New Zealand will ban traditional light bulbs in favor of energy-saving alternatives in 2009, says Energy Minister David Parker.
He said the move would cut lighting energy consumption by 20 percent by 2015 and save up to $376 million by 2020.
“It is intended that from late next year, these inefficient incandescent bulbs will be phased out because they waste so much energy…”
New minimum energy standards would mean no fresh stocks of the incandescent bulbs could be imported from October 2009.
Not a magic bullet, of course. But, overdue.
Anyone think the U.S.A. will do this before 2020? 2050?
14,
Thats EASY…
considering over 60% of our power is made with OIL products. Expect your power bill to go up.
the problem you arent seeing,
Is that the Electrical board has regulated the creation of power plants. The cost to run an Evaluation of Land use and Money return costs, filing for a permit to generate power is in the millions..
That INSTALLING newer BETTER, alternative POWER plants would LOWEr prices, wouldnt it??
WHAT is the incentive to LOWER the cost/price of power? NONE..
DID you know that MOSt of the power companies DONT own the power generating plants??
That theoretically, you can run the wires to the PLANT and get free power from MOST public BUILT DAMS?? but the cost of converting the power and setting up a station to regulat the power would cost you TO MUCH, and not to forget Land rights.
#31 – Mister Mustard – So once we get with the program and adopt more hydro, wind, solar, nuke, etc. power sources…
Sounds good… when do you think that will be?
No need to ban incandescent bulbs.
Just tax ’em so that power saving bulbs are cheaper. People will switch.
#30 Jägermeister said,
“#1 – BubbaRay
That guy obviously didn’t know much about the issue.”
He obviously knows the law, our wonderful elected officials and maybe some morans in the EPA who have made the cleanup issues ridiculous.
I thought Rep. Poe’s comment, “All these are made in China” to be a good one.
Let me know if the Hazmat guys show up when you break one (just kidding).
#33 – Jäg
>>Sounds good… when do you think that will be?
Hard to say, but at least we have a fighting chance once Heart Attack Cheney and his Secret Energy Cabal are swept into the dustbin of history.
Jan 9 ’09 — BRING IT ON!!
Here in NZ, the primary motivation is publicly held as being a severely overburdened power generation infrastructure. We rely on hydroelectric power generation, and with less rainfall that means that we either cut-back on consumption or face power rationing. Not, environmental concerns. If anything, fluorescent bulbs are far worse than incandescents, because of the mercury.
This is just another government body doing something stupid without thinking it through. It takes away another freedom of choice. Perhaps it’s just to show that they are doing something about energy when they aren’t.
Don’t get me wrong, I probably have them in 75% of my lamps. They do seem to save energy, but I really haven’t noticed any reduction in my bill.
As for their longevity, I’ve found their reliability questionable. I’ve had to replace many of them. Sure they have a warranty, but it is useless because it is more expensive to ship them back to the manufacturer than to buy new ones. And since they usually come in multipacks it’s hard to return them to the store. Feit and Lights of America seems to me to fail quickly; Philips I’ve had better luck with.
I’ve had two smoke on me; there was no fire but a lot of acrid black soot. I’m sure that is not healthy to breath or handle. It is hard to clean up.
What also matters is that there are numerous applications where these bulbs are not useable. Dimmer circuits, (except special bulbs) overhead ranges that use a diode to lower the light. Anywhere near an AM radio (and the interference caused varies immensely from bulb to bulb.)
They don’t work well the cold. They don’t come up to full intensity until many minutes have passed, making them useless in a closet, etc. Outdoor use is limited, as is use in confined spaces like a ceiling light.
I can’t wait for someone to put one in a refrigerator or better an oven or microwave!
They tend to give out more UV radiation than incandescent bulbs and artists and people who work with color find them poor.
Instead of making stupid laws, people should be taught to realize the benefits of CFLs and where they should and shouldn’t be used. Then let them make their own choices.
More proof that environmentalists are enemies of freedom.
This is old news. Congress has already tried passing bills to ban incandescent bulbs, as well as at least 13 separate US states:
http://www.naturalnews.com/022293.html
The simple fact that incandescents are being “banned” shows the basic problem. The companies who make the CFLs are not being efficient in their own promotions or are not meeting the specific needs of their prospective consumers. If they made lamps that worked well, were energy efficient and cost effective, they would be replacing incands without government intervention. This amounts to a government subsidy of CFLs and, of course, since utility rates will go up, the average consumer will save nada and gain inconvenience. I suspect it won’t be long before someone sues, maybe as a class-action, for the increased mercury levels as more CFLs make their way into the dumps. Then, of course, we’ll be taxed to create a special recycling program.
I am not anti-CFL: I use them in about half of my fixtures. But it is MY choice.
My father converted all the lighting in his house to a 12 volt system with incandescents. They didn’t seem quite as bright to me and there was a perceptible, though very brief, delay in achieving full intensity. But they worked very well, otherwise.
Shouldn’t I have the choice on what light bulb I use? I am the one that has to pay my electric bill after all. Most of my lights are the new energy efficient kind, and they are just hard to read books under.
I don’t mind the switch from incandescent to some other type of bulb, but I cannot agree with the government banning the use of a product that is not dangerous to those using them.
Mustard, your skepticism is poking holes in my theory that the more environmentalists support something, the worse it is for the environment, and vice versa.
One way to save energy is to build a house with lots of windows. Put in triple pane low-e glass.
My house has gigantic windows and my lights are never on until it gets dark.
Also, skylights can be great additions to houses that have too few windows. Too bad most companies charge too much for this simple home item.
Brilliant move by the Kiwis. I wish (and hope) that all the countries in the world follow the same.