The World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for News & Information
Sign In or Register
Renewable Energy World Logo
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
  • Sections
    • Home
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Solar
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Wind
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Geothermal
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Bio
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Hydro
      • News
      • Opinion & Commentary
      • Featured Blogs
      • Research & Reports
      • Video
      • Press Releases
      • All Blogs
      • Events
      • Products
      • Finance
    • Careers
    • Companies
      • Company Directory
      • Press Releases
      • Products
      • Events Calendar
      • White Papers
    • Webcasts
      • Upcoming Webcasts
      • Featured Webcasts
      • Archived Webcasts
      • Events Calendar
    • White Papers
    • Magazines
      • Renewable Energy World
      • Wind Technology
      • Large Scale Solar
      • Hydro Review
      • HRW - Hydro Review Worldwide
      • Renewable Energy World (North America Edition)
      • Photovoltaics World
    • Awards
  • Account
    • Sign In
    • Register
  • Search

Breaking Light Bulb Myths

Elisa Wood
March 22, 2011  |  31 Comments

Print

I have to agree with the Tea Party; the US government should not choose the light bulbs I use in my home.  And fortunately, it does not.

Yet that’s the spin being pushed by those who want to roll back federal lighting performance standards. An odd mythology is developing around the standards.

Opponents claim that the standards amount to government picking and choosing winners and forcing them upon us. More specifically, they say that the feds have banned the incandescent light bulb, which has been around since Thomas Edison’s time.

This is not true; the incandescent light bulb is not being banned; the standards are agnostic about technology type as long as they perform as required. The 2007 law is meant to act as a market mechanism that encourages innovation. With a benchmark to work towards, scientists, engineers and product designers are working to displace older, inefficient devices.  Already several different kind of light bulbs have made their way into the marketplace, including a new and better incandescent.

::continue::

We have efficiency standards not only for light bulbs, but also for refrigerators, water heaters, air conditioners, microwaves and other appliances. They are nothing new.  Those who see them as government intrusion may be surprised to find that the first US appliance standards were set under Ronald Reagan.

Still one might ask, do we really need appliance standards? Are they worth the bother? That’s a $300 billion question – the amount the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy estimates the US will save on electricity costs by 2030 through existing appliance and lighting standards. 

Here are other important points about appliance standards made by Steven Nadel, ACEEE’s executive director, in a testimony on March 10 before the US Senate’s Energy and Natural Resource Committee. Nadel urged that Congress reject S. 395, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act (BULB), which would repeal lighting standards set in 2007 under the Bush administration.

  • Appliance standards generated 340,000 net jobs in the U.S. in 2010.
  • The majority of the standards are based on consensus agreements between manufacturers and energy efficiency advocates.
  • Four types of bulbs already meet the standards, although the standards do not take effect until 2012. Two are incandescent bulbs.
  • The 2007 lighting standards, alone, are expected to reduce annual electricity use by 72 billion kWh by 2020, enough to serve the annual electricity needs of 6.6 million average households and avoid construction of about 30 power plants.
  • ACEEE forecasts that the lighting standards will reduce consumer energy bills by more than $7 billion by 2020, or about $50 per American household annually.
  • A recent USA Today survey of 1,016 adults found that despite misinformation circulated about a light bulb ban, 61% of Americans favor the 2007 lighting standards, while 31% say they are  bad.

This blog is open source & copyright free with attribution to www.realenergywriters.com

The information and views expressed in this blog post are solely those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on this Web site and other publications. This blog was posted directly by the author and was not reviewed for accuracy, spelling or grammar.

