×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

California Proposes to Ban Incandescent Lightbulbs

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 7 years ago | from the coming-to-your-house-to-smash-the-old-ones dept.

Power 1074

zhang1983 writes to tell us CNN is reporting that California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs with the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act". The act will promote Compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) to replace the inefficient incandescent lightbulbs. According to him, "Incandescent lightbulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications, meanwhile, they remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about 5 percent of the energy they receive into light."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1074 comments

how many? it's simple, really. (4, Funny)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831446)

California Assemblyman Llyod Levine wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs with the "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb Act"

It takes a vote of more than half of the legislative body considering the measure. The full Assembly requires a majority vote of 41 and the full Senate requires 21, based on their memberships of 80 and 40 respectively.

Great!! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831756)

Now we have to wait for the ballast to warm up before inspiration strikes!

Wrong target (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831456)

If you want to save energy, ban SUVs.

Re:Wrong target (4, Insightful)

Umbrel (1040414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831514)

You do realize that given the amount of light bulbs over there, swiching to CFL is actually a huge energy saving

Re:Wrong target (1)

Steendor (917855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831658)

I agree - CFLs typically claim to use only 25%-33% of the energy required by an "equivalent" incandescent. While I also agree that SUVs are collectively a bad thing, for some people, an SUV is actually more efficient than the alternatives. However, some SUVs are beyond excessive.

Re:Wrong target (5, Interesting)

vought (160908) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831636)

This is the dumbest goddamned thing I've ever heard of.

I use CFLs here at home. Have for years. But the idea of making incandescents illegal is ridiculous.

What will studio photographers do? How about people who are sensitive to the noise many CFLs make? What about legacy fixtures that CFLs don't fit into?

Run a public information campaign instead.

Ban SUVs? (1, Insightful)

PFI_Optix (936301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831788)

Yeah, because it'll save so much gas when I make two trips in my car (30 MPG) to pick up what I could in one trip with my SUV (25 MPG).

Kind of radical, but I hope it works (3, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831458)

As extreme as this legislation is, I hope it goes through, as long as there are provisions so that incandescents can still be used under certain circumstances. But as for everyday home lighting, the incandescent should be abolished.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (4, Interesting)

wiggles (30088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831530)

The biggest problem I see is that you can't get a CFL bulb to work with a rheostat. There are far too many dimmer switches out there for this to be technically feasible at this point.

Does anyone know if LEDs will work with dimmer switches?

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831684)

Does anyone know if LEDs will work with dimmer switches?
Yes. I have a battery-powered lantern for camping that has a dimmer switch.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (2, Informative)

MauriceV (455290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831810)

Battery operated isn't the same (direct current) as wall current (alternating current). LEDs that work on alternating current do NOT work with dimmer switches.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (3, Informative)

OwnedByTwoCats (124103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831774)

Rheostats to dim lights would be incredibly inefficient and a potential fire hazard.

Most dimmer circuits are choppers; they switch the circuit on and off 120 times a second. The fraction of time that the circuit is on increases as the knob is turned.

Anyway, the easily-accessible CFLs are not compatible with dimmer circuits.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (2, Informative)

Znork (31774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831776)

A google search for dimmable cfl will turn up several bulbs which can be dimmed. Apparently they've gotten that working these days.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (5, Informative)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831844)

CFLs work with dimmer switches. I know I've seen them at Home Depot. And of course, there's this from GE's faq

To use a compact fluorescent bulb on a dimmer switch, you must buy a bulb that's specifically made to work with dimmers (check the package). GE makes a dimming compact fluorescent light bulb (called the GE Longlife Plus Soft White Energy Saving Bulb) that is specially designed for use with dimming switches. We don't recommend using regular compact fluorescent bulbs with dimming switches, since this can shorten bulb life. (Using a regular compact fluorescent bulb with a dimmer will also nullify the bulb's warranty.)
http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/faq s/cfl.htm#3 [gelighting.com]

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (2, Interesting)

Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831568)

I'm not so sure about that- in that I've got a medical condition that CFLs cause me migraines. But if this will make (similarily efficient) LED arrays cheaper, I'm all for it.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831672)

But that's why I said there should be certain provisions to use incandescents when CFLs cause problems. Just get a signed letter from your doctor explaining the situation, and there should be no problem. I'm not saying there should be no incandescents at all, but rather people should use them unless they have a really good reason.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (1)

rrhal (88665) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831856)

I favor a sales tax on old style light bulbs so its cheaper to buy a compact flourescent at the point of sale. Its already cheaper over the life of the bulb but many people don't get this. Thus you could still buy incandescent bulbs if you need them. I would use the tax revinue to further energy conservation and develop new energy sources.

