Register :: Log in :: Profile :: Mail   

Your Ad Here

California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner
Author Message
Some Chick
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Location: EARTH

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:17 pm    Post subject: California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012 Reply with quote
California may ban conventional lightbulbs by 2012
Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:05 PM ET

Idea

By Bernie Woodall

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California lawmaker wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs as part of California's groundbreaking initiatives to reduce energy use and greenhouse gases blamed for global warming.

The "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act" would ban incandescent lightbulbs by 2012 in favor of energy-saving compact fluorescent lightbulbs.

"Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications," California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine said on Tuesday.

"Meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

Levine is expected to introduce the legislation this week, his office said.

If passed, it would be another pioneering environmental effort in California, the most populous U.S. state. It became the first state to mandate cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, targeting a 25 percent reduction in emissions by 2020.

Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) use about 25 percent of the energy of conventional lightbulbs.

Many CFLs have a spiral shape, which was introduced in 1980. By 2005, about 100 million CFLs were sold in the United States, or about 5 percent of the 2-billion-lightbulb market, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

That number could more than double this year. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. alone wants to sell 100 million CFLs at its stores by the end of 2007, the world's biggest retailer said in November.

While it will not give opinion on the possible California law, the EPA recommends CFLs.

"They save money and energy," EPA spokeswoman Enesta Jones said. "They are more convenient than other alternatives and come in different sizes and shapes to fit almost any fixture."

Also, CFLs generate 70 percent less heat than incandescent lights, Jones said.

About a fifth of the average U.S. home's electricity costs pays for lighting, which means even if CFLs initially cost more than conventional lightbulbs, consumers will save, Jones said.

A 20-watt CFL gives as much light as a 75-watt conventional bulb, and lasts 13 times longer, according to the Rocky Mountain Institute, a nonprofit group studying energy issues.

Southern California Edison, an Edison International subsidiary and one of the state's biggest utilities, runs a program that cuts the cost of a CFL by $1 to $2.50. In the past year, SCE has helped consumers buy 6 million CFLs, it said.

California Energy Commission member Arthur Rosenfeld said an average home in California will save $40 to $50 per year if CFLs replace all incandescent bulbs.

While not commenting specifically on Levine's likely legislation, Rosenfeld, winner of the Enrico Fermi Presidential Award in 2006, said the switch from incandescent bulbs became feasible about five years ago when CFL performance improved.

"This is clearly an idea whose time has come," he said.

Levine, a Democrat from Van Nuys in Los Angeles, last year introduced a bill that will become law in July that requires most grocery stores to have plastic bag recycling.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Reuters 2007.

Back to top
jusdeadphunky
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 05 Dec 2006
Posts: 2071

PostPosted: Wed Jan 31, 2007 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
awesome...

i love how california is not afraid to do what the federal government should do.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Compact flourescents are for pussies.

Real progressives go with LED's.

Plus - flourescent light is depressing.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 6:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regular lights spend 95% of their energy on heat, it's just not effective, if your deppressed by flourescent light then get a slighty yellow lampshade or some cellophane.
Back to top
Anym
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Posts: 1200
Location: Jersey

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 12:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cali is doing all it can to make sure it's not under water.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
Regular lights spend 95% of their energy on heat, it's just not effective,


Like i said - flourescent is for wimps.

LED's are better.

In case you don't know what LED's are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Led

Quote:

if your deppressed by flourescent light then get a slighty yellow lampshade or some cellophane.


A lamp shade can only filter light - it can't add color. You might get something yellow-looking, but it doesn't have the same feel as actual warm, yellow light.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm not saying flourescent is the best, I'm saying that regular bulbs suck.

If you have a thin lampshade the light goes through it, trust me I've done it. LED's could get your "warm yellow" light.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
LED's could get your "warm yellow" light.


Indeed.
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And they're not being banned! everyones happy except lightbulb manufacturers and fox, because less lightbulbs mean more terrorists...
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lester wrote:
because less lightbulbs mean more terrorists...


Huh?
Back to top
Lester
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 3796

PostPosted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a liberal movement, it must mean more terrorists.

I think you missed the 'fox' part.
Back to top
G-Max
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 62
Location: The People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ugh. Is there anything that ISN'T banned in the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California?

Seriously. I'm so sick of this Commie crap that I'm moving to New Hampshire in a few months.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
G-Max wrote:
Ugh. Is there anything that ISN'T banned in the People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California?


So...we SHOULD continue to use the most inefficient method of lighting and energy use possible?

Quote:

Seriously. I'm so sick of this Commie crap that I'm moving to New Hampshire in a few months.


Haha, good, they could use you. The population there is approximately zero.
Back to top
G-Max
Not a Newbie
Not a Newbie


Joined: 10 Mar 2007
Posts: 62
Location: The People's Soviet Socialist Republic of California

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
exton wrote:

So...we SHOULD continue to use the most inefficient method of lighting and energy use possible?


No, we should let people use their own f***ing brains and make their own f***ing choices. (libertarianism for teh win)

exton wrote:

Haha, good, they could use you. The population there is approximately zero.


It's 1.3 million, last time I checked. And there is a rather large difference between zero and 1.3 million, last time I checked.
Back to top
exton
Forum Elder
Forum Elder


Joined: 13 Dec 2006
Posts: 2825

PostPosted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
G-Max wrote:
exton wrote:

So...we SHOULD continue to use the most inefficient method of lighting and energy use possible?


No, we should let people use their own f***ing brains and make their own f***ing choices. (libertarianism for teh win)


That's Libertarianism with a big "L", also known as "anarchy for adults".

Like it or not, we're all in this together. And what we do as a group affects our chances of survival individually.

If you don't want to play by the rules of civilization, then you can go live in the wilderness. The rest of us have things to get done.

Quote:

exton wrote:

Haha, good, they could use you. The population there is approximately zero.


It's 1.3 million, last time I checked. And there is a rather large difference between zero and 1.3 million, last time I checked.


While i realize that sarcasm doesn't translate well over teh intertubes, i don't see how you could have missed that one.
Back to top
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LVC Home // Liberal Corner All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

Add to My Yahoo! Add to Google

Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites Politics Blogs Politics