The Energy Blog

Bloom Energy Server Revealed -

---

---

VM7MS3RMU35U

Well, the Bloom Box – Now called the Bloom energy server – was formally revealed on Wednesday. Most of the technical details are now on their website. So, naturally, after all my previous commentary, I must comment once more.

It is, indeed a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell (SOFC). It generates 100 Kilowatts of power. According to the specs it requires 661000 BTUs per hour from the natural gas input (apx 700 Cu Ft). That is 193 KWh worth of Natural Gas in, for 100 kWh out for an efficiency of 51.8 percent (Which is, indeed “greater than” 50% as quoted on the web site).

I assume this is the total efficiency of the unit (including inverter), and, as such, it is a modest increase over other Solid Oxide fuel cell efforts I have seen. Good for them.

It weighs Ten Tons! And, my head weighs as much as I bow it to apologize for a mis-statement in an earlier post. I stated that the device would still need a reformer to produce hydrogen for the fuel cell. For most fuel cells this is true. However, because of the high temperatures a SOFC works at, they can apparently do “self reformation” within the cell itself. A small “pre-reformer” is still necessary, but not all the complexity of a complete steam reformer. I was not aware of this, although apparently to the people who actually design these things, you know, scientists, it is common knowledge. Neither do I know how this process works – yet. But, I do apologize for the inaccuracy.

CO2 emissions are 773 pounds per MWh. A typical coal plant, according to the EIA, emits about 2000 pounds per MWh. So this emits about 1/3 the CO2 of a coal power plant. The same source quotes natural gas turbine plant CO2 emissions at 1300 pounds per MWH, so it is about half as much as those, although I am not sure I quite buy their CO2 emissions number. Since the carbon is not used in the process, I would think it would be closer to the natural gas turbine plant. Still, much less than coal, and I’m no chemist.

One problem with a SOFC is the extreme temperatures they operate at.- up to 1800 degrees F. At those temperatures reliability has been a problem with other designs. There is no mention of this on their web site. Bloom is offering a 10 year guarantee on the units. Time will tell how reliable they are.

So far, so good. But, then, there is a matter of cost. Oh, there is always a rub. No where on their web site can I find information on cost, so I went looking elsewhere. According to an article on Forbes (as well as a couple of others I found), the box costs approximately $700,000. ($7,000 per kW) There are reports that Bloom is hoping to get the cost down to about $2,500 per kW in about five years. That would put the cost of the box at $250,000. Now there are government rebates and subsidies. Especially in California, which is where all of the initial units have been installed. You can read the Forbes article below for info on that.

http://www.forbes.com/2010/02/25/fuel-cell-costs-technology-ecotech-bloom-energy.html

But, let us look at the economics of the Bloom Energy Server. Specifically as relates to a residence, as their stated goal is to use these to replace the electric grid to homes.

My only reference to the cost of natural gas and electricity is my own residential bills. To Produce 100 kWh of electricity, which at my rate of 8 cents per kWh would cost $8.00, the box requires 6.6 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of gas. That gas, at about $0.90 per CCF delivered would cost me $5.94. So for every 100 kWh of electricity, I would save $2.06. - Stay with me-  I currently average using about 1400 kWh per month. That means I would save $28.84 every month. Or  $346.08 per year getting my power from the Bloom Energy Server rather than staying with the grid. OK, not a lot, but still a savings. So, let’s rip out the grid connection. But wait, there’s more, I have to purchase this thing. And, therein lies a rub or two.

Certainly, I wouldn’t need this big of a unit. However, if I were to replace my electric service with a Bloom Energy server, it would have to supply my entire 200 amp home service. That is 44,000 watts worth. See, while I normally don’t use that much at once, there is the electric stove, water heater, air conditioner, power tools, and they might have to all be on at once. That is why we have the 200 amp service, and since we are replacing the electric grid entirely, we need to replace it’s entire capacity. So, 44 Kilowatts times even his target price of 2,500 per Kilowatt is an $110,000 investment.
I still have to pay for the fuel, so my savings stay the same - $346.08. So, that works out to a Payback (break-even) time of 317 years. Wait, did I do that right, yep. 317 years. For a box guaranteed for 10 years?

