California May Ban Incandescent Lights

Now we'll see a surge of smuggling of bootleg, illegal incandescent bulbs from our nefarious Canadian neighbors, as we did when we switched to the lower capacity toilets.

Seriously though, I bought a bunch of CF bulbs a few months ago and got about six of them for far less than I paid for one back in 1994. They are very cheap in some places (like Walmart). There is no reason NOT to use CF bulbs, and if you take the long view, they last a lot longer even if they didn't also save you a ton of money for electricity (which they do). I cannot remember where I heard it, but if each US home switched out four incandescent bulbs for four CF bulbs, it would be enough to shut down X coal fired plants (one if I recall correctly). Doing a back-of-napkin calculation....the delta between a 60 watt bulb and the CF equivalent is usually something like 45 watts, times 4 bulbs is 180 watts per home. Multiply by, say 9 million, which is what the 2000 US census said (which obviously does not count offices, apartments, businesses, etc.) and you get 1,620MW, which does match up against at least one large coal plant.

The Renewable Energy Handbook does say that there are many applications where a homeowner may not want to use CF bulbs though, such as those high intensity floodlights used in art galleries and jewelry stores because of their superior light quality. However, these don't draw all that much power, even if they are inefficient. I expect that would be about the only complaint and cause people to get non-CF bulbs from out of state, but that's for specialized applications anyway.

Oh, and what about the bulbs in appliances (refrigerator, oven, etc.). Those are all incandescent to the best of my knowledge. I'm not sure a CF can be made for these extreme conditions.

We have CF lightbulbs many places in our home, but they are not appropriate everywhere. The main problem is that they take a while to warm up to their full brightness (at least the ones we have do). And my understanding is that they take extra energy when warming up, and that lots of on/off cycles reduce their lifetimes. For example, we replaced a CF lightbulb in a pantry with an incandescent bulb because (1) it is on a very small fraction of the day, so the energy savings are negligible; (2) it is rarely on for more than a few seconds at a time, so the warm-up delay is quite annoying.

CFs are certainly wonderful and economical for most applications, but certainly not for all.

I wonder if it takes more total energy to manufacture these light bulbs as compared with incandescent bulbs. Millions if not billions will be needed fairly quickly if this goes through. Most will probably be made in China where being "green" is not yet in style. That would be an interesting calculation anyway; to see if there is any real total energy savings.

We have been using the fluorescent for several years now and have seen a noticeable savings. Sure, they don't put out quite as much light as regular bulbs, but we get by fine and don't use them in every socket. We are about 90% converted. We don't use them over the dining table. I like to see what I'm eating. We were also told that they wouldn't last as long as incandescents in high use areas. In our case they were way wrong. We have an old house, one bathroom and 2 kids. I replaced the light at least monthly. The fluorescent went for years until we realized just how dim it was getting.

Besides dimmers there are a few other technical hurdles. Ovens and heat lamps, the chickens won't like CF's in the winter. Should I park the barbeque in the coop? I guess we'll be forced to trash our old Christmas lights. Should I invest in LED's or wait for teany tiny CF lights in red and green.

I'm pretty conservative and especially when it comes to mandating what I think should be a choice. And law or no law I think people will switch as the price and performance of the new bulbs gets better. In our area the power companies have been offering $2/bulb rebates for as long as I can remember. This makes them almost free at Home Depot. I'm sure the power companies ran the numbers before they ran the rebate. More customers without more generation and all the excess can be sold to California. We don't need a law.

Levine said he believes compact fluorescent light bulbs are so
efficient that consumers should be forced to use them.

Yes, it said forced.

After having read it being put that way, it makes me think that the real issue in this news article is not whether we can stand the paltry glow of those fluorescent lights, but what the overall consequences of a legislation that “forces” a product upon us is. (Good intentions aside.) If these light bulbs are so efficient, what’s to say that the next forcing might consist of everyone having to take public transportation, or “no hot tubs allowed.” What if a cap on a homes daily power usage was enacted so that some penalty or extra fee was imposed for violators? Could constant legislation be the only means to becoming a more energy efficient society?

Get rid of the bulbs, fine.

Why not get rid of the street lights?

Seriously, they burn all night for naught.

Ban night lights in homes

and spotlights at premiers.

Advertising signs don't have to be lit.

There are lots of lights to turn off,

and computers should auto shut down with screen savers.

Just get everyone night vision goggles.

Good to know that we are going to be saved.