31 Comments

Register To Comment
ANONYMOUS
April 21, 2011
Of course people should be left free to choose what they want, but with this kind of behavior we will never stop polluting the world. So if half the population stops using inefficient bulbs the other have will still use a lot of electricity. I think we should make the green technologies cheaper than regular ones so people will be inclined to buy because they want to and not because of the the government law.
---------------------
http://alliancelevelingguidex.com/
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
April 3, 2011
Lighthouse,

I contacted ERCOT, which handles the grid and it's operations in Texas. I'll pose this question and some of the responses here and see what they say.
peter dublin
peter dublin
April 3, 2011
Bob Wallace

The Department of Energy divides grid electricity consumption into residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation: commercial sector includes "commercial and institutional buildings and public street and highway lighting".
Comparative sector usage data
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0809.html

The industrial and transportation lighting usage can be ignored, from involving small amounts, and hardly involving relevant incandescent lighting:
Transportation electricity use is marginal, while manufacturing, which dominates the industrial sector, only involved 62 billion kWh of lighting from last 2002 figures (likely representative, since total industrial electricity use has stayed around the same, 2002: 990 billion kWh, 2009 882 billion kWh).
This can be compared with 208 billion kWh domestic lighting, 303 billion kWh commercial lighting.


The EIA (at the DOE)
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=99&t=3 therefore estimates that in 2009, about 511 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity were used for lighting by the residential and commercial sectors.
This is quoted as being equal to about 19% of the total electricity consumed by both of those sectors and 13.6% of total U.S. electricity consumption.

*** Regulation proponents consistently and grossly misquote this figure of "19% of electricity consumption" in talking about possible savings,
which as seen therefore mostly arises from commercial buildings, street lighting etc - hardly any of which involves relevant incandescent lighting. ***

Looking at the 13.6% usage, how much is therefore relevantly residential?
208 billion to 303 billion kWh usage ratio, around 2 parts in 5, or just over 5%.

So current estimate is indeed higher than 2%
However the estimate doubles last actually measured domestic consumption (see site) so explains the 2% quote given

Savings from ban =much less (households already have fluorescents eg in kitchen, and replacement lights also use electricity)
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
April 3, 2011
Paladin should remember that C02, although a plant food, also is deadly in ways other than as a greenhouse gas. While rare, there are the occasional gigantic emissions such as the one that occured from Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986 that asphyxiated 1700 people in their sleep.

In addition to such rare "burps" that kill rather quickly, ocean acidification is a known and proven result of the dramatic increase in humanity's carbon dioxide emissions, and is unhealthy to many important marine organisms, like coral reefs, as well as all organisms that depend on calcification for their very existence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
April 2, 2011
I'll just leave this here.

http://sroblog.com/2011/03/22/incandescent-light-bulb-ban-gsal/#_edn2
ANONYMOUS
March 31, 2011
The most amazing quote from the long debates goes to Paladin for:
"Besides, all the drama aside, use common sense. CO2 is plant food, more CO2 means plants grow better, and more oxygen"

With this encouragement we should go out and use more coal powered electricity & drive less efficient cars : the future of all plant life is secure and we humans will have lots of that necessity oxygen too!
peter dublin
peter dublin
March 25, 2011
Agreeing with Paladin,

and having already covered the territory about saving energy and money (which should include the misleading brightness, lifespan etc data used for CFLs, as on the earlier website link)

I think the bigger picture should not be forgotten here,
regardless of energy savings:

Firstly,
the fact that there is no present or future shortage of electricity for the customers who are paying for its supply.

Secondly,
that much greater, and much more relevant, energy waste savings arise from effectively organized electricity generation and grid distribution,
and from encouraging (and in commercial/public enterprise, perhaps mandating) the reduction of unnecessary use of appliances such as lighting in buildings etc:
rather than from stopping people in their choice of what appliance they want to use.
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 25, 2011
As lighthouse has stated, yes, it is a ban. If the bulbs cannot reach a certain arbitrary level of standards, it cannot be sold. Target has already removed roughly half of their incan stock. Home Depot has stopped selling 75 watt clear. In 2020, a new set of standards come into play that remove 95% of all incandescents because of the limits of the technology.

Stocking patterns for the grocery store here suggest large scale stockpiling has begun.

The problem with green technology is that in end, it's very expensive per kilowatt and can't meet the energy demands for the base load.