I know several people who can't use compact flourescents for one reason or another.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (3, Insightful)

simm1701 (835424) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831668)

Ok for a state like california I can understand the reasons for this.

Its hot there and you probably dont need an extra heat source.

However the idea that incandescants are "bad" is really quite foolish.

They take less energy to produce, are cheaper to produce and easier to dispose of (no heavy metals or polutants)

The down side? atleast 80% of the energy they use goes to heat. Is this really a down side? Many people call this waste heat - but it certainly is not waste if it is doing something useful - like heating your house! I live in england - this means my central heating (electric) is on most of the year - it rarely gets warm enough for it not to be in use.

Also given our latitude in the breif summer that we have it is also lighter much longer into the evening.

This generally means that when the lights are on, the heating is also on. The heating is controlled by a thermostat - so until the room is at a certain temerature, the heaters will be on. If some of that heat is being provided by incandescant bulbs then it just means the heating comes on less.

So that means all the energy is now useful... So given efficiency is useful work out / work in then for the above usage (which is common) incandescant bulbs provide 100% efficiency. Given the cost to produce and the polutants in the so called high efficiency bulbs is it really a good idea to switch?

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (1)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831842)

"So that means all the energy is now useful... So given efficiency is useful work out / work in then for the above usage (which is common) incandescant bulbs provide 100% efficiency. Given the cost to produce and the polutants in the so called high efficiency bulbs is it really a good idea to switch?"

That logic only works if you are comparing apples and apples, i.e. your primary heating source is electric resistance heating. If it is ANYTHING else, you wind up substituting the least efficient form of space heating for something more efficient - fossil fired or heat pump. This is a net waste of resources, not a wash.

Re:Kind of radical, but I hope it works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831804)

Hell no. This is utter crap, and shouldn't be legislated.

Ironically, I was thinking about this exact thing last night, about how incandesents were horribly wasteful, and how fluorescents and LCD-based light bulbs were far more efficient, and how their widespread use would drastically reduce carbon emmisions. The problem is some people with epilepsy I know can go into seizures if a compact fluorescent malfunctions (And starts 'flickering'). Some people get severe headaches from the spectrum of fluorescents. Some people just flat out don't like them.

The solution, then, is to tax incandescents. Tax them so fluorescents are cheaper, not just 'long run', but bulb-to-bulb. Then, if you have a reason to keep buying incandescents, you'll keep buying them, otherwise you'll buy a cfl...

Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (5, Funny)

MightyMait (787428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831464)

Hey! I'm counting on the incandescents to be inefficient--I use them to heat my home!!

If they want to target something, let them ban electric heaters. People ought to be running P4 servers as space heaters. At least *do* something with all that electricity!

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (1)

Pxtl (151020) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831508)

Electric heaters? In California? Between the warm weather, the hot-air from the constant political nonsense, and the incredible sucking coming from Hollywood, I'd think they wouldn't need electric heaters much there. Besides, banning electric heaters is the fastest way to get a bunch of houses burned down while people try to learn to use kerosene ones.

So, anybody planning on getting rich on the upcoming underground lightbulb black-market?

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (2, Funny)

MightyMait (787428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831848)

Electric heaters? In California? Between the warm weather, the hot-air from the constant political nonsense, and the incredible sucking coming from Hollywood, I'd think they wouldn't need electric heaters much there.

Well, considering that, here in CA, we all walk around in bikinis and Speedos sipping iced margaritas year-round, we *do* require a smidge of heating.

