In the past week or so, Twitter, or at least the group of people I follow there, has been abuzz about a story about an LED-based lamp (as I've stated before, those in the lighting industry do not call them "light bulbs") that produces an equivalent output to a 100-watt incandescent. The 100-watt incandescent lamp, as most people now, has been targeted for extinction by our friends in the federal government because, as with most things, they think they know what is best for you. So, one would think an LED lamp capable of the same output is a good thing.
The buzz, though, is not about the abilities of such a lamp. No, the buzz is that such a lamp will cost $50.
To that point I say: so what?
Now, I'm not going to debate whether Congress should be sticking its nose into what lighting sources we buy (other than to say they shouldn't) because at this writing, it's a done deal. If a future Congress repeals EISA (or if somehow the court system manages to shift its leanings and overturn it), we can talk about incandescent lamps. (And yes, I know that some states are skirting EISA by saying that incandescent lamps can be sold if they are produced in that state.)
No, I'm simply going to say that people freaking out about the $50 cost of a 100-watt equivalent LED lamp need only look at history to see that this will not be an issue for very long.
I remember, two or three years ago, seeing the very first LED lamps with a medium screw base (that is, those designed to replace the incandescent lamps we use mostly these days). It produced a fairly good light, but not a lot of it. And it, back then, cost $50. That cost has dropped dramatically since then as LED lamp technology has improved, and as the industry has gotten more efficient, and, yes, as people bought them. Someone is going to buy a $50 LED lamp and be darn proud of it, I assure you. (I can also assure you that, owing to finances, I will not be that someone.)
Don't believe me? Perhaps you don't remember seeing the first flat-panel LCD HDTV models back in, say, 2001 or so. They certainly didn't have nearly the number of bells and whistles that today's versions do. (3D in television? 240-Hz technology? Not even close.) And some of the largest models sold for over $10,000 back then. And people bought them. (And then we were all forced into HDTVs in the same way as we are being forced out of incandescents. But I digress.)
Perhaps being on the cutting edge of new technologies is a status symbol for some people. I don't know. But I do know that there are always buyers for these technologies. It's a good thing that there are those buyers, too, because they are the ones who drive the costs down, so that a couple or so years later, you and I can buy those same items for a lot less.
Another consideration, of course, is that now that the 100-watt equivalence barrier has been breached, there will be many others rushing their own copycat products to market. This, too, helps the price to come down, though I would urge caution, as some LED products are not made using quality materials, and it will be obvious once you turn the light on. The color from these cheaper lamps will not be consistent, and the light produced will not be attractive. Buyer beware.
But, really, the main point is that for about 99% or so of you, a $50 LED lamp price is nothing to worry about, because you will never pay it. When these lamps go mainstream, the price will have fallen 80-90%, similarly to the eventually-to-be-obsolete fluorescent spiral lamps that most people hate. And given that your electricity rate (if your utility is anything like mine) will have gone up quite a bit, saving over half the wattage for every light in the house, not to mention the much longer life LED lamps have, will make this product worth it sometime soon.
(In the meantime, go ahead and stockpile the incandescents while you still can.)
Showing posts with label lighting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lighting. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
The light-bulb question revisited
Rick Perry's recent visit to The Daily Show appears to have been well-received by most. With that said, though, PolitiFact took issue with a few of the comments that he made on the show; apparently he has made the same types of comments in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington (Disclaimer: I get paid if you buy through this link.), and PolitiFact, styling itself as a shining beacon of truth, feels the need to revisit statements it made earlier.
One of PolitiFact's statements piqued my interest, as it was something on which I have opined before, namely, the phasing out of incandescent lamps over the next few years.
(Aside: those not in the lighting business call them "light bulbs", but from what I have seen, those in the business call them "lamps", "luminaires", etc. One person once told me, rather haughtily, that "bulbs" are those things you plant in the ground.)
Now, PolitiFact rated Governor Perry's statement that Washington is "even telling us what kind of light bulb we can use" as Barely True. But is that a fair assessment? Well, let's look at PolitiFact's assertions.
So far, so good. The EISA was what eventually came from Congress after some rather clunky earlier attempts.
