What is in this article?:
Lighting industry experts discuss the new standards for lamp efficiency
Advertisement
Discuss this Article 2
Re: ' The Truth About the Bulb "Ban" '
Not allowing bulbs that don't meet a certain standard is of course the same as banning them,
and John Bachner, like others, also ignores phase 2 of EISA starting after 2014, which with a 45 lumen per Watt regulation also effectively bans the touted 72W Halogen type replacements.
His notion seems to be of a Free Lunch, that reducing the allowed energy use of a given product does not impact on other features like performance, construction, appearance etc apart from price
More desirable lamps arise from increasing - not decreasing - competition!
New energy saving lamps can always be helped to market to increase choice and competition, albeit not continuously subsidised
The whole rationale for energy savings can be questioned:
Token c. 1% of grid energy on DoE's own data, supported by EU and UK-Cambridge data, and still not counting life cycle energy use.
Besides, the main off-peak post 7pm usage means little extra coal or similar base loading power is saved, that would not have been burned anyway, for operational reasons (limited reduction even with cycling plants given the problems, APTECH referenced)
A fuller answer may be found at
http://tonn.ie/p/deception-behind-banning-light-bulbs.html
"How Bans are Wrongly Justified"
13 points, referenced
Not to mention that in northern climates, additional electric resistance heat may be needed or used more often to offset the loss of heat from the lower efficency lighting. Florida is a different story but for people in Montana, they deserve to be able to buy the old lamps.
Post new comment
Sponsored Links