But, seriously, I live on the coast in Northern California, and, while it's a moderate, Mediterranean climate, it *does* get chilly in the mornings sometimes.

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (1)

DeathFlame (839265) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831526)

I doubt that the heating load in California is very high, and for most of the months of the year, is probably 0. You don't actually want that excess heat then, because that increases your cooling load

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (2, Interesting)

R2.0 (532027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831696)

Tell that to those pre-menopausal bitches whose feet are always cold. I built a brand spanking new lab facility in Pomona, and within 1 week there were space heaters under the cubicles. I mean, if 72F-75F is too cold in the summer, see a doctor - you have a medical problem.

If I sound cranky it's because my current clients are about to move into another of my buildings, and managements big concern is how to tell the employees not to bring space heaters without pissing the employees off. Quoth the safety officer: "I can set rules, but if they get broken there is nothing I can do."

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831560)

Why not take it one step further, and get your webserver on the Slashdot front page next Bonfire Night?

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831582)

I heat a dog house with an incandecent bulb. CFLs & LEDs couldn't do that...

They make things to do that. (2, Informative)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831820)

Why don't you just get a heating pad or small electric heater? Most pads can be switched between 40/80/100W, and wouldn't leave you with an insomniac dog. :)

Alternately, and probably a better option, are actual purpose-built dog house heaters [futurepets.com] , switchable wattages, usable with a timer or rheostat, and designed for use with pets.

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (1, Informative)

PrvtBurrito (557287) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831726)

This is actually insightful, IMO, for most of the country (outside of ca) incandescent lights are probably a wash six months of the year due to heating.

Re:Hey! I Heat My Home With Incandescents (0, Redundant)

ciaohound (118419) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831752)

Yeah, it's cold where I live and I've had the same thought. Incandescent bulbs produce visible light, which is good, and heat, also good, and... maybe a tiny amount of radiation not in the visible spectrum? Aren't they pretty close to 100 percent efficient?

Somewhat pointless... (0, Redundant)

Malcolm Scott (567157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831468)

But what about the automatic light switches which only work with incandescent bulbs? In any case, incandescent bulbs are not really inefficient [livejournal.com] if you think about it.

Re:Somewhat pointless... (4, Insightful)

anagama (611277) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831572)

Using lights as heaters is silly. Heat rises. Most lights are at least halfway up the wall -- floor level lights are very rare. Besides, were talking CA here, and while significant parts of the state have 4 seasons, a lot of the population is located from LA to San Diego where cooling is more of an issue than heating. Seriously, would someone in Maine leave their refrigerator door open all day to cool the house in winter (not that it would work because the cooling elements release heat back into the house -- but play along here)? Why would someone in a hot clime intentionally use lights to heat their house in the summer?

Re:Somewhat pointless... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831794)

ahem. Heat does not rise, it disperses. Hot air rises, but since the heat disperses it does not stay hot that long. A steady stream of heat will cause hot air to rise, then disperse the heat. This causes the higher air to be at a higher temperature, but the bottom air still gets warmer as well. In short, don't try to sound smart when you don't even take the time to think before posting.

How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Ligh (1)

mfh (56) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831472)

I had to look at the date and make sure this wasn't April 1. Then the snow outside had me worried about global warming.

I don't like this (3, Insightful)

Eugenia Loli (250395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831476)

I don't like this at all. My eyes hurt with fluorescent bulbs. They give me a headache. I prefer the more natural look and less-flickering of the current bulbs. Unless they fix the fluorescent bulbs to not be so intrusive, I don't like this.

Re:I don't like this (1)

ShaneThePain (929627) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831518)

thank you for mentioning this.
I agree. Flourescent bulbs just plain suck.
Those LED bulbs probably arnt too bad though.

Re:I don't like this (2, Informative)

mcostas (973159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831580)

CF bulbs vary wildly in performance. Some are excellent, warm light, with no delay. I use them throughout my house and they are unnoticeable. I have had some terrible ones in the past. The trick is to buy several types and try them out. Then go buy more of the good ones and relegate the bad ones to little used places, or the trash.

