In the News: Proposed Bans on Sale of Incandescent Bulbs

Re: In the News: Proposed Bans on Sale of Incandescent Bulbs

In another article:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/light-bulbs-ban-to-slash-emissions/2007/02/19/1171733685061.html

THE inefficient standard light bulb could be phased out within three years to save up to 800,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.The federal Environment Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is expected today to announce a commitment to phase out incandescent light bulbs by 2009-10, a world first by a national government.

It hopes to convince state and territory governments to introduce energy performance standards that would lead to the replacement of standard light bulbs with more efficient but more expensive alternatives such as compact fluorescent lights. It will also negotiate with manufacturers to phase out the bulbs.
...
In Australia lighting represents about 12 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions from households, about 25 per cent of commercial sector emissions, and a quarter of the emissions associated with public and street lighting.

The Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact fluorescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12. Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes.

I find it interesting that the government's "public and street lighting" accounts for 2x the emissions of residential lighting (even with the current inefficient bulbs)...

A law to affect, at best, a (0.8MT/564.7MT=) 0.14% of the "CO2 Pollution"... :roll:

-Bill

Re: In the News: Proposed Bans on Sale of Incandescent Bulbs

I don't think it was posted here--but a few months ago, California started on the "

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/gen?guid=20070131/45c02250_3ca6_1552620070131-2054994290

From our Sate Congress comes "How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act"--and don't blame me for the joke in the bill tittle--this comes from the bill's author (his official government web site):

http://democrats.assembly.ca.gov/members/a40/

SACRAMENTO –– In yet another instance of California being a trend-setter for the rest of the nation, Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys), the Chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Commerce Committee, today announced that he is introducing legislation - the How Many Legislators Does it Take to Change a Light Bulb Act - to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs in California by the year 2012.

-Bill

Re: In the News: Proposed Bans on Sale of Incandescent Bulbs

Yes, I have received a few CPFL bulbs from the local Chinese Market during checkout... And Costco, has cases and cases of CPFL's stamped with saying something along the lines that PG&E (Northern California's gas and electric supplier) has reduced the prices of these bulbs. And, the last 9 watts twisties I bought were something like $3.00 per six pack.

The bulbs that come with "pre"-bates are ~9, 17, and 23 watt twist and ~17 watt indoor and indoor/outdoor floods (I think they are CEIT and Phillips brands mostly with electronic ballasts). Newest one is even a 9 watt twisty with white glass globe.

We have some of the highest charges for electric power in the country here (~$0.115 per kWhrs to $0.37 per kWhrs depending on you tiered usage--typically up to 300 kWhrs a month is the cheap rate, over 900 kWhrs per month is the most expensive rate).

Even though I received about $8,000 in a "cash rebate" for installing solar (plus another couple thousand for Federal tax credits)--it still ticks me off that this was taken from consumers (and tax payers) and given to me. And that we have an inverted cost structure for electricity that is left over from the Carter Administration.

I has gotten to the point now where I really don't even know what the true cost of electricity is now... Is it $0.115 or $0.37 per kWhour...

It is kind of interesting to see how the money is divided between the various costs (energy, distribution, "Public Purpose Programs", etc.)... The E1 rate is the straight residential rate:

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/E-1.pdf

E7 is the rate I pay (great for solar and now sort of closed to new customers) and E6 is the new TOU rate plan that Solar customers are being directed towards (more complex and not near as nice).

http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/E-7.pdf
http://www.pge.com/tariffs/pdf/E-6.pdf

And here is a neat chart of how much power is used (and how much generation capacity is available) in California at any particular time (today only--represents about 75% of the total CA Grid):

http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html

-Bill

Re: In the News: Proposed Bans on Sale of Incandescent Bulbs

No, the Gov. is not going to expect everyone to rewire at the owner's expense--

First: Require landlords to upgrade "commercial buildings" at their expense (aka: renters will pay more)

Second: As utility taxes drop (from power saved), new wiring will "increase" property assessments and taxes for government (aka: renters will pay more)

Third: Gov. will require new utility funded programs (added to insulation, appliance, etc. energy programs) to rewire (aka: utility customers will pay more)

Four: Home owners will be offered tax rebates and tax credits for rewiring by funded by government (aka: new taxes needed to fund "tax rebates and credits" therefore taxpayers will pay more).

In each of the above cases, government will skim, roughly, 50% of programs' costs and use it to fund "pork barrel projects" to buy votes and campaign contributions.

After all of this, then it will be discovered that our homes, businesses and lands are turning into heavy metal toxic waste dumps and then require super fund cleanups (repeat steps one through four as needed).

Seriously, be very careful about changing CFL and other mercury filled bulbs... OR:

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,268747,00.html

...According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.

Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.

The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.

Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings....

...Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.

Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed....

I use, and have broken, CFL's--I have removed my carpets because because I believe that they do trap all sorts of nasty junk (I guess now add mercury to that list). And, I will now have to be much more careful.

-Bill