California is first to adopt light bulb efficiency standards

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Californians will see the light – and a resulting energy cost savings – earlier than the rest of the United States.

The California Energy Commission says Golden State consumers will be the first in the nation to save money under a federal law improving the energy-efficiency standard of light bulbs.

The standard outlined in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 says that a 100-watt bulb manufactured on or after a set date must use 28 percent less energy than a traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulb. In effect, the bulb cannot use more than 72 watts.

The federal law set adoption of the standard on Jan. 1, 2012, but California was given authority to implement it one year earlier to avoid sales of 10.5 million comparatively inefficient 100-watt bulbs in 2011.

The estimated cost savings to consumers for that alone is $35.6 million.

"This is in keeping with the traditional role of California being a leader in energy efficiency," said energy commission spokesman Adam Gottlieb. "After 132 years, we're giving (Thomas) Edison a makeover."

The commission said current bulb technology – halogen, compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs – enables a bulb of 72 watts or less to provide the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt incandescent bulb, while using less power and costing less to illuminate. And the modern bulbs last longer.

The primary energy loss from older-generation bulbs was from generated heat.

To read the complete article, visit www.sacbee.com.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

more idiocy...

[The_Dude 1,142]

more idiocy...

Yes, I would say your post would qualify as just that Paul. Quit being a derp.

[mawilson 2,133]

more idiocy...

Saving energy is idiotic?

[The_Dude 1,142]

Saving energy is idiotic?

So is saving money apparently

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Saving energy is idiotic?

banning the lightbulb is.

10.5 million lightbulbs won't get sold now?

Of course the California idiots refuse to look at the effect that causes.

I suppose the light-bulb 'black market' could be nice for awhile! that is until the gubmint comes into our homes and says we can't live there because it's not efficient enough (which is coming sooner than later)...

[Krikit 1,165]

Rob, this is the 2nd time I have had to warn you today.... and I just logged on. You are facing a lengthy suspension if you don't stop. Thank you.

[The_Dude 1,142]

banning the lightbulb is.

10.5 million lightbulbs won't get sold now?

Of course the California idiots refuse to look at the effect that causes.

I suppose the light-bulb 'black market' could be nice for awhile! that is until the gubmint comes into our homes and says we can't live there because it's not efficient enough (which is coming sooner than later)...

You are a paranoid delusional. Seriously, you think the benefits of corporate inventory exceeds that of consumers saving money while decreasing energy use?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You are a paranoid delusional. Seriously, you think the benefits of corporate inventory exceeds that of consumers saving money while decreasing energy use?

No, I believe oinker bulbs have been out for several years now and people have options.

If you so choose to use x-light bulb, then that's your choice....

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

more idiocy...

The LAW is idiocy, I agree. Fact is that the newer CFL lamps are really an improvement over the old ones that had a terrible glaring flourescent "quality" of light. I tried a few when we moved to a new home and then retrofitted my whole house with them earlier this year and it has made a considerable difference in my electric bill. Also the lamps are getting really cheap now, where as a few years ago they were ridiculously expensive. I even out them in our outdoor fixtures in Vermont and while it does take a few minutes for them to "warm up" in cold weather they do put out a lot of light for little money

What this means is that we do not need a "law". As usual, good ideas do not need government subsidy or to be forced on us. As anyone can tell you, Global Warming is a hoax, but I like to save money as well as the next guy...maybe more. I AM a capitalist. The other huge difference came when we switched to one of the new high efficiency washng machines and it has saved us a lot of money...not on water...but on electricity. The clothes come out of it so dry that the dryer runs less than half the time it used to!

[SMR 368]

Californians will see the light – and a resulting energy cost savings – earlier than the rest of the United States.

The California Energy Commission says Golden State consumers will be the first in the nation to save money under a federal law improving the energy-efficiency standard of light bulbs.

The standard outlined in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 says that a 100-watt bulb manufactured on or after a set date must use 28 percent less energy than a traditional 100-watt incandescent light bulb. In effect, the bulb cannot use more than 72 watts.

The federal law set adoption of the standard on Jan. 1, 2012, but California was given authority to implement it one year earlier to avoid sales of 10.5 million comparatively inefficient 100-watt bulbs in 2011.

The estimated cost savings to consumers for that alone is $35.6 million.

"This is in keeping with the traditional role of California being a leader in energy efficiency," said energy commission spokesman Adam Gottlieb. "After 132 years, we're giving (Thomas) Edison a makeover."

The commission said current bulb technology – halogen, compact fluorescent or light-emitting diode bulbs – enables a bulb of 72 watts or less to provide the same amount of light as a traditional 100-watt incandescent bulb, while using less power and costing less to illuminate. And the modern bulbs last longer.

