Recent Comment
Share
The US Federal Trade Commission has announced a final ruling on new labels for light bulbs. The labels will break down the "lighting facts" of bulbs much like a nutrition label on food products. With CFLs, LEDs and other lighting technologies filling the shelves alongside incandescents, the labels will help consumers find what they're looking for.
The major change that these labels bring is using lumens to indicate the brightness of the bulb instead of watts, that way all bulbs will use the same terminology and consumers can compare them easily. Other statistics listed on the labels will be: yearly energy cost, the bulb's life expectancy, light appearance (on a scale of warm to cool), energy used (wattage) and, for CFLs, a warning that it contains mercury.
The clear labeling of cost and energy savings over time, could help more efficient lighting win over consumers who haven't made the switch yet.
The new labels should start showing up in the middle of next year.
via TreeHugger
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Garrett, June 25, 2010
httP://www.greencollarenvironmentalist.com
-
- +1
-
-
written by Todd Horst, June 25, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Todd Horst, June 25, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Carl Hage, June 25, 2010
samples is here:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/lightbulbs.shtm
Besides the back label shown above, there is a front label that shows brightness (lumens) and energy use (dollars/year @3hrs/day, $.11/kWh).
I think it's great to measure relative energy use in dollars. We should do that for other appliances like TVs.
-
- +1
-
-
written by kurdt, June 26, 2010
Seriously, I know people who can't do the math to divide the cost of the bulb by 5.5. They'd say "these bulbs last about a year, so a $1 incan at $7/year is cheaper than a $7 cfl at $1.50/year." Or they might think you're supposed to multiply the years it lasts times the cost/year to get cost. People suck at word problems. If there is any ambiguity someone will screw it up.
-
- -1
-
-
written by lightpants, June 28, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by davgart, July 03, 2010
-
- +0
-
-
written by Timetrvlr, July 05, 2010
Mercury Content Common Items
* 3000mg - Common thermostats (max. amount)
* 500mg - Old mercury-filled thermometer
* 500mg - Dental filling
* 25mg - Watch batteries for the last 50 years (now going mercury-free)
* 13.6mg - Mercury emitted at power plant to power an old NON-CFL bulb
* 5mg - Compact fluorescent light bulb
* 1-3 mg - Low-mercury CFL's (e.g., Phillips and Turolight)
Figures from Energy Star Canada and GE
-
- +0
-
-
written by energy-savinglightbulbs, November 08, 2011
-
- +0
-
-
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Might as well have a poison skull&Bones on the CFL's for the ignorant American consumer. "Mercury: that kills people!!! Better not buy THAT bulb!!!" Even though it will save a TON more money and CO2 emissions over it's life than the incandescent bulb.
Even the Kelvin scale on the sticker will be misleading to the majority of consumers... maybe it's "better" when the scale is to the far left? Or "better" to the far right? Not knowing AT ALL, of course, what the Kelvin scale is all about.
I guess the Nanny-state Federal Government must hold the hands of the lowest common denominator consumer in America with an IQ of 60.