That is the rub with completely replacing the electric grid, especially to a home. See, I don’t normally use anywhere near 44,000 watts at once. But, sometimes I do, or at least come close. So, the capacity has to be there for those times. With the electric grid I do not have to purchase ALL that capacity, just what I need at the moment. My capital cost is spread out over all the users. With the Bloom Energy Server (or any other private power plant). I have to make that entire investment up front.

OK, that would be silly. So lets make one more calculation, one closer to reality. Lets stay connected to the grid for those high power times, and we will put in a more reasonably sized Bloom Energy Server to supply my average needs,  Like, say, 2500 watts. Now, the good thing is I can sell excess power back to the grid – store it there if you will -  so that 2500 watts running constantly should just about eliminate my electric bill. I might even make a little extra. Sell it back. But, I still have to pay for the gas, so my actual savings are still $346.08 per year (Minus whatever the electric company charges me just to stay connected). The box costs $6,250. At  $346.00 per year, that payback time is still 18 years. And, what about those days the stove and a/c are running? I may still have to purchase some electricity from the grid. Or, if I get a new Plug In Hybrid, or a hot tub. I will need to purchase the extra power from the grid. I am sure, with subsidies, and proper financing the numbers can work out a bit better, but it is still not a very viable proposition, and we do not know if the box will even last that long, or what maintenance costs are incurred,


Other than the economics, and despite the unwarranted hyperbole, I think Bloom may have a winner here. But are there enough customers? It will not work for a typical home or small business. It may not work for the average factory. It is only going to work, even then with modest savings,  in a place with a steady, continuous and predictable electrical load – like an office building, or a data center… Hmmm.

Previous posts on the bloom energy server:

Bloom energy possible progress or hyperbole or both

Bloom energy and the bloom box cbs 60 minutes coverage

Bloom Energy - Possible progress, or Hyperbole? Or Both?

---

---

Bloom Energy, and their magic “Bloom Box” appear to be all the buzz at the moment. While it may be true that they have achieved a method to reduce the cost of fuel cells, or increase their efficiency, what is being presented in the news is mostly a lot of spin. Much of it has come out of the Sunday Night (2/21/10) segment on CBS 60 Minutes. A segment that provided little actual information, and very shallow depth along with it’s spin.

I guess, I am calling Sham. At least the hyperbole surrounding the Bloom Box. The Bloom Box is a fuel cell. Technically, what it would appear to be is a  Solid oxide fuel cell, using a ceramic electrolyte.

Now, a fuel cell does not magically “create” electricity. Indeed, that is impossible. What it does is convert the chemical energy stored in a fuel into electrical energy. All of the reporting, and the 60 Minutes segment, would appear to be dismissing the need for a fuel as a trivial thing. It is glossed over, and barely mentioned.

In actual fact, all of the energy that comes out of this box, or any fuel cell, has to be supplied by the Fuel. And since no process is, or can be, perfect, that conversion comes at a loss.

But, before discussing that little triviality, lets back up, and look at some of the other spin.

The segment quotes the K.R. Sridhar, CEO of Bloom Energy, with the following: “The Bloom bakes sand which it then cuts it into squares that become a ceramic.”

Mr. Sridhar has just described, in suitable double-talk,  the process of creating ceramics from sand. Not exactly a new, or revolutionary process.

He then continues, “The ceramic squares are coated with green and black inks.”   These would be the anode and cathode, the same as in any conventional fuel cell. While his “secret ink” may be cheaper than current materials, the technology is not new. And, if this is indeed a SOFC, since the cell operates at extremely high temperatures, the traditional  rare and expensive materials are not necessary.

The segment makes a lot of hay about the 6” square that Mr. Sridhar holds up, proclaiming that little cube can power an entire American Home. What is conveniently glossed over is the rest of the equipment and piping in the actual, real Bloom  Box.

Now, about that fuel. The Bloom Box uses Natural Gas as the energy source. There is also mention that Biogas can be used. Both of these fuels are primarily Methane. But, methane cannot be used to supply a fuel cell. The methane has to first have the Hydrogen extracted from it. In most cases this is done with Steam Methane Reforming – quite likely what all that plumbing, and other stuff is in the real “Bloom Box” a methane reformer. The Hydrogen is what is used in the fuel cell to generate electricity. While there is the possibility that Bloom has created a fuel cell that directly uses the methane, I seriously doubt it, and, I believe, so would the principles of science. Another completely ignored fact is the reformation of methane leaves behind carbon, indeed, as much carbon as would be generated by burning the gas directly.

