|
There are specific lamp types that only make sense to outlaw, such as T12 fluorescents and mercury vapor. This is because there are direct replacements that are far more energy efficient that also have only a small cost premium, if any. However, incandescent does not fit that category very well. There are many applications where incandescent lamps are still the preferred choice because nothing else comes close to doing the job.
That does not mean that they cannot be legislated so that they are used in a sensible manner. It is now pretty common that state and local building ordinances have increasingly more strict energy conservation requirements that state maximum wattage densities (watts per square foot) for new construction. The requirements are becoming too stringent to allow very much use of incandescent and can best be met by using highly efficient fluorescent sources combined with high frequency, electronic ballasts in high performance reflector/lens systems. This does not address all of those buildings that currently contain older inefficient lighting, but local and state level incentive programs can produce similar results for them.
Using this method to discourage the use of incandescents has at least three advantages over direct regulation. It accomplishes the basic goal of reducing energy consumption in an aggressive, predictable and measurable fashion. Second, it allows the limited use of incandescent lamps where nothing else will do the job as well. Lastly, manufacturers of all lamp types and fixture manufacturers are motivated to improve the performance of their products as a matter of market pressure. The guy that can provide a luminaire that saves 1/2 watt per square foot over his competition is going to dominate the market until they catch up.
|