by Playfuls Staff |
4th February 2007
The classic incandescent light bulb might be banned in California by 2012 if Assembly member Lloyd Levine succeeds in his awkward proposal. Banning energy-intensive incandescents "saves consumers money, saves[more] the state money and saves energy," said Van Nuys Democrat Lloyd Levine, who calls his measure the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act."
However, the energy savings will lead to a drop in carbon monoxide emissions of only about 0.36 percent! And that's if all the incandescent bulbs will be replaced with energy-saving fluorescent bulbs, according to California Energy Commissioner Arthur Rosenfeld, a physics professor emeritus at UC Berkeley.
But, "when a consumer is standing in a store and they're confronted with two different products, they generally opt for the one that is cheaper and the one they've traditionally bought," Levine said. "The problem is: The one they think is cheaper is only cheap at that moment in time. The other one is cheaper over the long run." That's not quite accurate.
The average price of a 100-watt incandescent light bulb is about 75 cents. The average price of a compact fluorescent light bulb is about $6. This means the consumer really doesn't make any savings at all, because only very high quality fluorescent bulbs last 10 times longer, but they cost about 20 times more than a traditional bulb. Those prices are for fluorescents that provide acceptable light spectrum, close to the healthy light given off by an incandescent one.
I have used fluorescents for many lamps because of the heat they give off, and my experience is that you probably will be even in the long run. Using fluorescents, I was able to put in bulbs that give off as much light as a 120w classic bulb in a socket which could only stand the heat from a 60w classic bulb.
Replacing just one bulb that's used for four to eight hours a day can save a consumer $4 to $13 a year and $38 to $72 after five years, according to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.
Assemblyman Rick Keene, R-Chico, says he doubts Levine's idea is bright. "Telling people what light bulbs to buy is ridiculous," said Keene, who is the ranking Republican on the Assembly's utilities committee, which Levine leads. "People can choose for themselves whether to use incandescent or fluorescent bulbs."
The goal is laudable, said Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis. But, "the market can correct behavior better than the Legislature legislating ad infinitum."
"Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago [by Edison & co], and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," Assembly member Levine said. "Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about five percent of the energy they receive into light. It’s time to take a step forward – energy-efficient bulbs are easy to use, require less electricity to do the same job, cut greenhouse gas emissions, and save consumers money."
Actually no, they don't significantly save either money or greenhouse gas emissions.
The proposition is essentially without any practical value (a third of a percent in monoxide reduction, at most), and it diverts attention from real energy consumers, such as electric stoves, dryers and air conditioning devices. In most countries in the world, stoves run on gas, whereas in the US they mostly run on electricity.
Alex Zaharov-Reutt over at IT Wire puts it quite nicely:
Other technologies such as LED (light emitting diodes) lamps, now powering torches and other bright lights with low power requirements, along with other lighting technologies need to also be considered, rather than just reaching for the quick fix of the legislative hammer ever time a politician thinks they have found a nail.Also, Wal-Mart has announced a goal of selling 100 million of the fluorescent bulbs by 2008, significantly more than it sells now.
