Lights Out for the Incandescent Lamp?

By Allyson Wendt

Compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) seem to have reached widespread acceptance: large retailers such as Wal-Mart are encouraging their customers to purchase the energy-saving lamps, Chinese manufacturing has significantly reduced costs, and rebates are available for them in some areas. Now there are several initiatives to ban the sale and use of incandescent lamps both in the U.S. and abroad.

These moves to ban and phase out inefficient lamps have taken several forms. In Australia, where the government hopes to phase out incandescents by 2012, environment minister Malcolm Turnbull has proposed a series of efficiency requirements for lighting devices that older, inefficient, incandescent lamps could not meet. In California, assembly member Lloyd Levine has introduced a bill that would both set a minimum level of operating efficacy for lamps and prohibit the sale of incandescent bulbs.

New Jersey assemblyman Larry Chatzidakis has introduced a bill that would require the state both to replace incandescents with CFLs within three years and to educate the public on the benefits of the energy-saving lamps.

The European Lamp Companies Federation (ELC) has announced a cooperative effort by several large lighting companies to educate the public about the benefits of energy-efficient lighting and to set efficacy standards for lamps. European leaders followed ELC’s announcement with one of their own at a summit in March 2007, recommending that the European Union adopt similar efficacy standards. Soon after, on March 14, Philips Lighting joined a coalition of U.S.-based environmental groups in calling for a phaseout of incandescent lamps by 2016.

According to Russ Leslie, associate director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, the recent flurry of lighting legislation is the result of a combination of technology improvements, retailer and state efforts to encourage consumers to buy efficient products, and price drops due to public rebate programs.

“In general,” he said, “it’s a good idea to reduce the environmental demand of our light sources, but it’s a bad idea to do it based on technology alone.” Leslie argued that any legislation should be “technology neutral,” banning lamps based on their inability to meet efficacy standards rather than banning specific types of lamps.

Kim Freeman, spokesperson for General Electric (GE), agrees. “We feel that we should be driving efficiency across all lighting technologies,” she said, “not banning a single technology.” GE, part of ELC, is participating in discussions about the European effort to increase lamp efficiency.

The company has also announced that it will have a high-efficiency incandescent lamp available for sale within a few years. According to GE, initial versions of the lamps, which will replace traditional 40–100 watt bulbs, will have twice the efficacy of current incandescents, achieving 30 lumens per watt (lpw). The company hopes eventually to increase their efficacy to about 55 lpw, rivaling that of many CFLs.

In a written statement responding to GE’s announcement, Levine said that the legislation he introduced in California was part of a larger movement towards efficiency that was “achieving the desired effect of having lamp manufacturers take a hard look at their business practices to see if, in fact, they’re doing everything they can to put the most energy-efficient technology on the market.” Levine has not announced plans to change his bill based on GE’s announcement. Said the Lighting Research Center’s Leslie, “If they had a performance-based specification, and GE can meet that specification, then everyone wins.”

This article was produced by BuildingGreen, Inc.- www.buildinggreen.com

share: more »