I just heard that Michigan is following in the footsteps of South Carolina and Texas by introducing legislation that would allow Michigan to manufacture and sell incandescent lamps as long as they are sold within state lines. This is House Bill 4815. I suggest that all Michigan collectors contact their state representatives to show support of this bill. I am emailing my rep, Greg MacMaster, right now. If anyone is interested, I will share what I wrote to him.

I will also recommend to him that the bill be modified to include all lighting technologies, not just incandescent lamps. I am quite concerned about the upcoming ban on general service fluorescent tubes and mercury vapor lamps.

Please note that this bill was just introduced in the House of Representatives. It has a long way to go before becoming law!

I wish Massachusetts was exempt from the ban.

I wish Massachusetts was exempt from the ban.

Talk to your legislators! I was going to wait to see how it worked for SC and Texas, but since someone already introduced this legislation in Michigan, I will do all I can to support it.

I will try theres alot of people I know that does not want this to happen.

Here is what I wrote to my representative:

Dear Representative MacMaster:

I recently heard about House Bill 4815 that would allow Michigan to manufacture incandescent light bulbs, as long as the light bulbs are sold in Michigan. I am very much in support of this bill and I strongly encourage you to vote yes on HB 4815.

I am interested in new energy-saving lighting technologies such as CFL and LED, but I would still like to be able to buy standard incandescent light bulbs. New technologies can't yet match the simplicity, reliability, quality, and low cost of incandescent lamps.

Additionally, allowing these lamps to be manufactured in Michigan helps to preserve Michigan jobs. I am truly saddened that the majority of CFL and LED energy-saving lamps are made overseas. I buy Michigan-made (or at least USA-made) products whenever possible. I look forward to being able to support Michigan's economy by buying Michigan-made light bulbs.

To take this one step further, I would like to see HB 4815 modified to allow the manufacture of all lighting technologies, not just incandescent. A Department of Energy ruling, published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2009, will ban the manufacture of many common fluorescent lamps effective July 14, 2012. After this date, consumers, businesses, and municipalities will be forced to buy more expensive lamps. As an employee of East Jordan Public Schools, I'm concerned about the impact to our already financially-challenged district if we have to spend more on fluorescent lamps that are not more efficient. This rule making requires lamps to have better color rendering -- not to be more efficient. In fact, some of the replacement tubes are actually less efficient! Therefore, HB 4815 should be modified to allow Michigan to produce all types of light bulbs.

Additionally, the pending federal Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2011 will ban mercury vapor lamps that are used in countless yard lights, parking lot lights, and roadway lighting fixtures. Like the fluorescent lamp standards, this would place an unnecessary burden on homes, businesses, and municipalities that would have to replace existing mercury vapor fixtures. Mercury vapor is also a more reliable technology than newer replacements such as metal halide. This is just one more reason HB 4815 should be expanded to cover all lighting technologies.

Thank you for your time. I sincerely appreciate any assistance you can give in this matter.

Nelson Ogden

@nogden, that appears to be a well thought out and articulate letter! Good job.

Thanks!

You can expand a bit :




Fluorescents :

In some places, the higher lamp efficacy makes no sense. You have a room where a 32W fixture was installed, to take 1x32W halophosphate fluorescent lamp. The light output from this lamp is perfect

The newer more efficient lamp is not 2 times more efficient, so you won't change the fixture anyway, only the lamp

The new triphsphor lamp will take exactly the same 32W, only give more light which is of marginal difference for the room anyway. So the higher efficiency lamp did not ave any power in this case. A halophosphate lamp would be "greener" since the halophosphates are not rare minerals that have to be extracted etc



For a school that has very short budget, the simple fluorescents are the cheapest solution : Removing some lamps is often unacceptable as it will create dark spots, so with or without the triphosphor lamps the power use will be exactly the same

But replacing fixtures will also cost a lot to begin with, and then be a maintenance headache and constant high maintenance costs for years to come, due to the proven lower reliability of HF vs magnetic



Mercury :

The mercry lamp is the longest lasting lamp of all HID (except some best HPSes). And unlike HPS it does not need any electronic controls, so it is also the most reliable HID. In places where a light for safety purposes is requird, as well as hard to reach places where long life lamp is required (and white light is required), the mercury lamp is hands down the best option



Magnetic ballasts :

Reliability - maintenance costs (for schools etc), surge sensitivity (dont blow up after some problems with the line), good for hard to reach locations

Can be manufactured entirely locally (iron, copper, vacuum processing), while HF require a lot of electronic components to import from overseas for each unit manufactured

With mercury I would not argue as much with the lifetime, as it is not true - the lumen drop cause them fail to meet the required performance after about 20..25khours, what is the same time as better quality fluorescents.
But unlike other sources, MV "failure" mean their output only become slightly below the required level, so still provide reasonable amount of light, what mean really the unparalleled reliability and cheapest maintenance (no spot replacement necessary, while still using their whole rated life).