Incandescent light bulbs be to shelved by 2012 in US

Better late than never, right? Regardless of your feelings on said mantra, the United States of America has finally passed a law barring stores from selling incandescent light bulbs after 2012. 'Course, the EU and Australia have already decided to ditch the inefficient devices in the not-too-distant future, but a new energy bill signed into law this week throws the US into the aforementioned group. Better grab a pack of the current bulbs while you still can -- soon you'll be holding a sliver of history.

[Image courtesy of HD]

[mlines @ Jan 29th 2008 3:07PM]

What they don't tell you is that the bill will ban compact fluorescents by 2016. By 2020, the only known technology that will pass the 120 lumens per watt standard is the sodium (very yellow light) streetlamp and LED's with a very poor color-rendering index. There is a trade-off between inefficent incandescents with a CRI of 100 and very efficient monochromatic LED's with a CRI of zero. The bill mandates poor quality lighting

[Grant @ Dec 24th 2007 6:11AM]

"to be shevled", not "be to shelved" I believe.

[shaun @ Dec 24th 2007 6:31AM]

That is the question.

[caubeck @ Dec 24th 2007 7:08AM]

Yes, "shevle" is a much better verb. Well done!

[Neebs @ Dec 24th 2007 9:05AM]

It's odd because I actually read it in my head as to be shelved.

[guilt+1 @ Dec 24th 2007 9:15AM]

@ Grant.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shelved

[Carbonize @ Dec 24th 2007 2:26PM]

Sorry for the double post. Damn works proxy.

[Kevin @ Dec 24th 2007 4:08PM]

"Shevle" isn't a word.

"Shelve" is a verb indicating "to place something on an shelf".

Look it up before you make yourself look stupid.

[Grant @ Dec 26th 2007 11:45AM]

Haha. Dude, I love messing with you guys.

[martin @ Dec 24th 2007 6:20AM]

2012? does the US government WANT to destroy the planet?

[Andrew Clarke @ Dec 24th 2007 6:57AM]

No, but they dont seem to care if they do

[derka @ Dec 24th 2007 8:49AM]

the world is supposed to end in 2012, coincidence? I think not.

[Hollywood Ron @ Dec 24th 2007 9:29AM]

Yes, my desire for good lighting in my house is totally killing the earth.

[yoshi @ Dec 24th 2007 10:54AM]

Just use halogen.

[Zach @ Dec 24th 2007 11:00AM]

? Take a look at our country. Your talking about a nation of over 300 million. Implementing a big change by law is not simple. It's not just pass law and force EVERYONE to switch. Not everyone has extra cash to just switch their lightbulbs to something else. It's the likewise with the current digital cable.

Four years is nothing.

[Kurtis @ Dec 24th 2007 12:43PM]

@Zach

You are an idiot because:

1) The use of incandescent light bulbs will not be outlawed, the stores simply cannot sell them anymore. So if you buy 300 incandescent light bulbs in 2011, you can still use them to your heart's content.

2) Even if you were right about having to switch all of you light bulbs once 2012 hits (which you aren't), it's not going to bankrupt anyone. A four-pack of CFLs at walmart is 8 bucks. If you have 20 lights in your house now (which is a large number to prove a point) that is 30 bucks. You have 4 years to switch, which is 48 months. You must somehow manage to scrape up a mind-boggling 68 cents per month (includes 8.25% sales tax) to pay for the switch. And let me reiterate, you ARE WRONG.

3)You said, "It's the likewise with the current digital cable." For anyone who has read anything on this topic, this point is pretty obvious.

[drew @ Dec 24th 2007 6:25AM]

Its not that far away, i expect that most stores will stop stocking them before that.

[Hany Hanna @ Dec 24th 2007 6:30AM]

Don't people know how unhealthy flourescent lights are? Our government officials are sick freaks of nature...they wanna micromanage our lives in the sickest ways. If we wanna use fuller spectrum lighting that doesn't blink rapidly that should be our choice.

[TMH23 @ Dec 24th 2007 8:01AM]

Maybe the full spectrum LED bulbs will catch on and become cheaper. The light from them in reading lamps is even much nicer than halogen.

There are also OTT-lite lamps. They're low wattage and much nicer on the eyes.

[Jeff @ Dec 24th 2007 8:36AM]

Quit freaking out, people. The law only mandates a certain level of efficiency, not a type of bulb. GE's already got high-efficiency incandescents that they claim will be ready for the market by 2010. This law almost seems to have been specifically crafted to give them plenty of time to start mass producing them.