Finally, the 60 Minutes piece quotes one of the early adopters as saying the Bloom Box makes their electricity cheaper. Cheaper than what? Certainly a fuel cell can make electricity from natural gas much cheaper than burning it in a heat engine. Fuel cells are more efficient than heat engines. IF their natural gas supply is cheap enough, it may even be cheaper than grid power, but I doubt it. I’m suspecting these are replacing diesel generators at these places – just a guess? Since a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell operates at a very high temperature, and creates a lot of waste heat, it is possible they, or the Bloom Box itself, are making use of that extra energy as well.

So, what we likely have is a Fuel Cell, using natural gas as the fuel. The ironic thing is, if Bloom Energy has managed to find a way to make the fuel cell cheaper, that would be the significant achievement. Yet that is not even mentioned, instead relying on snake oil to make it look like a magic source of energy. 60 Minutes does not disappoint me often, but they have this time. I can only hope they haven’t sold out.

As to these replacing the power grid? Forgetting the need to supply all of them with natural gas, the increased need for infrastructure, and the tremendous multi-times increase in our need for natural gas (and resulting major price increases), I doubt the economics would ever support that. Our grid supply of electricity is in place, and already our most economical source of energy.

For many uses of fuel cells, reducing the tremendous cost of those cells would be a major step forward, and would bring them much closer to mainstream practicality. I Hope Bloom Energy has succeeded in some way on that front, and in doing so, will be prosperous, But, as to the Hyperbole surrounding this, and the implications of magic – I call sham.

Other posts on the Bloom Energy Server:

Bloom energy server revealed

Bloom energy and the bloom box cbs 60 minutes coverage

Bloom Energy and the "Bloom Box" - CBS 60 Minutes coverage

---

---

I just watched a segment on CBS 60 Minutes about the “Bloom Box”, made by Bloom Energy, and promoted prior to the segment as a box that “creates” electricity. As I normally do with mass market news stories covering a technical topic, I had some problems with the presentation. The Bloom Box Creator shows the 60 minutes correspondent how he creates this “magic box” from ordinary beach sand, and a “special paint”. He then holds up a small 6” cube and says it can create enough power for an American Home. The whole segment smacked of “snake oil”. Not a normal product for 60 minutes, whom are usually busy uncovering Snake Oil.

The “Bloom Box” ends up being a fuel cell. Apparently a Solid Oxide Fuel Cell. The “beach sand” was used to make the ceramic substrate or electrolyte. The special paints are proprietary secrets, and used to make the anode and cathode. None of this is new, or revolutionary. When an actual “Bloom Box” was revealed, we find that small 6” cube is surrounded by a complex maze of support equipment and piping, in a much bigger container.

The segment did not dwell on, and barely mentioned, the fuel that was necessary to run this fuel cell. The fuel ends up being Natural Gas, or Biogas. Yes, once again, no free energy, and no magic. We put a fuel source in, and get electricity out.

What is missing is all the details. In every fuel cell I am aware of using natural gas or Biogas – methane – the methane still has to be reformed (in a process similar to Steam Methane reforming) in order to separate the hydrogen in the fuel. That hydrogen then has to be carefully filtered and purified, as fuel cells do not tolerate contaminants very well. The resulting Hydrogen is then sent to the fuel cell, where along with atmospheric oxygen, electricity is produced. The process still releases all the carbon inherent in the fuel, the same as burning it. A fuel cell will, however, be far more efficient than a heat engine at recovering the energy of the fuel.

A Solid Oxide Fuel cell also produces a large amount of heat, as they run a temperature approaching 1000 deg C. This heat can hinder reliability – as was alluded to in the segment. It can also be used to provide additional heat for, say, space heating.

The Bloom Box apparently has some high profile installations, with Ebay and Google data centers among them.  Perhaps Bloom Energy has achieved some breakthrough in either the cost, or the efficiency of fuel cells. These would both be good things. The extreme cost of today’s fuel cell technology is one major thing that is keeping them out of mainstream use. The ability to convert Biogas from waste water treatment plants, or landfills into electricity is very promising, as is evidenced by the large number of companies working on fuel cells for that purpose. Although none of this would put much of a dent in America’s energy usage, the potential for rural areas, and third world use is large.

