Bachelor Bulb Banning Propaganda
Below (and some attached) you will find the following items about Assemblymember Lloyd Levine's AB 722 (incandescent light bulb phase-out) that were distributed at today's press event at the Sacramento Municipal Utility District's Lighting Classroom.
We hope you will find the items useful as you follow the bill's progress this year.
1) Frequently Asked Questions
2) Fact or Fiction
3) Cost Savings of CFL vs. Incandescent (a veritable Tale of the Tape)
4) Light Bulb Timeline
5) Chart Showing Per Capita Energy Use (CA vs. the US) for the past 50 years
6) USA Today op-ed by Economics Professor Peter Navarro re: Incandescent Light Bulb Ban
AB 722—Incandescent Phase Out—Frequently Asked Questions
AB 722 bans "general service" incandescent light bulbs. What is a general service incandescent light bulb?
The California Energy Commission has created a specific definition for general service incandescents. These are bulbs that screw into light sockets, and use between 25 and 150 watts. The following incandescent lamps are not general service incandescent lamps: appliance, black light, bug, colored, enhanced spectrum, infrared, left-hand thread, marine, marine signal service, mine service, plant light, reflector, rough service, shatter resistant, sign service, silver bowl, showcase, three-way, traffic signal, and vibration service or vibration resistant.
Do compact fluorescent lights (CFL) work on dimmer switches?
Yes. There are commercially available compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs that are specifically designed to work with dimmer switches. For example, GE sells the Longlife Plus Soft White Energy Saving Bulb: http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=CONSUMERSPECPAGE&PRODUCTCODE=49687.
For more information of GE CFL lighting, you can visit:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm
Phillips also makes a dimmable specifically for recessed lighting.
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/consumer/marathon/display.php?mode=3.
These bulbs last for much longer than a general service incandescent, and use far less energy.
Incandescent lights turn on very quickly and therefore are very effective with motion sensors. How will this ban affect my motion sensors?
In the past fluorescent bulbs did pose a problem when used in conjunction with motion sensor, because they took some time to reach full intensity. However, for several years, compact fluorescent bulbs have existed that work flawlessly with motion sensors. The recent generation of CFL's come on nearly instantly, usually in less than half a second.
Will AB 722 affect flashlights and car lighting?
No. This bill focuses exclusively on general service incandescent bulbs. Essentially, these are standard household bulbs. We are not targeting specialty bulbs.
How will this phase out effect businesses that use very large incandescent lighting in their business, for example theatres and the motion picture industry?
It will not affect them. These industries use lights that are well above 150 watts, and thus are not the general purpose light bulbs that are affected by this legislation.
With incandescent lights I can just throw them away in the trash. I understand that CFL have mercury in them. How will that affect the environment?
CFLs do contain trace amounts of mercury, usually between .03 and .1 mg of mercury per bulb. However, California has begun to address this issue. In February 2006, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, in conjunction with the California Integrated Waste Management Board, began to implement the second phase of the aggressive collection of "universal waste," requiring that common household items that are deemed hazardous to people and the environment must be separated from regular trash and collected for safe disposal. While this is a good start to improving the health of our environment, more needs to be done. That is why Assemblymember Levine is committed to working to ensure that a user-friendly recycling program is established to prevent mercury from CFLs from being released into the environment.
Florescent lighting causes me to have headaches. How will you address this issue?
There are several different issues that must be discussed when addressing health concerns related to fluorescent lighting. Many of the problems associated with fluorescent lights are not the result of CFLs, but rather the overhead tube fluorescents common in offices. Overhead tube fluorescents are not an alternative to the incandescent lights being phased out in this bill.
It is also important to note that this bill does not prescribe fluorescent lighting as the only alternative to incandescent lighting. It simply eliminates obsolete incandescent technology. If CFL cause problems, there are alternatives such as LED lights, and other lighting technologies that will be available in the very near future.
Finally, some people who are uncomfortable in rooms that are not illuminated by incandescent light require specific types of incandescent lighting. For example, full spectrum incandescents are sometimes used to prevent headaches. These bulbs would not be affected by our bill. Only general service incandescents will be phased out by this proposal.
