peterdub's Comments

More on why it is a BAN:

since comments here and regulation activists try and
deceive people about it..

2007 Energy Act, Second Phase, implementation before 2020:
45 lumen per watt minimum specification, which no known incandescent -"New efficient" or otherwise - can meet,
and which the profit-seeking CFL-pushing manufacturers behind the ban would be unlikely to pursue anyway.

"BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT— if the final rule [not later than January 1, 2017] does not produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt, effective beginning January 1, 2020, the Secretary shall prohibit the sale of any general service lamp that does not meet a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt"

The EIA (see their press releases)
also confirm that any lamp on the market in 2020
"will have to be as efficient as CFLs" by such time.

MORE: The basic intent of replacing incandescent technology is also made clear in section 321 of the Act:
"The Secretary of Energy shall report to Congress on the time frame
for commercialization of lighting to REPLACE incandescent AND halogen
incandescent lamp technology"
(Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007/Title III/Subtitle B/Section 321)
Note: It says "replace" not "improve"....

More on the ACTUAL regulations
with links to the original Act and relevant sections:
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/07/yes-it-is-ban.html
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Still,
To paraphrase Casablanca, maybe we will always have Paris,
or at least Paris, Texas!

(Texas legislated local light bulb freedom bill June 17th
http://freedomlightbulb.blogspot.com/2011/06/texas-to-allow-incandescent-light-bulbs.html
also with updates on other States local repeal bills)
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
3. Moreover:
Consumers as a whole will hardly save MONEY – regardless of what the energy savings are.

That is not just in having to pay more for the light bulbs as an initial cost
(or being forced to pay for them, via taxpayer CFL programs)

- but also because electricity companies are being taxpayer subsidised
or allowed to raise Bill rates to compensate for any reduced electricity use, as already seen both federally and in California, Ohio etc, and before them in the UK and other European countries
See http://ceolas.net/#californiacfl
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
This should be clear...

1. It is a BAN:
All known - and New Incandescents - banned by 2020,
see the 2007 Energy Act, 2nd Phase:
45 lumen per watt minimum specification, which no incandescent can meet,
and which the profit-seeking CFL-pushing manufacturers behind the ban would be unlikely to pursue anyway.

2. The supposed amount of ENERGY savings are also not there
(only c2% grid electricity savings, see the DOE etc data http://ceolas.net/#li171x ),
and even they were,
there are much better and more relevant energy savings in Electricity Generation and Grid Distribution as well as Consumption, as described on the website.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.

Profile for peterdub

  • Member Since 2012/08/07


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 4
  • Replies Posted 0
  • Likes Received 0
  • Abuse Flags 0
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More