I wish Bloom Energy Well. They are to be watched. Bloom Energy reports they are going public the first of the week. I’ll be waiting! I hope they have managed to address the high cost of fuel cells, and reduce that cost to more manageable levels. This would be a significant contribution to our (and the worlds) energy picture. However, I do wish we could leave the spin, snake oil, and promises of free energy out of the rhetoric.

Here is the 60 Minutes article
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/02/18/60minutes/main6221135.shtml

The company Website.
http://www.bloomenergy.com/

More:
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/bloombox-energy-kr-sridhar-bloom-energy-fuel-cells-2580564.html

Other The Energy Blog posts on the Bloom Box:

Bloom energy server revealed

Bloom energy possible progress or hyperbole or both

Vertical Axis Wind Turbines - A case study (Windspire)

---

---

VAWT – The good, the bad, and the Windspire Small Wind Turbine.

I came across this unit recently, and it caught my interest. It would appear that it solves a lot of problems related to small-scale wind power. It is aesthetically “pleasing”, easy to install, self contained, and claims to produce a significant amount of power. Unfortunately, like many of its peers, it does not live up to the promise. I still like the Windspire. I hope they resolve some of the problems. It is a neat concept, and a company that appears to want to make it a success. They have numerous installations already, and I wish them the best of luck. However, I am going to take the opportunity to point out some of the challenges that the Windpsire, and most other VAWT designs, encounter. This is not an indictment of the technology, nor of this particular example. It is, just that, an example to be used for education. I believe strongly in large scale wind power. I do not think small scale is ready for prime time. However, by addressing some of the below issues, it can possibly move closer to reality.

The Windspire  HAWT from Mariah Power.
 


Unfortunately, the Windspire website is devoid of much actual technical information – at least that I can find. Neither can I find much information from their installed base. However, I did find that the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) tested the Windspire, and produced some useable data. I want to point out, this data is preliminary, done with an early example. If you look at the report, Windspire answered the NREL findings, and described the ways they are addressing some of the findings. Where that process is right now, I do not know.


So, first, the Windspire description. A VAWT (Vertical Axis Wind Turbine) with a maximum output of 1.2 kilowatts. It is capable of direct connection to the grid, and making use of net metering. The reported minimum wind speed is 8 Mph (Defined as a class 3 area). Best I can tell, the purchase and installation is in the range of $6,000 to $10,000.  This price range puts it on a par with the cost of installed Small scale (residential) Solar PV (PhotoVoltaics), albeit before any of the tax credits or incentives Solar is eligible for. I do not know how those credits would apply to Wind.

Here are the NREL testing results: Be sure to read the response letter from Mariah Power in the first link. It is apparent they took the results seriously, and they were proactive in addressing them.

Overview: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/pdfs/mariah_report.pdf
Performance: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/pdfs/mariah_power_performance_test_report.pdf
Main Testing page: http://www.nrel.gov/wind/smallwind/independent_testing.html


Wind Speed.

Alas, a problem that seems endemic to all small wind turbines, be they Vertical or Horizontal Axis,  is the need for speed – wind speed. Do not believe output claims. The typical wind turbine, in the typical wind, will put out but a fraction of the amount of electricity it claims to. While the NREL results with this particular model are telling, the story they tell can be applied to most, if not all.

Below is the output data  for the Windspire from their web site. Note that it does not produce any usable power at less than 8 mph – it’s stated cut-in speed. At 12 mph it is still producing less than 100 watts (1/12 rated power). It reaches half it’s rated power output, 600 watts in a twenty MPH wind, and does not reach full specified output (1200 watts) until the wind is “howling” at 24 Mph.

http://www.mariahpower.com/testing.aspx

Now, as I said, this seems to be true of most wind turbines, and especially of the VAWT designs I have seen. They need a lot of wind to produce usable amounts of electricity. By perusing average wind speed charts, it can be seen that this high cut-in speed limits the viable areas to a fraction of the US, mostly in the western plains and coastal areas.  Operating at half it’s output rating (20 MPH average winds) it would need to be in a class 5 area on the below chart. As well, the wind is intermittent. This is the average wind speed. Another thing we have to take into consideration is the capacity factor – what percentage of capacity is actually produced. All power sources have a capacity factor. Below I have provided a link to an explanation as related to wind. For a wind turbine of either design, the capacity factor is about 30%. The machine will produce about 30% of what is the calculated maximum. For the above situation, 20mph average, the annual output would be 5,256KWh per year times 30%, or 1,576 kWh per year . About 13% of the average annual US household electricity usage. (Per EIA Data). That is not bad, if you live where the wind blows! At the average electric cost of 11 cents per kWh, that would save you $174.00 per year. That makes the break-even point (at $6000 installed cost) at about 32 years. Oops, didn’t mean to be negative!