I live on a very tight budget. I can only afford incandescent bulbs.
This bill will save money for every Californian from the moment they change from incandescents to a more efficient technology. While the initial cost of an incandescent light bulb is $0.50 compared to $3.00 for a CFL, over the life of the bulb a customer will save up to $62.00. For example, a new 13-watt compact fluorescent light bulb produces as much light - as many lumens - as a traditional 60-watt incandescent bulb. This means as much light, using only one-quarter of the electrical energy. Plus, fluorescents last 10 to 15 times longer, saving money on both energy bills and money for replacement bulbs. In fact, the average florescent light bulb produces 400% more light per dollar than an incandescent bulb. Additionally, many power companies have begun providing CFL bulbs to their customers free of charge. To date, Southern California Edison has distributed over 1 million CFLs.
I find that CFLs produce inferior light to incandescents. If I am willing to pay increased energy costs, why shouldn’t I be able to buy the light bulbs that I prefer?
A wide variety of high efficiency bulbs produce light that is indistinguishable from incandescents. CFLs marked "soft white" provide the same luminosity, in the same hue, as incandescents. However, there is a whole array of new light options available with high efficiency technologies that are not possible with incandescents. For example, LED lights function very well for directional lighting; this is ideal for lighting such as down-lighting used in kitchens. Also, CFLs can be produced to create a much brighter light than is possible with incandescents. All of these options are less expensive in the long run, and help the environment.
1879: Thomas Edison perfects the incandescent light bulb.
1927: Friedrich Meyer, Hans Spanner and Edmund Germer patented a fluorescent lamp.
1962: Nick Holonyak Jr. develops the first practical visible-spectrum light-emitting diode.
November 29, 2006: Wal-Mart announced a campaign to sell 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs at its Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club locations by the end of 2007.
January 30, 2007: Assemblymember Lloyd Levine announces his intention to author legislation that would phase out the sale of general service incandescent bulbs by 2012.
February 5, 2007: Legislation is introduced in Connecticut to phase out the sale of incandescent bulbs.
February 6, 2007: Mayor Gavin Newsom announced an initiative to improve the efficiency of lighting technologies used in commercial buildings in San Francisco.
February 8, 2007: Republican State Assemblymember Larry Chatzidakis of New Jersey introduces legislation that calls for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings over the next three years.
February 20, 2007: Australia's Minister of Energy announces that Australia will phase out all incandescent bulbs by 2010.
February 22, 2007: Yahoo!, in collaboration with environmental groups and industry leaders, launches a website dedicated to educating the public about the benefits of switching from incandescent to energy efficient lighting.
March 9, 2007: The 27 bloc European Union, representing 490 million people, agreed to phase out incandescent light bulbs in office and street lighting by 2008, and in homes by 2009.
March 14, 2007: The Alliance to Save Energy joined other energy-efficiency advocates and Philips Lighting North America in a coalition to advocate for policies that will transform the U.S. marketplace to energy-efficient lighting products by 2016.
The USA Today
March 5, 2007 Monday
FINAL EDITION
Ban the bulb
BYLINE: Peter Navarro
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A
LENGTH: 366 words
Ban the incandescent light bulb? This is a truly bright idea that would shrink our electric bills, clean our air, reduce Middle East oil dependence and help stop global warming. Yet public reaction ranges from indifference to outrage.
The indifference springs from the mistaken belief that something small like changing our light bulbs can't effect big change. Replacing just one 75-watt incandescent bulb saves more than $50 in electricity costs and cuts carbon dioxide emissions -- the key cause of global warming -- by hundreds of pounds.
Our outrage is rooted in a classic mistrust of government interference.
But there are very sound economic reasons to "ban the bulb." The cheap market price of incandescents simply does not reflect their true economic, environmental and national security costs. America pays a steep price for their continued use.
Today's electricity-guzzling incandescent bulb has changed little since it was invented more than 100 years ago. It is the most obsolete technology in our homes and businesses, converting less than 10% of energy into light.
