It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California May Ban Inefficient Incandescent Lightbulbs

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:23 PM

Traditional light bulbs could be outlawed in California if groundbreaking environmental legislation being proposed by a state legislator is approved.

Democratic politician Lloyd Levine said his bill -- the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act" -- would ban the sales of cheaper incandescent bulbs in favour of compact energy-efficient lamps.

Levine said the ban, which would take effect from 2012, would save consumers money over the long-term despite the fact that energy-efficient bulbs are more expensive to buy.

"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," he 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."

According to the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI), a nonprofit organization which specializes in energy policy, replacing a 75-watt incandescent light bulb with a 20-watt compact fluorescent would save 1,300 pounds of carbon dioxide and save customers 55 dollars over the life of the bulb.
The institute said the average life of a 75-watt incandescent bulb is roughly 750 hours, while the life of an energy-efficient bulb is 10,000 hours.


At first this may seem a bit extreme to some, but this really is a
good idea, that will not only help the environment, but will save
people money.

I hope this legislation goes through, and that other states start
making similiar bills.

Comments, Opinions?

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 06:06 PM
As of now, these don't work on Dimmer switches.
They are on, or off.

California, if they are really serious about this, should make the bulbs available at little or NO COST, to those who wish to make the replacement. Power companies could help to subsidize the cost. It's in their interest to do so.

They also have problems when used in enclosed fixtures, such as track lighting, spotlights..They overheat, and the ballast goes bad really fast. I know this from experience.

Another problem is low temperatures. Some do not work well as outdoor lights, when it's cold outside. I've noticed that some are a little better than others. But they won't fully light up for a few minutes, if it's really cold.

I still have quite a few in my house though.
I found some 60 watt equivalents at a discount store for 99 cents each. Pretty good deal.

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:51 PM
As mentioned above there are a few locations where the fluorescents do not work. I think the rest of us already use the fluorescent bulbs where practical.

If the incandescents are completely banned, then I will just do even more shopping across the state line. I already buy paint, household cleansers, and lawn chemicals, etc in Reno (the 'California EPA approved stuff' just doesn't work as well and is more expensive). I can add light bulbs to the list.

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:10 PM
Traditional 60 w bulb made of glass, tungsten filament, copper wire, steel screw and a small amount of argon. They are tried and true, and when one breaks you can bury it in your back yard and not worry about your children's water supply.


Compact fluorescent are encased in plastic (aka crude oil) which will eventually break up into little particles that will do the
evil things that little particles of plastic do.

Fluorescents contain highly toxic mercury. When you break a bulb the mercury will forever be in your home's dust.

Fluorescents also emit more UV light than traditional bulbs or the sun per unit of visable light, aka more cancer.

Fluorescents only really work well when in a "central air and heat" environment. The ballasts degrade more rapidly and the lights flicker othewise. How much energy is being saved if you have to heat and cool your light?

They lack thermal inertia causing strobe effect which can be dangerous given the right circumstance; working with spinning machinery or parkinsons disease, etc.

The phosphor coating on the inside of the tube creates an environmental disposal issue.

The traditional bulb comes in a cardboard printed box that I could use to start my woodstove, the fluorescent comes in a plastic package with color printed advertisements.

The fluorescent says, in microprint, "Check with your local code office for proper disposal." I'm sure every good little doobie gives a call down to their local code office before tossing the old bulb in the trash.

Before I digress to the disgusting truth behind electronic lamp ballasts on the common flourescent, I would have to hold discourse on the metaphysical by-products of the solid state electronic circuitry industry. However, we needent go there, because alas...

cynically I speaketh this truth unto the via the microprocessor,

Sri Oracle

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:30 PM
Sri Oracle,

I completely forgot about the mercury situation.
Reminds me of the gasoline additive MTBE that California was requiring for air quality..Which ended up in the drinking water.

Shortsightedness..Maybe brighter light bulbs would help!

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:43 PM
Don't forget LEDS:

“Unlike conventional light in the home, which is controllable only to the extent you can turn it on, turn it off and dim it, with LEDs — because there are available in a wide range of colors and they can be mixed — there is the potential to create digitally tunable lighting that can replicate all sorts of lighting effects,” he explains. “With LEDs, it is possible to take a white wall and make it any color you want, and use that color to adjust the mood in the room.”

Energy efficiency. LEDs provide very good efficacy (energy use, or the amount of light per watt of energy consumed) and continue to improve compared to their alternatives. Incandescents typically provide 15 lumens per watt of energy consumed. On average, fluorescents range from 65 to 85 lumens per watt. Right now, the LED has surpassed incandescents in efficacy, providing 30 and 60 lumens per watt; however, the U.S. Department of Energy is targeting 150 lumens per watt efficacy by the year 2012 with improvements in materials and design.

Are they saying flourescents are still more efficient than LEDS?

posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 12:09 AM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Shortsightedness..Maybe brighter light bulbs would help!

In truth... only beeswax candles can solve the problems humanity faces with regard to lighting.

but like a junkie... I slap my arm and inject another syllable onto flickering screen before my straining eyes.

Sri Oracle

new topics


log in