Here is a chart of the average annual windspeeds throughout the US.

http://www.windpoweringamerica.gov/pdfs/wind_maps/us_windmap.pdf

If you ever wondered, and you have a flagpole nearby, you can somewhat estimate the strength of the wind. Note that on the Beaufort scale used in the below link, you would need a level 3 wind (Flag flying almost straight out) before any of these small turbines would even start to produce usable power. And, at even half power, the  poor flag would be “stiff as a board”. What is YOUR flag doing?

http://www.redwitch.com/extras/flag_wind_speed.aspx


And, here is that explanation of capacity factor I promised.

http://www.ceere.org/rerl/about_wind/RERL_Fact_Sheet_2a_Capacity_Factor.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor


This link will take you to the specifications of a popular HAWT – The Skystream. It is twice the “size” of the Windspire. Most residential wind turbines are similar.

http://www.talcoelectronics.com/wind-manuals/skystream-specs.pdf

Here is a classroom project that contains power curves for several popular small wind turbines

http://www.kidwind.org/PDFs/LESSON_windpowercurves.pdf


Finally, here is a very interesting, albeit older, article about small wind turbine outputs. The author undertook to test a number of turbines with some revealing, if not unexpected, results.

http://www.wind-works.org/articles/PowerCurves.html




I also want to address Fatigue

A VAWT endures a lot of stress. The bad kind of stress. Repeating and reversing stress. Much more than a HAWT.  Many of the problems the Windspire encountered at NREL were due to poor stress management – in the turbine design, not necessarily in the creators.

 In a horizontal (propeller) turbine, the force of the wind is always from one direction, and pushes the blades in one direction. This stress is transferred via a thrust bearing directly into the tower structure. Propeller blades are a mature technology, and it is well understood how to make them withstand this type of stress. The direct, compressive nature of the force transfer to the support structure is also well understood, and  easy to implement. HAWT’s themselves do not often suffer failures from imposed wind loading.

In a VAWT, on the other hand, in every revolution of the blade structure the wind load reverses. First the blade is pushed one way, then the other. This creates fatigue. If you have ever bent a coat hanger back and forth until it snaps in half, you understand the process. This is not an easy thing to overcome. Some have tried – unsuccessfully – to address this with complex mechanical linkages. Complex and mechanical are not two words you want associated with something that is supposed to have a long lifetime. I want to touch briefly on the effects of these stresses, and the failure modes. While this is based on the NREL experience with the windspire, the principles apply to all.

As any structural engineer knows, you do not try to resist these forces, you absorb them by moving in a carefully defined way, and by spreading those forces out over as much of an area as you can. Trying to create a structure that will physically, with brute strength, resist these loads results in an incredibly massive structure. The bridge or building will collapse under it’s own weight, and the airplane would never get off the ground, let alone carry anything else. A wind turbine would be too heavy to move, and too massive to support (and cost even more of a fortune). It is much more practical, and in most cases necessary,  to go with the flow, than to fight against it.

If you take that same coat hanger we mentioned above, put your hands at the very, outer, ends of the hanger, and try to break it, you will find the task much more difficult, if not impossible. The stress you are putting on the hanger is no longer concentrated, it is spread out over a large area – the span of the wire.

It would appear the designers of the Windspire forgot this principle. To their credit putting it in practice is a tough job. Their test article at the NREL met with a number of fatigue failures. Interestingly enough, the primary place that these failures were concentrated in was the welded joints.

Now, about, welding. The joints on a VAWT have to be strong, and light. A welded joint does not lend itself well to this. If you look at bridges, large buildings, and Airplanes, you will find they are bolted (or riveted) together. Indeed, all of those structures are designed by people who know a lot about stress and repetitive reversing fatigue– especially airplanes. They learned long ago that you bolt the joints together. Rather than concentrating the stress in one, weak, spot, a bolted joint distributes that stress equally over the entire area. In effect, a bolted joint “gives” a little.

