Comments on: U.S. Energy Bill Phases Out Incandescent Light Bulb

By: Rabello

Rabello — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 17:52:23 +0000

I would like to ask if anyone knows more about harmful UV radiation from CFLs.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Mon, 07 Mar 2011 00:52:57 +0000

You people need to read better or to educate yourselves more. The energy bill does NOT tell everyone to use CFL bulbs. The energy bill DOES require all light bulbs to be more energy-efficient than the current incandescent. There are high efficient halogen incandescent bulbs that would qualify under the new energy bill. There are also LED bulbs that are even more efficient than CFLs and have no mercury and they too would qualify under the new energy bill. There is no mandate to switch to CFLs, just to switch to more energy efficent bulbs.

Also, the energy saved from switching to CFL from incandescent would actually decrease the amount of mercury in the environment. About half of all US households get their enrgy from coal, and coal is a huge emitter of mercury. So switching to energy saving CFLs would decrease the amount of coal needed and thus reduce the amount of mercury in the environment. And throwing away hundreds of CFLs in the dump is less mercury than one mercury thermometer.

Switching to LEDs bulbs is more energy efficient than anything else and there is no mercury. This is the smartest switch to make and LED bulbs are manufactured in the US so it would create more US manufacturing jobs.

Finally for the guy who talked about how the heat from the bulb would help with heating the house, that’s fine for the winter when you want the heat but how about summer when you are running your AC to cool the house down and the light bulbs continue to heat it up. 90% of the energy used in the incandescent bulb is lost to heat generation rather than light – that’s why they use incandescent bulbs to keep food warm at fast-food restaurants.

By: Joshua

Joshua — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 03:03:53 +0000

I wish the federal government would stop micromanaging in our life’s and let us pick what light bulbs we want to use in our homes.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 23:32:13 +0000

this might not be as good an idea as it first seems, since CFL’s contain mercury and a large proportion of them will end up in landfull…. and then groundwater

By: Kevin

Kevin — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:12:46 +0000

University of Rochester developing a laser based process to increase incandescent light bulb efficiency by 67%.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090529121556.htm

By: Basspig

Basspig — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:02:52 +0000

It’s ironic, that since I’ve phased out incandescent bulbs ten years ago, for all CFL bulbs, my electric bill has done nothing but go way UP.
Electric companies, when faced with reduced demand, will RAISE energy rates. You won’t save a penny. But your local landfill will be full of mercury-laiden CFL bulbs which don’t even last as long as the incandescent bulbs. Mine keep burning out every six months or so. What a joke these bulbs are.

By: J.C.

J.C. — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:14:46 +0000

WTF?! Does Al Gore know about the mercury in the bulbs?? All I can think of right now is him saying, “Just one bulb…” I am mostly concerned with the pollution to our land fills and fresh water sources!

By: Gavin Young

Gavin Young — Sat, 17 May 2008 01:46:15 +0000

Though all of the electric energy consumed by any light bulb is ultimately converted into heat energy that is absorbed in its surrounding environment, the energy efficient bulbs use less energy to produce the same amount of visible light. For example a 25 watt CFL produces the same amount of visible light as a 100 watt incandescent bulb, but the CFL is only using 25 watts of electricity instead of 100 watts of electricity. It is thus ultimately producing one-fourth the amount of heat. While the heat from either bulb might be useful on cold days (and thus no energy savings on those days since the central heating systmem would be used more on those days than on warm days), there are energy savings on the hot days when air conditioning is used. As as result there are substantial savings in energy on those days when the home needs no or little heating from the central heating system. Some brands of CFLs now have a protective shell over the twisty fluorescent tube, thus reducing breakage. When screwing and unscrewing the twisty type of CFLs, one should do so at the base of the bulb rather than on the twisty glass, since the twisty shape of the glass is more fragile than the bulb shaped glass of the incandescent bulbs.

By: John Finlayson

John Finlayson — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 17:55:13 +0000

A bill in California proposed to ban incandescents last year, but was modified [1] when critics, citing the GE high-efficiency incandescent project (see link in Related Stories section above), pointed out how foolishly counterproductive it was to ban a specific technology rather than establish technology-neutral efficiency standards and let the market figure out the best way to meet them.

Was no one in congress paying attention to what the California legislature learned from that experience?

[1] http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/226737.html

By: Mad as hell

Mad as hell — Mon, 24 Dec 2007 12:34:00 +0000

I totally agree with all these comments by others. In my small 1200 sq. ft. house I have a track fixture in my kitchen which uses incandescents and the standard bathroom fixtures with exposed incandescent bulbs along with a couple of special order lights that use exposed incandescent bulbs as part of the design of the fixture. So this means that not only will I have to buy all new fixtures (here comes the profit for Phillips etc) but I will have a few thousand dollar bill from my electrician to retrofit my whole house with this IDIOTIC idea passed by our IDIOTIC lawmakers. I hate the light put out by these CFL’s and it should be my choice if I want to use them. Give us MORE energy, not less. This country is going backwards, not forwards. Yeah, lets follow the lead in the countries with dictators!