run space heaters, and furnaces in the winter, the inefficient bulbs are just allowing the heaters to run less, if you look at the whole picture, the loss isn't as great as it appears if you look only at the efficiency of the bulb at generating light. (Obviously, a natural gas heater, is a more cost effective way to heat a house than electric heating, but the point still stands that the power is not going to waste when it is used to heat a cold house)..


----------



## Pax et Lux (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Am I right in thinking that compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) may use less energy than conventional bulbs, but they become toxic waste the minute you want to throw them out?

Wouldn't this be creating landfil problems, somewhere down the line?


----------



## teststrips (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

The money that would be wasted by enforcing this law would be much better spent on advertizing campaigns on TV/radio - targeted at people who don't understand + therefore don't already use this technology in their homes.

How about a small tax break for those who put 10 or more of these on there state income tax forms.

Promote technology - don't force it.


----------



## ryball (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



Pax et Lux said:


> Am I right in thinking that compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) may use less energy than conventional bulbs, but they become toxic waste the minute you want to throw them out?
> 
> Wouldn't this be creating landfil problems, somewhere down the line?



I think you are supposed to recycle them or something. Yay, mercury!

Time to start bootlegging incan's. :laughing:


----------



## teststrips (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



Pax et Lux said:


> Am I right in thinking that compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) may use less energy than conventional bulbs, but they become toxic waste the minute you want to throw them out?
> 
> Wouldn't this be creating landfil problems, somewhere down the line?


 
What about the landfill problems that throwing away a million or more regular lightbulbs away would cause


----------



## BB (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

I guess the Livermore Centennial Light Bulb shall be replaced with a CPFL. NOW!

Just think of how having a 24x7x365 web cam pointed at one of these CPFL babies will show the world that California is 100% behind saving energy.

Forget that California State continues to write laws that exempt State and City Vehicles from many of the state's environmental laws (example below is Delaware State Law--California has done things like this too--could not find with a quick search).

*Reg. 43 Heavy Duty Diesel Engine Standards*
*Statutory Authority: 7 Delaware Code, Section 6010 (7 Del.C. §6010)* ​


> Notwithstanding sub-section 2.1, the requirements set forth in this section do not apply to:
> 
> 2.2.1 A heavy-duty diesel engine intended for use in an urban bus;
> ...
> ...


Wake me when the laws that apply to us also apply to our dear leaders.

-Bill


----------



## bitslammer (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*



AndyTiedye said:


> That bill will be D.O.A. as soon as the legislators' wives get wind of it
> and contemplate putting on their makeup under fluorescent lights.
> 
> What I would support (and has more likelihood of passing):
> ...



I think the small rebate/tax idea would work. I have 3x20W (maybe 25W they're bright) CFs in my bathroom and my girlfriend loves the light they provide so much I had to install more in "her" bathroom. She felt that the tone they give off was much warmer and similar to sunlgiht.


----------



## KDOG3 (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*



TedTheLed said:


> *
> Did you know…?
> 
> If every American family switched to CFLs, we could save 31.7 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity every year - enough to light about one third of all U.S. households for an entire year.
> ...




Theres' no doubt about those points, but the point is the government shouldn't be trying to do my thinking for me when it comes to what kind of light bulb I use in my own home. What a waste of tax money...


----------



## Datasaurusrex (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

Won't work in my home. I pop florescent bulbs within 2 to 6 months of usage (not heavy usage).

Seems like they don't like my house wiring. Low voltage halegon do the same thing.

So it's incandescent for me


----------



## yuandrew (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

Even though I've gone to mostly CFLs and T8 fluorescents; there are still places where I find it's more practical using normal incandescant bulbs. There's one in my fridge and another in the back of the oven which are probably only on for 5-30 seconds at a time when I'm getting something out of the fridge and I don't think there's a CFL that can take 450 degrees of heat without melting. The bathrooms are still incandescant as well as some lights in the hallway and a bare bulb in the garage over the laundry area. Then there's the garage door opener itself but the light only stays on for maybe 5 mins after I open or close the door.

BTW, California's Legislator isn't the only people with this idea. There have been plans by the British government to ban incandescant bulbs (and also eliminate 'standby' functions on consumer electronics so now your TV is truely 'off') as well.


----------



## greg_in_canada (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

There would have to be lots of exceptions allowed: appliance bulbs since a CFL wouldn't survive your oven or work well in your fridge.

And there a lots of locations in houses that are switched on and off many times per day and aren't left on for long periods. That kills the lifetime of CFLs and would make the per-hour cost higher than incandescents due to having to replace the bulbs several times per year.

Greg


----------



## Pax et Lux (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Teststrips: good point. I did some very brief research.

I think the pro-CFL argument goes that, while CFLs contain mercury, generating electricity from fossil fuels to power incan bulbs causes even more mercury pollution. 

I'm not qualified to come down one way or another, other than observe that CFLs make little sense in places burning renewable energy.


----------



## Schnotts (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

They should ban SUV's, that would save some energy.


----------



## Illum (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

https://www.candlepowerforums.com/threads/151115

double post?

Banning light bulbs...blah like thats going to happen....im sure they can improve the light bulb, banning it altogether sounds ridicolous, its been this civilizations primary source of illumination


----------



## SEMIJim (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



teststrips said:


> What about the landfill problems that throwing away a million or more regular lightbulbs away would cause


You expect legislators to consider the wider ramifications and unintended consequences of their feel good ideas? Perish the thought! Why, if they did something so outrageous as to actually _think_ through some of their hair-brained schemes, we wouldn't get such wonderful new ideas as moving daylight savings time around. (The impact of which is beginning to look a bit like y2k all over again. Good going, Congress!)


----------



## curtis22 (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Soylent Green is Tuesday.


----------



## tebore (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



mdocod said:


> peacefuljeff said it best. take a bow.
> 
> the road to hell is paved with best intentions, I'm sure this idea looks great to this California lawmaker, but he is not seeing the big picture.. which is as follows:
> 
> I'm all for better technology, but I want to be free to choose whether I should have to use it or not. supply and demand. The solution to the power problem is not necessarily to use less, but to find a way to make more in a cleaner fashion, allowing the people to choose to buy more power and use it as they please.


 
You think we'd have cars with Catalytic convertors, fuel injection and low horse power numbers if it wasn't for regulations? If it wasn't for the OPAC strike in the 70s and government mandates on safety you think cars would be the way they are now? Or Construction of houses, you think we'd still have asbestos in buildings if governments don't mandate that we don't use it, the hell with the fact it's a carcinogen it was cheap and worked well. Sometimes the government has to step in ESPECIALLY in a place like the US where people have the technology but won't use it because it's an inconvience. You try living like the way you do in Japan and they'll call you irresponsible.


----------



## LightBen (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Aside from considerations of personal liberty, there are a couple of problems with this proposed legislation:

1.) CFL lamps, especially the cheaper ones, have been known to generate considerable RFI (Radio-Frequency Interference). As a licensed amateur radio operator, I am wary of anything that may cause a proliferation of RFI-generating consumer equipment.

2.) CFL ballasts often have horrible power factor figures, so the wattage figure stamped on the bulb is often misleading. Any circuit containing a reactive component--an inductor or capacitor--"stores" energy that is not available to do work at the load. In other words, the CFL might be rated 25W, but would likely require the power company to generate more than that amount of power to drive it. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor for a more technical explanation.


----------



## Topper (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

You can take my incans when you pry my cold dead fingers from around them.
Topper


----------



## mdocod (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Tebore

The point was not that we should be free to use EVERYTHING with no personal accountability or responsibility, the point was that with each new advancement, we will be forced to develop regulations.. the end result is that we will all be driods, lever pullers, dead weight. We can prevent this from happening one of 2 ways.... eliminate technology, or eliminate double digit IQ lawmakers and judges.
excessive regulations are where we loose our freedom. There is another lawmaker in California trying to make it unlawful to use any form of physical punishment on young children. A slap to a child's wrist to stop him/her from doing "wrong" could result in a year in prison if someone sees it. It's that same kinda bogus narrow minded lawmaking activity that destroys free will. I don't know if slapping a 2 year olds wrist is right or wrong, but I certainly don't want to tell someone whether they can or can't, needs to be their decision how to raise their kids. Appropriate levels of control in the form of laws will always be necessary. 
Yes, I appreciate that car manufactures are forced to manufacture clean burning cars.. That's regulating a company, and doesn't have as profound an effect on the freewill of average Joe, because average Joe has many available options (exercise free will) that could yield him his very own SMOG DEATH MOBILE! Also... considering the percentage of emissions that cars account for, regulating the auto industry is a much more logical step than regulating light bulb usage in homes. 

I have CFLs and T8s around the house too, their awesome for certain things.. trying getting a tube to light up out in the garage when it's -20F... yet another thing unaccounted for in this idea. Shouldn't have even made the press, shouldn't have made it mast the drawing board.... somehow, it did... sad...


----------



## jtr1962 (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

There are definitely some applications where CFLs are a bad fit (those which require frequent starting, occupancy sensors, cold weather, the need for dimming). In light of this _at this point in time_ such legislation is probably not a good idea. I like AndyTiedye's scheme of increased rebates and no sales taxes on CFLs and LEDs better. All that being said, when the time comes where we have viable incandescent replacement technology (likely in the form of LEDs) which is dimmable, has good color rendering, is available in several color temperatures, can deal with frequent starting/cold weather, and costs about the same or less than today's CFLs, then banning incandescent bulbs will be a great idea. I'm against forcing people to use new technology if there are still drawbacks. However, when the new technology is better in every way and they _still_ insist on using old technology with definite drawbacks for whatever arcane reason then it's time to force the issue. That time is not now. I'd say the way LED technology is advancing it will come by about 2010 or so. Perhaps a better idea would be the AndyTiedye's idea coupled with a phaseout of incandescent bulbs by 2010. This would give the public a chance to try the new technology bulbs at lower cost so they can be used to them by the time they can't buy incandescent bulbs. Legislation may well be moot anyway. LEDs might become so good and so cost effective that the marketplace will dictate that incandescents are no longer sold except at very specialized stores.


----------



## martytoo (Jan 31, 2007)

*Neptune, Uranus, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Earth, Venus.....*

*Mercury ! You dopey legislators!!*

This is so dumb. Fluorescent bulbs contain mercury. They will pollute the environment. There is no legal necessity to recycle these if used in the home in most states. There is no oversite with regard to recycling them in most states. My recycling center will not take them!


These feckless dopes need to go back to their 9th grade science class and learn a thing or two before proposing this dreck. 

And even in states that provide help in reclycling what is the penalty for throwing the bulbs in the trash? Maybe we would get better recycling adherence if the penalty was sitting in the gallery of the state legislature, listening to these geniuses?


http://www.bethlehemlamprecycling.com/

http://www.deq.state.ms.us/MDEQ.nsf/page/Recycling_FluorescentLampsFAQs?OpenDocument

http://www.productstewardship.net/productsMercuryFluorescent.html


----------



## FlashCrazy (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Just another reason why California is so fiscally broke. I've always wondered why that this state, with it's huge tax base and tourism, seems to be in shambles. The roads absolutely stink, even in the capital! They're probably worse around the capital, for that matter. Then when fishing one day I understood. I saw what I usually see every time I go fishing...Dept. of Fish and Game officers hiding out with binoculars watching to make sure people aren't catching under/oversized fish. Huh??? How much does that cost us?? Every piece of wilderness is filled with officers. Planes flying overhead, helicopters hovering, Bureau of Land Managment, bureau of this, bureau of that. I was driving through an industrial area and saw this gleaming, glass-windowed building...I thought "Man, that's the nicest building I've seen...must be some mega-rich company." Nope, some CA Dept. of something or other...sheesh. We have people sitting around trying to come up new rules and regulations all the time. Knowing CA, it'll cost more to enforce them than they'll save. There's more EPA regs here than probably any other state, yet it still has about the worst pollution..go figure. Sorry to vent, guess I need to shut-up and just move away from this state!


----------



## SemiMan (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I think I talked about respect in a another thread ... It applies here too.

I think for practical reasons, outlawing incadescent bulbs is unrealistic.

However, global warming is real. Certain politicians may want to bury their head in the sand and pretend it is not real for political or financial gains, but I think most people with common sense can understand that dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere is eventually going to catch up with us.

For the respect of everyone on this planet and our children and the children who come after them, our generation has a duty to do something about global warming. Unfortunately, fusion power, or even CO2 capture is not in the cards in the short term. Hence, the only thing we can do is lower our energy usage. Again it is our duty as part of the greater community of people on this planet.

