GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology 619
finfife writes to tell us that GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology that promises to increase the efficiency of lightbulbs to put them on par with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). "The new high efficiency incandescent (HEI(TM)) lamp, which incorporates innovative new materials being developed in partnership by GE's Lighting division, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and GE's Global Research Center, headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, would replace traditional 40- to 100-Watt household incandescent light bulbs, the most popular lamp type used by consumers today. The new technology could be expanded to all other incandescent types as well. The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens-per-Watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps."The California legislature may want to revisit the wording of their proposed ban on incandescents (AB 722). How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?"
There are times (Score:5, Informative)
The fact that these lawmakers don't understand enough of the technology to make it workable really gets on my chimes.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wait... are we talking lightbulbs or doorbells here??
Re:There are times (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, I'm not putting on my tinfoil hat just yet, but the timing here seems to be more than coincidental. Just how long has GE been "researching" this technology?
Re:There are times (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also note that they failed to give a timeline for reaching equivalent efficiency. As mentioned above, it sounds like they're promising that they'll get there... sometime. But in the meantime, let use continue to rake in the profits on the existing, power-hungry technology we've spent decades amor
Re:There are times (Score:5, Funny)
Re: CFs fine if you don't need a true red (Score:3, Interesting)
Now, there are halophosphate and mixed halophosphate/triphosphor lamps which achieve > 90 CRI, but they trade off brightness. Chroma 50 tubes come to mind.
People like to mention LEDs as a solution. They're great for low-intensity lighting, but
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:There are times (Score:4, Insightful)
"(3) A general service incandescent lamp does not include an appliance lamp, black light lamp, bug lamp, colored lamp, enhanced spectrum lamp, infrared lamp, left-hand tread lamp, marine lamp, marine signal service lamp, mine service lamp, plant light, reflector lamp, rough service lamp, shatter resistant lamp, sign service lamp, silver bowl lamp, showcase lamp, three-way lamp, traffic signal lamp, or vibration service or vibration resistant lamp."
It would be difficult putting a compact fluorescent in an oven and have it work normally after using the oven.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would you want to use an incandescent light in this? I think a lot of cities are switching to LED lamps here because they use much less power and last longer (so they don't need to send out expensive crews as often).
Re:There are times (Score:5, Funny)
Re:There are times (Score:5, Informative)
Re:There are times (Score:4, Informative)
Re:There are times (Score:4, Insightful)
For instance, I have a bathroom fixture with four "globe" bulbs. The last time one failed, I replaced it with a same-shape CFL. When I turn it on cold, that bulb looks nearly dead. But after it has been on for a while, like the length of a shower, it's the brightest one.
Most CFLs don't work with dimmers at all; dimmable CFLs exist but are rare and tend to have serious limits. They're also bigger than incandescents and don't fit all fixtures. So a high efficiency incandescent would be quite useful.
Re:There are times (Score:5, Informative)
If it took an hour's worth of electricity to start a CFL (the old myth said 3 hours, but let's just call it an hour), you'd need 20 watt hours to flow in 2 seconds. Now let's do the sums:
20 watt hours is 20 * 3600 joules, i.e. 72kJ.
For 72kJ to flow in 2 seconds, you would need 36kW of power. 36 kilowatts. Your biggest appliance is probably your electric shower, a powerful one is 10kW.
To put 36kW into perspective, this is 150 amps at 240 volts.
Your entire supply from the power company is probably on a 40 amp breaker. Even if the 'kickstarting' myth was true for only 20 minutes power rather than the oft-quoted 3 hours, you're still going to blow your main breaker.
As you can see, the 'kickstarting' myth is implausable.
The reason why you might not use a CFL in a cupboard in which you only use the lights for a few seconds at a time is many of them take a couple of seconds to start, which is annoying for a light you only use for a few seconds at a time. But if you want high efficiency in that situation, you can always use an LED downlighter (available conveniently in a GU10 halogen downlighter form factor).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Electric shower? That sounds like a Darwin award waiting to happen...