Expensive (from this site actually)

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/report-cal-utilities-sign-too-many-expensive-clean-power-contracts

http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=1029

http://www.americantradition.org/?p=1556

Green Energy can't supply enough for base load

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/too-green-too-soon-renewable-power-may-destablize-electrical-g/19426714/

This article states that wind energy MIGHT work, but with nightmare logistics

http://tinyurl.com/4jdl6sy

More

http://tinyurl.com/4bzqwcl
peter dublin
peter dublin
March 25, 2011
added note..

re quote:
"As the standards start to take effect in 2012, the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 projects that CFLs and LEDs gain significant market share while manufacturers work to bring the new, efficient incandescent bulbs to market."

The point is that they project that CFLs and LEDs gain significant market share.

As for the mentioned arrival also of new incandescents:
That is no guarantee, light bulb manufacturers
will only make what is profitable, and it is unlikely that profitable incandescents can be made to meet the new standard,
especially when alternatives like CFLs are so profitable and the sales will increase as projected,
when the cheap competition from regular bulbs has been wiped out by the ban on them.
peter dublin
peter dublin
March 25, 2011
Clee

Hardly, you haven't actually read the comments then...
See comment 32

In short:
Sure it's a ban: Any bulb not meeting the standard is banned.
Halogens have existed a good while, have differences with ordinary bubs (including a whiter light) and are not popular with customers also for the small savings with a much higher price than regular bulbs


Governments don't actually like Halogens either:

- any purchase increases makes a ban (even) more irrelevant in the stated aim to save energy - that is why Halogens are used as a decoy to hide the real purpose of the ban, which is to push "energy saving" CFL sales (see below link)

March 23 2011 announcement from the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
"As the standards start to take effect in 2012, the Annual Energy Outlook 2011 projects that CFLs and LEDs gain significant market share while manufacturers work to bring the new, efficient incandescent bulbs to market."
= No great Halogen uptake envisaged, then...

Notice, in this regard, the purchasing situation in post-ban EU and Australia:
Replacement Halogens are only available in specialist shops, and since LEDS are unsuitable as replacements for regular bulbs (too high a price, especially for omni-directional bright replacements), what is seen in supermarkets and general stores is not just the sole availability of CFLs, but also the in-store enticement to buy them, marketed as as saving consumers a lot of money.

Again, the U.S. Energy Information Administration:
"The second tier of efficiency improvements becomes effective in 2020, essentially requiring general service bulbs to be as efficient as today's CFLs."

= As in the EU (replacement halogens banned by 2016), no future in America for current incandescents then, Halogen or not

Further reading:
How manufacturers and vested interests have pushed for the ban on regular light bulbs,
and lobbied for CFL favors:
http://ceolas.net/#li1ax
with documentation and copies of official communication
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
March 25, 2011
I agree with Bob_Wallace. Nuclear is too dangerous and expensive (and those involved in making the plants and taking care of the waste are too sloppy and corrupt!). The "green" technologies are more reasonable, both in obvious costs and those that are not as obvious (long-term health effects).

Futhermore, "green" technologies, although also subject to corruption and sloppiness (such as the drastically decreased reliability and longeivity of some wind turbine's gearboxes), at least have much more forgiving natures (compared to fossil fuels and nuclear). Fortunatley, innovations are addressing these problems:

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2010/06/wind-turbine-gearbox-reliability
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 24, 2011
Jaja,

Thank you for the information. As I mentioned before, as I was doing research, it appeared that most of the issues could have avoided if people were paying attention.

As for the Japanese, what happened was unprecedented, but with the information you gave me, it seems just plain simple common sense would have solved those problems. Think Titanic. Such as moving the plant further inland, and as you mentioned, sealing the gens off and/or improving the sea wall. However, the tsunami was so vast, nothing stood a chance. Moving the plant inland would solved the tsunami problem or lessened the amount of damage.

The Browns-Ferry was a bit more complicated. Again, the idiot was checking for air leaks with a candle. The candle flame would jump in response to a draft but the fire jumped in behind the wall, following the control cables. They didn't know it was there.

As I was doing research for my replies, a newer design came up that looked really promising. The control rods are held in by electromagnetics. If something happens to the power, the control rods drop automatically and stops the reactor. The second reactor that showed up was Molten Salt, which also appears to be far safer.