Let's be realistic, people often do not do what is right. How many of the people reading this post download music without paying for it? It is illegal. It is not right, but because it is "easy" people do it.

So back to bulbs. It is unrealistic technically to eliminate incandescents. The fixtures we have in our homes just do not support it. Heck, the smallest dimmable flourescent I can even buy at Home Depot is huge. However, that can be changed and LED lamps will offer more packaging alternatives.

So what could be done... stealing some thoughts from others:

- Heavily tax incandescent bulbs. Start it low and increase quickly so that it becomes painful to use incandescent bulbs.

- Incentives, tax breaks, etc. to buy compact flourescent and other energy efficient sources

- After a period of time, except for special purposes where incandescents are the only viable technology, ban all Lighting Fixtures that are not compatible with high efficiency light sources. Since new fixtures would support compact flourescents or other high efficiency light sources, that would further incentivize the move away from incandescents which by now would be getting pretty expensive.

Just a thought.......


Semiman


----------



## FlashCrazy (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Space is a vacuum right?...or mostly... Why can we make a hole in our atmosphere and seal it with a valve. Open the valve to suck out the CO2 to a nice level...ahh, all back to normal. 

Shhhhh...don't yell at me...I know the CO2 is diluted into the rest of the atmosphere!


----------



## FlashCrazy (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Oh yeah...lets make heater thermostats start at 45 degrees...no heat until your house is colder than that. And no a/c until your house is hotter than 95 degrees inside. Yeah, that'll save billions of dollars and help to reduce greenhouse gases. Oh, don't forget the 300,000 state workers to enforce it...all driving their trucks.Should the government really regulate everything?


----------



## Brighteyez (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*

If the state legislature manages to screw up the wording correctly and you get the right nerds to interpret it, it could include even incandescent bulbs used in motor vehicles (including headlights,) and yes, even those in flashlights. 



CHC said:


> The following news article says that the California Legislature plans to introduce a bill that would ban the 125 year old light bulb in favor of energy efficient ones. . .I wonder how this would fare—:thinking:


----------



## LightBen (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



FlashCrazy said:


> Oh yeah...lets make heater thermostats start at 45 degrees...no heat until your house is colder than that. And no a/c until your house is hotter than 95 degrees inside. Yeah, that'll save billions of dollars and help to reduce greenhouse gases. Oh, don't forget the 300,000 state workers to enforce it...all driving their trucks.Should the government really regulate everything?




Not to get too far off topic, but I DO keep my thermostat at 52F when the house is unoccupied and 60-65F when I'm home. Heating oil is too expensive to warm the house to a toasty 72F! (Oh, and I don't have A/C... at all.) I guess this makes up for my 22MPG V8 coupe!


----------



## Josey (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

If the people who are opposed to regulations that would require the use of energy-efficient light bulbs, they should also be willing to pay the full, unsubsidized cost of their electricity. Then they would change voluntarily to the better bulbs, and the regulations would not be needed.


----------



## RA40 (Jan 31, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

The political aside...

The majority of lighting fixtures we use are fluorescent. A few halogen and regular incan bulbs in others. If they provide a reasonable replacement that offers good life...no problems. 

Anytime they say "law" it's going to offend somebody. Those living here should be used to the smoke & mirror routine to not get all ruffled up over it...most don't pass or if they do are so crippled it's pointless.


----------



## TedTheLed (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

you can make the world a paradise, but there will always be at least one guy who insists on crapping down the well..so you need to make a "no crapping down the well rule" or we'll all end up drinking crap...too...


----------



## magic79 (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I am so sick of politicians with "God Complex". Out of my life! I can take care of myself.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

This might be a good time to lobby for getting the same rebates/incentives for LED
lighting as are in place for CFs. At this point LEDs are of comparable efficiency, they
are longer-lived, and do not have the waste disposal issues that fluorescent bulbs do.


----------



## CLHC (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*



Brighteyez said:


> If the state legislature manages to screw up the wording correctly and you get the right nerds to interpret it. . .


Now that's what seems to be the case regarding other matters introduced or being introduced other than incandescent bulbs.


----------



## Nereus (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I can not understand what is wrong with incans. They are extremely good electrical devices, over 95 percent efficient when it comes to producing heat. That is very impressive, less than 5 percent of electricity escapes from the bulb as light. If underdriven, the efficiency gets even better. Leds and cfls are very far from that and they need some serious R&D activity to get even close to that. E.g. Cree XR-E wastes 25% of input electricity as light and even the famous Lumileds products are only 85 percent efficient when it comes to producing heat.

Furthermore, heat produced by led needs to be conducted away and some serious heat sinking is needed in order to get full advantage of their heat generating process. Incans produce heat very nicely because they can radiate the heat directly to the environment without any auxilary equipment.

Edison was just a genious!

-N

P.S. TIC attitude absolutely intended!


----------



## goldenlight (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I use virtually all CF bulbs in my house. The exception is the attic and basement. (Which I rarely use). I have Phillips incand. bulbs which shut themselves off after 30 minutes.... very handy, as I used to always forget to turn off the lights.

One of the other reasons I still have incand. in the attic and basement is that during a cold snap (like now, for example) CF lamps either won't fire up, or glow very dimly in the cold attic and basement.

If it gets below zero outside, my basement can get down to 40F. The attic is even colder, so CF are out.

And forget about CF lamps for outside lighting....the predicted low temp in 2 days is -18F. 

In the summer I use florescent lighting in my garage. When the temp drops to below freezing during the night, I have to switch over to incand. lamps. Lots of them, to replace the huge output of 6 paired 40 watt florescent tubes which put out about 3000 lumens/ea.

If there are any CF lamps made specifically for cold temperatures, I haven't seen them at Home Depot, and I've looked.

I tend to agree with banning the horribly inefficient incand. bulbs, but I wonder if anyone has taken into account the huge amount of mercury that CF lamps introduce into the environment?

Where I live, once a year they have a free 'drop off your toxic trash day'. I save up any electronics, solvents, paint, florescent tubes and lamps, and legally dispose of them at no cost.

I'd bet very few places have such an enlightened approach to 'toxic trash' as my city. When they hold these 'free disposal' days, they collect hundreds of tons of toxic trash which would otherwise enter the normal waste stream.

CF lamps are small and easy to throw in the trash. But each one contains a small amount of mercury. Multiply that by millions of lamps, and that a huge amount of mercury entering the environment.

In my city, ( really it's the county, now that I think about it...) if you aren't smart enough to take advantage of the 'free toxic trash' days, and you want to legally dispose of a florescent lamp, the fee is $2....more than a 40 watt florescent tube costs(!)

I have purchased CF lamps for less than $2 recently, but that doesn't take into account the cost of disposal.

Unless the disposal cost is charges up front, and there is an easy method of individual disposal, (such as pick-up with the common recycleables) hundreds of millions of CF lamps are going to wind up in landfills


----------



## Arkayne (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Man, if NV enforced that, Vegas would be glowing a different color.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: California Talks of Banning Incandescent Bulbs*



WNG said:


> The free-market takes care of itself.



Yes, and the market is the _*only thing*_ the free market takes care of...

Free markets are wonderful mechanisms for driving cost right out of something. You want the cheapest possible goods and services? Man, free markets will deliver them!

You want to breathe clean air? Free markets care nothing for that.
You want to drink clean water? Ditto.
You want energy that won't fund terrorists? Ditto again.

But if you want something that is the absolutely cheapest at the point of sale (where the costs of pollution, enviromental damage and national security risks are not seen) ...free markets will deliver.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Hmmm... let's see, Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFBs):

Models that are dimmable (I've got two in my house)
Cold start versions (I've got two outside; Iowa, gets down below zero)
Quick start models (all the recent ones I've bought are quick start)
Color rendition (a variety of choices are available)... just as pleasing.
Enclosed fixtures (just use low power CFBs ...I use two that only draw 7 watts)
CFBs that fail (I had some, I switched to name brands like GE and Sylvania, no problems)
Mercury (find a place that recycles these responsibly ...as with much waste)

Draws more power than marked on the base.

Well, I've got to agree with this one. I slapped a "Kill-A-Watt" meter on the CFB I use as my primary reading light. It replaced a 150 watt incandescent. The base says it draws 26 watts. Darn... the meter says it is drawing 27 watts! Those [email protected]@rds! It is just as easy to read now as it was when I was using the 150 watt incandescent but the darn light is drawing 27 watts instead of the 26 watts marked on the base!

Instead of saving 82.6% of the electricity like the package says... I'm only saving 82%. Oh well, I guess I will keep using it.

Laws to outlaw energy wasting lights... hmmm.

I dunno. CFBs have been around now in successful versions for a number of years, but people still haven't installed them. I know if we didn't have laws requiring emissions controls on cars, we definitely wouldn't have controls. Each individual car buyer would be thinking ...heck, my little contribution won't change anything, why spend the money for that expensive pollution control option? But... since by law every car must have controls, we all drive with them, they are way cheaper (free market drove down the cost because being standard, the volumes could be huge and spread the development cost, tooling, etc. over a much larger base of production).

So... I definitely want to see way more people using these devices. Maybe in this case, spending money on a really big educational campaign would make the most sense. I'm OK with cigarettes as long as we educate people about the dangers and they make an informed decision, pay higher insuranace rates and don't smoke in my presence endangering my health.

Maybe instead, we should tax electricity on an ever increasing gradation. If your household only uses a little ...no tax. Just a little more ...some tax. Use lots and lots where you pay no attention to efficiency ...pay lots of tax. 

Why do this? Because we all breathe the same air. Electricity from fossil fuels causes mercury, sulfur and carbon to dump into our atmosphere. Pregnant women and small children can't even consume the fish (mercury danger) that might get caught on a camping trip. Just since 1940, carbon in our atmosphere is 27% higher than at any time in the last 650,000 years. That is just a science fact.

So... I don't want you smoking in my presence because of the effect on my health ...should I be OK with you leaving your lights on full blast all day long forcing me to breathe more polllution from the power plant down the road? I don't think so. I haven't seen it yet in this thread, but sooner or later someone might post "If I can afford it, what business is it of yours HOW much electricity I use?".

None, I suppose; as long as you generate your electricity in a way that exposes me to no pollution or other undesireable effects.


----------



## BB (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I spent a few weeks in China (PRC) back in 1985-6--Think free market offers no solutions? I can tell you, first hand, that 5 year plans offer much less (and coal pollution has gotten much worse now).

Want to look at much of the nuclear waste dumps in the US, UK, and USSR? --those were run by the governments (either directly or through private contractors--at least in the US). Think "Chernobyl" was bad? Want to drink the water in Russia?

USSR Nuclear Waste...



> In 20th century, spent nuclear fuel from Hungarian nuclear plant Paks was repeatedly transported to Soviet Union, and later Russia, for reprocessing and extraction of plutonium. Radioactive waste of reprocessing was partly dumped into open lakes and rivers near "Mayak" through the last 25 years - that caused wide-spread environmental catastrophe. Reprocessing' waste which still stored at this facility have total radioactivity over 1 billion Ci - an equivalent to 20 Chernobyl radioactive releases. So far, nuclear industry was not able to develop safe technology for utilization of that waste.



Even today, China has chosen to build hundreds of old technology (in country produced) coal fired electric plants over the next few years.

And, if you are concerned about Kyoto, take a look at this link... And what of all the new coal fired plants in the next few decades (US, India, China). Would you rather live near a "free market US plant, or near a new plant in China?

New coal plants bury "Kyoto"

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



BB said:


> Think free market offers no solutions? I can tell you, first hand, that 5 year plans offer much less (and coal pollution has gotten much worse now).
> 
> -Bill



Bill... I'm not following your point in this post.

If it is that centrally planned economies also screw up their environment, I'm quite ready to agree with that. It is probably worse under the "dictatorship of the state". Under such conditions, voters that are experiencing the bad parts of pollution can't do anything about it. At least in a democracy, you can throw out representatives that won't vote to protect us.


----------



## BB (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

The pollution controls, water controls, wind turbines, solar panels, etc... are here because of what the free market produced and the money that was available by "free market."

Do I think any government is 100% clean? Not by a long shot (nor is Free Market the be-all/end-all of life either). But, typically government (of every stripe) has been one of the worst at creating pollution and environmental disasters--either through direct action or indirect (typically through taxes, tariffs, and government giveaways of public property). 

And, so far, I have not figured out how I can toss my government officials either--guarantee you that California would not look like it does today if I (alone) could vote them out...