PolitiFact continues:
It sure sounds as if Washington is meddling with the types of lamps one can use to light one's home, office, or wherever, doesn't it? PolitiFact doesn't think so:
No, but it makes it impossible for a plurality, if not a majority, of the American people to get the traditional light bulb they want. Ms. Stutsman is being generous in saying that "conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set". It is simply not possible for a traditional tungsten filament incandescent lamp to meet those standards.
And why is that? Well, let's look at the EISA itself, specifically Section 321:
On the morning of January 1, 2012, the country will wake up to discover that the 100-watt incandescent lamp (which produces about 1750 lumens and therefore falls into the first category) is no more, replaced with a 72-watt bulb with something other than a tungsten filament, since the tungsten filament is pretty much the same as it was when Edison perfected it. (Oh, and guess what: it'll be more expensive.)
So, in that respect, if you wanted to buy a regular old 100-watt light bulb in January 2012, the government very much would have mandated that you could not do so. I call that a lot more than a Barely True.
(Postscript: I know the reasoning behind these moves. I know why some people like incandescent lamps and why others don't. I also have already said that I believe that LED lamps will be in the mainstream within five years. I'm not trying to debate lighting at this point. It just serves as an example of nanny-state government on the rampage. Rick Perry was pointing that out, and PolitiFact, I believe, had to get rather technical in an attempt to score a cheap point against him.)
One of PolitiFact's statements piqued my interest, as it was something on which I have opined before, namely, the phasing out of incandescent lamps over the next few years.
(Aside: those not in the lighting business call them "light bulbs", but from what I have seen, those in the business call them "lamps", "luminaires", etc. One person once told me, rather haughtily, that "bulbs" are those things you plant in the ground.)
Now, PolitiFact rated Governor Perry's statement that Washington is "even telling us what kind of light bulb we can use" as Barely True. But is that a fair assessment? Well, let's look at PolitiFact's assertions.
What we found: In 2007, Congress voted to improve the efficiency of light bulbs. President George W. Bush signed into law the Energy Independence and Security Act, which set energy efficiency standards for kinds of incandescent lamps (light bulbs), incandescent reflector lamps (like track lighting in your kitchen), and fluorescent lamps, according to a December 2007 summary by the Congressional Research Service.
So far, so good. The EISA was what eventually came from Congress after some rather clunky earlier attempts.
PolitiFact continues:
Our search for instances of the government directing which bulbs residents can use unearthed a June 2010 editorial in the Washington Times objecting to Federal Trade Commission-issued regulations of light-bulb labels. The editorial says the regs were ordered by Congress as part of its 2007 decision to force the more efficient, curlicue-shaped compact fluorescent light bulb "on a public that so far has refused to embrace it willingly. Beginning Jan. 1, 2012, the editorial says, bureaucratic rules will phase in, and" conventional 100-watt bulbs "will be first on the contraband list."
It sure sounds as if Washington is meddling with the types of lamps one can use to light one's home, office, or wherever, doesn't it? PolitiFact doesn't think so:
Jen Stutsman, spokeswoman for the U.S. Department of Energy, told us that conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set, though the government expects manufacturers to improve incandescent technologies to meet the higher standards or consumers will move to compact fluorescent light bulbs, LED technologies or halogens. She said new standards for 100-watt bulbs take effect in January 2012. New standards for 75-watt bulbs start in 2013 and standards for 60- and 40-watt bulbs start in 2014.
Stutsman said the expected shifts aren't equivalent to the government telling Americans which light bulbs to use. "Under no circumstances does it say that a consumer must purchase a specific type of light bulb," Stutsman said.
No, but it makes it impossible for a plurality, if not a majority, of the American people to get the traditional light bulb they want. Ms. Stutsman is being generous in saying that "conventional incandescent bulbs are not expected to meet the efficiency standards Congress set". It is simply not possible for a traditional tungsten filament incandescent lamp to meet those standards.
And why is that? Well, let's look at the EISA itself, specifically Section 321:
`GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rated Lumen Ranges Maximum Rate Wattage Minimum Rate Lifetime Effective Date ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1490-2600 72 1,000 hrs 1/1/2012 1050-1489 53 1,000 hrs 1/1/2013 750-1049 43 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 310-749 29 1,000 hrs 1/1/2014 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the morning of January 1, 2012, the country will wake up to discover that the 100-watt incandescent lamp (which produces about 1750 lumens and therefore falls into the first category) is no more, replaced with a 72-watt bulb with something other than a tungsten filament, since the tungsten filament is pretty much the same as it was when Edison perfected it. (Oh, and guess what: it'll be more expensive.)