Re:There are times (Score:4, Informative)
What, you wouldn't want to shower in something like this? [world66.com]
Being from Canada, I was surprised to find that these devices do exist, and are quite common in other parts of the world. Apparently, many places do not run both hot and cold water lines in buildings for some reason or another (it's so hot outside that people don't care to have a hot-water tap in their sink, perhaps?) From the few people I've talked to that have used these showers, they say that sometimes you feel a "buzz"... not surprising since they are often 10kW!!!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Note that micro-flourescents contain mercury that if not re-cycled ends up in landfills.
Ah but how much does CFLs prevent from being emitted in the atmosphere when coal is burned? CFLs should be recycled, as should most things after they've been reused, however I read a study some tyme back that concluded CFLs prevent more mercury from being emitted by coal fired powerplants than the amount they contain.
FalconCould be quite useful... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Could be quite useful... (Score:5, Informative)
If you're not getting "warm" colors from CFL bulbs, you're probably using older bulbs. The flickering also points to this. My wife can't stand CRT monitors at 75Hz, but she hasn't complained about our CFL bulbs flickering. She's also got insanely good hearing and doesn't hear them buzz.
This is like the complaint people have with diesel engines. Yeah, the first diesels in the US were smokey and loud and slow, but new ones are virtually indistinguishable from gas engines and use 50% less fuel or more. Yet, people still avoid them because they don't want a "noisy, smokey, slow diesel car."
Re: (Score:2)
Can you say 18:1 compression?
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I wish the US would switch over to more diesel engines...of course, what with the way American car manufacturers design their shit to die in 3-5 years, I don't think they want engines that last three to four times that sitting in their cars...
Re: way louder.... (Score:4, Informative)
Diesel's what? His engine?
have come a long way in the noise department...but still, when you have pistons the sizes of a small child's head, it's difficult to make a Diesel quiet:-)
I'd beg to differ. A Lexus RX330 we have stabled here has obnoxiously noisy gasoline injectors which are far louder at idle than a friend's Jetta TDI (Volkswagen Turbo Diesel). Not all Diesel engines are built by Caterpillar.
Primary stumbling blocks to Diesel adoption her in the states have been our strict particulate and NOx emissions rules, particularly in California and other states that have adopted California Air Resource Board rules. Urea injection will help to solve the NOx problem, and ultra-low sulfur and advanced fuel injection technologies will do the rest.
Audi's Diesel-powered direct injection race cars are loud - but they also won LeMans this year. Diesels look to be on the verge of a very big comeback, and a lot of money is being dumped into these efficient petrochemical engines.
Like the Diesel engine, the incandescent bulb is a product which can be made far more efficient and competitive while retaining it's inherent advantages - but only if the makers of these products are sufficiently goaded into investing in the R&D to make these advances happen. Australia and California, by proposing CFL-only laws to save energy are providing that incentive.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Can you just pull over and pee in it?
Re:Could be quite useful... (Score:5, Informative)
eye can typically perceive.
Also, CFL's come in a range of color temperatures, some of which match "warm yellow" from traditional incandescents. They're not all "hard white".
A quick reference: http://medfordcan.home.comcast.net/Myths.html [comcast.net]
I'll believe it when I see it. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cheers
JE
Re: (Score:2)
Curious timing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When and where? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
-Aaron
I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is mostly a Political Marketing statement, trying to forestall bans or taxes on incandescent bulbs, as although incandescents costs more in the long run, they are cheaper when you pay at the register so people still buy a lot of them.
Personally, I'd not want a BAN on incandescents, just a "wattage tax" on lightbulbs, say $4/100W tax on bulbs regardless of the mechanism (LED, CFL, incandescent). Just something equivelent to 1 hour a day use for 1 year (assuming
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They make Power Generating Stations AND Lightbulbs? What's wrong with this picture?