Right now, (it seems all) governments still believes in the Ponzi scheme that we must have population growth or the country will die. At some point, when we we are wall to wall people in this country/world, the population will crash--all we are discussing it the form that it will take (fuel shortages, food shortages, plagues, weather, war, pollution, etc.) and moving the date (which way--I am not sure).

-Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



BB said:


> But, typically government (of every stripe) has been one of the worst at creating pollution and environmental disasters...


Yes, large-scale mechanized warfare is among one of the most environmentally disastrous things created by governments. If not for belligerant large nation states, war on the scale we wage it wouldn't even exist. Hopefully China will eventually break up into many nations as the former USSR did. And the US breaking up into 50 or so separate nations wouldn't be a bad thing either. Heck, NYC alone has enough economic activity to be a small nation in its own right along the lines of Hong Kong. None would be big enough or powerful enough to afford to field the huge armies and horrible weapons which exist today.

And I agree 100% that governments need to development schemes which don't rely on population growth. It's a shame only China so far was brave enough to tackle their overpopulation problem, and they received considerable flack for it.


----------



## matrixshaman (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Haven't read this whole thing yet but I for one would be screaming if I was still in CA - for one flourescents flicker, buzz, make things look green and based on muscle testing make you weaker when you are under their influence. LED lighting would be great IMO but still isn't affordable for many for home lighting. AND just how are they going to enforce that - people will buy them online. Oh I know they will make a new department - The Light Police.  :lolsign:


----------



## Brighteyez (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Not likely. Unlike the USSR that was formed by invading neighboring countries over a short time by a single form of government, China has evolved over a period of thousands of years, independent of the ruling dynasty or government. The current communist government's period of rule is a miniscule dot in China's history. If anything will overthrow the communist government, you may be seeing it right now. China's role as the fastest growing economy in the world right now could quietly put the current form of government out of power (i.e. without violence or war.)



jtr1962 said:


> Hopefully China will eventually break up into many nations as the former USSR did.


----------



## BB (Feb 1, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I agree, my wife and her family are from "China"... There is no interest by anyone (that I have heard of) that is interested in China breaking up. Even though my wife was not born in Main Land China under the PRC--she is still "Chinese".

Looking at Hong-Kong and Macao--even though they went from "western" to PRC government--there has been little "noise" raised by the transition. Even after 5 generations of living under the rule of the UK, they were, and are, still Chinese.

The people really think in the long term--a few hundred years of cap-u-communism is just a blink of the eye for them.

Don't get me wrong--I am certainly no expert and there are people on this board from HK (and other places) that can better explain than I (just my two cents worth watching from across the Pacific).

-Bill


----------



## LightBen (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



ikendu said:


> Hmmm... let's see, Compact Fluorescent Bulbs (CFBs):
> 
> Draws more power than marked on the base.
> 
> ...


----------



## mdocod (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

LightBen that's a great point you make there... and I think you are the first one to explain it in such a way that I understand it... (I've heard of this behavior of electrical devices and power consumption before, but the details never sunk in)... thanks!


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

All the lamps in my apartment are CFL of one sort and other, except the one I use to do work with. I just do better with an incandescent source of light when I need to look at paper and such.

For me the economics makes sense but not when my eyes get too tired with CFLs when reading for long periods of time. The government has no business telling us what to light our homes with.

But hey, John Lair from my home county last year also proposed to half the amount of water in each flush of water in toilets until someone did the research and realized how ridiculously low amount it would save when compared to if we just fixed a small portion of leaking pipes in central valley. These legislators all want to leave a legacy before they are termed out. Your tax dollar at work.


----------



## BB (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

The kill-a-watt meter measures both power, VA, and PF. How accurate it is--I don't know.

There are several issues with CFL's and power factor... You can have reactive power (lagging current--think of the voltage sine wave--as voltage goes up, so would current--this is in-phase or a PF=1. If the current lags the voltage--like connected to an inductor instead of a resistor--the power factor will drop)... So if it is running at 0.5 PF, the actual current needed is 2x as large. For the power company, the wires/transformers/etc. still have I^2 * R losses--In this case, the lamp may save energy (say 50%), but the power company has 4x the loss due to heating of the wires and transformers because of the higher current.

The other Power Factor issue is that (especially older computer equipment, wall worts, etc.) would use the AC sine wave (120 VAC 60Hz) power to simply charge a capacitor through a full wave rectifier. This would only draw current near the peak of the sine wave (capacitor drops a little DC voltage, then the next AC peak comes to recharge). So, you would see no current for most of the AC cycle, then a very sharp spike right at the AC peaks... Again, you have I^2 * R losses because of the very high current peak, plus other harmonic losses (frequencies above 60Hz) as eddy currents in transformers and such (again, losses turned to heat).

I would suspect that the cheaper CPFL electronic would have this second issue.

So, when you measure your CFL lights (or any device), don't only measure watts, but VA and/or PF too... Units with low PF's waste energy, and can be more difficult to run with inverters.

-Bill


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



270winchester said:


> For me the economics makes sense but not when my eyes get too tired with CFLs when reading for long periods of time.


Maybe if incandescents are outlawed there should be a minimum requirement of 90 for the CRI of CFLs along with independent testing to ensure this spec is met. And similar specs/testing for color temperature (i.e. the color temperature should match whatever is stated on the package to within maybe 100K).


----------



## ikendu (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



LightBen said:


> Home Power magazine ...CFLs are misleading because the generator DOES have to work harder if reactive power is high...



Can you give me a sense for "how misleading" we are talking about?

1% - 10% - 100% Is there a range based on the design?

Are there other devices that exhibit this behavior as well? What about the compact power supply that comes with my laptop? Similar issue? Anyone have an idea of what issue of Home Power this may have been. I'd love to read that article.

My "150 watt" CFB Power Factor is .51
My laptop Power Factore is .41

Thanks for helping me understand this!


----------



## BB (Feb 2, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Here is a two page PDF document from a power supply company that explains the basics issues of PFC for computer power supplies (includes a few waveform pictures to help explain):

Condor: PFC (PDF File)

There is an European requirement for PFC of larger power supplies (I forgot the exact number--but it applies to power supplies that are a few tens of watts and larger) that was put into effect back in 2001. I do not believe that there is any similar US requirement--but many manufacturers will meet the European requirement so that their products can ship world wide without having to design/stock separate products.

PFC issues will rarely affect the average home--but are something that must be addressed in offices (such as those with lots of PC's in a call center), factories/refineries with lots of motors, and for the power company (areas with lots of air conditioners and well pumps).

For offices, wiring and transformers had overheated and failed (several decades ago) before the problem was recognized.

Poor Power Factors will hurt a utility because it, usually, does not charge for poor PF (large installations like refineries are charged for poor PF). Poor PF require larger distribution systems to pass the same amount of energy because of I^2*R and eddy current heating losses--which is also a waste of energy. Approximately 1/2 (or more) of centrally generated power is lost in distribution--and anything like PF issues only makes that worst.

For the example of your laptop computer... of 0.41, assume 30 watts normal, and 120 watts charging (make the numbers even), your home 120 vac and 15 amp branch circuit.

So, normally a 15 amp branch circuit is expected to have no more than 80% load connected, so that is 15*80%=12 amps. Your power supply is 120 watts charging (worst case) is 120vac/120watts=1 amp... But, because you have 0.41 PF for your supply, instead of being able to support 12 computers for your branch service--it is instead 12 amps / (1amp/0.41 PF) = 4.92 computers. Or, by code, you can only put 4 of those laptops on one branch circuit rather than the 12-15 you would have thought possible by just looking at the name plate rating (excluding code and PF issues).

PF was originally based on the cosine of the "angle" between the voltage and current (in sine waves). 0 degrees was PF=1.0 and 90 degrees was PF=0. Of course, for non-sine wave current wave forms, the math would be different to find the PF.

So, to answer your question, in the worst case, it is possible that your computer in running 30 watts relatively efficiently at PF=0.41 is really equivalent to a PFC desktop of 30 watts/0.41 = 73 watts. This is a worst case scenario because of distribution losses. For example, if you had an inverter on a battery system, you would see that the inverter was not really drawing enough power to supply 73 watts, but something closer to the 30 watts that you have measured (less inverter efficiency and assuming it is well designed "true sine wave" inverter--remembering that Modified Sine Wave--really modified square wave--inverters could cause your laptop power supply to overheat--and consume more power which the inverter would need to supply--because of the harmonics in the inverter's square wave because the of the mod-sine wave inverter's own PF problems with its output wave form).

Is this sort of clear?

-Bill

PS: Just to finish the thought... V*A (VA) is what the power company has to supply, Watts is what the power company charges you (utility meter):

Watts=V*A*Cos Angle=V*A*PF
Watts=V*A*1.0=V*A (For DC or Filament Light Bulb)

-BB


----------



## BB (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



C4LED said:


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/energy_california_lightbulbs_dc
> 
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) -
> ...
> ...


I am all for efficiency and not wasting energy.... But when overlaid against the entire energy grid--these numbers become pretty small:

Lawmaker take on Light Bulbs:


> Lighting represents about 2 percent of the state's electricity consumption, and switching out every incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent variety would drop that figure to 0.5 percent, Levine said.


To compare that with, for example, Solar Electricity in California... The original law allowing grid tie solar set the limit at 0.5% of grid power... California was nearing that limit, and has now changed that law to 1.5% of grid...

So, with ~$2.50 per watt (installed) solar rebates and a law "outlawing" conventional light bulbs will (after something like 10 years) will save (1.5% solar+1.5% CPFL law=) 3% of our grid tied energy use. It is a start--but it is not the end.

===Regarding another post on this thread about X10 controllers===

Somebody else earlier in this tread talked about using X10 (remote) controllers all over their home to control (and presumably save on) energy usage...

I cannot find the post--but someone here (or on a solar board I read), said that they were surprised by how much standby power the X10 type controllers consumed--and actually found they saved more power by not using X10's around their home... I looked up and down the web, and the only "controller" that I could find a power rating for was:

Leviton 2-Phase X10 Coupler-Repeater

If you click on the enlarge photo--you see that this is rated at 5 watts... Whether this is average or peak power, I do not know--but if 5 watts is a typical receiver/controller power requirement, installing 15 of these X10 controllers:

5 watts x 15 = 75 watts
75 watts x 24 hours/day x 30 days / month x 1kW/1,000W = 54 kWhrs / month...

That is 20%-33% of my average monthly electrical bill and would overwhelm anybody trying to save power by installing CPFL's + X10 controllers.

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



BB said:


> >....switching out every incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent variety would drop that figure [2%] to 0.5 percent, Levine said.<
> 
> I am all for efficiency and not wasting energy.... But when overlaid against the entire energy grid--these numbers become pretty small...
> 
> -Bill



So... how many Kilowatt Hours _is_ 1.5% of the state of California's electricity. Seems like that is probably quite a lot. 

If (for example), California had 200 electric plants, by reducing 1.5% of the power need, you could retire 3 complete plants. That doesn't seem so small.

I know if we found a new oil deposit equal to 1.5% of California's annual usage, people'd be celebrating in the streets!

If a CFB costs 5 times an incandescent but lasts 6 times longer ...and saves 80% of the electricity along the way, why wouldn't we try to get everyone to do that? Seems like a "dirt cheap", highly effective way to get some new energy to me.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

I measured the "150 watt" CFB that I use for reading.

It draws 27 watts and something like 51 volt-amps.

I no longer have a 150 watt incandescent to try out but when I put in the only incandescent bulb I own, a "75 watt" bulb, it draws both 81 watts and 81 volt-amps.

So... I guess my old "150 watt" reading lamp probably drew about 150 volt-amps (or more) and the new "150 watt replacement CFB" actually causes the electric company to burn coal on the order of 51 volt-amps meaning I only save 66% of the energy I used to use (not 82%).

But... since I sign up for "Green Power", it just means that the electric company has to buy more wind turbines! 

In summary: I pay off my CFB at the 82% rate 'cause watts is how I get billed but my contribution to lower power consumption is only 66%.


----------



## BB (Feb 9, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

According to the DOE (pdf file), our net grid electrical increase, year over year, from 2003 through 2016, our electrical generation capacity will be increasing about 1.6% per year...

So, those many years of our lawmakers, utilities, and the public itself, arguing, handing out money, etc over a decade or more, will save about 1-3 years of growth of generation capacity (at least with CPFL--that savings is only once--can't keep increasing the savings every year--and solar is currently limited only to 1.5% of CA Grid--by law--again, a hard limit)... Nice--but not really resolving any of our long term issues (pollution, war, costs, CO2, NIMBY issues, etc.).

