Bills to Roll Back Light Bulb Efficiency Standards Not a Bright Idea
Posted March 8, 2011 in Curbing Pollution, Solving Global Warming, U.S. Law and Policy
Several bills have been introduced this Congress that would repeal or undermine the federal energy efficiency standards for light bulbs enacted by Congress in 2007. Such a roll back would increase household energy bills, stifle innovation that is creating U.S. jobs, and increase air pollution that harms human health and the environment.
Supporters of the roll back claim that the new standards ban the incandescent light bulb starting in 2012. This is simply not true. As shown in the image below, several manufacturers already sell new energy-efficient incandescent bulbs that meet the 2012 standards. These new bulbs look and perform just the same as the old incandescent bulbs.
The light bulb efficiency standards were enacted as a bipartisan amendment to the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which requires new bulbs to use 25 to 30 percent less energy than traditional incandescent bulbs beginning in 2012, and 65 percent less energy by 2020.
According to NRDC’s analysis, the standards when fully implemented will:
- Save each American household $100 to $200 plus per year on their energy bills.
- Reduce U.S. energy bills overall by more than $10 billion per year.
- Achieve energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants.
- Avoid approximately 100 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution per year, which is equivalent to the emissions of more than 17 million cars.
The most prominent light bulb efficiency standards roll back bill is the BULB Act (S. 395 & H.R. 91). Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC), a lead cosponsor of the BULB Act, said that the light bulb standards pick winners and losers in the marketplace and also micromanage the purchasing decisions of Americans.
Americans, however, did not have the choice to purchase the new efficient incandescent bulbs until after the 2007 light bulb standards were enacted. The technology for these new bulbs was invented in the 1960s, but the manufacturers did not roll it into the marketplace until the standards created a market for the bulbs.
The light bulb standards are also not some sort of statist central planning policy that picks technology winners and losers. Rather, the standards establish energy efficiency targets that all light bulbs have to meet and let the market decide how to meet them. The standards provide clear market rules that companies know well in advance – there is no federal bureaucracy saying what types of bulbs can and cannot be produced. This is one reason why energy efficiency standards in general have a long history of bipartisan support, beginning with President Reagan who signed the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987.
The new light bulb standards are unanimously supported by industry, and are already jump-starting innovation and investment that is creating U.S. jobs. For example:
- Osram Sylvania has retooled its current St. Marys, Pennsylvania incandescent factory to produce new energy saving incandescent bulbs that will meet the standards.
- Several thousand U.S. jobs have been created by companies like Cree in North Carolina, Lighting Sciences Group Corp in Florida, and Philips Lighting (the world’s biggest lighting company) to produce the next generation of efficient light-emitting diode (LED) light bulbs.
- In 2011, TCP—one of the world’s largest makers of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) — is opening a new factory in Ohio to help meet the new demand.
- GE recently invested $60 million to create a Global Center of Excellence for linear fluorescent lamp manufacturing in Bucyrus, Ohio—an action that will double the number of jobs at that plant.
Thomas Edison invented his light bulb in 1880 and the technology has changed little since then. Today’s old incandescent bulbs are so inefficient that they lose about 90 percent of the energy they consume as waste heat and it costs around $10 per year to operate just one 100 Watt bulb.
The new light bulb standards are bringing lighting technology from the days of the horse and buggy to the 21st Century, which will save consumers money, create jobs, and reduce pollution. Congress should reject efforts to repeal these standards.
Comments are closed for this post.
Comments
Paladin — Mar 8 2011 10:38 PM
Achieve energy savings equivalent to 30 large power plants
^
On power plants, the whole logic that removing incandescent will remove plants is false.
Pwr gens have to keep a certain amount of reserve online to handle spikes and insure stability. That never changes. Here’s why. Take a hot summer day in the south, pwr gens ramp up during the afternoon to handle the a/c load, then ramp down again during the off peak hours. Lighting, especially residential, is used during the OFF PEAK hours, when the demand is the lowest.
How is it that something that's actually used during lowest demand time of day, is actually going keep plants from being built, or taken off line? Especially when they have to ramp up again the next day to handle the load? Residential lighting makes up about 6% of the total draw on the grid.
A study done by BC Hydro (Canada) shows that the savings might be more illusional in colder climates because the heat lost by incans has to be made up with whole house heating systems.
http://www.timescolonist.com/technology/Light+bulb+doubts+remain/4192608/story.html
On mercury, you can’t really have it both ways. There’s about as much mercury in CFL’s as the dot at the end of this sentence. Multiply that times a thousand for these bulbs that won’t be recycled, and then you have a real problem. Plus the mercury from coal plants can be scrubbed, where the mercury from these bulbs is going directly into the landfills. The greens need to realize that a realistic large scale recycling program for these bulbs is simply non existent and the potential severity of this problem. That guy that lives out in the country, 15 miles from Home Depot sure the hell is not going to drive back into town for a stupid light bulb. That bulb is going into the trash, or worse yet, burned.
On/off cycles, basically normal use for incans, shortens their life span by 90%, same for bathrooms where there’s moisture. There’s reports that incans have outlasted cfl’s two, sometimes even three to one.I was subbing in an elementary school where the Janitor was replacing a CFL (the THIRD ONE in TWO WEEKS) with a GE incan because the constant on/off cycle from the kids was killing the bulbs in as little as three days.