Are these shortfalls due to the usual cost-cutting, bean counting, measures? Or is it that the nuke industry just doesn't really care anyway?

^Tsunami/earthquakes aside, I don't think the nuke industry is that callous, but they really need to take a look at the situation, and try take ALL the systems in account and learn from their mistakes.
Lawrence Carroll
Lawrence Carroll
March 24, 2011
Paladin: "The reactors survived the earthquake, the generators that were supposed to have kicked in to keep the cooling pumps operative, were drowned out by the tsunami."

Yes -- but why were they drowned out? Because of a very poor design. The generators were located in a basement -- not a good place to put anything you want to stay dry in a flood, unless you use a proven method of sealing it (such as that used in submarines and other water craft where each section can be sealed off).

In addition, the Japanese nukes had a sea wall surrounding them -- but it wasn't high enough . . .

Are these shortfalls due to the usual cost-cutting, bean counting, measures? Or is it that the nuke industry just doesn't really care anyway? To be so caviliar . . .

Likewise, why did the Browns-Ferry plant catch fire from a candle falling on flammable insulation? For one thing, the worker assumed that it wasn't flammeble since the same type of insulation was used in other parts of the plant that had been treated. In addition, for some mysterious reason, he was not provided with an anemometer, but a candle! Cost cutting?

And this type of thing is common throughout the entire nuclear power industry. We're always assured that a "new generation" of plants will be safe (but then, we were assured that the old ones were!). The nuclear industry says, "just give us more money!" (and many more chances).

What is revealing is that those who support nuclear energy never really criticize the firms that build and operate the plants, nor the NRC (except when they claim the NRC is "too restrictive"!). You would think that those who love nuclear power would be angry at those who do such a bad job of representing it, rather than citizens who have what are obvious and proven legitimate concerns.

This is why there is no stick made that is long enough to "touch" a nuclear power proponent safely.
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 23, 2011
If you can't figure out how to use CFLs wisely then get some LEDs.
^Huh?

It's not rocket science my friend, shitty quality products + high replacement cost. It's not the electric connections or the fixtures or inability to use those fixtures with these bulbs. I've done electrical wiring that's been inspected and up to code.

LED's are even worse for color rendering and cost 5x or more??


Recycle the damn bulbs.
^
And if they don't?
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 23, 2011
Bob,

The issue is this, in a catch 22. The bulbs have to stay on for at least three hours before longevity kicks in. The BULB MANUFACTURERS themselves admit it. Bulb life is severely reduced with short cycling. Try to understand that we alone in the salon blew through $500 of bulbs before I got completely fed up. It was costing us more to replace the bulbs than it was to run them. THIS IS THE STORY THAT I'VE SEEN OVER AND OVER. I put in the long life incans and we are still ahead because of the replacement cost.

Being off the grid is an extreme case. A British Columbia study found that power use went up because the lost heat from incans forced the whole house furnace to work harder.

http://www.iaeel.org/IAEEL/Archive/Right_Light_Proceedings/Proceedings_Body/BOK1/200/1411.PDF

Oh, and Bob, heat is heat. The incan's heat output works the exact same way as the heat from the furnace. It builds up from the top down till it reaches the thermostat. In my case, the 300 industrial incan and a couple of 60 watt room lights kept the room comfortable and the main heater didn't run as much.

125: Number of average CFL bulbs required to match the amount of mercury in one older thermometer.

Mercury thermometers are in the process of being banned. This ban began in 2002 for the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-in-glass_thermometer

Mercury thermometers are banned from the trash in California

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/HomeHazWaste/info/


Considering that most houses have anywhere from 30 to 60 light fixtures, that 125 will be blown through with just three houses throwing these bulbs away.
Elisa Wood
Elisa Wood
March 23, 2011
Clee -- Click on the link in the blog to Steve Nadel's testimony. He lists the four bulbs...gives some good detail. Best, Elisa
peter dublin
peter dublin
March 23, 2011
(The above was directly quoted from Sylvania information as linked)


2. RE Savings from regulations (to Bob Wallace)

Overall energy savings are less than 1%, as US Dept of Energy statistics shows ( http://ceolas.net/#li171x ) .
Household savings also small for given, and referenced, reasons.