Re:I don't like this (4, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831732)

Or you could just tell him which type of CFLs you find the best, so he doesn't have to do the same experimentation that you did.

Re:I don't like this (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831652)

Much of the problems can be fixed with tinting the glass. There are some that are tinted out there, but they are few and far between. Hopefully, with increased demand, manufacturers will be able to justify the expense of developing more natural colors, through tinting, gas composition changes, or any other method.

Re:I don't like this (2, Informative)

RageOfReason (1003903) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831728)

You don't get flicker with newer CFL's that have electronic ballasts (as opposed to core and coil ballasts).

Re:I don't like this (2, Insightful)

glindsey (73730) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831768)

Fluorescent lights with electronic ballasts (which I'm almost positive all CFLs are) emit no flickering visible to the human eye; rather than strobing at 120Hz like cheap magnetic ballasts do, electronic ballasts typically operate in the 20kHz range.

The color spectrum is another story; as another poster pointed out, changing or tinting the tube coating can help with this.

Re:I don't like this (5, Funny)

MarkGriz (520778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831796)

Dont worry. California legislators will simultaneously propose a bill to ban CFLs, because they contain a chemical
known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Re:I don't like this (1)

pizzaman100 (588500) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831826)

That and they look like crap in certain places. Like in chandeliers and bathroom vanity mirrors for example. Not that most slashdotters care about aesthetics anyway. :)

No, no... (5, Insightful)

Eternauta3k (680157) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831486)

While it's great they want to promote CFLs, I think this is excessive. What if you want to light an art room or something? Maybe there are exceptions for cases like those, but wouldn't it be better if they created incentives to use CFLs or maybe tax incandescents?

Re:No, no... (1)

markov_chain (202465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831778)

In those cases, use sodium or metal halide lamps, both of which are even more efficient than fluorescent.

I was going to write a snarky comment agreeing with the ban provided that it applies to Hollywood studio lighting, but I bet those guys don't use incadescent lights in high output applications.

Cool, but what about the mercury? (5, Interesting)

ZipR (584654) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831492)

Don't most CFL's contain a small amount of mercury? What are we supposed to do with them when they go bad/break/whatever? Maybe this should also come with a CFL recycling bill.

Re:Cool, but what about the mercury? (1)

CyZooNiC (656901) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831644)

Supposedly just one florescent bulb can contaminate 7000 gallons of water. They have to be disposed of like batteries but who will?

Re:Cool, but what about the mercury? (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831834)

Supposedly just one florescent bulb can contaminate 7000 gallons of water. They have to be disposed of like batteries but who will?

Interesting. I always suspected something like this but I've never seen any evidence of it being done.

When I was a kid I worked at a 7-11 store. Like many stores, it was lit with fluorescent bulbs (the long ones, not the newer, compact kind). When the bulbs were replaced, the old ones were simply sent out to the dumpster out back. When this was done, one of us kids was usually sent out to explode the tubes in a spectacular way (one of the funner parts of the job), so that they wouldn't inadvertently explode at some later point.

Needless to say, nobody ever said anything about mercury.

Re:Cool, but what about the mercury? (1)

amigabill (146897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831716)

My county landfill is very eco-friendly. They have a station to put all the toxic stuff like mercury (fluorescent bulbs, thermostats, etc), paint, and that sort of thing. OK, I don't believe you can leave that wtuff out with the weekly trash or recycling materials for pickup, you have to actually go there and drop it off. But it's a better option that simply putting it in the generic trash can.

CFLs not very disposable (1)

HydroPhonic (524513) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831790)

Every time I break one, how much manufacturing energy and material resources do I waste? Probably more than the energy savings...

Eh.. (2, Informative)

Dissman (997434) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831500)

They may be inefficient, but they can be dimmed... Any house that uses dimmer switches will have to have it's switches replaced, not only that, you lose the convenience of being able to change a room's lighting.

Also, I had an electrical engineering professor, that turns off his overhead florescent lights when he reads and uses an incandescent because a lot of his peers who read under mainly florescent light have had problems with cataracts.

I believe that there needs to be more R&D into florescent lighting to make it compatible with dimmer switches.