So, in that respect, if you wanted to buy a regular old 100-watt light bulb in January 2012, the government very much would have mandated that you could not do so. I call that a lot more than a Barely True.
(Postscript: I know the reasoning behind these moves. I know why some people like incandescent lamps and why others don't. I also have already said that I believe that LED lamps will be in the mainstream within five years. I'm not trying to debate lighting at this point. It just serves as an example of nanny-state government on the rampage. Rick Perry was pointing that out, and PolitiFact, I believe, had to get rather technical in an attempt to score a cheap point against him.)
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
New go-to resource for lighting info in town
I've blogged occasionally about lighting in the past, as I have a good deal of interest in the subject and in seeing better, and more efficient, lighting used. (Yes, it is possible to be in favor of efficient lighting while simultaneously thinking that portions of the environmental movement are over the top, and also occasionally hypocritical.)
However, with the addition of a blog to the Four Point Lighting Design website, local (Austin) lighting designer Deborah Frankhouser has, in this blogger's opinion, become the go-to resource for lighting information you need to know, presented in a way that people who are not lighting designers can understand it. Her blog is worth a read for anyone interested in lighting their home, office, patio, or whatever else.
Take, for example, one of Ms. Frankhouser's latest posts, "Outlaw Lamps!!!" This, as I told her, is the best explanation of the current state of what laypeople (not lighting designers) call "light bulbs" but lighting designers call "lamps" that I have ever seen. In it, she discusses the fact that lamp wattages have dropped in order to meet efficacy requirements. While this still allows consumers, at least for now, to pick up their standard "light bulb" at pretty much every store everywhere, things will get even more stringent, thanks to tightening government regulations:
Now, I firmly believe that in five years, LED will be the mainstream light source. It has the potential to produce a better quality light than the compact fluorescent spiral-type lamps that people either love or hate now, and unlike spiral lamps, you don't have to worry about some sort of environmental disaster just waiting to happen, as it did in our house when one of the kids got rowdy and managed to take out a table lamp (or "light fixture", as they call it in the lighting world), breaking the spiral lamp in the process. (Don't tell the EPA, but I picked the pieces up in a paper towel and tossed them. CFL spiral lamps have a lot less mercury in them than the fish you probably consumed the last time you went to Red Lobster.)
Continuing with the topic of LED lamps, Ms. Frankhouser explains the different types you can buy these days, in the process answering the question of why there are some people who think LED is a lousy light source...that would be because they bought a lousy grade LED light, and for those people, I'll simply point out that "you get what you pay for" is an axiom for a reason.
But given that the quality LED lamps are still rather cost-prohibitive, at least for now, what is Ms. Frankhouser's recommendation? That would be halogen lamps. They produce excellent quality light, and they're dimmable. (Just watch out for the cost and the heat they generate.)
Again, if lighting interests you at all, or if someone's about to force spiral lamps on you and you want some rebutting information, the whole article is worth a read.
(Disclaimer: Yes, the author knows Deborah Frankhouser. That doesn't take away anything from her substantial lighting knowledge. So read the thing already.)
However, with the addition of a blog to the Four Point Lighting Design website, local (Austin) lighting designer Deborah Frankhouser has, in this blogger's opinion, become the go-to resource for lighting information you need to know, presented in a way that people who are not lighting designers can understand it. Her blog is worth a read for anyone interested in lighting their home, office, patio, or whatever else.
Take, for example, one of Ms. Frankhouser's latest posts, "Outlaw Lamps!!!" This, as I told her, is the best explanation of the current state of what laypeople (not lighting designers) call "light bulbs" but lighting designers call "lamps" that I have ever seen. In it, she discusses the fact that lamp wattages have dropped in order to meet efficacy requirements. While this still allows consumers, at least for now, to pick up their standard "light bulb" at pretty much every store everywhere, things will get even more stringent, thanks to tightening government regulations:
One of the things that the Lege did was give the Dept. of Energy a great deal of power to continue to ramp up efficiencies and requirements and every time they do that, things get harder. In addition, manufacturers are no longer placing any R&D money into improving the incandescent Argon based or the standard Halogen lamp. All money is going into LED. Eventually, incandescent lamps of all types simply won't meet requirements and we will have to turn to a different alternative. The lamp manufacturers are banking on LED and there is a HUGE incentive push by the DOE to develop LED technology for general service applications.