In their answer to the NREL test, it would appear the Windspire folks have learned that lesson, finally. The replaced a number of the failed welded joints with bolted ones. Hopefully this will eradicate some of the problems. I hope they also learned you need more than one engineering discipline to design something like this… Airfoils, electrical, mechanical, AND structural.

The other major source of stress in a VAWT is literally at the bottom. All of the bending loads that are imposed on the rotor are transferred to the bearing at the bottom. A critical, single, point that needs to not only resist all of these forces, but needs to turn freely at the same time. This is one of the major obstacles to engineering a VAWT, and one that especially challenges homebuilders.

Here is an interesting “PowerPoint” presentation on Wind Turbine design from Cornell.

http://cfd.mae.cornell.edu/~caughey/WindPower_09/Presentations/Lyons.pdf


Electronics

Finally, I truly do not understand why the Windspire suffered so many electrical problems, mainly with the inverter. Inverters are a mature technology. Many millions are happily and quietly puttering along converting DC Power to AC.  My guess would be that either they need another electrical engineer on the team, or that they tried to cut corners by making the inverter components just sufficient to do the job – in theory. This is not good engineering or good marketing, practice, especially in something so critical to the success. The cost of properly over-sizing the electrical components is very small compared to the cost of the unit, but the failure of these components exacts a high cost in their reputation. Hopefully a re-design will put these issues to rest.


Well, from the length of this post, It would appear I have overstayed my welcome. These are but a few of the challenges facing wind turbines. I will address others (and perhaps the same ones) from time to time. Eventually we will get there. Perseverance, patience and a commitment to putting one foot in front of the other. For now, I will maintain my belief that our best path leads to Large-Scale Wind power, and small scale Solar. But, who knows. I wish Mariah Power the best of luck, I will be watching.

The ARTI Biogas generator

---

---

I stumbled upon this interesting bit of technology while researching something else. It captured both my interest and my imagination. This unit is designed for use in underdeveloped areas to provide methane gas primarily for cooking. It is intended to offset the LPG normally used. It requires some effort, and the output is not much, but it is adequate for it's purpose. This is cool!

The unit is the size of a medium refrigerator, and reportedly costs about $200 USD. After setting it up, you provide it with about 4.5 pounds (2kg) of food waste, and 2 gallons of water. This is enough to produce 500 liters of methane gas a day. 500 liters is about 17 cubic feet of gas. Looking at my gas bill (heat & hot water) this would run my house for about 20 minutes. But, it appears to be enough to supply the cooking needs of a family. 17 cubic feet is equal to about 1/7 gallon of gasoline, so it is not for powering your CNG car unless you make really short trips! These units are apparently geting popular in India. Lets hope they catch on elsewhere. Below is a link to the ARTI Website, as well as a link to a technical analysis of the unit, and a very good Youtube video about the unit.

http://www.arti-india.org/content/view/45/40/

Technical analysis:

http://www.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/sandec/publikationen/publications_swm/downloads_swm/arti_biogas.pdf

Video about the unit

Incandescent Light Bulbs - new lease on life?

---

---

With the passing of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, many thought that incandescent light bulbs were going to disappear, because they could not meet the new efficiency standards. While it is true that many styles of lamps have already gone away, this article I came across appears to give the incandescent lamp some hope for the future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/business/energy-environment/06bulbs.html

See, manufacturers can often make more efficient products if they set their minds to it. Unfortunately economics says they continue to produce what they always have, and what they have an investment in. That is, until something happens to make their old standby products obsolete.

Make no mistake. If you are a manufacturer, and you have a huge investment in factories to produce a product, changing those factories to manufacture a new product can be expensive, time consuming, and a bit daunting. We cannot blame a business for wanting to stay viable, and make a profit on their investments. This is one area where reasonable, and responsible, legislation is not only proper, but can force change in a positive direction.

Wiki article on Incandescent light bulbs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incandescent_light_bulb

This is a link to the ENTIRE Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Good luck trying to read it:

 http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=110_cong_bills&docid=f:h6enr.txt.pdf

Since the act is, as usual, highly indecipherable, a summary of it's provisions is handy.

And, here it is: http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/RL342941.pdf