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Plenty of reasons. Fluorescents aren't full spectrum; CFLs contain mercury; CFLs are expensive to manufacture; etc...
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does nearly everyone on /. assume that every company is out to deceive them? or that every press release (unless it's from Google or Apple) is a marketing lie? Sure every company is out to make money, but not every company is an Enron. CFLs are the perfect product, I use a ton of them, but there are certain applications where they are too costly to run because of less time on vs on/off cycles. I welcome this if they work as well as regular bulbs and last as long they will allow me to bring those rooms in line with the cost savings that my other rooms get with CFLs.
Why I dont' believe it... (Score:2)
You can make them more efficient by running them hotter (its how halogens work), and this breakthrough is probably a similar high-temperature filliment strategy, allowing you to get the halogen efficiency (better than a standard incandescent but worse than a CFL) out of something fitting in the standard incandescent form factor. But you can't beat direct radiation technologies (CFL, LED).
Likewise, I'd bet that these bulbs are de
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does nearly everyone on /. assume that every company is out to deceive them? or that every press release (unless it's from Google or Apple) is a marketing lie?
I think it's because nearly everyone on Slashdot can be described by what I call the 3P Syndrome. Specifically:
Pissy. More often than not, Slashdot readers seem to be pissy. They are easily goaded into responding to trolls and participating in flamewars. They will stubbornly support an illogical and inane position simply for the shred of joy they coax from a heated argument. In short, they are easily irritated.
Pessimistic. Many Slashdot readers are pessimists. They look for the worst-case scenarios and will dismiss any possible silver lining of any act or concept.
Paranoid. Slashdot readers may also be naturally paranoid. This is perhaps the biggest reason for apparent distrust of others' motives. Serious paranoia makes it very difficult to trust others, and it is only exacerbated by the first two factors.
Even before mind altering drugs are considered, all Slashdot readers seem to contain these three qualities in varying amounts (some appear to be "normal"). But collectively, they sum up to a critical mass that gives Slashdot that unique community feel.
I haven't thought up a satisfactory answer for Google and Apple, though. Maybe Slashdot users identify with them on some level.
Detailed,Cautious,Skeptical, not 3Ps! (Score:3, Interesting)
The flip side, however is that you can't just wish problems away or ignore them. Good engineers actively seek out the problems and figure out how to address them or work around them.
The trade press
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
GE also has a huge public relations and lobbying staff [sourcewatch.org]. What do you think companies have PR departments for? It's to respond to crises like this. Australia bans incandescent bulbs, California starts talking about it -- and if it snowballs across the nation, suddenly GE's looking at writing off whole factories
Why? How about LONG criminal histories? (Score:5, Informative)
The reason Slashdotters are suspicious is that a large number of, (if not all) corporations are out to deceive the public. This is not conjecture. It's cold fact. GE is a great example, btw. You should look into some of their criminal activities [cleanupge.org].
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I noticed several responders mentioning taxes and such. It's a mindset we have to be careful of. There's an attitude I noticed with a lot of SUV drivers that they'd prefer to pay a tax and keep driving the beasts. The problem is we need to get them off the road period not just tax them. There was an argument made in Who Killed the Electric Car? that we'll need more coal plants for all the electric cars. Well here's a little food for thought. If all the incandescents were changed to compact florescents not only could every home in amercia charge their electric cars without needing more plants and their electric bills would actually go down. Electric lights are still the biggest single use of electricity in this country.
Why taxes... (Score:2)
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I own an SUV. I telecommute roughly 90% of the time, and can go days without even starting that vehicle. There are also times when I start the vehicle, and drive it to go do something that involves other people and payload. If I didn't have that vehicle, we'd need four small wind-up passenger cars to haul the passengers and payloads. There are no small, more-efficient vehicles that can go where I can go, and get the people there, too. What's more efficient? Four cars burning fuel, wearing down tires, occupying road space, and possibly getting dangerously stuck enroute to the destination... or, one vehicle that can carry at least half a dozen people and hundreds of pounds of payload on rough roads, through the mud or snow, and safely do so?