Regarding your question about how much power California uses... You can go to CAISO and see the daily generation and usage numbers (charted over a 24 hour day--CAISO controls about ~75% of the electrical grid/market in California):

For today:


> Current System Demand: (Actual Demand when this is posted) 27381 MW]
> 
> Today's Peak Demand : Highest point thus far 5pm 2/9/07) 28399 MW
> 
> ...


 .

Basically, ~1.5% change in power usage is not even visible on the daily power generation graph (it is lost in the noise).

For example, a "Stage 3" emergency (when CAISO starts to shed loads through rolling blackouts):



> A Stage 3 Emergency is called when on-line Reserves fall below the minimum requirements (amount can vary- usually around 3 percent of the minimum Operating Reserve total). Under a stage 3 Emergency, the ISO may call on the utilities to reduce “firm load” by implementing rotating outages. This is a last resort, used only when a climbing demand for energy is close to surpassing the available supply.



Wind turbines can help reduce the amount of fuel required to generate electricity (and therefore reduce CO2 emissions), but a wind turbine is never going to be able to supplied scheduled "peak" power (when someone needs to turn on that light at night)... That is why Denmark currently exports over 50% of their wind power (can't use it in-country--not enough distribution lines run from current wind farms to wind loads, too variable, not "reliable" in when grid has issues(Germany)--why Texas power only believes that they can rely on ~3% of a wind farm's nameplate power, etc...--links in EV thread).

Again, I still believe in conservation (like CPFL's--95% of my lighting is CPFL and fluorescents--I follow the kids to turn off lights, etc.)--but, much of what is being discussed (for example in the California State Legislature) is just dancing around the edges. It is not a bad thing to reduce power usage by a few percentage points--it is just that to really resolve the big issues is going to take a lot more.

-Bill


----------



## ikendu (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

BB wrote:

Wind turbines can help reduce the amount of fuel required to generate electricity (and therefore reduce CO2 emissions), but a wind turbine is never going to be able to supplied scheduled "peak" power (when someone needs to turn on that light at night)... 

-Bill

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bill, it is true that the wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine. Renewable energy will only work for a total solution to our energy needs with at least two factors:

1. Diversity

We have a nationwide grid. If the wind isn't blowing in west Texas, then it might in North Dakota. If wind isn't blowing in either then the sun could be shining in Arizona or New Mexico on solar concentrators for utilty power or on roof tops in our cities all over the U.S.

If none of those sources are operating, then we might need liquid fueled micro CHP (Combined Heat and Power) units at homes and businesses where the heat from making electricity isn't just thrown away like at central power plants but is used instead for domestic hot water or home heat or business process heat. You might notice that many power plants are build on rivers. It is for ready access to cheap cooling water. Wouldn't be great if that heat were used for something instead of over heating our air or the water on the downstream side of the plant?

2. Storage

Our electrical system would benefit from storage right this very minute. The night time electrical demand drops off hugely. Nationally, the peak is at about 3 pm. From midnight to 4 am demand is down 38%. That daily peak has to be met by turning up "peaking plants". It is expensive for money and resources. That is why TOU (Time Of Use) billing charges 6 cents for night time electricity and 16 cents for peak time electricity.

If we built storage systems based on cavern compressed air or artifical mountain lake reservoirs or hydrogen, then we could take in all the electricity we could generate from wind and solar when it is available and put it back out when we need it. Those "peaking plants" could be used a lot less.

All of our non-renewable sources of energy like coal, gas, petroleum and yes, even nuclear ...are, well, non-renewable. They are dead-ended. We will be turning them off at some point anyway. Why not get on with it? Will we wait until it gets so bad due to some shortage that our economy is in shambles? Maybe. It woudn't be the first time.

So... storage and diversty. We should get on with it.


----------



## gadget_lover (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

On the subject of mandating CFL....

I would have to get a doctor's note to import incandescent lamps for personal use. Yes, it sounds like a drug problem, doesn't it?

My migraines are triggered by 60 hz flicker. An environ with fluorescent mixed with sunlight is OK, or a 50/50 with incandescent is OK. Just fluorescent lamps for several hours will have me writhing in pain.

The better fluorescent lamps have longer decay phosphers, so they are not as bad, but they are much more expensive.

I applaud the idea, but to make it law seems like a bad idea.

Daniel


----------



## BB (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



ikendu said:


> If none of those sources are operating, then we might need liquid fueled micro CHP (Combined Heat and Power) units at homes and businesses where the heat from making electricity isn't just thrown away like at central power plants but is used instead for domestic hot water or home heat or business process heat. You might notice that many power plants are build on rivers. It is for ready access to cheap cooling water. Wouldn't be great if that heat were used for something instead of over heating our air or the water on the downstream side of the plant?



Yes, co-generation is wonderful--that have been some more built in California since our 2000 blackouts. Issues (that I see) include that these plants have been Natural Gas fired--driving up the price of gas and using a fuel that is all ready becoming in short supply.

Next, the small sized CHP units are only (currently) 25% efficient and at best are probably slated to a maximum of 35%. Given that larger gas turbines are about 57% efficient and heading towards 70% (large coal/steam is 50% efficient)--using CHP units would require 2-3x as much fuel (and 2-3x the CO2) for the same kWhrs of electricity vs a central large gas turbine plant. We already have home heating plants (natural gas) that are in the 80-95% efficiency range...

I am just no sure how much ("low quality") heat would be useful from micro CHP plants (home/office heating/hot water, green houses, fruit drying, etc.). Summer tends to be peak electrical usage in the US--not a time when much co-generation of heat is needed. Also, distributed power is expensive to build and maintain when compared to large installations.

When it makes sense, I am all for CHP/Co-generation. But I don't believe that these are going to make sense in an overall fossil fuel energy / CO2 reduction scheme. Unless some intermediate fuel derived from solar (such as hydrogen) was used--these would be the same type plants that you would be scraping anyways.



> 2. Storage
> 
> Our electrical system would benefit from storage right this very minute. The night time electrical demand drops off hugely. Nationally, the peak is at about 3 pm. From midnight to 4 am demand is down 38%. That daily peak has to be met by turning up "peaking plants". It is expensive for money and resources. That is why TOU (Time Of Use) billing charges 6 cents for night time electricity and 16 cents for peak time electricity.



Yes, I have TOU metering (E7) and the summer pricing is even a wider spread (and more expensive): Off Peak is $0.09 and Peak is $0.29 per kWhour. But peak for E7 is only Noon to 6pm Monday through Friday--and, From the www.caiso.com link I posted earlier, you can see that California's peaks, many times, are no longer at 3 pm--they are now from around 6-9pm when solar is not available (today, Saturday, the peak is almost 6pm to midnight). Summer mid-day usage is probably peaked by AC when the weather is warm (wind in California works well when the coast is cool and the central valley is hot).

In fact, the E7 plan has now been closed to new users and the E6 plan is now being used--much wider time range (peak, partial peak, and off peak) and it includes weekends too... At least in California, it appears that we have outsourced most of our heavy industries and home use seems to be a major demand driver now.[/QUOTE]



> If we built storage systems based on cavern compressed air or artifical mountain lake reservoirs or hydrogen, then we could take in all the electricity we could generate from wind and solar when it is available and put it back out when we need it. Those "peaking plants" could be used a lot less.



Hydro is not the environmental darling it once was (and for some good reasons too)... Having large reservoir area available with sufficient elevation and a good water source along with the need to build dams and flood the valleys is probably limited--Europe is reported to have about 5.5% (2000) of its Grid Capacity in Pumped storage. And, as with all things, there are efficiency losses--perhaps around 78% efficient for pumped storage.

Pumping sea water into coastal valleys would be possible where I live (SF Bay Area)--but I would imagine that this would destroy the fresh water tables (water wells, kill vegetation, etc.). Damming under the Golden Gate Bridge would be a wonderful tide/river hydro-station--but I don't foresee that happening either.

Salt Caverns and Compressed Air (or even pumped water into Salt Caverns) might be possible--but will the salt caverns remain stable under such uses--(need to filter out salt from "exhaust", need salt water ponds for surface storage, etc.).



> All of our non-renewable sources of energy like coal, gas, petroleum and yes, even nuclear ...are, well, non-renewable. They are dead-ended. We will be turning them off at some point anyway. Why not get on with it? Will we wait until it gets so bad due to some shortage that our economy is in shambles? Maybe. It woudn't be the first time.



From some sources (got to go soon--don't have link handy), currently nuclear fuel costs are about 0.3% of the cost of nuclear electricity (I honestly don't know where costs of waste disposal is included--or even if it is enough--but in California we do have decommissioning chargers for Nukes in our bills). Even if nuclear fuel when up 100 times, the cost of fuel would only go up from 0.3% to 30% of a nuclear plant's bill--and other costs (distribution, profit, taxes, etc.) still keep the costs of generated power at less than 50% of the retail bill. So, nuclear fuel could even go up probably 1,000x and it would still be less than my peak billing charges today ($0.29/kWhr).

And, nuclear breeder reactors are, probably, as close as we will come today to having large scale renewable power today that is reliable enough for powering our grid today in the manner that we expect. Hydro is capacity is probably close to maximum today (not building many new dams, and in some area, they want to take out those dam because of environmental reasons).

Plutonium proliferation is a problem today--North Korea, US gave them the reactors to make Plutonium. Iran, using oil money today (they are making long term oil sales at less than 20 per barrel even for brand new deals) for nuclear processing/reactors/plutonium enrichment. And, don't forget that Iran is currently the number 2 supplier for Yellow Cake (Australia is #1).



> So... storage and diversty. We should get on with it.


Sounds good--everyone willing to pay from $0.29 to $0.53 / kWhr (summer rates that I am paying today for peak power Noon-6PM) on their bills? Are you prepared to see your bills go up 3-5x tomorrow? Are you willing to pay 2x on your off peak bills?

There are no easy answers to these questions.

-Bill


----------



## 3rd_shift (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Banning "hotwire" lightbulbs might help a little.
Unfortunately, it's the same logic my grandparents had about turning off bulbs in the house.

You see,
Light bulbs generate heat in not only the summer time, but also winter.

Since it's winter, I'll elaborate from my old air conditioning and refrigeration schooling.
Resistive electrical loads such as electric heaters (the ones with the red glowing elements) and light bulbs generate about 3.14 british thermal units of heat per watt.

By turning off a 100 watt hotwire lightbulb, now the electric heater has to pick up the heating load that the lightbulb was taking care of.
By using 100 more watts than it was using before the bulb was turned off. 
You won't see a savings on your electric bill from this.

But wait;
Electric heaters are thousands of watts of simple and relatively inefficient heat.
Why not ban those instead to make a real difference? :thinking:
There are a few other technologies that are much better.

Just some things to think about.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Bill wrote: There are no easy answers.

Bill, are you sure this isn't code for "There are no answers."?

If that is true, it is too bad. Our non-renewable fuels will run out. And... in the meantime, we will continue to destroy many picturesqe West Virginia mountain valleys by exploding the top, pushing it into the streams of the valleys below and leaving the polluted coal washing holding ponds behind.

Ah well, since there are no easy answers...

I do thank you for the link to the Wikipedia article. I had no idea we already have 25 such water pumping electricity storage facilities here in the U.S.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



BB said:


> he small sized CHP units are only (currently) 25% efficient and at best are probably slated to a maximum of 35%. Given that larger gas turbines are about 57% efficient



You really need to factor in power distribution losses in this comparison.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



gadget_lover said:


> On the subject of mandating CFL....
> 
> I would have to get a doctor's note to import incandescent lamps for personal use. Yes, it sounds like a drug problem, doesn't it?
> 
> ...


I'm amazed how the idea that fluorescents flicker has refused to die. All CFLs, and pretty much all linear tubes except older T12s on a magnetic ballast, operate at 25,000 to 50,000 Hz, and *don't* flicker at all. The time constant of fluoro tubes is such that above a few thousand Hz they light continuously. If fluorescent flicker is still a problem for you, then it is only because you're using tubes running on magnetic ballasts. I won't argue that the 120 Hz (not 60 Hz) flicker on those does indeed induce headaches in some people (myself included) but there is no need these days to suffer those effects while trying to enjoy the other benefits of fluorescent. On a personal note, even with the flicker and the not so good color rendering fluorescent lights used to have I _still_ preferred them to incandescents where the lack of a white point and horrid shadows from the point source induced _horrible_ headaches in me. It's probably been a good 25 years since I've had incandescent lights in any area where I stay most of the time. My switchover in the last few years to T8 full-spectrum tubes on electronic ballasts has really left me little more to desire in terms of light quality. It's like bottled sunlight, and a good 5 to 6 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs.