Re:Eh.. (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831700)

Some of them already are compatible with dimmers.

Also, dimmed incandescents are even less efficient than their full-on brothers. A dimmed lamp using 80% of the power will only produce something like 50-60% the light output.

That said, I hate fluorescent lighting for all but color-critical tasks, and for those I prefer 5000K, 98CRI lamps.

More work need to go into CFLs that are color corrected. I don't want a lamp that puts out 60W worth of incandescent light and has the color temperature of a 250W lamp - it just looks wrong. They also need to do a bit better with labeling. I find you need twice the "supposed" wattage on a CFL to make a room seem similarly bright.

Right idea, wrong method (5, Insightful)

mcostas (973159) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831504)

Specific technology mandates or bans are a bad idea. However, rules requiring a certain efficiency of lighting would make sense. This could effectively ban incandescents and lead to replacement with CFL, but without getting unnecessarily stuck on a particular technology. For example, LED bulbs will probably soon be better than CFL. And of course we must believe in the American corporate ability to manufacture some sort of Hummer of CF bulbs that still manages to use 1 megawatt per room, while complying with a technology mandate.

 

Re:Right idea, wrong method (1)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831692)

> Specific technology mandates or bans are a bad idea.
Well said.

  > However, rules requiring a certain efficiency of lighting would make sense.
Maybe. There are dozens of styles of light bulbs. I don't know where to buy LED nightlight bulbs or CFL oven bulbs.

What makes more sense to me is to leverage the power of capitalism. You could do that with a sin tax - on energy inefficient lighting, or energy inefficient anything. Even simpler, put a sin tax on energy itself.

Re:Right idea, wrong method (1, Insightful)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831792)

But the bill is to ban incandescents, not to force the use of CFLs. If you want to use LEDs instead than go ahead. If you can find me an incandescent bulb with comparable efficiency to an LED or CFL, then maybe you can complain about how it should be worded differently.

Quality of light (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831506)

I have never found the harsh character of fluorescent light to be useful for long term study sessions, programming, etc. Whether it is due to a paradigm ingrained in my head or not, I prefer incandescent lighting. Halogen lamps are great too. Am I alone in making this comment or do others agree with my take?

Re:Quality of light (1)

Umbrel (1040414) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831680)

I think actually the opposite, the fluorescent light is better because it has a wider spectrum, however it is true that most people feels them harsh but that is because when switching they use a CFL that lights more than a bulb. Excessive lightning has a strong psycological effect, from indisposing people to getting the easily angered.

Re:Quality of light (1)

rduke15 (721841) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831760)

"Am I alone..." No, you are not.

Incandescent light bulbs may be old technology and inefficient, but they do indeed produce a natural light, which fluorescent lights do not. Particularly, their spectrum is continuous: they emit light at all visible wavelenghts. The balance is of course not the same as daylight, having more reds and less blues, but it is basically the same sort of light as the sun. Fluorescent lights emit only a few very precise wavelenghts, and nothing of other wavelengths. Various tricks and wavelenght combnations make it seem sort of white, but I definitely don't want any of it in my house.

A wood fire is not very technologically advanced either, and a pretty old invention. But we still seem to enjoy it... (unless an idiot insists on playing his guitar in front of it)

It will take some effort (1)

Pap22 (1054324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831522)

I'm going to be pissed if I have to change every individual light bulb on my Christmas lights.

I use them (1)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831524)

my family has been ussing them (not exclusivly, but in most places) since the late 80s I think.

However I have a few questions:
1) any one got some actualy information on the bill? (TFA is rather light on details...)
2) What about Flourecents and other types of bulbs? How efficent are they? Will this bill say anything about them?

More dimmable options required (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831538)

CFLs are just starting to get a reasonable color output, and dimmable options are appearing, but they do not come in enough sizes, shapes and fittings. The cost of dimmable CFLs also needs to drop considerably. LEDs do not give out anywhere enough light, and are not dimmable.

What other options are there? I'm sure the requirements most of us want are:
  dimmable
  nice light color
  efficient
  fit existing light fixtures

Ban inefficient politicians (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831544)

Politicians were invented over 2,000 years ago, and still spend only about 5 percent of their time writing legislation. I say be ban these inefficient politicians!