Another thing I’ve seen over and over is “buy better bulbs or your’e not using them right” and then mention some website to purchase bulbs. This is pretentious and show a complete lack of understanding how human nature works. First of all, that aforementioned rural guy, sure the hell is not going online to buy bulbs. It’s the same story for almost 90% of Americans. They are going to buy where they normally buy, and Home Depot and other big box stores, only carry mid to low range bulbs. So it’s a triple shot, high initial cost, low quality bulb and frequent replacement because they only last two months at best. So the better bulbs are more or less out of reach for most.
On dimmers, I’ve caught the damn things on fire using a non dimmer bulb in a dimmer test rig. I have a ceramic socket connected to a typical off the shelf dimmer, and a plug. This rig also has a 2 amp in line fuse to protect the house circuit. Basically I put the bulb in the socket, dim it about 20%, sit back and wait. In about 8 minutes, the base of the bulb starts to smoke, then a few minutes later, the base then catches fire. The two amp fuse NEVER BLEW.
This type of mistake is very easy to make. And those who have whole house dimmer systems, called X10, are screwed. There’s millions of houses built in the 60’s and 70’s have these systems.
Dimming on these is a joke at best, and dangerous at worst (see above mentioned fire hazard). CFL’s will NEVER be fully dimmable simply because the electronics in the base and how electricity/current works. A CFL in a dimmer is about the same putting a VCR or DVD player on a dimmer. The effect is the same. The power supply is not linear and must have a certain amount of power to operate. For a bases for comparison, old tube type radios (even tube type televisions), both transformer and transformerless, CAN BE used on a voltage reducer (this is a common troubleshooting technique), because the power supplies on these are linear. In other words, if the power transformer is designed to put 350 volts out at 110 volt input, if the input voltage is dropped to 100 volts, the output drops to 320 or so. Switching power (non linear) supplies cannot do this.
Save each American household $100 to $200 plus per year on their energy bills.
^ So? I'll gladly pay for higher quality light and in most cases, BULBS THAT LAST LONGER THAN CFL. There is NO SAVINGS when it comes frequent replacement of CFLs. There's hundreds of reports of early bulb death. In some cases involving fire and smoke.
CFLs (according to the package) can’t be used upside down, in ceiling fans (vibration) in enclosed fixtures, in recessed cans, in cold weather, in timer controlled fixtures, in security fixtures with motion sensors, in bathrooms because of moisture. So, exactly where are we supposed to use these bulbs?
This whole boondoggle is about greed. Nothing else, again, it’s greed. The major players couldn’t make enough money off incans, and want them gone for a better profit margin.
Suzanne Core — Mar 8 2011 11:44 PM
I replaced my light bulbs with CFLs about 10 years ago, throughout my home.
I am now returning to regular light bulbs.
Why?
Because there are NO CFL light bulbs Made in the USA! NONE. Even America's Lighting has their bulbs made in China!
ALL CFLs are Made in China.
I cannot believe it is even LEGAL for Congress to MANDATE that AMERICANS MUST BUY CHINESE LIGHT BULBS.
I can put up with the lesser light, the greater expense, the recycling problems. But I will NOT buy Chinese! Not while they are doing all they can to destroy the USA (not to mention poison our pets etc).
ahhhhh — Mar 8 2011 11:52 PM
1. A ban is far too harsh.
2. Al Gore was wrong: global warming is not man-made, it's related to sun and earth cycles.
3. Light bulbs must make up an insignificant percent of energy usage.
lighthouse — Mar 11 2011 08:52 AM
The Darker side of the push to use CFLs:
How manufacturers and vested interests have pushed for a ban on popular regular bulbs,
and lobbied for CFL favors - with happy political cooperation:
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
with documentation and copies of official
communications
In my view, all lights have their advantages -after all, that is why they are on the market for people too choose -
none should be banned:
and this is a ban,
since bulbs not reaching the standard will be disallowed. Halogens have construction and light output differences to regular bulbs, as well as costing much more, for the marginal savings obtained.
LEDS are not yet suitable or attractively priced for bright, non-directional general use:
Hence the push for people to use CFLs, as described ...
Good points too in that regard, by Paladin above
Claudia Strasser — Mar 11 2011 12:22 PM
Wow that first comment really nailed it. Besides, if we have the technology to create bulbs that last 100 years such as Edison's which are STILL lit since the day they were turned on, why aren't we using it?
Instead we're victims of Planned Obsolence, typical of consumer oriented societies. Screwing in lightbulbs is busy work designed to keep us from looking at real issues.
Once the hundreds of millions of these bulbs are dotting the planet, the mercury will be evenly distributed and we'll all pollute our own waters.
The EPA website says that each unrecycled bulb contaminates 6,000 gallons of rainwater and NONE of the packages have recycling and hazards written on there. They may have a website mentioned or 'follow local laws' but most people on the planet don't have computers to research how to handle them let alone a toxic waste dump or Walmart nearby,
New Zealand and South Carolina have rejected the CFLs. Hopefully the small countries and islands that are being forced to use them wake up before they pollute their own water slowly.