----------



## BB (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



ikendu said:


> Bill wrote: There are no easy answers.
> 
> Bill, are you sure this isn't code for "There are no answers."?
> ...
> Ah well, since there are no easy answers...



No, it is not code for "no answers"... It is a simple fact of life. Providing huge amounts of power to ~300 million people that would rather pay than conserve is not easy.

Am I wrong that after a decade or so of California pushing solar and, potentially CPFL (by law), that we will only be putting off 1-3 years of grid expansion? Am I wrong about the efficiencies of the turbines/power plants/etc.? 

Easy answers look like a guy who has, probably, personally used more Jet Fuel, for his trying to convince people to give him a job--and later--for him promoting a film pushing consensus science than any single person alive today.

Idendu--If I recall correctly you are an engineer too (and even used to work at GM)... I don't believe your job is easy--is it?

Regarding the loss is long distance electrical transmission lines... From Sahara Wind:


> [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] The existing High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology enables large electricity transfers to limit cumulative line and AC-DC-AC converting losses, to less than 10% [BB: from article lists 7.5% loss] over a distance of 3500 km [BB: ~2,200 miles]. Whereas the overall added costs per kilowatt/hour for such a long transmission line are lower then € 0.02/kWh [BB: ~$0.026 per hWh).[/font]


So, a high efficiency Gas Turbine is around 57% efficient (today's best case?). Today's micro turbines around around 25% efficient (assuming that both turbines need same city distribution system--1 unit of gas will produce):

"Large Turbine 2,000 miles" = 0.57 * (1-0.075) = 0.50 units of electricy/unit of gas
"Micro Turbine Grid Tied to share" = 0.25 units of electricity/unit of gas

If the micro turbine was not using the local city grid--it is possible that the ~25%(?) loss of transmission would be saved--bringing it up to:

0.25 / 0.75 = 0.33 units of electricity per unit of gas for local gas turbine (no grid distribution losses).

Another issues with increasing the distributed use of natural gas is that (based on electricity being about 15% of power consumed in the home and home heating being about 10%) is that we could easily see amount of gas (therms/CCft/etc.) double in the local piping system. Possibly requiring major distribution system improvements to handle the larger volumes of gas required to support distributed (micro) electrical generation.

And given the high costs of locally distributing gas:


> Because of the transportation infrastructure required to move natural gas to many diverse customers across a reasonably wide geographic area, distribution costs typically make up the majority of natural gas costs for small volume end users. While large pipelines can  reduce unit costs by transmitting large volumes of natural gas, distribution companies must deliver relatively small volumes to many more different locations. In fact, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), for the typical small volume residential natural gas consumer, distribution costs can represent up to 47 percent of the natural gas bill. As shown, commodity costs (the physical natural gas itself) represent about 34 percent of residential consumers' bill, and transmission (by large interstate and intrastate pipelines) and storage costs make up about 19 percent.



Natural gas costs almost twice as much to the "home owner" as it would to an industrial sized user next to a large transport/well head user...

Just from these "back of the envelope" calculations (and assumptions)--distribution of power by electricity and liquid fuels ("a section of pipe in oil service can hold 15 times more energy than when used to transport high pressure gas") has much fewer losses than transportation of Natural Gas.

Conservation (home/work/etc.) is a big start (and is the best--once done, that energy is never needed--not just put off to be used next year)--and distributed generation/co-generation/CHP can help--but there are other issues which can limit the ability of these projects to answer our long term needs.

-Bill


----------



## Schnotts (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Thats one silly proposed law I hope never makes its way up north.


----------



## chevrofreak (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



peacefuljeffrey said:


> I don't want to see it happen because an authoritarian decree by government. STOP TRYING TO LEGISLATE EVERY DAMNED ASPECT OF LIFE, you power-hungry ZEALOTS!! :scowl:




High five man. :goodjob: 



TedTheLed said:


> Saving 550 kilowatt hours means 50 Gallons of oil*not burned, which means that 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and 20 pounds of sulfur dioxide will not get into the atmosphere.



How is that even physically possible?


----------



## BB (Feb 10, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Chevrofreak,

If your question is how can 50 gallons (or approximatly 300 lbs of fuel) can change into 1,300 lbs of CO2--no, there is no nuclear fission or fusion going on here...

For example, the original gasoline is Octane... Eight carbon atoms and 18 hydrogen atoms (if I remember my chemistry from 3+ decades ago)... When burned with air--for each molecule of Octane, you now get eight molecules of CO2 plus 9 molecules of H2O... Or the added weight of 8x2+9x1=25 molecules of Oxygen in the "output" that was not in the gasoline originally.

So now you have more "Mass" in CO2 and H2O than you started with--but of course, that mass was not created out of nothing--it was already in the air as O2 free molecules.

For example, if you burn 1 gallon of gasoline, you actually create about 1.5 gallons of water (if you condense the water from a car's exhaust) (plus the CO2 gas)--again, the oxygen was extracted from the air plus the hydrogen from the gasoline to "create" the water.

Does this help?

-Bill


----------



## peekay331 (Feb 11, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

if they truly want to effectively promote cfl usage, the solution is simple. tax the crap out of incandescent bulbs, e.g. 1-200%. no more 94 cents for 4 packs. make it cost 3-4 bucks per bulb, or more than a regular cfl bulb. then give 100% of the tax revenues to subsidize cfl bulbs via either a tax deduction or straight to manufacturers as they do right now.

this way, the applications that truly need incandescents would just ante up and pay. but your casual user would opt for the cfl's.

personally, i think the same should be done for large suv's and trucks. too many soccer moms driving around with these vehicles and one baby seat in the back and no one else in the vehicle.


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 11, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

ah yes, TAX AND SPEND, TAX AND SPEND!!!

with all this talk of Taxing and Banning, I feel like I'm in Europe already.



peekay331 said:


> if they truly want to effectively promote cfl usage, the solution is simple. tax the crap out of incandescent bulbs, e.g. 1-200%. no more 94 cents for 4 packs. make it cost 3-4 bucks per bulb, or more than a regular cfl bulb. then give 100% of the tax revenues to subsidize cfl bulbs via either a tax deduction or straight to manufacturers as they do right now.
> 
> this way, the applications that truly need incandescents would just ante up and pay. but your casual user would opt for the cfl's.
> 
> personally, i think the same should be done for large suv's and trucks. too many soccer moms driving around with these vehicles and one baby seat in the back and no one else in the vehicle.


----------



## BB (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Here is what I was talking about by changing demand based on available grid capacity (a not really a battery battery):

"Fridges could save power":



> Refrigerated warehouses might soon be used to store not just food, but gigawatts of electricity. A plan dreamt up in the Netherlands could see the giant fridges acting as massive batteries. They would buffer swings in supply and demand from electricity created from renewable sources.
> 
> The idea seems simple. Say you lowered the temperature of all large coldstores in Europe by just 1°C during the night when electricity demand is low, then let it rise 1°C by switching them off during the day when demand is at peak. The net effect would be that the warehouses would act as as batteries — potentially storing 50,000 megawatt-hours of energy — and the food wouldn't melt.
> ...
> ...



-Bill


----------



## 2xTrinity (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



BB said:


> Here is what I was talking about by changing demand based on available grid capacity (a not really a battery battery):
> 
> "Fridges could save power":
> 
> ...


Interesting thought. Another idea I've considered though is for air conditioning is to make ice at night when electricity is cheaper, then use that ice to contribute to cooling the building during the daytime -- probably the biggest consumer of electricity in California is air conditioning systems (and probably 2/3rds of that is due the people, and businesses, that run their thermostat at <60F in the middle of heat wave, then wearing sweaters because it too cold inside...)


As for the main topic, even though I'm a major apologist for CFL bulbs, I absolutely disagree with government banning incandescent light bulbs. At the very most I'd consent to a small tax on Incandescent bulbs _not_ a 300%+ tax (similar to the Cigarrete tax proposed here in CA last election) that is basically a de-facto ban, as I don't believe it's right for the government to be micro-managing those sorts of details of people's lives. Even that I woudl be reluctant to allow though, as most of that money would likely just go into the general fund, and as a result, the government could later actually _resist_ the shift away from Incan as they'd prefer to keep the cashflow from the tax...

I personally think it woudl be more effective to put pressure on companies to release things like timers, and photocells that are compatible with fluorescent lighting, and to enforce better standards for things like longevity , improving power factor, and radio frequency interference. Those areas I believe are perfectly valid for regulation, and would do a lot more good than banning incan bulbs. There are a lot of crappy brands of CFLs out there. I've had to do a lot of research and trial-and-error to find good CFLs. If done right, I believe fluorescent ban be _better_ than the incandescent lighting, it can be a whole lot worse if you don't know what to look for. Unfortunately almost nobody is willing to go to the amount of research as peopel on these boards however. 



> Banning "hotwire" lightbulbs might help a little.
> Unfortunately, it's the same logic my grandparents had about turning off bulbs in the house.
> 
> You see,
> Light bulbs generate heat in not only the summer time, but also winter.


In California much more electricity goes into air conditioning during the summer than heating in the winter. That situatoin creates a double inefficiency -- power running incan bulbs, and power to air-condition that extra heat. That's also power _during peak demand_, when we've had rolling blackouts. Also, most people here use natural gas heating here as it is substantially cheaper than electric heating. 

Another point worthy of noting is that a great many houses I see run 500+ watts of outdoor lighting for 10+ hours a night -- there are even some single houses on our street that cosume as much energy as _all_ the 70W sodium lights on the entire street combined! Heating the outside is wasted heat no matter the season. 

What I would like to see available would be some sort of fluorescent outdoor lighting system that would be say run at 20% brightness most of the time, then jump up to 100% brightness using a motion detector.


----------



## ikendu (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



2xTrinity said:


> Another point worthy of noting is that a great many houses I see run 500+ watts of outdoor lighting for 10+ hours a night -- there are even some single houses on our street that cosume as much energy as _all_ the 70W sodium lights on the entire street combined! Heating the outside is wasted heat no matter the season. .



Because our utilities lack storage, they are quite happy to encourage night time lighting. When I was a child on a farm, the local utility would give you an outdoor "barn light" for free and install it for free (with pole). Now, we'd lived in the country for years without such a light, and my father couldn't see that we needed it and didn't take one. But many of our neighbors did. Today, you see such lights all over the country side. So... if we are going to save night time electricity (still pollutes, still creates CO2, etc.), we'll have to do it on our own. The utilities have a vested interest to use up a much of that night time electricity as they can sell. Shoot, where I used to live in Ohio, they gave out an annual prize for the household that had decorated with night time light most effectively.



2xTrinity said:


> What I would like to see available would be some sort of fluorescent outdoor lighting system that would be say run at 20% brightness most of the time, then jump up to 100% brightness using a motion detector.



Hey! Maybe this will be where LEDs begin to get used for night time light. You could have a combo system where the dim light is a small wattage CFB and the "instantly bright" lights might be LEDs. Although, if they are on for a short time, I suppose you could achieve much of the same savings right now with an instant on incandescent.


----------



## 2xTrinity (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



ikendu said:


> Because our utilities lack storage, they are quite happy to encourage night time lighting. When I was a child on a farm, the local utility would give you an outdoor "barn light" for free and install it for free (with pole). Now, we'd lived in the country for years without such a light, and my father couldn't see that we needed it and didn't take one. But many of our neighbors did. Today, you see such lights all over the country side. So... if we are going to save night time electricity (still pollutes, still creates CO2, etc.), we'll have to do it on our own. The utilities have a vested interest to use up a much of that night time electricity as they can sell. Shoot, where I used to live in Ohio, they gave out an annual prize for the household that had decorated with night time light most effectively.


This is a good point... it's a bit odd though but our power company has basically been giving away free CFLs, LED night light bulbs, and all sorts of other things to try to cut down nighttime energy use. 





> Hey! Maybe this will be where LEDs begin to get used for night time light. You could have a combo system where the dim light is a small wattage CFB and the "instantly bright" lights might be LEDs. Although, if they are on for a short time, I suppose you could achieve much of the same savings right now with an instant on incandescent.