As also seen via the link,
there are much better ways to deal with actual energy waste (eg in grids etc) as well as by acting on consumption in other ways than by banning the free choice of product use,
for consumers who are paying for the electricity supply
of which there is no shortage anyway to warrant usage restrictions in this way....

Paladin also makes good points!
.
peter dublin
peter dublin
March 23, 2011
Bob_Wallace...

1.
RE CFL "power factor",
"that meter thing is bogus"
"written by someone who apparently does not understand how alternating current works"

Enjoy your morning coffee in pursuing this...
and perhaps you should be slower in dismissing what people say...
( as linked on the above mentioned ceolas.net site, if you check )

1. Department of Energy
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/bestpractices/pdfs/mc60405.pdf

more specifically,
re light bulb effects
AND since you quote Sylvania...

http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~instlab/Experiments/05_FlurLamp/PowerFactor1.pdf

" The significance of power factor lies in the fact that utility companies supply customers with volt-amperes,
BUT
bill them for watts.

The relationship is (watts = volts x amperes x power factor). It is clear that power factors below 1.0
require a utility to generate more than the minimum volt-amperes necessary to supply the power (watts).
This increases generation and transmission costs.
Good power factor is considered to be greater than 0.85 or 85%.

Utilities may impose penalties on customers who do not have good power factors on their overall buildings.
Watts, or real power, is what a customer pays for. VARS is the extra " power" transmitted to compensate for a power
factor less than 1.0. The combination of the two is called "apparent" power (VA or volt-amperes).

Consider this popular analogy to clarify the relationship between real and apparent power.
We all know a glass of draft beer generally has a "head" on it. Let's say your favorite pub institutes a new policy -
you only pay for the beer, not the foam. While the foam is just aerated beer, it is not really usable in that form. If the glass of beer is half foam, you pay half the price.
This is the same principle as electricity generation - the consumer ONLY pays for the beer (real power), NOT the foam
(the "VARS" mentioned above).
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 23, 2011
House fire started by CFL

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14072880/deadly-fire-at-rehabilitation-center-was-accidental

Possible lawsuit

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/14089367/disposal-of-cfl-light-bulbs-not-environmentally-friendly


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kALiIcrDGec
peter dublin
peter dublin
March 23, 2011
I agree with the anonymous poster re about this being a ban...

We are going to hear this a lot:
"This is not a ban, energy efficient incandescents like Halogens allowed!

Sure it is a ban
- any bulb not meeting allowable standards is banned.

Yes, energy efficient halogen incandescent replacements are allowed, but
still have light type etc differences with regular bulbs, apart from
costing much more for the small savings, which is why neither
consumers or governments really like them, since they have been around
for a while now without being sold much.

LEDs are not yet ready as bright omnidirectional lighting at a good
price – which leaves CFLs:

People don't save that much in switching…
One reason is that the common cheaper CFLs ("energy saving" lights )
draw twice the energy from the
power plant than what your meter suggests – but users of course have to pay
for that eventually too
(look up CFL "power factor" online, or http://ceolas.net/#li15eux with
more about the lack of savings from the ban)

All light bulbs have their advantages in different rooms and
situations – none should be banned unless they are unsafe to actually use:
The "switch all your lights and save lots of money" campaigns are like
saying "Eat only bananas and save lots of money!" ;-)
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 23, 2011
The incan was still putting out usable light

http://www.dimmablecompactfluorescentlightbulbs.com/

Fires

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad7vhHfjgC0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anfVLL7tJS0&feature=related

There's more but I'm tired.

Not moving the goalpost, just proving my point. I'm done for the night.
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
I'm not going into the whole carbon fiasco tonight.

Some brands of CFLs do have a high failure rate. I bought my first CFL ~15 years ago. It's still working fine. I've never had a CFL burn out and I use nothing but CFLs (plus a couple of LED night lights).
^
These were mostly a mix of GE and Sylvania. In these fixtures ( 15 in all), they hung upside down but they were in open ended fixtures with good ventilation. I almost bought commercial grade CFl's when I bought the incandescents, but I said screw it since I'm stockpiling anyway and I'm very happy with the result. This is a salon with clothing and we were getting complaints that the clothes colors never looked right.