Now, I firmly believe that in five years, LED will be the mainstream light source. It has the potential to produce a better quality light than the compact fluorescent spiral-type lamps that people either love or hate now, and unlike spiral lamps, you don't have to worry about some sort of environmental disaster just waiting to happen, as it did in our house when one of the kids got rowdy and managed to take out a table lamp (or "light fixture", as they call it in the lighting world), breaking the spiral lamp in the process. (Don't tell the EPA, but I picked the pieces up in a paper towel and tossed them. CFL spiral lamps have a lot less mercury in them than the fish you probably consumed the last time you went to Red Lobster.)
Continuing with the topic of LED lamps, Ms. Frankhouser explains the different types you can buy these days, in the process answering the question of why there are some people who think LED is a lousy light source...that would be because they bought a lousy grade LED light, and for those people, I'll simply point out that "you get what you pay for" is an axiom for a reason.
But given that the quality LED lamps are still rather cost-prohibitive, at least for now, what is Ms. Frankhouser's recommendation? That would be halogen lamps. They produce excellent quality light, and they're dimmable. (Just watch out for the cost and the heat they generate.)
Again, if lighting interests you at all, or if someone's about to force spiral lamps on you and you want some rebutting information, the whole article is worth a read.
(Disclaimer: Yes, the author knows Deborah Frankhouser. That doesn't take away anything from her substantial lighting knowledge. So read the thing already.)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Want to know more about sustainable lighting?
I've blogged before about the IES (Illuminating Engineering Society), urging locals to attend the meetings of the Austin section. The hope in this is that more owners, engineers, architects, and others will be willing to utilize the latest and most efficient lighting technologies in their buildings, designs, and projects. In a green city such as Austin tries to be, this should be of paramount importance. (And even if it isn't a high priority for some, energy codes make more efficient lighting pretty much mandatory in today's construction world.)
This week, the speaker will be Jim Benya, who is internationally known in the lighting industry for his knowledge in energy-efficient design. He will be speaking on "Sustainable Lighting: New Technology and Designs for Super Efficient Buildings". Per the meeting synopsis:
(ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 and IECC 2009 are energy codes which, for the purposes of this seminar, relate to the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used for a building given its use and square footage. ASHRAE/IES/USGBC 189.1 is a relatively new standard for green buildings.)
The meeting will be on Thursday, March 18, 11:30am, at the Boyd Vance Theatre (1165 Angelina St.).
View Larger Map
You will get a discount ($20 versus $30) if you pay in advance, so go the Austin section page to sign up to attend now. You'll see a "pay now" link on the left side of the page.
This meeting should appeal to people in the building and construction industry, regardless of specific experiences (or not) in lighting. If you are interested in green building at all, I would urge you to attend.
This week, the speaker will be Jim Benya, who is internationally known in the lighting industry for his knowledge in energy-efficient design. He will be speaking on "Sustainable Lighting: New Technology and Designs for Super Efficient Buildings". Per the meeting synopsis:
Dramatic political and economic changes foretell a future in which lighting will be expected to use far less energy than using current practices. Facing strict new lighting regulations in ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010, IECC 2009 and ASHRAE/IES/USGBC 189.1, we will have to design super efficient buildings to meet the challenge. This program will explain the key methods of using natural light, high performance electric lighting, controls and other skills now needed in our competitive marketplace. The presentation will include practical, state of the art observations of everything from LED’s to skylights.
(ASHRAE/IES 90.1-2010 and IECC 2009 are energy codes which, for the purposes of this seminar, relate to the maximum wattage of lighting that can be used for a building given its use and square footage. ASHRAE/IES/USGBC 189.1 is a relatively new standard for green buildings.)
The meeting will be on Thursday, March 18, 11:30am, at the Boyd Vance Theatre (1165 Angelina St.).