This is actually quite common with incandescent, but it's quite unsettling personally to walk along a sidewalk and all sorts of floodlights alongside an abosolutely dark house just light up without warning. I think it would be nice to have enough light to let people know that you are home etc. but not have them come on full blast until they come walking up. Right now it would of course be psosibel to do this with a few CFLs that stay on, and separate incan lights, but I think doing both with a dimmable CFL you wouln't need to have as many fixtures (CFLs also dim a lot more efficiently than incan, since they are dependent on high temperature to operate)

LED outdoor lighting I think would probably be best for things like lighting up stairways, where they could recess a little LED bulb along each step rather than having a regualr light behind a grill -- it would look a lot better IMO. I expect outdoor lighting will be dominated overall by HID lights though for a very long time.


----------



## BB (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

Utilities are interested in a stable grid load--Base loads (stable for hours and days) are supported with large coal and nuclear power plants--which are the cheapest methods to generator power.

Loads that only last minutes to hours are much more expensive to support because that is usually generated by gas turbine or other plants. These plants use expensive fuel and are not used for many hours per day (expensive capital equipment spends most of the time not running).

Coal, Nuclear plants take hours to days to stabilize.

Natural Gas Turbine, Diesel take around 10-12-30 minutes from cold start to full power.

Hydro can go from stop to full power in about 3 minutes (assuming water is available and downstream conditions permit).

For a utility, those stable loads around midnight to 4am or so are probably more of "blessing" than anything else... Hence the idea of utilities controlling loads based on when they have inexpensive (or solar/wind) capacity available.

-Bill


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

here is a thought, if you really care about mother earth, don't drive a electric car unless you have a setup at home that contributes to the grid more than what your car uses!!!!

I see enough people who plug their electric cars in to the wall at night and are nice and smug in the morning zipping through the car-pool lane. They don't have any solar panels or wind turbines....


----------



## AndyTiedye (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

We have white LED Xmas lights (and some solar lights that don't do squat in the winter)
backed up by a couple of motion-activated incans.


----------



## twentysixtwo (Feb 12, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

We live in a country where indiidual freedoms and rights are emphasized. In Europe and other countries the "Greater good" is often a more important consideration. Where does my right to burn tires in my backyard interfere with your right to clean air? I don't know, but with the exception of a few people named Ted living in shacks in Montana, there will always be a tradeoff. 

Some time ago I had a conversation with someone who was PO'd about California's mandate (at that time) about Zero Emission Vehicles and how they always have to be "Different" about things like pollution, etc.

I grew up in LA in the 60's and 70's. Several times a week they would declare a "Stage X" smog alert which meant that you would have to stay indoors. This really sucked. Instant athsma - you'd be wheezy and your eyes would burn. This pushed CA to adopt very strict emissions standards which basically led the US into adopting stricter standards. CA vehicles cost significantly more than non CA vehicled because of this and it cost an extra $350 or so to register non CA vehicles.

Here in Michigan there are taxes and fees to keep waterways clean. In addition several cities are putting in multimillion dollar facilities to treat sewage and storm runoff because in the summer heavy rainfall can shut down beaches for weeks at a time. As a taxpayer do you think this is fair?

All toilets sold in the US after (the mid '80s?) are low flush. In my community they had watering bans on odd/even days because water pressure was too low. They ended up passing a ~$3M bond issue to put in a new water tower. Should I have my right to water my grass everyday infringed? Should I have to pay for this new water tower? 

I guess it all depends on whether you feel you are affected or not. If your love is Golf, how would you feel if all the courses in your state were randomly closed at the last minute due to pollution. Would you accept a fee to assure that they would be open all the time?

CA is 20 lbs of people in a 10 lb bag with 5 lbs of resources. Having lived through too many water shortages and smog alerts to remember. I didn't have to deal with their rolling blackouts from a few years ago but allI can say is if they can pass this, more power to to them (No pun intended)


----------



## 2xTrinity (Feb 13, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*



270winchester said:


> here is a thought, if you really care about mother earth, don't drive a electric car unless you have a setup at home that contributes to the grid more than what your car uses!!!!
> 
> I see enough people who plug their electric cars in to the wall at night and are nice and smug in the morning zipping through the car-pool lane. They don't have any solar panels or wind turbines....


Even if you don't generate your own power electric cars still contribute much less pollution than standard cars. Electric vehicles are inherently _much_ more efficient than gasoline cars -- electric drivetrains can deliver almost all of the charged electricity to the wheels, while conventional cars and trasmissions have closer to 25% efficiency when they are running (and 0% when they are slowing down, idling, etc) -- if you were to burn that same amount of petroleum in a power-plant (which can use much more efficient gas turbine engines), run it through the grid, and charge your electric car with it -- you'd still be better off in terms of overall efficiency, and the pollution would be a lot easier to manage at a central powerplant out of town. 

I think the best bet for most people though, is simply to adapt your house, your car, and so on to use as little power as possible. Choosing more efficient appliances, augmenting water heaters with a solar heating system, switching lights over to CFLs, changing driving styles to combine short trips together, carpooling and a whole bunch of other things are easy to do and save a lot of energy.


----------



## 270winchester (Feb 13, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

the pollution is a nonissue now that we have PZEV gasoline vehicles(Camry for example), and I would like to see your source on the 25% efficiency figure. 

So you are saying that if you burn a gallon of gasoline, charge the E-car up, it will go 30-40 miles on the highway? I think you missed the lecture on the conservation of energy between physical states in fossil fuel back in high school.



2xTrinity said:


> Even if you don't generate your own power electric cars still contribute much less pollution than standard cars. Electric vehicles are inherently _much_ more efficient than gasoline cars -- electric drivetrains can deliver almost all of the charged electricity to the wheels, while conventional cars and trasmissions have closer to 25% efficiency when they are running (and 0% when they are slowing down, idling, etc) -- if you were to burn that same amount of petroleum in a power-plant (which can use much more efficient gas turbine engines), run it through the grid, and charge your electric car with it -- you'd still be better off in terms of overall efficiency, and the pollution would be a lot easier to manage at a central powerplant out of town.
> 
> I think the best bet for most people though, is simply to adapt your house, your car, and so on to use as little power as possible. Choosing more efficient appliances, augmenting water heaters with a solar heating system, switching lights over to CFLs, changing driving styles to combine short trips together, carpooling and a whole bunch of other things are easy to do and save a lot of energy.


----------



## jtr1962 (Feb 13, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

An internal combustion engine converts only about 15% to 25% of the energy in the gasoline into energy at the wheels. An electric car converts upwards of 80% of the energy in the battery into energy at the wheels. An ICE is a heat engine limited by the laws of thermodynamics, a battery is just an energy storage device which can in theory have 100% efficiency.

Now there are other losses associated with electric cars in the big picture. For example, charging efficiency is perhaps 90%, transmission efficiency from the generating station might run about 80%. The conversion efficiency of the generators themselves (fuel into electricity) runs around 60%, assuming the generator even uses fossil fuels. Even so, multiply these out and you get 0.6x0.8x0.9x0.8 = 34.6% and you're still way ahead burning fuel at a generating station to power an EV as opposed to burning it in a car directly (plus the emissions are centralized/easier to deal with). Also, you further save energy by using regenerative braking in the EV.


----------



## BB (Feb 19, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in CA - Proposed Law*

And now--Australia:


> THE inefficient standard light bulb could be phased out within three years to save up to 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.The federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is expected today to announce a commitment to phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2009-10, a world first by a national government.
> 
> It hopes to convince state and territory governments to introduce energy performance standards that would lead to the replacement of standard light bulbs with more efficient but more expensive alternatives such as compact fluorescent lights. It will also negotiate with manufacturers to phase out the bulbs.
> ...
> ...


I find it interesting that the government's "public and street lighting" accounts for 2x the emissions of residential lighting (even with the current inefficient bulbs)...

A law to affect, at best, a (0.8MT/564.7MT=) 0.14% of the "CO2 Pollution"... :ironic:

-Bill


----------



## bfg9000 (Mar 23, 2007)

*No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

First California, then Australia and the EU, and now this.

This bill, introduced in the US House, would require all household light bulbs sold in the USA to deliver at least 60L/w by 2012, 90L/w by 2016, and 120L/w by 2020.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Well, the one thing I like about this proposed ban is that the timescale is reasonable. Well before 2012 LEDs should be able to completely replace incandescent without any of the drawbacks of CFLs. Also interesting was that this proposal is a defacto ban on CFLs _and_ pretty much any other type of fluorescent lighting with the eventual 120 lm/W efficiency standard. Again, good news because disposing of fluorescents creates problems. Overall, this is a far better proposal than some knee-jerk immediate ban or high tax on incandescents. I think 5 years is plenty of time for the market to adjust. I also would have liked to see some sort of standards for minimum operating life such as 50,000 hours by 2012, perhaps 200,000 hours by 2020.


----------



## cutlerylover (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Interesting...what does everyone think about LED's beign a part of home lighting by then? I know there is no wayt to really know for sure until then, but LED technology has been increasing and I figure some of not most will be using it in their home lighting within the next 10 years or so...but then again in 1980 people thought we would be driving to work in our hover crafts by now, lol...


----------



## havand (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

I think it's great as long as it is affordable. People making minimum wage arn't going to drop $4 per light bulb. I know the compact flourescents and LED bulbs will last longer than the normal incan, but it is a much larger chunk of change to drop at once. Just my thought. Good to see the government actually doing something reasonable, for once.


----------



## matrixshaman (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

I don't think telling people what they can or can't do in their own homes is ever good. I am ALL for LED lighting moving into home lighting and ALL for anything that is good for the planet and saving energy. Just don't make it a LAW though. It will happen by itself and as far as minimum wage people not being able to buy the newer lights that would not especially be true. I think if people just bought one light at a time as old ones blew out anyone would be willing to buy a light that lasts nearly forever for just a couple bucks more. How many lights do you think a minimum wage person has? Maybe 6 to 10 at most. Cost of something this basic won't be an issue and once people see how much money they save and how they almost never have to buy a light again they will be grabbing them up. But just don't tell me if I want to have a 'Retro' feel in my study room with an old incandescent I've been living under for almost 60 years that I can't have one. This is akin to outlawing large SUV's and big cars. Eventually they'll have us all running around on Mopeds. There are too many other examples of how they could outlaw energy sucking things but in the end the dollar tends to take care of the majority of wasters. Rant mode off.


----------



## KC2IXE (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Great - More pols being idiots

Ban Private Jets FIRST


----------



## Illum (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

so what do they plan to do to the centennial bulb?


----------



## qip (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

do you think all this led lighting for city use like the one in north carolina using cree & these new banning of incan in a few places is a result of seeing how well the flashlights have been working using led , mainly you think cpf itself got the ball rolling


----------



## cchurchi (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

I oppose the government telling me what kind of lighting I am allowed to have in my own home. I also like to take 30 minute showers. Next there will be some politician telling me I can only take 5 minute showers by 2008....


----------



## Lobo (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*



matrixshaman said:


> I don't think telling people what they can or can't do in their own homes is ever good. I am ALL for LED lighting moving into home lighting and ALL for anything that is good for the planet and saving energy. Just don't make it a LAW though. It will happen by itself and as far as minimum wage people not being able to buy the newer lights that would not especially be true. I think if people just bought one light at a time as old ones blew out anyone would be willing to buy a light that lasts nearly forever for just a couple bucks more. How many lights do you think a minimum wage person has? Maybe 6 to 10 at most. Cost of something this basic won't be an issue and once people see how much money they save and how they almost never have to buy a light again they will be grabbing them up. But just don't tell me if I want to have a 'Retro' feel in my study room with an old incandescent I've been living under for almost 60 years that I can't have one. This is akin to outlawing large SUV's and big cars. Eventually they'll have us all running around on Mopeds. There are too many other examples of how they could outlaw energy sucking things but in the end the dollar tends to take care of the majority of wasters. Rant mode off.


 
I think I'm with you on this one. They can tax the hell out of it, so people who really wants something that wastes resources still can use it, but do something good at the same time, and let the market adjust itself. But banning something as basic as Incandescent lights completely, dont know about that. I guess there will be plenty of cases when LED lights wont be able to replace regular incans (heard something about ovenlights for an instance).


----------



## dalekcommander (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Well, if it all works out.the money we're supposed to save by using LED's in our houses will give us more to spend on our toys.
Anybody familiar with the C. Crane Company? I heard about these guys on Coast to Coast and picked up a couple of their catalogs. Apparently they've got an LED bulb that can be left on for a god-awful amount of time during the year and it will only cost approx 89 cents on your bill. The damn thing costs about 40 bucks to start with, but it may be worth it if their claims are true.........
Then again, what the *^%$ do I know?


