http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59298

Wikipedia has a good breakdown of legislation in various States and other countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_incandescent_light_bulbs

It is true that the federal legislation does not mandate the elimination of incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulbs, by definition, illuminate by squeezing a current through a thin wire which glows white hot. I’m sure that you realize that there are fundamental laws of physics that preclude a 100W bulb from becoming 30% more efficient. If there was another material to replace tungsten, I suppose it’s possible that we could get more light with less energy, but the fact is that most of the energy is being turned into heat. Current legislation does result in an effective ban on incandescent bulbs. Correct me if I’m wrong.

I question the information they gave you on efficiency as well. Mythbusters did some fairly complete testing regarding the myth about the start up energy for various light bulb types. Compact fluorescent uses less than incandescent and, therefore, must be more efficient in general. The only rationale for your statement (I think) would be based on bulb life but the CF would still be more efficient (from a power consumption point of view, not necessarily from the point of view of your wallet).

I recommend against considering the EPA an authoritative source on anything. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t find out what they have to say, just weigh it against other sources… like a simple kill-a-watt meter.

I’m not in favor of banning incandescent bulbs (or mandating efficiency improvements). I use CF bulbs in lots of places in my home. I’m concerned that the steady improvement of the bulbs will slow down as a result of the fact that there is much less need for manufacturers to compete with incandescent bulbs.

Thank you for your consideration,
C.D. Brookover

As for “saving the electricity output of Wyoming ” etc

Ordinary people -not politicians- choose to pay for whatever electricity they use, and its production.

There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage of finite oil-coal-gas fuels,
then
1. Renewable energy becomes more attractive price-wise
2. The fuel price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.
Any government worried about say oil use can simply tax it
(and imported oil is not used in electricity generation).

……………………………….
Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway.
http://www.ceolas.net/#li13x onwards
= comparative brightness, lifespans, power factors, lifecycles, heat factor etc with referenced research.

Even if the savings were there, and light bulbs had to be targeted,
taxation to reduce consumption would make more sense,
governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc)
more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
Taxation is however wrong in principle, for similar reasons to bans.
………………………………
Emissions?
As the previous commenter here infers:
Do light bulbs give out give out any CO2 gas?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of light bulbs or other electrical products they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere,
since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
…………………………
Where there is a problem: Deal with the problem!
Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2),
with a focus on transport and electricity:
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
.

If the cheap alternatives that people prefer are being banned anyway,
there’d presumably be enough of a market for those bulbs – without a prize.

The underlying idea here is that “legislation is great for innovation”.
This is not so.
Industry should make what consumers want,
- not what government committees or prize award committees want.

But do markets work?

The notion is
“Market forces fail, people only buy cheap inefficient products,
they won’t buy expensive efficent products even if they would save money by doing it!”

Wrong:
1. You don’t keep buying a cheap product if it doesn’t satisfy what you want from it.
This can of course relate to many other properties apart from efficiency
(performance, appearance, construction and in fact overall savings, see htpp://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x )
It also means that people may be happy to pay more for electricity use if – for example – they feel that the light quality from
ordinary light bulbs warrants it.

2. Nor do you avoid buying product alternatives just because they are expensive:
Otherwise no expensive alternative products anywhere would ever be bought.
In normal advertising manufacturers themselves highlight advantageous features of their products.
Think of long-lasting batteries and Duracell/Energizer rabbits, think of washing up liquids that wash piles of dishes.
“Expensive to buy but cheap in the long run”:
CFL/LED manufacturers wrongly rely on public campaigns and bans to make sales.
Of course, if people don’t like the products, the products won’t sell well anyway.

3. You may not want all your product purchases to be of one type.
For example, different lights have different advantages.
The idea to “Switch all your lights and save lots of money”
is like saying “Eat only bananas and save lots of money”.

Put it this way
Europeans like Americans choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around * to 9 times out of 10 (light industry and European Commission data 2008).
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product = no “savings”!
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x onwards…

If new LED lights – or improved CFL “energy saving” lights or incandescents – are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned
… they were bought less anyway.

By all means encouragement of product innovation and prizes
– but that doesn’t mean having to ban the product alternatives!

(continued)

What are we going to ban next that makes a lot of CO2?
- The internet (the servers produce a lot off CO2)
- Air conditioners in homes
- Heat installation in houses
- Cars that have a engine cylinder volume of more than 2 liters
etc, etc…..

Why can the people of the world not decide what they want to buy.
If you want to buy quality it’s cost more …like the incandescent bulb now.

This banning of the bulb looks like mafia practice of the production company’s.
So they can make more profit of these new products. And worse of all the politics
are buying it.

People let be realistic banning the incandescent bulb is crazy, this is only the tip of a iceberg!
What about the people of the 3rd world they never can buy such expensive bulbs.
By banning these bulbs in 1st world countries the prices will rise of the incandescent bulbs.
Because we are going to produce less of these bulbs.
Lighting company are all ready stopping/ phasing out these production lines.

Let put all our energy to start at the source of the problem, this by:

Making green energy with the means of SOLAR POWER…..or other green methods.

So we can still enjoy warm quality light of our incandescent bulbs with green energy…and enjoy all other luxury items that we are used to! And let people decide what to buy, incandescent bulbs or CFL or LED’s. And in the meantime we can still upgrades these incandescent bulbs. See a example of a last inventions.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3385

Because if we really want to think green….we have to go back to the basics.
Like the indians in the old days!….do we still want that?

Mister ban no incandescent lamp