Congress Sees the Lighting on the Wall

Bill to phase out incandescent light bulbs gains steam in U.S. Congress

Posted at 10:19 AM on 13 Sep 2007

Momentum is building in the U.S. Congress for a bill that would require phasing out regular incandescent light bulbs in favor of compact fluorescents and other, more efficient lighting technologies. The bill now in the works would require bulbs to be three times more efficient by 2020 and would require the phase out of 40-, 60-, 75-, and 100-watt incandescent light bulbs by 2014. Ye olde incandescents typically convert only 5 percent of the electricity they consume into visible light, and proponents say that installing more-efficient bulbs, including CFLs, next-generation incandescents, LEDs, and other lighting alternatives could save U.S. consumers some $6 billion a year in energy costs and effectively cancel demand for 80 coal-fired power plants. The legislation may be lumped in with the pending energy bill that's expected to be voted on in October. The United States is the largest single market for incandescent light bulbs accounting for nearly one-third of the global market.

sources: McClatchy News Service, The Wall Street Journal (access ain't free)

ADVERTISING POLICY

Comments: (3 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Of course, I have my doubts

Does that mean they will actually close those 80 power plants? Or will we find a use for the electricity they make and keep them running. Probably. It is not like we do not have enough already. Our economy operates on "more every year" and with that in mind we could use that extra energy "wisely" and power the next generations of "necessary" products, I am sure.

As long as corporations, lobbyists, and masses of lazy, comfort-minded people make the decisions, there will NEVER be a day in this country (USA) where we have too much energy and begin shutting down power plants.

Well, at least it feels good to have done our share for the environment by cutting our decadently excessive energy requirements by 5%. Way to go! Literally.

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

by PolluteLessDotCom at 1:38 PM on 14 Sep 2007

Fluorescent lamps and ballasts

Have you noticed that all of the breathless urgings to adopt compact fluorescents ignore the whole subject of ballasts.
The consumer versions are made in an egregiously wasteful way. A CFL consists of a bulb and a ballast. The ballasts could typically outlast five bulbs on average (see internet resources). Yet these consumer versions wed the ballast to the bulb, so that the perfectly serviceable ballast will be discarded with the bulb. There exist designs for separated ballasts and bulbs.
Note that there is no design for reuse associated with any of this. The ever welcoming garbage can is the favored destination, according to the manufacturing philosophy. Why are the environmentalists not up in arms about this? Does energy saving trump every other environmental assault, no matter what? The waste of one-time trip manufacturing is also a horror.
This kind of discussion is continued at the website www.zerowasteinstitute.org.
Paul Palmer

by Polamca at 1:42 PM on 14 Sep 2007

Mercury

CFL light bulbs are energy efficient and they last longer than incandescants. I cannot argue with that.

But what I can argue is that they contain mercury, a rather volatile, harmful substance.

Yes, coal-fire plants emit mercury, but mercury vaporizes and when it vaporizes into our atmosphere it's not as harmful. If a CFL light bulb breaks in a household it can cause health issues. The avg. 5mg of Mercury in a CFL can be harmful to inhale. The EPA website highly recommends that you leave the room for 30 minutes + if you break a CFL light bulb. Why isn't this publicized?? What if I broke six of them in my home and didn't know the mercury levels could be harmful?

There needs to be some dicussion and regulatory action before the phasing out begins that's for sure.

by lbryant at 7:45 PM on 14 Nov 2007

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?