Sure, it's more expensive upfront to buy compact fluorescents or, where light quality is a critical issue, halogens. But both types of bulbs are more energy efficient and cost far less over time.
If every American kicked the incandescent habit, we could reduce oil imports by millions of barrels and eliminate the need to build thousands of megawatts of new polluting power plants. And a ban would accelerate technological development of far more energy efficient lighting options, especially the luminous promise of light-emitting diode bulbs.
Public information programs to voluntarily eliminate incandescent bulbs clearly haven't worked and waste millions. A phased-in federal ban similar to a law proposed in California and already in place in Australia would provide for a smooth market transition.
"Ban the bulb" is hardly Draconian or unprecedented. Some states have banned single-paned windows and electricity-guzzling air conditioners to great advantage. Banning the bulb truly is the next bright idea.
---
Peter Navarro is an economics professor at the University of California-Irvine and author of The Coming China Wars.
We hope you will find the items useful as you follow the bill's progress this year.
1) Frequently Asked Questions
2) Fact or Fiction
3) Cost Savings of CFL vs. Incandescent (a veritable Tale of the Tape)
4) Light Bulb Timeline
5) Chart Showing Per Capita Energy Use (CA vs. the US) for the past 50 years
6) USA Today op-ed by Economics Professor Peter Navarro re: Incandescent Light Bulb Ban
AB 722—Incandescent Phase Out—Frequently Asked Questions
AB 722 bans "general service" incandescent light bulbs. What is a general service incandescent light bulb?
The California Energy Commission has created a specific definition for general service incandescents. These are bulbs that screw into light sockets, and use between 25 and 150 watts. The following incandescent lamps are not general service incandescent lamps: appliance, black light, bug, colored, enhanced spectrum, infrared, left-hand thread, marine, marine signal service, mine service, plant light, reflector, rough service, shatter resistant, sign service, silver bowl, showcase, three-way, traffic signal, and vibration service or vibration resistant.
Do compact fluorescent lights (CFL) work on dimmer switches?
Yes. There are commercially available compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs that are specifically designed to work with dimmer switches. For example, GE sells the Longlife Plus Soft White Energy Saving Bulb: http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/Dispatcher?REQUEST=CONSUMERSPECPAGE&PRODUCTCODE=49687.
For more information of GE CFL lighting, you can visit:
http://www.gelighting.com/na/home_lighting/products/energy_smart.htm
Phillips also makes a dimmable specifically for recessed lighting.
http://www.nam.lighting.philips.com/us/consumer/marathon/display.php?mode=3.
These bulbs last for much longer than a general service incandescent, and use far less energy.
Incandescent lights turn on very quickly and therefore are very effective with motion sensors. How will this ban affect my motion sensors?
In the past fluorescent bulbs did pose a problem when used in conjunction with motion sensor, because they took some time to reach full intensity. However, for several years, compact fluorescent bulbs have existed that work flawlessly with motion sensors. The recent generation of CFL's come on nearly instantly, usually in less than half a second.
Will AB 722 affect flashlights and car lighting?
No. This bill focuses exclusively on general service incandescent bulbs. Essentially, these are standard household bulbs. We are not targeting specialty bulbs.
How will this phase out effect businesses that use very large incandescent lighting in their business, for example theatres and the motion picture industry?
It will not affect them. These industries use lights that are well above 150 watts, and thus are not the general purpose light bulbs that are affected by this legislation.
With incandescent lights I can just throw them away in the trash. I understand that CFL have mercury in them. How will that affect the environment?
CFLs do contain trace amounts of mercury, usually between .03 and .1 mg of mercury per bulb. However, California has begun to address this issue. In February 2006, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, in conjunction with the California Integrated Waste Management Board, began to implement the second phase of the aggressive collection of "universal waste," requiring that common household items that are deemed hazardous to people and the environment must be separated from regular trash and collected for safe disposal. While this is a good start to improving the health of our environment, more needs to be done. That is why Assemblymember Levine is committed to working to ensure that a user-friendly recycling program is established to prevent mercury from CFLs from being released into the environment.