Why should my vehicle be "taken off the road," but some college kid that drives 100 miles in his hybrid in one weekend bouncing between parties while I drive nowhere, gets to use his? You're holding the tool accountable for what people do (when you don't like the people that use the tool), and not even touching on the wasteful habits of people that use a marginally more efficient tool that you like better.
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wah. It's not fair to bash 99% of SUV usage, because 1% of SUV drivers are people like me who actually save fuel by using one. Wah.
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if you want to bash. Have fun. What I do care about, and what I responded to, was the idiot who thought the best idea was to "take the off the road."
I think you've probably not even come close to using all of the available CPU cycles on your computer while you were busy being snide, so it's probably better for the environment if you use a much slower, lower-powered machine. Perhaps one of those wind-up, one-laptop-per-childish-user ones they've been talking about? Or... DO you use your computer entirely to its capacity? Doesn't matter. Even if you do, you're only in the minority, and since the majority of people with fancy computers don't really need them, we should probably not allow anyone to have them, right? Give it a rest.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I propose revenues be used to lower some other tax.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
LEDs are over ten times more efficient and the directionality of the light can be solved in a number of ways. Mag-Lite did it by having a special package created that incorporates a more useful lens directly into the LED part. This allows them to have a mini mag-lite
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
LEDs are over ten times more efficient and the directionality of the light can be solved in a number of ways.
What are you smoking?
Incandescent from my closet: 100 watts, 1690 Lumens or 16.9 lumens/watt.
CFL [lightbulbsdirect.com]: 27 watts, 1750 lumens or 64.8 lumens/watt.
Let's find a few LED lights...
LED spotlight [thinkgeek.com]: 8 watts, 120 lumens, 15 lumens/watt.
Bulb toward end of page [theledlight.com]: 10 watts, 200 lumens, 20 lumens/watt.
How about this $70 bulb? [besthomeledlighting.com] Surely that one must be bright! Nope: 10 watts, 340 lumens, 34 lumens/watt.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is mostly a Political Marketing statement, trying to forestall bans or taxes on incandescent bulbs, as although incandescents costs more in the long run, they are cheaper when you pay at the register so people still buy a lot of them.
Why? General Electric is probably the largest manufacturer of CFLs. Because there's more to the manufacturing process of a CFL, they're more expensive to make. Assuming that they have a 10% profit margin on both, the CFL bulb will make them more money.
My guess is that they know there is still a demand for incandescent technology for specialized applications and for those who demand incandescent lighting, so they have found a way to make it more efficient. Perhaps not as good as a CFL or LED, but
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Five years to market doesn't sound especially unreasonable to me.
Re:I don't believe it... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd want neither bans nor taxes. Rather, leadership by example. Here's what I don't get: the State of California itself purchases a huge number of light bulbs of every sort. Why don't they just pass new procurement rules? If the government itself uses only Compact Fluorescent Lightbulbs (or whatever's trendy), the rest of us Californians will be exposed to them. If the new bulbs really are better, we'll all follow in time.
I come from Iowa. When I got here, people told me about the difference between midwestern liberals and Californian liberals. I'm starting to get it...I don't appreciate this nanny state "we will tell you what kind of light bulbs you must buy" thing.
Curious (Score:2)
OTOH, each and every CFL is handmade, which is why they're so much more expensive.