The primary energy loss from older-generation bulbs was from generated heat.

To read the complete article, visit www.sacbee.com.

I think the piece of information that never really gets taken into consideration is that bulbs that consume less energy only save energy in the summer. In the winter, the waste heat reduces the amount you pay through heating your house. Energy is conserved so 100 watts of heat delivered to your home through a radiator takes the same amount of electricity (in VoltxAmps) as 100 watts of heat delivered to your house through "waste" heat from light bulbs. (The only exception to this would be if light-bulbs did something bad to the power factor on the power lines. But light bulbs have near perfect power factor, better than most radiators)

Naturally, there are other advantages to energy efficient bulbs, most notably their longer longevity. But their higher price tag cannot be justified by that alone. If a fluorescent light bulb will last 4 times longer, it still doesn't make sense when it costs 5 times as much. If they don't reduce your energy bill they aren't worth the money. And when you're paying for heat anyways, they won't reduce your energy bill.

Of course, California is comparatively warm and thus has a lot more air conditioning. And by this same argument, the energy savings of efficient light bulbs is more than doubled if you are air conditioning since you will use considerable energy to reduce the temperature in your house which you increased due to light bulb waste heat. Any reduction in waste heat will see a corresponding reduction in cooling costs.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

No, I believe oinker bulbs have been out for several years now and people have options.

If you so choose to use x-light bulb, then that's your choice....

Take a look at the light bulb aisle in Lowe's. The incandescent is fading fast. Incandescents always were a better heater than a light source (7 lumens per watt, you gotta be kidding me!) and always were just a stop gap measure in lighting technology.

I think the laws, as usual are stupid. Useful products do not need laws to sell them. The incadescent will fade out long before the law takes affect and no one's inventory will be damaged. Besides, Glen Beck says he will buy all the incandescents that are left. He can have mine for free.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I hope these new bulbs are easier to dispose of than the CFL's turned out to be.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

I think the piece of information that never really gets taken into consideration is that bulbs that consume less energy only save energy in the summer. In the winter, the waste heat reduces the amount you pay through heating your house. Energy is conserved so 100 watts of heat delivered to your home through a radiator takes the same amount of electricity (in VoltxAmps) as 100 watts of heat delivered to your house through "waste" heat from light bulbs. (The only exception to this would be if light-bulbs did something bad to the power factor on the power lines. But light bulbs have near perfect power factor, better than most radiators)

Naturally, there are other advantages to energy efficient bulbs, most notably their longer longevity. But their higher price tag cannot be justified by that alone. If a fluorescent light bulb will last 4 times longer, it still doesn't make sense when it costs 5 times as much. If they don't reduce your energy bill they aren't worth the money. And when you're paying for heat anyways, they won't reduce your energy bill.

Of course, California is comparatively warm and thus has a lot more air conditioning. And by this same argument, the energy savings of efficient light bulbs is more than doubled if you are air conditioning since you will use considerable energy to reduce the temperature in your house which you increased due to light bulb waste heat. Any reduction in waste heat will see a corresponding reduction in cooling costs.

The heating factor is true only if you replace the heat produced by the bulbs with heat produced by another electric source. If you are heating your home with electricity you need your head examined today. I heat my home with natural gas which is far cheaper to replace any lost heat energy from the light bulbs.

2nd factor is that you are giving the same credit to heat produced by lights in various types of fixtures designed and placed to produce light as you give to fixtures designed and prodcued to provide heat. While it is true that, using electricty, the same of amount of heat per watt used is produced its efficient delivery is no where near the same. You think a 100 watt light bulb in a can light, for example, delivers as much usable heat to a room as 100 watts of electric baseboard heat? In fact, if you are stupid and heat your home with electricty, you will still be better off to reduce the electric use of light bulbs and increase the electric use of baseboard heaters simply because they deliver the heat produced better than a light bulb.

No one with any experience or knowledge of either lighting OR HVAC makes the argument that we need incandescent bulbs for heating. It is a silly argument. Incandescent bulbs are highly inefficient. Big surprise. They always have been. For a time they were cheaper to buy, they are not any longer. For a time they offered better color temperature, they do not any longer. Now, if you gave away incandescents for FREE they would still not be a good bargain. For anyonehat has to PAY someone to change light bulbs, such as businesses, they are complete idiocy.

I hope these new bulbs are easier to dispose of than the CFL's turned out to be.

I throw them in the trash as I always did. As I said, I am not a reactionary, liberal ####### and I am no more going to buy into that idiocy than I am going to buy into incandescent bulbs.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I throw them in the trash as I always did. As I said, I am not a reactionary, liberal ####### and I am no more going to buy into that idiocy than I am going to buy into incandescent bulbs.

You don't have trash police in Vermont?