I was also concerned about the safety issue as a couple of CFL's flamed out with smoke and fire.


They do not work on dimmers, and never will 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, 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.
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
The Oak Ridge molten salt LFTR reactor built a few decades ago didn't work too well. They shut it down out of fear that radioactivity was contaminating the system.

^ actually it was successful according to Wiki. Molten Salt reactors are more stable and less likely to have a serious accident. The main issue was improper storage.

http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/10/27/molten-salt-reactors-safety-options-galore-paper/

You are correct that CO2 is necessary for good plant growth. But it's also true that too much CO2 will stunt plant growth.

Uhhm, what about volcanic explosions that release hundreds of millions of tons of CO2 and we're still here, along with plants still growing in the area? This is why the whole C02 issue is complete rubbish, nature can expel more C02 with just one volcanic eruption than the entire industrial revolution.

How about we don't play a game of move the goal posts?

^my point is that it still doesn't help them. Even with the additional load, they are still short and it's all environmentalist restrictions.

Some CFLs decrease over time. Not all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp

^I'm getting tired of Googling, at least for tonight. About the fourth or fifth paragraph down.

If the CFL you purchase isn't bright enough for you turn on a second or buy a larger model.

^or do what I do and use a single 300 watt industrial incan to light two rooms. You just negated your argument by saying that CFL's are brighter. You're also missing the point that the bulbs ARE NOT lasting as long. In an Elementary school bathroom, they lasted three days. I was there when the janitor replaced the third cfl in nine days with a GE incan. Parent's salon is now using 75 watt 20,000 hour incans. We were going through CFL's at the rate of two or three every six weeks. It was too expensive and I was tired of changing bulbs.

Don't worry about the CO2 you and your kids expel. That's recycled carbon, not de-sequestered carbon.

^Huh?
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
Thanks anon for the on topic comment ;-)

Bob,

The problem with the info you gave me is that California is already several hundred megawatts short of what a state that size requires.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/report/GOV_REPORT.htm

And the irony of this situation that it's ENVIRONMENTAL restrictions that will not allow new plants to be built.


More on this later.

http://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/published/report/GOV_REPORT.htm
ANONYMOUS
March 22, 2011
Regarding Bob's remarks in comment #13:

"The output of CFLs is printed on the package in lumens."

True. As is a claim that the bulb is a direct replacement for a specific incandescent bulb. What ISN'T printed on the label is the lumen rating of the incandescent bulb--which is significantly higher than the CFL.

"Some CFLs decrease over time. Not all."
Bob: In support of this claim please point to a single product that doesn't. I have never found a CFL that does not have a very significant output drop as it ages and most packaging does not use the term "initial lumens" to tip users off to this effect.

"The problem with your idea that more lumens per bulb would have caused people to walk away from incandescents is that it isn't what drives purchasing decisions for a large portion of the population."

Lots of people have tried CFLs and been disappointed, and light quality is the primary complaint I have heard. Certain aspects of light quality are hard to improve, but brightness isn't one of them--CFL manufacturers dropped the ball when they decided to market bulbs that produce less light then their direct competitors. There are some users who buy the cheapest bulb independent of other factors, so a tax on the bulb price would be a much gentler way of prodding users to better decisions than banning products that some users cannot easily do without.

"I find it really amusing that incandescent bulbs have become the latest battle ground for the Tea Party. These are people who are all about hanging on to every penny they have and they are fighting to preserve something that wastes their money."

This is a caricature of their position. Many people properly resent government micromanaging their lives. I also note that if you want to use a bulb for only a few seconds at a time CFLs are more expensive to use than incandescents because the CFL bulb life depends strongly on how often it is cycled on and off.
Steven
ANONYMOUS
March 22, 2011
The author writes: "This is not true; the incandescent light bulb is not being banned; the standards are agnostic about technology type as long as they perform as required. "

The law IS a de facto ban on incandescent bulbs because it intentionally created a standard the entire product class could not meet. Nearly everyone understands this. The law is different from efficiency requirements on refrigerators, air conditioners, etc. in that the efficiency limits on those products were set at achievable levels that allowed the products to continue to be sold.