----------



## Empath (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Powernoodle, CPF is not the place for a "call to arms" against our government nor those with whom you disagree politically.

You've a narrow window of time in which to edit your comments.

_Added content: Sufficient time has been allowed, and board activity has been noted from you on at least three occasions. Your post has been removed, and your account has been locked out for a period of three days, as an effort to impress the seriousness with which we consider the matter, and to encourage adherence to administrative directives._


----------



## Eric242 (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

I don´t see this happening since the US government doesn´t even know how to spell Kyoto Protocol   :laughing:

Eric


----------



## elgarak (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Prohibitions/bans are a bad idea. They have never worked in the past, they do not work now. I agree with all previous posters that it's silly to prohibit uses of private citizens in private homes.

Higher taxing is OK.

Nevertheless, I like the idea of promoting alternative solutions... I use non-incans (fluorescents) nearly exclusively now. The main lamp in my living room blew one of the three incan bulbs every 2 months, regular as clockwork. Changed to fluorescent, which now run for three years without problem.


----------



## Minjin (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

_Deleted quote removed - Empath_

You might want to review the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause


----------



## PhotonBoy (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

The cost of running incandescents is higher than most realize. During warm and hot weather, many people use air conditioners ($$) which have to work harder and longer pumping out the significant waste heat generated by incans.


----------



## IsaacHayes (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Is this just for edison screw bulbs? What about chandler bulbs and other odd sizes/etc?


----------



## Minjin (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*



PhotonBoy said:


> The cost of running incandescents is higher than most realize. During warm and hot weather, many people use air conditioners ($$) which have to work harder and longer pumping out the significant waste heat generated by incans.



And during the winter, those light bulbs aid in heating the building. I'd say the waste heat effect is a net wash if the country is looked at as a whole...

Besides, it's not like CFLs don't get hot. They just don't get "as" hot.


----------



## jtr1962 (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*



IsaacHayes said:


> Is this just for edison screw bulbs? What about chandler bulbs and other odd sizes/etc?


The proposal mentioned there would be no special exemptions granted for general lighting which is the category chandelier bulbs fall into. Besides, those small-base chandelier bulbs are among the most inefficient incandescents going (6 to 10 lm/W depending upon wattage).

I also want to add that long term I feel this law will be irrelevant because LEDs will change the way we think about lighting, especially the "bulb" mentality. Instead, people will just buy fixtures where the permanently-mounted LEDs are designed to last the life of the fixture, making replacement bulb efficiency mandates meaningless. I personally think the bigger advantage of getting rid of incandescent bulbs is not needing to change burned-out bulbs frequently. It's just so annoying. That's one reason I've been using linear fluorescents in most frequently occupied areas for the last 20 or so years. I couldn't stand needing to replace bulbs something like every month or two or burning myself every time I changed them (and I couldn't stand the kind of light incandescents give, either). The heat they generate also tends to dry out wiring.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Mar 23, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

Adding to LED Fixed Lighting Index


----------



## XtreMe_G (Mar 24, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

 if there's no more incans, how are we gonna burn paper with flashlights


----------



## cal..45 (Mar 24, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*



Eric242 said:


> I don´t see this happening since the US government doesn´t even know how to spell Kyoto Protocol   :laughing:
> 
> Eric


 
:goodjob: I second that



regards, holger


----------



## jayflash (Mar 24, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*



Empath said:


> Powernoodle, CPF is not the place for a "call to arms" against our government nor those with whom you disagree politically.
> 
> You've a narrow window of time in which to edit your comments.





Our third president, Thomas Jefferson, would have been skating on thin ice, here, too. IIRC his opinion was that a revolution every 20 years, or so, might benefit the nation.

Better that we revolt with our vote.


----------



## Greta (Mar 24, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

jayflash... I believe you missed the key words in Empath's post.... 

_*"CPF is not the place..."*_

... and PN's window is closing quickly....


----------



## goldenlight (Mar 24, 2007)

*Re: No More Incandescent Bulbs in USA - Proposed Law*

I already have CFL in virtually every socket in my house.

But they don't fire up in the cold, so most of my exterior lighting is incandescent. In my garage, I use 4 foot florescent tubes in warm weather, but once the temps stay below freezing, those won't fire up either.

Have the pinheads who make the laws taken this into account? Not bloody likely.

They are just passing 'feel good' legislation, when what REALLY needs to be done is to attack the big users of energy, and creators of greenhouse gasses: personal vehicles. Right now, the CAFE standards are LESS than they were back in the early eighties, thanks to the car manufacturers whining to Washington, and making huge contributions to campaigns.

I agree that the use of CFL could save a huge amount of energy, but as usual, out 'elected officials' aren't representing US, they are doing what they want to do.

Collectively, they have about the intelligence of G.W. Bush, and the integrity and honesty of Genghis Khan, IMHO.


----------



## C4LED (Apr 25, 2007)

*Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

Now it's Canada also...

--------

Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070425/sc_nm/lightbulbs_env_dc&printer=1

Wed Apr 25, 12:03 PM ET

Canada will ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Wednesday.

Canada is the second country in the world to announce such a ban. Australia said in February it would get rid of all incandescent bulbs by 2009.

"Making the switch to more efficient lighting is one of the easiest and most effective things we can do to reduce energy use and harmful emissions," Lunn told a news conference.

If households installed compact fluorescent bulbs -- which use about 75 percent less electricity than old-style bulbs -- they could save C$50 ($44) a year, he said.

"By banning inefficient lighting, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6 million tonnes per year," Lunn said.

The ban will not apply to uses where incandescent bulbs are still the only practical alternative.

The Canadian province of Ontario last week announced it would ban inefficient incandescent bulbs by 2012.


----------



## LEDninja (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

I have been using CFLs since 1999 when they were CAD$23 a pop, have burned 3 of them out and no way of disposing them other than throwing them in the trash. So I added a little bit of mercury to the Hamilton landfill. Now if everybody was to add a little bit of mercury to the landfill.....
.....we will all die from mercury poisoning by 2022 instead of baking to death by 2100.

LED household bulbs are not ready to take the place of incandescents yet price or technology wise. The number of LED bulbs that are safety approved (UL/CSA/CE) are limited. Well it is 5 years to 2012 and a lot can happen.

I thought California was 1st or 2nd. What happened there? They will be BAAAACK.

Ontario had no choice but to do something. The province promised to shut down all it's coal fired power plants by 2007 then 2009 then 2014. If energy usage does not start dropping by 2012 there will be massive blackouts by 2014.

I just got 4 coupon books fron my utility company with coupons for outdoor solar lights, CFLs, ceiling fans, outcoor motion sensor, furnance filters and (huh) dimmer switches. Current dimmer switches only work with incans! - the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing!!!

Just some random thoughts when I saw this thread.


----------



## Alteran (Apr 25, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

I assume this will not apply to flashlights, correct? Although there are "practical alternatives", the people over in Ottawa hopefully don't know that. I'm an LED guy for the most part, but there is no simple, cheap LED ROP!


----------



## LEDninja (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*



Alteran said:


> I assume this will not apply to flashlights, correct? Although there are "practical alternatives", the people over in Ottawa hopefully don't know that. I'm an LED guy for the most part, but there is no simple, cheap LED ROP!


I think it applies to 115VAC household bulbs only. The full environmental plan will be released later today (Thursday). The lightbulb part was leaked by accident. If Ottawa follows Ontario's lead incandescent bulbs themselves are not banned, just the ones that do not meet a certain efficiency number. So high efficiency halogen bulbs may (or may not) still be sold. 
I don't think Canadian tire is selling ROP bulbs now.

Don't know how long the CTV link will last.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNe...25/lightbulb_ban_070425/20070425?hub=CanadaAM


CTV news said:


> CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife said the real test will take place on Thursday when the full plan is released, and the opposition parties and environmentalists offer their responses.
> 
> Information on the lightbulb plan became public after Baird's speech was faxed by mistake to the opposition Liberals on Tuesday.
> 
> Under pressure to explain, the government released the text just before midnight.


----------



## PhotonBoy (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

I think this is an excellent move. I hope that the mercury problems with the compact fluorescent bulbs can be solved by then (LEDs?).

For parts of the far north, it makes a lot of sense, since most of their power is provided by expensive diesel fuel trucked in from the south.

BTW, is there an energy efficient replacement for those cute spherical 40 watt clear (non-frosted) lights that you see surrounding mirrors in dressing rooms and bathrooms?


----------



## ikendu (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

At our little, local library where my wife works as a librarian, they have four "PAR 30" Halogen bulbs in the entry way of the Library.

In this entry way, is the book drop off for night time deposit of books. It has a wall of glass on the south side of the building and is well lit during the day.

Two of the lights burn 24x7, 365 days a year.

The other two lights are on a timer and only burn at night.

I asked my wife and the head librarian, "Why do you have two bulbs that burn 24 x 7 all year long?".

They don't know. They are just on and they replace them every 3-4 months when the bulbs burn out.

So... here are two lights, sucking up electricity around the clock and no one even knows why they are on in the first place. 

After we talked... they are still on. >shrug<

We really just don't even think about the energy we consume.


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*



ikendu said:


> So... here are two lights, sucking up electricity around the clock and no one even knows why they are on in the first place.
> 
> After we talked... they are still on. >shrug<
> 
> We really just don't even think about the energy we consume.


I wish I had a dollar for every parking lot I've seen where the lights are on during the day. Unnecessary waste like this, and like what you described, is really what annoys me. Another thing I noticed once was that many office buildings in Manhattan have the lights on all night even though nobody is there. The reason I'm told is that the buildings were built before the energy crisis in of the 1970s, and therefore have no switches to turn the lights off! Since we were promised "electricity too cheap to meter" with nuclear power in the 1950s, many builders felt the reduced maintenance by not having switches more than offset any increase in electrical usage. In fact, given how much these offices rent for, even now electricity is a small percentage of their operating costs despite the lights being on all night. As for putting in switches, I'm told that it would be cheaper to just knock the buildings down and build new ones than try to retrofit them with switches.


----------



## WNG (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

If we don't directly pay for the electricity, people don't care. That's the case in the library, sadly.

As for office buildings, some are on at night because the cleaning crews work through the night.
Only during the hottest summer days does night time electrical load becomes an issue.
Remember, the carbon-powered plants take days to fire up to operation. (except peak use turbine powered facilities)
There is no storage of unused generation. Dynamos are spinning regardless of load.
That's why you also see a lack of conservation by companies and municipalities during the night.
What the private homeowner pays as rates for electricity is multitudes higher than what commercial customers pay. 
Not fair, but that's the way it is and it also doesn't help promote conservation.

Look at air pollution regulations. The gov't sets the standard....but they exempt themselves from them. And many times they are the biggest offenders.
ie. fleets of trucks, buses, power plants, incineration plants, etc.


----------



## savumaki (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

You live here long enough (all my long life) and announcements like these are great attention getters--all depends on who is in power at the time and what brings in the votes. :scowl:


----------



## h_nu (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

I'll bet if every business in America was told that next year only 95% of their past years electricity use would be deductible as a business expense and any increase would have to come from the board of director's salaries and options, electric use would drop by at least 5%.

With all the porch lights left on in the morning around here (and it's light until almost 8pm now) maybe a 1% residential electric tax after 500kwh to fund tax credits for energy saving purchases would help too.


----------



## BB (Apr 26, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

Since we are talking about Canada here, I might as well add this:

North America's largest solar farm to be built in Ontario:

I can't find the details right now--but if IIRC this is a US company building the farm and will sell the about for about $0.35-$0.38 per kWhr (about 4x they pay for wind power).

You might also check out the comments for this article. They are pretty informed discussions going on (numbers and links).

-Bill


----------



## goldenlight (Apr 27, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

I STILL want to know what they are going to do about outside lights with no incandescent lamps in Canada. The vast majority of current production CFL simply won't fire in cold weather. 

In Canada, there's plenty of cold weather.

I've been using CFL for at least 10 years now. But my outside lights HAVE to be incandescent in the winter.

I can take the dead ones to work, where they get properly recycled.

But the vast majority will wind up in landfills. They will be crushed during the normal compaction of trash, and the mercury will leak out.

If incandescent lamps are ever banned where I live, I'm stocking up on incandescent lamps, for winter outdoor use, and in my garage. I'll worry about the light bulb nazis when the time comes.


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 27, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*



goldenlight said:


> I STILL want to know what they are going to do about outside lights with no incandescent lamps in Canada. The vast majority of current production CFL simply won't fire in cold weather.