Florescent lighting causes me to have headaches. How will you address this issue?
There are several different issues that must be discussed when addressing health concerns related to fluorescent lighting. Many of the problems associated with fluorescent lights are not the result of CFLs, but rather the overhead tube fluorescents common in offices. Overhead tube fluorescents are not an alternative to the incandescent lights being phased out in this bill.
It is also important to note that this bill does not prescribe fluorescent lighting as the only alternative to incandescent lighting. It simply eliminates obsolete incandescent technology. If CFL cause problems, there are alternatives such as LED lights, and other lighting technologies that will be available in the very near future.
Finally, some people who are uncomfortable in rooms that are not illuminated by incandescent light require specific types of incandescent lighting. For example, full spectrum incandescents are sometimes used to prevent headaches. These bulbs would not be affected by our bill. Only general service incandescents will be phased out by this proposal.
I live on a very tight budget. I can only afford incandescent bulbs.
This bill will save money for every Californian from the moment they change from incandescents to a more efficient technology. While the initial cost of an incandescent light bulb is $0.50 compared to $3.00 for a CFL, over the life of the bulb a customer will save up to $62.00. For example, a new 13-watt compact fluorescent light bulb produces as much light - as many lumens - as a traditional 60-watt incandescent bulb. This means as much light, using only one-quarter of the electrical energy. Plus, fluorescents last 10 to 15 times longer, saving money on both energy bills and money for replacement bulbs. In fact, the average florescent light bulb produces 400% more light per dollar than an incandescent bulb. Additionally, many power companies have begun providing CFL bulbs to their customers free of charge. To date, Southern California Edison has distributed over 1 million CFLs.
I find that CFLs produce inferior light to incandescents. If I am willing to pay increased energy costs, why shouldn’t I be able to buy the light bulbs that I prefer?
A wide variety of high efficiency bulbs produce light that is indistinguishable from incandescents. CFLs marked "soft white" provide the same luminosity, in the same hue, as incandescents. However, there is a whole array of new light options available with high efficiency technologies that are not possible with incandescents. For example, LED lights function very well for directional lighting; this is ideal for lighting such as down-lighting used in kitchens. Also, CFLs can be produced to create a much brighter light than is possible with incandescents. All of these options are less expensive in the long run, and help the environment.
1879: Thomas Edison perfects the incandescent light bulb.
1927: Friedrich Meyer, Hans Spanner and Edmund Germer patented a fluorescent lamp.
1962: Nick Holonyak Jr. develops the first practical visible-spectrum light-emitting diode.
November 29, 2006: Wal-Mart announced a campaign to sell 100 million compact fluorescent light bulbs at its Wal-Mart and Sam’s Club locations by the end of 2007.
January 30, 2007: Assemblymember Lloyd Levine announces his intention to author legislation that would phase out the sale of general service incandescent bulbs by 2012.
February 5, 2007: Legislation is introduced in Connecticut to phase out the sale of incandescent bulbs.
February 6, 2007: Mayor Gavin Newsom announced an initiative to improve the efficiency of lighting technologies used in commercial buildings in San Francisco.
February 8, 2007: Republican State Assemblymember Larry Chatzidakis of New Jersey introduces legislation that calls for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings over the next three years.
February 20, 2007: Australia's Minister of Energy announces that Australia will phase out all incandescent bulbs by 2010.
February 22, 2007: Yahoo!, in collaboration with environmental groups and industry leaders, launches a website dedicated to educating the public about the benefits of switching from incandescent to energy efficient lighting.
March 9, 2007: The 27 bloc European Union, representing 490 million people, agreed to phase out incandescent light bulbs in office and street lighting by 2008, and in homes by 2009.
March 14, 2007: The Alliance to Save Energy joined other energy-efficiency advocates and Philips Lighting North America in a coalition to advocate for policies that will transform the U.S. marketplace to energy-efficient lighting products by 2016.