My guess is that these HEI bulbs will be significantly cheaper, even if they don't have the same lifespan, which should make them a net plus. And you can put them into fixtures that CFls are either cosmetically or technically untenable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
My Mother-in-Law always leaves her lights on but never changes bulbs herself (she's not all right in the head), it used to be a common ritual when I visit her to replace half of the bulbs in her house. I finally got tired of it and brought a big pack of CFLs and replaced all of her bulbs. I haven't had to replace
How do they work? (Score:2)
Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I decided to be a good citizen and replace the burnt out bulb in my bathroom this weekend with a Daylight CFL that's rated at "42 watts but gives off as much light as a 100w incandescant". I put it in, turned it on, and could get the damned thing out of there fast enough. The light color just sucked... was far too "flourescent" for anyone to stand. I'm sure *someone* out there likes the sterility and coldness of flourescent light, but it sure ain't me and my wife. I went back to Home Depot, returned the bulb, and bough a high effeciency Halogen that takes 27 watts but puts out as much light as a 100 watt bulb. The perfect color of light, higher effeciency than the CFL, and lasts two years.... and it's an "incandescent" that would be outlawed.
Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... (Score:5, Informative)
You can get CFLs in pretty much any colour you like.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So maybe you screwed it out too fast
Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... (Score:5, Informative)
-Aaron
Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not to be pedantic, but I do need to crrect a misperception.
Actual daylight is anywhere from 4400-5600k. Daylight-balanced incandescents like SoLux bulbs are at 4700k and are similar to mid-morning light. Note that the color of "daylight" on a reflective white surface is highly subjective depending on atmospheric interference, latitude, and of course, time of day.
6500k is a normally-used tristimulus daylight benchmark - accurate for transmissive media like RGB computer monitors, but not for bulbs. A computer monitor calibrated to a D65 at 2.2 gamma will show the aforementioned white board photographed in the sun accurately, but it not, strictly speaking, daylight-balanced - merely tuned to reproduce daylight using three component colors. Hence, the higher color temperature than "real" daylight.
I prefer to measure in mireds!
Even better (Score:2)
How about charging for the abatement costs ($3 per ton of CO2 or whatever) and let people decide for themselves what activities are still worth it?
Remember efficiency is the ratio of value provided per input required. I accept that you can know the latter, but since you can't know the former, you can't really know what's inefficient for any on person.
Charging by the *output* you want to get rid of would cover all ex
Re: (Score:2)
Er, that's exactly what I meant: don't tax the device; tax the actual bad you're looking to abate: the C02 emissions when the energy is produced.
And if you're going to use taxation to influence behavior, why not go all out? Do what CA is doing and ban the activity you disapprove of.
Calm down. The justification for taxing CO2 emissions has nothing to do with personal preferences and ever
Lesson learned? (Score:2)
This is the real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
OTH, there has been damn little incentives for nukes or Alternatives. Now you have states offering incentives for highly unprofitable solar or even ethanol production (which is still unprofitable)and saying that they will ban products. What is needed is for gov. to drop all the incentives and the playing games with picking techs. If they want to encourage us to move away from imports and dirty items, then simply increase the tax on a good in such a way that it encourages alternatives. In particular, rather than banning incandescents, a simple tax based on energy usage would have a much higher impact on creating alternatives. In fact, if they go the route of taxing the energy, then they should tax the pollutants such as the mercury. But this approach of gov. encouraging a particular tech is fool hardy and will lead us down the same road. Basically, it will put the west on a single type of tech which will give us the same damn problem.
Seems rather late than just in time.. (Score:3, Interesting)
less garbage over the lifespan, less electricity, less footprint. Seems a dollar short and a day late if you ask me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I purchased 20 LED "flood" lights and got a quantity discount. A decent investment upfront indeed but my first bill has already shown how much the others literally "sucked". Perhaps with people putting priority on these lights they will get even cheaper.
I'll work on replacing even my CF
Re: (Score:2)
Like any other industry, the lightbulb industry'll do their best to squash any product that'll damage their industry in the long run. So LEDs are out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
-Aaron
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I purchased LED floods for less than 50 bucks a piece (38.00 - found on froogle - did purchase 20 of them though) but when you figure in the lifespan of 20-30,000 hours they're not only cheaper in cost but cheaper in long term power use as well.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So.. (Score:2)
So why did it take the threat of a ban on their products before GE made this technology available?