There are still many application areas where incandescent bulbs cannot be effectively replaced (CFLs and LEDs have limits on power output, operating temperature, and light quality that incandescents don't), so it is irrational to have an outright ban. It would be far better to add a significant tax on incandescent bulbs so that users who have lighting needs that cannot be met by CFLs and LEDs are not shut out of the market.

If the government really wanted to boost efficient lighting usage it would create a truth in labeling requirement that prohibits CFLs from being marketed as a direct replacement for incandescent bulbs of a specific wattage unless they produced the same light output in lumens. Much of the consumer dissatisfaction with CFLs results because the bulbs they are sold produce less light than the incandescents they replace--when initially installed--and lighting levels can drop a further ~30% as the bulb gets older. If CFL manufacturers had decided to market bulbs designed to BOTH produce more light and require less energy than their competitors they would have captured a much larger market share and we probably would not need government regulations to suppress demand for incandescents.
Steven
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
We can build an affordable, safe and reliable grid with solar (PV and thermal)

^Night/cloudy=no sun

Thermal and Geothermal? Possible if done right.

Wind-See my above statement. Also-No wind = no power. This is situation in the UK with a windfarm that was built. Not enough wind to keep it in operation.

tidal,

Too expensive and the return is not good enough.

http://www.energysavers.gov/renewable_energy/ocean/index.cfm/mytopic=50008


biomass/gas and storage.

^ possible if done right.

On Nuclear, it's all about safety records and due diligence, there's too many other countries that are using nuclear safely and have been for years.
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
As for CO2 being a dangerous pollutant

http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/3130/1/3130_Carter_2007.pdf

Math and numbers do not lie, but that is if the base information is correct. Pay attention the sources I'm quoting, they are edu and .org, which generally are a bit more accurate.

Besides, all the drama aside, use common sense. CO2 is plant food, more CO2 means plants grow better, and more oxygen.

The sun goes through 11 year cycles with periods of low activity called sunspots. During the last two or three years, there's been almost zero sunspot activity which generally means colder/cooler temps. The low sunspot activity coincides with cooler temps in the past.

http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html

--------------------------
I also want to revise my statement about wind energy. Wind energy is effective up a point, but can't in any way, shape or form, supply enough for the base. However, the dark side to wind energy is that, especially in Texas, these windmills are leaking oil, at least 90% of them, and will eventually cost too much to maintain. This is a well known fact.

http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/1396/improving-wind-turbine-gearbox-reliability-with-om/
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
When I say unprecedented, I was referring to the earthquake and tsunami. Again, the Japanese reactors SURVIVED the earthquake, it was the tsunami and subsequent power cut that killed them.

As long as you ignore Chernobyl
^
Chernobyl was a combination of a bad design, human error and a reactor being run at roughly 120% over capacity

http://www.broadinstitute.org/~ilya/alex/92a_chernobyl_secrecy.pdf

Also, the stop gap for Chernobyl was a guy with an axe and a rope holding the control rods in place.

http://www.stacken.kth.se/~foo/texts/chernobyl.html

By the way, there's another reactor built with that same design in operation right now in China.


Three Mile Island.

^Human error and stuck valve allowed coolant to escape.

As long as you ignore US reactors built on active earthquake faults (Humboldt Bay and Diablo Canyon).

^Human error. Again, the Japanese reactors survived the initial earthquake.

As long as you ignore 'near misses' like Browns Ferry and Davis-Bessie.


^Browns Ferry was an idiot checking for air leaks with a candle next to flammable insulation. Davis-Bessie was result of poor maintenance. However, with D-B, most the safety measures did operate as intended.


BTW, do you realize that the reactors which are now giving us so much trouble in Japan were designed by US engineers?