What about colder rural homes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831548)

As a lad, when it got really cold, we used to put a bulb inside the wrapping around our water pump to keep it from freezing. What do they propose people use after this takes effect?

just what we need (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831554)

Yet more government intrusion into our lives. Perhaps next they can tell us what to wear and eat too.

mercury disposal? (1)

SEAL (88488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831556)

Hope the legislators have a plan on how to dispose of all those CFLs, since they are toxic when broken.

Re:mercury disposal? (1)

SEAL (88488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831654)

Actually, as an afterthought: to be fair, if CFLs were used statewide in California, they'd greatly reduce the power consumed from coal-burning plants. Coal burning tends to release mercury into the air. So we're getting it either way. Hopefully they'll come up with a good recycling program for the bulbs, though.

Dimmer switches? (1)

DaveM753 (844913) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831564)

I lived in a condominium where half of the lights were on dimmer switches. I have yet to find a CFL bulb that works with dimmer switches. Plus, I've read that CFL bulbs should not be put in high-humidity areas like bathrooms. On the other hand, in all places where I am able to put it CFL bulbs, I have. I don't know how much it cuts my electricity bill, but it sure does cut down the heat. Now, if only I could unload my displaced conventional bulbs on some schmoe for $1 each...I'd have $15! Whee!

Re:Dimmer switches? (1)

uxo (415276) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831846)

They do make LED lightbulbs that are dimmable (though I think they dim by shutting off individual LEDs).

Unfortunately, one R30 costs upwards of $40...

Great! as long as they ban fluorescent in 10 years (1)

Comsn (686413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831574)

LED is the future!
compact fluorescent have mercury in them and arent as efficient...
go california! show us how its done!

also those fiber optic lights for directing sunlight in from the roof would also be a good idea... maybe time to invest if the bill passes.

What a joke... (1)

avalys (221114) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831584)

This is completely infeasible. There may be an CCFL equivalent for the 60W lamp in your living room - but what about the 100W halogen I have over my workbench? The spotlights that light up the outside of my house? The turn signal blinkers in my car? The bulb inside my microwave?

This guy is an idiot.

Besides, CCFL's suck. I like the warm yellow glow of an incandescent. And don't tell me that they have fluorescents with the same color temperature now. I've tried them, they still look like fluorescents.

If I lived in California and this law was passed, I would seriously consider moving. Fluorescent lighting is depressing, and I would hate to live somewhere where the government forces me to use it.

Re:What a joke... (1)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831806)

I agree that this bill is probably not the best idea, but I think it could just create a stir around CFLs and people will be interested in buying them. Maybe this politician is smart enough (hmm? no) to realize this bill won't pass, but it could create some positive spin.

Also, I think you missed the point--your car's turn signal bulbs don't really waste the electricity used in your home. If you're worried about inefficiency in your car, look behind those bulbs--to the engine.

A little light on details (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831586)

What about things like the stove and refrig lights?

Or the half of my fixtures where they don't fit?

How about the small bulb in my desklamp?

They don't say what they banning that i could see.
Not to mention i generally don't like the color of most of em and i want a break from pure fluorecent lights after work :(

I am all for CA pushing the enviromental envelope but keep it real folks or no one will follow ;)

Wrong for 2 reasons (1)

Joey Vegetables (686525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831594)

1. CF bulbs are an appropriate replacement for incandescents in some, BUT NOT ALL, applications.

Much more importantly:

2. It is none of the government's business. Any lawful powers a government can have must have been delegated, directly or indirectly, by the people. But people do not have the right to control the purchasing decisions of others - only their own. Since that right does not exist, it cannot be delegated, and cannot be among the lawful powers of the California government, nor of any other. Of course all governments exercise illegitimate, usurped powers all the time, but it is not right, it is not lawful, it should not happen, and those responsible should, at a bare minimum, be removed from office, and held civilly and criminally accountable for any harm they may have caused.