The USA Today
March 5, 2007 Monday
FINAL EDITION
Ban the bulb
BYLINE: Peter Navarro
SECTION: NEWS; Pg. 10A
LENGTH: 366 words
Ban the incandescent light bulb? This is a truly bright idea that would shrink our electric bills, clean our air, reduce Middle East oil dependence and help stop global warming. Yet public reaction ranges from indifference to outrage.
The indifference springs from the mistaken belief that something small like changing our light bulbs can't effect big change. Replacing just one 75-watt incandescent bulb saves more than $50 in electricity costs and cuts carbon dioxide emissions -- the key cause of global warming -- by hundreds of pounds.
Our outrage is rooted in a classic mistrust of government interference.
But there are very sound economic reasons to "ban the bulb." The cheap market price of incandescents simply does not reflect their true economic, environmental and national security costs. America pays a steep price for their continued use.
Today's electricity-guzzling incandescent bulb has changed little since it was invented more than 100 years ago. It is the most obsolete technology in our homes and businesses, converting less than 10% of energy into light.
Sure, it's more expensive upfront to buy compact fluorescents or, where light quality is a critical issue, halogens. But both types of bulbs are more energy efficient and cost far less over time.
If every American kicked the incandescent habit, we could reduce oil imports by millions of barrels and eliminate the need to build thousands of megawatts of new polluting power plants. And a ban would accelerate technological development of far more energy efficient lighting options, especially the luminous promise of light-emitting diode bulbs.
Public information programs to voluntarily eliminate incandescent bulbs clearly haven't worked and waste millions. A phased-in federal ban similar to a law proposed in California and already in place in Australia would provide for a smooth market transition.
"Ban the bulb" is hardly Draconian or unprecedented. Some states have banned single-paned windows and electricity-guzzling air conditioners to great advantage. Banning the bulb truly is the next bright idea.
---
Peter Navarro is an economics professor at the University of California-Irvine and author of The Coming China Wars.
Labels: levine, nanny state
Posted by Mayor Sam @ 3/22/2007 07:04:00 PM
4 Comments:
I can't see why anybody would be getting headaches from modern long tube or compact fluorescents.
In the 50's through 70's the long tubes used to flicker which was known to cause headaches with some people, but today's lamps us long persistence phosphors that have no flicker.
The incandescent bulb ban would never fly in W. Hollywood or Frisco. The batchelors there use them in their love rites.
Whaaa! The government is forcing me to save money! And they're forcing me to save energy, which in the long run increases our national security! How dare they! Who do they think they are???
I applaud Assemblyman Levine's bold efforts to lead California and the Nation towards reduction in the waste of electricity for lighting. He should be an example to all of our legislators.
However, in his recent interviews he mention LED lighting as another viable, although limited alternative. This has been true in the past due to the low intensity that has been available from solid state (LED) lights. This is no longer the case! A company called Lamina, not far from where Edison invented the first light bulb, has introduced LED light sources with intensity equivalent to 60 and 100 watt incandescent bulbs, greater power savings than CFLs and most importantly, NO MERCURY.
Levine has pointed out that LED lights are more “focused” than other lights and early models were offered only in directed forms. Like the recent improvements in CFL color performance, LED lights can now satisfy the variety of lighting applications. Since many lighting applications such as our office ceiling, require reflectors or recessed cans to provide directed light, CFLs actually waste half of their light as it is trapped inside the reflector. In these applications, LED lights are significantly more efficient than CFLs as 100% of their light can be directed to the chosen area.
With a lifetime of 12 years in office applications compared to 3 years for CFLs, LED lights are essentially a permanent solution with no deleterious by-products. Levine should have his scientific advisors confirm that the 3 mg of mercury contained in the “greenest” of CFLs is still more mercury than the average person should be exposed to in a full year. If negligently slipped into landfill garbage, that 3 mg of mercury can bring a quarter acre of ground to OSHA’s limit for human exposure. Legislators nationwide will soon reduce the mercury contamination of coal powered generators and LED lights will prevent the replacement of that mercury by CFLs.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home