^So? The Japanese reactors are still a more modern design albeit there is better designs coming out, and I REPEAT, they SURVIVED the earthquake, it was the TSUNAMI that killed them.

http://gizmodo.com/#!5781442/japans-fukushima-nuclear-reactors-designed-to-survive-79-earthquake

BTW, so many nuclear storage issues would be solved if politics would get out of the way. There's salt mines are stable and safe, but can't be used because of politics.

The whole point of this is that wind energy, and most renewables is pretty much BS. The only truly viable renewable is Hydro, as Las Vegas, most of Canada and even Austin and surrounding area have found out. Google LCRA Texas
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
One last comment,

And we're playing a dangerous game of Japanese roulette as we extend the lifetime of questionable nuclear reactors.

^No. If anything, the situation was handled as best as possible under the conditions at hand. Don't listen to American media if you live in America. What happened in Japan was unprecedented and it was the tsunami that did the most damage. The reactors survived the earthquake, the generators that were supposed to have kicked in to keep the cooling pumps operative, were drowned out by the tsunami. The tsunami also cut power lines leading to the plant.

The reactors in Japan were modern design but put in a very bad location.
Paladin Paladin
Paladin Paladin
March 22, 2011
the incandescent light bulb is not being banned; the standards are agnostic about technology type as long as they perform as required.

^BS, this is a ban and the language alone proves it. If the bulbs can't reach arbitrary standards, they cannot be sold.

The 2007 lighting standards, alone, are expected to reduce annual electricity use by 72 billion kWh by 2020, enough to serve the annual electricity needs of 6.6 million average households and avoid construction of about 30 power plants.

^No. Pwr gens have to keep a certain amount of reserve online to handle spikes and provide insurance against emergencies and provide stability. The base line never changes. Residential lighting is less than 6% of the total draw on the grid, and is used during the off peak hours.<==read that again and a third time if you have to. Removing incan bulbs will do NOTHING toward reducing the draw.

The USA poll was flawed by low reporting numbers. Dissatisfaction with CFL's in reality is closer to 70%.

To Bob_Wallace,

C02 has absolutely nothing to do with and I would like to see your research. CO2 is NOT a pollutant and the earth has been warmer in the past or in some cases, even colder. In 1816, it was documented that that was the year without a summer in US. The primary climate drive is the sun and natural fluctuations. If this not the case, how come Greenland was actually a forest covered island in the past?

Add Your Comments

To add your comments you must sign-in or create a free account.

  • Create an Account!
  • Sign-In
Elisa Wood

Elisa Wood

Elisa Wood is a long-time energy writer whose work appears in many of the industry's top magazines and newsletters. Her blog on energy efficiency appears on more than 100 sites and has been picked up by the New York Times and Reuters. She...
  • About
  • Articles
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • FOLLOW
  • CONTACT
Stay Connected
         
To register for our free e-Newsletters, create your free account here:

Create a free account and start adding your blogs.

Create an Account

Most Commented

  • 2
    Sir Richard Branson unleashes Plan B for the planet

Total Access Partners

Growing Your Business? Learn More about Total Access
  • Planet Solar Inc
  • Admirals Bank
  • Advanced Energy Industries, Inc.
  • ImagineSolar
  • DNV KEMA Energy & Sustainability
  • Community Renewable Solutions, LLC
  • Active Communications International
  • Texas Combined Heat & Power Initiative
  • Renewable Energy
  • Solar Energy
  • Wind Energy
  • Bioenergy
  • Geothermal Energy
  • Hydro Power
  • Blogs
  • Video
  • Finance
Resources
  • Companies
  • Products
  • Careers
  • Events
  • Webcasts
  • White Papers
  • Magazines
  • Press Releases
  • e-Newsletters
Company
  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Advertising & Services
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Site Map
Network Partners - Magazines
  • Hydro Review Magazine
  • Hydro Review Worldwide Magazine
  • Renewable Energy World Magazine
Network Partners - Events
  • Power-Gen International
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
  • Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India
  • HydroVision International
  • HydroVision Brazil
  • HydroVision India
  • HydroVision Russia
© Copyright 1999-2013 RenewableEnergyWorld.com - All rights reserved.
RenewableEnergyWorld.com - World's #1 Renewable Energy Network for news & Information