Re:Wrong for 2 reasons (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831772)

+1, Libertarian.
Why is it so easy to convince people that "we are passing this law for your own good"? If it were really for your own good you'd have done it already. Even if it's a tragedy of the commons scenery, the gov't has no rights ANYWAY to tell you how to behave.

pain (1)

navtal (943711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831598)

But I havnt found a florescent bulb that dosnt slowly drive me crazy with the quality of the light.

Re:pain (1)

Colourspace (563895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831802)

I can understand that - but it's you being driven crazy vs our cumulative energy wasteage. I know it's a tough decision but how important is number one?

So I guess dimmer switches are out? (1)

mmell (832646) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831604)

As are any lamps/lighting fixtures without sufficient room for the (bulkier) flourescent "twisty" bulbs.

What next, outlaw electric heat as inefficient (personal experience, gas is better for furnaces and water heaters)? How 'bout SUV's? Recreational watercraft/atv's/aircraft? I know - how 'bout CRT's? LCD's/plasma displays have much lower power requirements than CRT's.

Incidentally, how well will one of these flourescents work/hold up in my oven? How will it work in my granddaughter's E-Z bake oven? Also, I can see the flicker from flourescents - it gives me headaches on some days. Can I get an exemption on health grounds? Never mind that it'll make visiting my friends problemmatic.

Even if it passes, this law will be unenforceable. The state of California will be sued (further) into oblivion if this passes.

Thin edge of the wedge (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17831612)

I predict in the future they will be able to pull you over if driving with incandescent lights on when children are in the car.

Kind of shortsighted (3, Interesting)

sokoban (142301) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831622)

Yeah, for home use in regular 120v sockets, CFL lightbulbs are more efficient than regular incandescents. Unfortunately, most CFLs contain mercury so disposal becomes an issue. Also, for larger applications, CFL bulbs are not practical. Take street lights for example, they use Metal halide or sodium bulbs which are in some cases considerably more efficient than fluorescents.

CFLs are nice, and regular incandescent bulbs are on their way out for a number of reasons, but CFLs are far from perfect. Try finding a CFL replacement for a 40 watt chandelier bulb which offers good light without a ballast hum or warm up period for example. I've replaced most of my bulbs with CFLs now, but finding a good replacement for a 40 watt incandescent chandelier type bulb is damn near impossible.

Oh yeah, and CFLs are still expensive as hell, which a lot of people don't like (even though they may save money in the long run). Replacing all the bulbs in my small house cost a few hundred dollars.

Re:Kind of shortsighted (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831744)

Oh yeah, and CFLs are still expensive as hell, which a lot of people don't like

No, they are not. Only the good ones are expensive. My local Grocery Outlet is selling four-packs of ~20W CFLs for $2.00. The dollar store regularly has 1-packs and sometimes 2-packs. Before Grocery Outlet got them, I bought a couple of four-packs at a Friedman Bros. for $5 each.

The problem with CFLs is that the GOOD ones are expensive. The ones that have decent color and don't make noise, that is.

Outlawing incandescents means that only rich people will have good lighting in their house, and THAT is why I am opposed to this concept. It's wrong to make it illegal for poor people to have good light.

And my wife wonders... (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831632)

And my wife wonders why I am resistant to moving to California.

I'm no defender of the tungsten light bulb - I have CFLs in my kitchen, for instance. But I'm not putting one in my closet where the bulb is used for 2 minutes a week, tops. And I won't put one in the bathroom, where the fluorescent light makes your face look like even more of a splotchy mess than it is. And I still haven't tried the dimming fluorescents, so I can't say whether or not I'd be willing to replace the energy-atrocious halogen lamps we have in the living room and bedrooms.

If you really want to go the government interference route, and you want people to use less electricity, either make it more expensive or ration it. This is just stupid. Next the government will be regulating the temperature of our homes.

Personally... (1)

theGil (1010409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831698)

I hate the light given off by fluorescent bulbs. I only buy the Reveal incandescents; they give off a much nicer, natural light. I'll put the fluorescents in storage rooms or areas I don't use often and need only temporary light, but I can't stand them otherwise. Additionally, you can't install them with nice dimmer switches.