By 2012 there should be decent, reasonably-priced LED replacements so no worries there. I think that's why the ban starts in 2012 instead of immediately-they realize that CFLs aren't the answer but LEDs still aren't quite there yet for general lighting. Along those lines of thought, I wouldn't worry much about the mercury in CFLs, either. By 2012 when the ban kicks in CFLs will probably be well along the path to obsolescence, if not there already. Fact is outside of initial cost per emitter, we could be using LEDs for general lighting _right now_. The SSC P4 and Cree XR-E already exceed typical CFL efficiency and have 5 to 10 times the life. Of course, the downside is that you would need 10 to 12 emitters (at ~$3 each) plus the driver electronics and a hefty heatsink to replace a $2 CFL. In 5 years my guess is LEDs will reach price parity with CFLs but with 2 times the efficiency and 10 times the lifetime. Once that happens, bye-bye incandescent _and_ CFL.


----------



## LEDninja (Apr 27, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*

The problem with using LEDs for general household lighting is poor colour rendition. Most production LEDs today lack violet cyan orange and red. 4 out of 7 primary colours. Weak violet and cyan may not be too critical but the lack of orange and red means brown does not show up correctly. Most people do have some woodgrain furniture whether real or fake. And outdoors there are tree trunks. It is not as critical for flashlights where the primary requirement is to see enough to not trip over the furniture potholes & golpher holes. Still a significant number of CPF members will not give up their incans.

The *retired* Newbie once posted a spectrograph of a Toshiba full spectrum LED which looks very close to a good incan. bulb. But they are only used for specialized applicatiobs.

I have bought a number of LED household bulbs over the years. The ones I am still using are:
-A 1 watt Luxeon as my computer keyboard light.
-A 36 LED par 20 as my bed reading light.
I am using LEDs in the above 2 because they are not as hot as incans/CFLs.
-A 1 watt warm white luseon as my kitchen nite lite.
-A 36 LED par 20 warm white as my bedroom nite lite. I will have to replace this with something less brite & less greenish tint.
-A regular LED nite lite in the bathroom.


----------



## yellow (Apr 27, 2007)

plain dumbness of "unenlighted"

just wait for the public to be forced to live under that "cold" light. 
Then this will be changed very quick.

Also, for an European, there are quite much more obvious and easier ways for You ppl to save engery 
* set the aircondition to 20 Deg F instead of 15 deg, where any "normal" human needs a long sleeve garment (in summer) 
* place those ice makers (at gas stations or motels f.e.) a few meters left or right or round the corner, just anywhere it is no longer placed in direct sunlight
.
.
.

 Just joking, but don't these ideas include a bit of truth?


----------



## jtr1962 (Apr 27, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*



LEDninja said:


> The problem with using LEDs for general household lighting is poor colour rendition. Most production LEDs today lack violet cyan orange and red. 4 out of 7 primary colours. Weak violet and cyan may not be too critical but the lack of orange and red means brown does not show up correctly. Most people do have some woodgrain furniture whether real or fake. And outdoors there are tree trunks. It is not as critical for flashlights where the primary requirement is to see enough to not trip over the furniture potholes & golpher holes. Still a significant number of CPF members will not give up their incans.


The spectrum of a Cree XR-E WH bin is not really deficient in anything except maybe deep red and violet. There's also a slight valley in the green area but it's not too bad compared to other white LEDs. In color temperature it appears close to sunlight. Don't forget that incandescents are pretty deficient in violets and blues, and somewhat deficient in greens, so anything with a lot of _those_ colors doesn't show up correctly under incandescent. Neither do neutral colors for that matter. My point is that while someone always brings up the color issue every time these bans are discussed lets not forget that incandescent is far from an ideal light source with regards to color rendering and color temperature. Right now the best light sources (i.e. closest to sunlight) are 5000K fluorescents with CRIs of 90 or better. Browns look fine under this type of lighting. I'm 100% sure LEDs will be able to duplicate this by 2012. Like I said, the Cree XR-E WH bin seems pretty close right now. All you might need is a small percentage (10% perhaps) of reds mixed in to render deep reds properly. Comparing cheap very bluish LEDs even now to other light sources is like comparing apples to oranges. They are not what will be used for general lighting in the future.


----------



## AndyTiedye (Apr 27, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*



LEDninja said:


> The problem with using LEDs for general household lighting is poor colour rendition. Most production LEDs today lack violet cyan orange and red. 4 out of 7 primary colours.…



Then throw some violet, cyan, orange, and red LEDs into the mix.
Better yet, allow me to tweak the color of the light any way I want.


----------



## magic79 (May 4, 2007)

*Banning incandescent light bulb boondoggle*

So, you may have heard that the state of California is leading the way by proposing legislation banning incandescent light bulbs. They are to be replaced with compact fluorescent bulbs.

Did you know that CFBs have MERCURY inside and if you break one, you're supposed to call HAZMAT or wear "protective clothing"?!? No joke! What a boondoggle! :huh2: 

Here's the story:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268747,00.html

And for those that don't trust Fox News, here is the actual Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection web page:
http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/whattodo.htm

Isn't THAT terrific!


----------



## gadget_lover (May 4, 2007)

*Re: Banning incandescent light bulb boondoggle*

Ok, the Fox News "News story" was actually an op-ed piece, and as such has no verifiable facts. We conveniently forget that we've been working and shopping and playing under mercury filled lights of one sort or another for most of our lives. This is not a new problem.

If people actually dispose of things properly, they are no problem. They get recycled or sequestered and all is well.

I hate the decision for a totally different reason. Most cheap CFL either flicker (triggering my migraines) or emit horrendous RF and power line noise. Some do both. I will have to stock up on incandescents. I can tolerate a mix if incandescent and florescent but not straight florescent.

As for the noise? It screws with X10 devices. I use X10 to control lights and things in my house.
www.X10.com for devices and http://www.x10.com/support/support_soft1.htm for windows, mac and linux software to control the devices.

Daniel


----------



## ckthorp (May 4, 2007)

*Re: Banning incandescent light bulb boondoggle*

What about this story:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=aa7796aa-e4a5-4c06-be84-b62dee548fda
A broken CFL cost this homeowner $2000 to take care of properly.


----------



## Empath (May 4, 2007)

Same topic threads have been merged.


----------



## 2xTrinity (May 4, 2007)

*Re: Article: Canada to ban incandescent light bulbs by 2012*



> The problem with using LEDs for general household lighting is poor colour rendition. Most production LEDs today lack violet cyan orange and red. 4 out of 7 primary colours.


There are only three primary (additive) colors -- red, green, and blue -- as the eye only has three types of color receptors. Cyan, yellow, and magenta are the subtractive primary colors (and represent the absence of red, the absence of blue, and the absence of green, respectively)

The only real problematic deficit with the LEDs is the lack of the red, as that represents the lack of a primary color. Anything that appears cyan for example will be rendered just as effectively as a combination of green and blue, as far as our brain is concerned. 



jtr1962 said:


> The spectrum of a Cree XR-E WH bin is not really deficient in anything except maybe deep red and violet. There's also a slight valley in the green area but it's not too bad compared to other white LEDs. In color temperature it appears close to sunlight.


I've found that when lighting up a room with a WH Cree LED at 1A (ceiling bounce) all it took was about 2 or 3 5mm red LEDs to completely bring the spectrum into perfect balance, and improve rendering of wood etc. Luckily, red is one of the colors produced most efficiently with LEDs. I plan on making a multi-emitter light with 4 WH Crees, an one high power red sometime. The difference between WH and most other bins though is quite phenomenal. 



> Don't forget that incandescents are pretty deficient in violets and blues, and somewhat deficient in greens, so anything with a lot of _those_ colors doesn't show up correctly under incandescent. Neither do neutral colors for that matter. My point is that while someone always brings up the color issue every time these bans are discussed lets not forget that incandescent is far from an ideal light source with regards to color rendering and color temperature. Right now the best light sources (i.e. closest to sunlight) are 5000K fluorescents with CRIs of 90 or better. Browns look fine under this type of lighting. I'm 100% sure LEDs will be able to duplicate this by 2012.


I think LEDs will be able to mimic any spectrum desired, in real time. Consider that the only real weakness in LEDs is that there are no highly efficient green emitters. We already have nearly 50% efficient blue, and red emitters. A 50% efficient green emitter would be producing 300 lumens per watt, considering that most only produce 30, that suggests 5% efficiency, which is probably why white is generated as blue plus a phosphor instead of RGB. Use of a RGB based system though would allow for real time variable color teperature, and all sorts of interesting features (say, red only for a flashlight to preserve night vision)


----------



## magic79 (May 4, 2007)

*Re: Banning incandescent light bulb boondoggle*



gadget_lover said:


> Ok, the Fox News "News story" was actually an op-ed piece, and as such has no verifiable facts. ...
> 
> If people actually dispose of things properly, they are no problem. They get recycled or sequestered and all is well.
> 
> Daniel


 
Uhhh...that's why I put the link in to the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection. That is verifiable.

Of course, the problem is people _*don't*_ dispose of things properly, and people do drop and break these things. People don't normally handle mercury vapor street lamps.

What is most irritating to me is that you can't buy mercury batteries to power all those wonderful pre-1980 cameras; you can't buy a mercury thermometer. Both because of _environmental hazards_. But the same environmental groups are pushing to make incandescents illegal and sub these, containing mercury.

I just hate hypocrisy.


----------



## 2xTrinity (May 4, 2007)

> Of course, the problem is people don't dispose of things properly, and people do drop and break these things. People don't normally handle mercury vapor street lamps.


This is a worthwhile point, although it's not going to stop me from using fluorescent lights (I actually prefer the higher color temp and reduced heating, I don't just "put up" with it to save money). There do exist plenty of avenues to dispose of the lamps though, including free disposal at the local toxic dump (going there once a year is not a big hassle), and the fact that many stores take them for recycling. I do think some sort of wider spread knowledge about hot to clean up after a spill is a good idea. I have broken a CFL before, but it happened to be on a hard floor so cleanup was fairly easy -- just wiped up all the glass and solid bits of mercury amalgam with damp towels, threw the pieces, and the towels into a plastic bag, and let the room air out. The plastic bag is now stored in a box that will later be taken to the local toxic dump next time I need to take a trip there (to get rid of paint or whatever else). 



> What is most irritating to me is that you can't buy mercury batteries to power all those wonderful pre-1980 cameras; you can't buy a mercury thermometer. Both because of environmental hazards. But the same environmental groups are pushing to make incandescents illegal and sub these, containing mercury.


Mercury thermometers and batteries each contain more than a thousand times the amount of mercury as a CFL, and both are obsolete technologies. Until LEDs improve though, the only real energy-efficient lighting alterneative is UV + phosphor, which requires a tiny amount of mercury vapor to work, typically about 4mg. 

That's about 5% of what fluorescent lamps used to be in the past, the fact that modern lamps use so much less mercury than in the past is specifically due to environmental concerns. Fianlly, in most CFLs, except when the lamp is on, or has very recently been on, the mecury is in a solid amalgam state, rather than liquid form -- meaning breaking one shouldn't release a significant amount of mercury vapor (the vapor is what is dangerous) This fact has led to an irritating side effect of some CFLs taking a minute or two to warm up to full brightness, though it has the benefit of more consistent output across a broader range of temperatures.

Also, right now probably the biggest source of mercury and radioactive waste in the environment is emissions from coal-fired power plants. Going back and replacing every single linear fluorescent lamp in every office building, school, and home with incandescent, then installing higher-powered air conditioning units to make up for the extra heating, would lead to a much greater pollution problem associated with generating all that additional power than we have due to the mercury used in the lamps. 


Honestly though, I highly doubt that any of these bills will ban incandescent lamps. What is most likely is that when the real text of these bills come out (rather than what some sensationalist newspaper reports), it will define efficiency standards that would exclude _some_ incandescent lamps. For example, half of the incandescent lamps sold at the lighting aisle are less than 15 lumens per watt. There are some 45W flood lamps for sale at Home Depot that are only about 8 lumens per watt for sale (370 lumens nominally). There are IR-Reflective 12V halogens more than twice as efficient as that with the same lifespan, and they emit superior light to the crappy incans I just mentioned (higher temperature/more neutral color). I honestly am shocked we haven't seen more products like that -- replacing almost every incan with something twice as efficient would make a lot more of a difference than replacing <10% of incan lamps with CFLs that are 5 times as efficient.


----------