View Larger Map
You will get a discount ($20 versus $30) if you pay in advance, so go the Austin section page to sign up to attend now. You'll see a "pay now" link on the left side of the page.
This meeting should appeal to people in the building and construction industry, regardless of specific experiences (or not) in lighting. If you are interested in green building at all, I would urge you to attend.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Promoting Better Lighting
This week Austinites have a great opportunity to help promote better, more efficient lighting in construction around here. For those who don't know it (and apparently there are many), there is a group called the Illuminating Engineering Society, which is made up of architects, engineers, lighting designers, etc. and is devoted to helping produce better lighting designs--not just nicer, more intricate designs, but also more environmentally friendly ones. (Thankfully, it is possible to have nice lighting designs that are efficient...lighting designers are no longer limited to those 2x4 fluorescent things that have been in everybody's office since about 1985.)
The local IES section will be meeting Wednesday the 23rd at 11:30am at Joe's Crab Shack on Riverside. Here is the information that the local section has sent out regarding the meeting:
If you are in a relevant field and are interested in seeing better lighting designs in Austin in the future, check it out. You can get a discount by prepaying, so visit the local section website, http://tcsiesna.org, for more information.
The local IES section will be meeting Wednesday the 23rd at 11:30am at Joe's Crab Shack on Riverside. Here is the information that the local section has sent out regarding the meeting:
Did you know that the IES holds 25% of committee seats for ASHRAE? Have you ever heard of the Advanced Energy Design Guide? Have you ever wondered how lighting power densities were determined in ASHRAE or how many members the IES actually has? This month’s meeting focuses on us – the IES. We will cover the Who, What, Where of our organization including discussion about the new strategic plan (did you know there was one?), as well as delve into the inner workings of ASHRAE and its impact on LEED (with V3 updates).
If you are in a relevant field and are interested in seeing better lighting designs in Austin in the future, check it out. You can get a discount by prepaying, so visit the local section website, http://tcsiesna.org, for more information.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
TX-Leg: HB 2649 Update
As I said, I'm fairly snowed under, but I wanted to get this update out before I disappear again. (I'm more often found on Twitter...hence the Twitter feed in the sidebar.)
HB 2649 was passed unanimously by the full Texas Senate, as expected. However, Rep. Wayne Smith, the author of the bill, has stated (through his staff to multiple people over the phone) that he intends to meet with Senator Kip Averitt, who introduced the amendments affecting lighting designers, and that he expects to have the language removed from the bill before it gets to Governor Perry's desk.
However, I would not rest easy just yet. Since I'm not intending to update further for a little while, I recommend Jim on Light as a good blog for updates on HB 2649. Also, check the NOHB2649 group at Yahoo.
HB 2649 was passed unanimously by the full Texas Senate, as expected. However, Rep. Wayne Smith, the author of the bill, has stated (through his staff to multiple people over the phone) that he intends to meet with Senator Kip Averitt, who introduced the amendments affecting lighting designers, and that he expects to have the language removed from the bill before it gets to Governor Perry's desk.
However, I would not rest easy just yet. Since I'm not intending to update further for a little while, I recommend Jim on Light as a good blog for updates on HB 2649. Also, check the NOHB2649 group at Yahoo.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
TX-Leg: CSHB 2649 will put lighting designers out of work
While most of the attention at the Texas Capitol is on the voter ID bill (on which I will not be commenting today), House Bill 2649 is breezing through the House and Senate without much opposition.
Unfortunately, HB 2649 in its current form will put a fair number of lighting designers out of work. Sections 3, 5, and 6 (added by amendment in the Senate) restrict lighting design only to licensed architects, engineers, interior designers, and electricians.
This bill completely ignores other lighting designers who do not fall into any of those groups but who are members of the International Association of Lighting Designers, a group which has a strict code of ethics and qualifications for membership. Many of them are also certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions by virtue of having passed an exam on lighting design. Suffice it to say that many of these people know how to design lighting better than the people who this bill still allows to design it.
IMO, HB 2649 needs to have the language relating to the restriction of lighting designers removed until such time as it can be revisited with the full participation of the relevant lighting groups. If you or someone you know will be affected by this, please call your legislators and let them know how you feel about it.
And do it quickly: this bill is scheduled to get out of the Senate tomorrow.