Re:Personally... (1)

theGil (1010409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831748)

Check that...they've got three-way CFL's now, so you can use them on three way switches...does anyone know if you can use them on true dimmers?

So much for theatre... (1)

rongage (237813) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831712)

So we get to replace all those PAR-64 lamps and Leko's and Fresnel lamps with intelligent fixtures like I-Beams, or Vari*Lites, or TeleScans or whatever...

Sounds like a great idea.... for the manufacturers of automated lighting fixtures...

How about street lights? (1)

Cyrano de Maniac (60961) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831722)

I've often wondered how much energy could be conserved if municipalities re-examined the overuse of streetlights. It seems that many streetlights are used to illuminate sections of road that don't need such illumination. I can understand the benefits at intersections and crosswalks, however I know of stretches of urban highway between intersections that are fully lit, with no benefit that I can imagine. Automobiles have headlights for a good reason. The occasional vehicle driving along without its headlights on (I know I've done this myself accidentally) is probably ample testimony that there is too much illumination of many urban roadways.

Furthermore, what effect would it have if a municipality required all outdoor lighting to illuminate only the area of interest? That is, mandate that parking lot lights, lights above entrances, along sidewalks, streetlights, and such use reflectors/shields to ensure that only the parking lot/entrance/sidewalk/intersection is illuminated, and nothing else. It seems if this was required they could get by with lower-power lights, and as a beneficial side-effect reduce the light polution in urban areas.

Personally I'd also like to see some measure to reduce business signage illumination, however I doubt that's a realistic hope.

I love incandescents (1)

JustNiz (692889) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831754)

Well more accurately.. I hate lights that oscillate at 60hz, such as the neon tubes they use in all offices and those low-power bulbs, because I can see the oscillation and it gives me a stress headache.

Thank god for uibquitous LCD panels, because the problem was especially bad when sat infront of a CRT because its frame refresh(often at a higher frequency) causes the visual equivalent of harmonics which for me lead to frequent migraine.

Nanny State (1)

AlHunt (982887) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831766)

California Assemblyman Llyod Levine wants to make his state the first to ban incandescent lightbulbs
Jerk. I'm all for CFL's over incandescent. But how about finding a way to convince people to make the change without shoving it down their throats? Maybe there'll be a large black market for incandescents in California ... I can see it now - smuggle incandescents in, sell them out of the trunks of cars. Maybe this is an economic development project in disguise.

Some light fittings don't hold them (1)

thorpie (656838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831770)

I have a couple of ceiling fans with a light fitting underneath them. They are designed to take incandescent size and shape globes. Fluoro lights will not fit, even the newer twirly compact ones are the wrong shape. These ceiling fans are still sold so I hope the legislators will also check and ban any light fittings that don't take the fluoro globes.

I repeat, "What about RFI?" (4, Interesting)

amper (33785) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831786)

As I mentioned in the last post on this topic, the vast majority of fluorescent fixtures I have come across in the last decade are horrible polluters of the RF spectrum. I have a recording studio in my house, and I *cannot* run fluorescent fixtures because of this problem. Despite using all balanced connections, there is a marked increase in the volume of the noise floor whenever I replace the incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescents, or when I use the long-tube traditional types.

Not that I expect California's legislators to worry about this, even though CA probably has the largest concentration of movie, music, video, and television studios in the country, but what are they going to do to force the manufacturers of fluorescent fixtures (who are largely Chinese companies serving the megabox stores of America nowadays) to clean up their emissions?

Hmmmm ... Ovens and Fridges .... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831798)

Ovens and Fridges have lights in them that are usually incandescent.

Does anyone know if they make compact fluorescents that can actually work in those situations? Can you imagine trying to warm up a cold fluorescent when you open the door to a fridge??

I bet there are other situations in which only an incandescent bulb will work. Hell, try to make something in your Easy Bake oven with a fluorescent light. ;-)

Just a thought.

Who was it that said... (1)

PhineusJWhoopee (926130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17831852)

Who was it that said, "every time they pass a new law, they create a new 'business' opportunity for someone?"

ed
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...