Image Credit: General Electric
More Green Building News
宣称联邦政府没有权利告诉美国人在他们的家中使用什么样的灯泡，上周代表迈克尔·伯尔斯（Michael Burgess）向2012年能源和水资源支出的修正案提供了修订，这些条例草案将扣留基金执行2007年要求增加的法律灯泡的能效。
如一些新闻报道所述，包括概述由此发布的灯泡争议纽约时报, the provision was approved on a voice vote, and the energy bill itself was approved on a vote of 219 to 196.
While it’s hardly certain the amendment will survive a vote in the Senate or the scrutiny of the White House, many House Republicans see it as a demonstration of their resistance to overreaching federal regulation – a talking point for the next election cycle.
不方便的出处
One awkward aspect of this political contortion, though, is that the light-bulb efficiency regulations – which are part of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 – were co-authored by a Republican congressman, Fred Upton, current head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, and Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat. Signed into law by President George W. Bush, the bill requires most light bulbs to be 25% to 30% more efficient by 2014 and at least 60% more efficient by 2020.
民主党人表示，支持新修正案的UPTON逆转，以及最初支持2007年法律的其他共和党人表明，该党在走向右侧进入挺举，并正在发挥灯泡效率要求已成为一个流行的事实讨论保守派。
But as noted in a recent迈阿密先驱story on the subject, the economic savings associated with energy-efficient light bulbs may determine the final outcome of this debate. Department of Energy researchers say the efficiency and longevity of the devices could, under the 2007 regulations, save about $6 billion a year by 2015. And with prevailing economic pressures continuing to dog consumers, the demand for incandescent bulbs is expected to decline, regardless of the ongoing political debate.
3 Comments
分析有点缺乏
Why in the world would we legislate something what's supposedly in everyone's own interest? If two banks in a town offer different rates on a CD over a given period of time, should the city require all depositors to use the one with the higher return? Is it really appropriate to make someone a *federal criminal* that sells an f'ing light bulb to a neighbor? You really want to spend the money for bureaucrats to sit around and promulgate the pages and pages of regulations for this? Is this what we need to spend law enforcement resources on? I can totally appreciate the author is no constitutional law professor, but I think he'd do well to reflect on the accumulating suffocation this pervasive encroachment of do-gooder mandates has on American life.
It could be worse, but the law seems to have a mile-wide hole through it from day one: stores will continue to sell incandescent bulbs as "heat bulbs".
Response to Nathan Hertel
Nathan,
The federal government has been regulating the efficiency of many appliances for years, including refrigerators, air conditioners, furnaces, and water heaters. These regulations have been very successful at reducing energy use per appliance.
当然，总是有jevons悖论考虑......但那是另一个故事。
CFL的
我们是CFL的大型支持者，我们在几乎所有房屋的夹具中都有它们。然而，有几个地方（如壁橱），其中白炽灯泡很好。由于CFL需要一段时间才能达到最大亮度，我们使用单个白炽灯泡以及几个CFL的“瞬间”在某些房间里照明。也许有人可以为白炽灯开发一个自动调光器，一旦CFL完全亮度，就会出现。关于白炽灯泡的另一件事：在一个加热的家中，来自白炽灯的额外热量将有助于加热家庭 - 它是不是浪费的能量，至少在这种情况下。
Some news sources have stated that CFL's cost 10 X as much as incandescents. At least not in the Pacific NW, where we can by a 23 W CFL (equivalent to a 100W incandescent) for about a buck each at Costco.
Log in or create an account to post a comment.
Sign up Log in