On UrbanBaby: Who decides whether to circumcise?
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet

By Michael Kanellos
Posted on ZDNet News: May 8, 2007 7:00:00 PM

The U.S. Senate is examining ideas for phasing out incandescent lightbulbs in favor of more energy-efficient types of lighting, a move that could help curb greenhouse gas emissions and electrical consumption.

The Energy Committee of the Senate is working on a bill, which may hit the Senate floor later this month, that will ask the federal government to set national standards for energy efficiency. A coalition of consumer groups and manufacturers is now trying to come up with standards for lighting to support that goal. Among the ideas being discussed is phasing out standard incandescent bulbs over the course of about a decade.

The move builds on the momentum to phase out incandescent bulbs, which are less expensive but consume far more power than do compact fluorescent bulbs, light-emitting diodes and systems that bring sunlight indoors.

In February, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine introduced a bill banning incandescent bulbs in California by 2012. It was criticized as another example of kooky California legislation. But since then, legislation banning incandescent bulbs has been introduced in Ottawa and Australia.

There are about 4 billion screw-in sockets containing incandescent bulbs in the United States, according to a spokesman for the Energy Committee. Incandescent bulbs are also incredibly inefficient.

Some researchers estimate that more than 90 percent of the energy that goes into these bulbs gets converted into heat, not light. That's why Easy-Bake ovens work. (Some incandescent-lightbulb fans like to claim that the bulbs help heat their home, but it's a fairly inefficient way to heat a room. Ceiling lamps, after all, end up heating the ceiling.)

Approximately 22 percent of the energy consumed in the United States goes toward lighting, according to the Department of Energy. Approximately 52 percent of the electricity generated in the United States is produced by coal. The hope is that the switch to more efficient lights will lead to the need to burn less coal or build fewer new coal plants.

If legislation is passed, the most likely immediate beneficiaries will be manufacturers of compact fluorescent bulbs, those curlicue bulbs promoted by retailers like Wal-Mart Stores. Compact fluorescent bulbs cost more, but they use about 25 percent of the energy of an equivalent incandescent.

LED manufacturers, though, would likely benefit too. LED bulbs are actually somewhat rare right now, and they cost significantly more than regular lightbulbs. LED lamps, though, are coming down in price. Advocates also say the quality of light is better than what's available from fluorescents.

But don't count out incandescent bulbs completely. General Electric says it plans to come out with incandescent bulbs by 2010 that will be as energy-efficient as compact fluorescents.

Some manufacturers actually make all of these types of lights.

Then there are the more novel ideas. Fiberstars has come up with a system for lighting freezer cases in stores with fiber-optic cables. Other companies have come up with organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, that could turn an entire wall into a lamp.

Legislation banning products has often come under fire from some politicians and economists, but it has worked. In the mid-1970s, appliance manufacturers vigorously fought energy efficiency regulations in California for appliances like refrigerators.

The regulations passed and led to a creative wellspring in appliance design. Now refrigerators consume less than half the electricity of older models but hold more food and cost less, in terms of real dollars.

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

  • Talkback
  • Most Recent of 70 Talkback(s)
Experience differs...
It's nice that you are getting really good success with them, I'm happy for you.

But something's wrong out here because it doesn't matter how expensive or inexpensive the CFL, they just don't ... (Read the rest)
Posted by: Boomslang Posted on: 05/13/07 You are currently: a Guest | | Terms of Use
What about the mercury  equalizer@... | 05/08/07
Agree, and in addition...  Carrion | 05/08/07
Less lead.  Dr. John | 05/09/07
Complete agreement!  Technocrat@... | 05/09/07
not typical  shraven | 05/09/07
It depends  Dr. John | 05/09/07
One year average, Two years maximum...  Boomslang | 05/09/07
I've never had problems with my fluorescent bulbs...  usc1801 | 05/09/07
What Planet are you on?  davidsarmstrong | 05/09/07
Experience differs...  Boomslang | 05/13/07
Just add a tax that makes them more expensive. Banning them is just not..  Been_Done_Before | 05/09/07
Please...  Henry Miller | 05/09/07
more food out of mouths  Dr. John | 05/09/07
Less mercury than if we have to build more coal-fired plants.  usc1801 | 05/09/07
Mercury, internal AND external  saskatoon | 05/09/07
Oh I needed a good laugh.  maldain | 05/08/07
Not so fast on the laughing.  NBrazil | 05/08/07
Agreed, they lower the electric bill  CobraA1 | 05/09/07
CO2 is not a pollutant??  AntiM$ | 05/09/07
Poor facts  Plazmic | 05/09/07
Sorry  davidsarmstrong | 05/09/07
shakey humor  shraven | 05/09/07
Nothing "shakey" about current bulbs wasting 90% of their energy.  usc1801 | 05/09/07
A GOOD start.  HypnoToad72 | 05/08/07
Agreed, for the most part - but I prefer electric car to light rail  CobraA1 | 05/09/07
Not so fast...  Technocrat@... | 05/09/07
You are wrong... What was your point anyway  techJerk | 05/09/07
A bad start  Hameiri | 05/09/07
Think it through...  Dr. John | 05/09/07
Dirty, ignorant socialists [nt]  Omch'Ar | 05/08/07
You  techJerk | 05/09/07
Socialism??  westks | 05/10/07
Yeah like more expensive bulbs...  agohige | 05/09/07
How dare you  frgough | 05/09/07
don't fit your expected result is about all  shraven | 05/09/07
What brand???!!!!  Dr. John | 05/09/07
i wouldn't mind changing  aellath | 05/09/07
Maybe it's your eyes...  techJerk | 05/09/07
Facts correct  frgough | 05/09/07
Incorrect facts  Moreese | 05/09/07
Nazis Flexing Muscles-agreed!  tangentjohn@... | 05/11/07
Wonderful, just wonderful  frgough | 05/09/07
Just what did you think...  techJerk | 05/09/07
Thanks, but no thanks.  Mr Roboto | 05/09/07
hmmm...  techJerk | 05/09/07
Not really.  Mr Roboto | 05/09/07
Flourescents are a bad idea with lamp dimmers!  davetracer@... | 05/09/07
They sure are  osreinstall | 05/09/07
weird science  shraven | 05/09/07
Yes it is strange  osreinstall | 05/09/07
Must use the more expensive ones...  Boomslang | 05/09/07
Another piece of legislation applied to the masses only  osreinstall | 05/09/07
lies, damned liars and just plain conspiracy theorists  shraven | 05/09/07
And watching their behavior.  osreinstall | 05/09/07
fluorescent bulbs not good with dimmer switch  Paul4 | 05/09/07
And what about.........  cancrusher | 05/09/07
incandescent's emit more mercury  Moreese | 05/09/07
Incorrect facts  Moreese | 05/09/07
Incandescent, Mercury??  Thguns | 05/09/07
Fluorescent mercury mess  kkrys | 05/09/07
Economics will rule!  jimfishes | 05/09/07
savings?  merc2dogs` | 05/09/07
Governmental meddling.  abpnick@... | 05/09/07
Did Politicians Invest in Florescent Stocks?  luvalittle | 05/09/07
personal freedom vs. common good  common sense | 05/09/07
Replaced all incandesant  jerryhorvath@... | 05/10/07
Did you really say that?  Joe Donovan | 05/10/07
The amount of heat generated by a 60 watt bulb  nix_hed | 05/10/07
The ONE deal breaker for me  tangentjohn@... | 05/11/07
Them There BAD Lightbulbs.....  SenlacHill | 05/12/07

What do you think?

Click Here
advertisement
advertisement

White Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here