Update 5/27: As expected, HB 2649 has passed the Senate. Next stop: conference, where hopefully the aforementioned sections will be stripped from the bill before it is sent to Governor Perry.
Update 5/27 #2: My last words on this (at least for now) may be found here.
Unfortunately, HB 2649 in its current form will put a fair number of lighting designers out of work. Sections 3, 5, and 6 (added by amendment in the Senate) restrict lighting design only to licensed architects, engineers, interior designers, and electricians.
This bill completely ignores other lighting designers who do not fall into any of those groups but who are members of the International Association of Lighting Designers, a group which has a strict code of ethics and qualifications for membership. Many of them are also certified by the National Council on Qualifications for the Lighting Professions by virtue of having passed an exam on lighting design. Suffice it to say that many of these people know how to design lighting better than the people who this bill still allows to design it.
IMO, HB 2649 needs to have the language relating to the restriction of lighting designers removed until such time as it can be revisited with the full participation of the relevant lighting groups. If you or someone you know will be affected by this, please call your legislators and let them know how you feel about it.
And do it quickly: this bill is scheduled to get out of the Senate tomorrow.
Update 5/27: As expected, HB 2649 has passed the Senate. Next stop: conference, where hopefully the aforementioned sections will be stripped from the bill before it is sent to Governor Perry.
Update 5/27 #2: My last words on this (at least for now) may be found here.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Want LEED information?
If you are interested in getting a little more information about LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), you can check out the IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America) Austin section meeting, which will be at Joe's Crab Shack on Riverside at 11:30. Details may be found at the local section website. Cost is $23 at the door.
Update: Somehow the word "today" got omitted from the previous paragraph, so if you're reading this message now, you've already missed the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for March 24th.
Update: Somehow the word "today" got omitted from the previous paragraph, so if you're reading this message now, you've already missed the meeting. The next meeting is scheduled for March 24th.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Uninformed Environmentalism
I'm not sure why this is just hitting the presses, but Jane Harman (D-CA) introduced a bill in March that is designed to ban incandescent light bulbs for sale almost anywhere in this country. (bill text)
Now, I am all for the use of CFL lamps, so long as all color temperatures are offered. (On a recent trip to Home Depot looking for a T8 "tube", I found a dazzling selection of exactly one color, 3000K, a more reddish light than I prefer. Color selection for CFLs is slightly better, but not great.) But this technology needs to continue to evolve on its own. It certainly does not need government to force it upon us if it is the godsend it is described to be.
But my main concern with Ms. Harman's bill is the sheer ignorance that she and her staff have about replacement technology for incandescent lamps. Her initial restriction that all light bulbs must have an efficacy of more than 60 lumens per watt pretty much shuts the door on most LED lamps currently available as well. Since LEDs have a much smaller wattage than even CFL lamps, they would be even better for the environment, but since they don't have the lumens per watt that Ms. Harman desires, they're out. (The restriction rises to 90 lumens per watt in 2016 and 120 lumens per watt in 2020.) Simply google "LED light bulb" and see for yourself just how small the wattages could become, if this lamps are allowed to continue to be sold.
Ms. Harman's bill is simply not good legislation...especially for true environmentalists.
Now, I am all for the use of CFL lamps, so long as all color temperatures are offered. (On a recent trip to Home Depot looking for a T8 "tube", I found a dazzling selection of exactly one color, 3000K, a more reddish light than I prefer. Color selection for CFLs is slightly better, but not great.) But this technology needs to continue to evolve on its own. It certainly does not need government to force it upon us if it is the godsend it is described to be.
But my main concern with Ms. Harman's bill is the sheer ignorance that she and her staff have about replacement technology for incandescent lamps. Her initial restriction that all light bulbs must have an efficacy of more than 60 lumens per watt pretty much shuts the door on most LED lamps currently available as well. Since LEDs have a much smaller wattage than even CFL lamps, they would be even better for the environment, but since they don't have the lumens per watt that Ms. Harman desires, they're out. (The restriction rises to 90 lumens per watt in 2016 and 120 lumens per watt in 2020.) Simply google "LED light bulb" and see for yourself just how small the wattages could become, if this lamps are allowed to continue to be sold.
Ms. Harman's bill is simply not good legislation...especially for true environmentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