Could it be that the cost of a tooling change was more important to them than our environment?
Re: (Score:2)
Could it be that companies sell what consumers are willing to buy, and they didn't believe enough people would buy these lamps at prices which probably are not cost-competitive with current incandescents?
Of course, it's possible that these pieces of legislation came along only when GE had a solution. Entirely possible. It's even possible for the legislation in Australia to have been created solely to make it look
Why close plants then? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As per the FA you linked yourself, "GE will close the 96-year-old plant in Wellston on Wednesday and lay off 175 workers because of rising imports and slumping domestic demand for the soft-white standard incandescent light bulbs assembled there."
Perhaps you should learn to read things before you link them.
Waste disposal is a big issue (Score:2)
I think the cost of proper disposal of any of these things, tire
30 lumens/W (Score:4, Informative)
There are prototype white LED's at 150 lumens/W, supposedly to hit 200 lumens/W by years end.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing (Score:2, Interesting)
It's amazing how quickly the threat of losing your core business to a new technology can drive innovation! Light bulbs have remained largely unchanged for how long? Suddenly there are promises of huge efficiency increases.
Are corporations that manufacture incandescent lights also invested in electricity producing companies? That would be about as good for efficiency as automobile companies owning stock in the oil industry...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Evan
HEI Bulb Lifetime? (Score:2)
One thing that neither the article nor GE's own press release [geconsumerproducts.com] mention is if these bulbs will last longer than their traditional incandescent counterparts. I have owned one particular CFL bulb for over four years. It has been one of my primary light sources—in operation for tens of thousands of hours—and still works almost as well as the day I bought it. Traditional incandescent bulbs don't last anywhere near that long.
In buying the CFL, I've saved not only in electricity but also in replacemen
Good Timing? (Score:2)
Fluorescents are much more efficient (Score:3, Informative)
After 100 Years The Innovation Hasn't Happened (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason people assume innovation can't happen is that it hasn't happened in incandescent light bulbs.
Anyway, twice as efficient is bullshit. Incandescent light bulbs are so outrageously inefficient that you are still wrecking the planet even with these new vaporware bulbs.
Banning incandescent bulbs will only spur innovation in LED and other modern solutions. Complaints about the quality of light are very valid, but when you have an LED bulb that is generating the same brightness as an incandescent and the LED is using 1% of the power and has 1000x the lifespan then it is time to get the incandescent bulbs out. You can replace an incandescent with an LED and still have power left over for a notebook computer with dual processors.
These new incandescent bulbs make me think of a non-hybrid gasoline car that ekes out 50 mpg so "you don't need a hybrid" but the point of the hybrid is not just to double the gas mileage today
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Errr, you do realize that all road hybrids today don't do that? Do you know ANYTHING or do you just pull it all out of your butt? Railroad hybrids do that -- but railroad diesel engines have always done that. It's just that they're adding batteries to switchers now.
What would be new Bulb Power Ratings? (Score:3, Interesting)
This poses an interesting issue for the marketers to tackle once this goes to market. Hopefully they will be able to properly convey the "light output" as the deciding factor rather than the wattage.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They Use Tungsten Vapourware Technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course any legislation that talks journey rather than destination is misguided -- it is efficiency and other measurable metrics (e.g. amount of waste per unit, for instance) that matters, not how you get there. Putting specifics into the wording sounds more like some lobbyists got their money's worth.
Having said all of that, anyone who walks into
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Could be, but the big problem with the legislation (if it really bans "incandescent lamps") is that it is mandating an implementation rather than legislating a desired result.
Anyone with decent training and/or experience in the realm of requirements knows that you *never* specify an implementation because you will end up getting undesired consequences. You specify the desired result, and a means to test that you have achieved that result. That way innovation is not hampered by having to re-write laws to ac
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You know, on second thought, I'm not sure I WANT to know.