The days of the CFL will be short. The light they produce sucks (their color rendering index is *always* below 100, which means worse than incandescent), they're expensive, they contain mercury, they're larger than incandescents. By 2012 we'll all be using high-efficiency incandescents and we'll be starting to use LED's. CFL's are a transitional technology.

[shawn @ Dec 26th 2007 12:26PM]

LEDs have a ways to go yet. I bought a few strands of LED holiday lights for my tree this year to give them a try. Ugh. They won't go on my tree next year.

They are *bright*. Really bright. So bright your ornaments end up looking like dark shapes rather than glittering decorations. The "white" light is so very, very white it nearly looks blue. And they seem to vibrate or visually "hum" or something. It's such a solid, continuous light that it bothers the eyes. Maybe someone might know why that is, but I hate looking at them.

So, to recap:

- overly bright
- cold color
- disturbing visual effect
- oh yeah, and not enough power to handle the Star Trek ornaments.

The incandescent holiday lights are nicer.

[charliex @ Dec 24th 2007 6:30AM]

Ahh good, replace one problem with another. Anyone read that story on the woman that paid 2,000 to have her house cleaned up after dropping a CFL, time to go into the mercury clean up business.

[GameboyRMH @ Dec 24th 2007 7:53AM]

As a matter of fact, I have heard that story:

http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/cfl.asp

[ComeGetVirus @ Dec 24th 2007 11:54AM]

The $2000 clean story is an urban myth. There is absolutely no reason, legal or health wise to pay someone to clean up after a CF bulb. The mercury content is NOT 5g its actually 0.005g, breaking the bulb would release an incredibly small part of that which could be easily cleaned up anyway.

These lights have been used in offices for decades.

[craig @ Dec 24th 2007 9:57AM]

"their color rendering index is *always* below 100, which means worse than incandescent"

Considering that 100 is the maximum value for CRI, that isn't a surprise. Not all incandescents have values of 100 either.

It's not that I endorse CFLs because I don't, it's that I can't stand stupid statements.

[rta53 @ Dec 24th 2007 11:03AM]

Yes I read that story. But have you read the one about all the naive people who fall for the latest email hoax.

[glenn s @ Dec 24th 2007 1:19PM]

The story about the woman who paid $2000 to clean up her broken CFL bulb only proved that some people are dumb. There are widely available instructions on how to clean up a broken CFL yourself, safely. The key point being, don't bring out the vacuum cleaner. The amount of mercury in today's CFLs is minuscule. As-in, 100x less than is in a single dental filling, according the article linked below.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/070518-cfls-bulbs.html

[charlie @ Dec 24th 2007 4:23PM]

Exactly why its a good time to get in the mercury clean up business...

[shaun @ Dec 24th 2007 6:36AM]

This is just depressing... I'll need to figure out a new way to visually express the fact that I've had a great idea in the year 2012. =(

[jivetrky @ Dec 24th 2007 6:44AM]

haha, classic!

[Whitetiger @ Dec 24th 2007 11:56AM]

ROFLMAO

[Deoki @ Dec 25th 2007 2:52AM]

For that extraordinary win, Sir, you deserve a oral favor from my humble sister.

[Jon @ Dec 24th 2007 6:44AM]

My current light bulbs will still work after the 2012 ban right?



"by the way, I was being sarcastic." -Homer

[torqueo @ Dec 24th 2007 6:52AM]

I'm on the right site, aren't I? This is engadget, isn't it? So why are you all talking about old CFL's when LED lamps are the future? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED_lamp

[evildoer86d @ Dec 24th 2007 7:15AM]

what happens to the 5 grams of mercury in every one of those bulbs when they burn out? sounds about as good an idea as ethanol in our gas.

[BoxOfSnoo @ Dec 24th 2007 7:50AM]

I think you mean 5mg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Mercury_emissions

[cherie22984 @ Dec 24th 2007 6:58AM]

I stopped buying incandescent light bulbs years ago. Your local Wal-Mart has a pack of six fluorescent bulbs for $20 fluorescent. http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=5984213
LED is currently too expensive.
Quite honestly anyone who is buying those Incandescent bulbs now is not that "BRIGHT"!

[Galley @ Dec 24th 2007 9:09AM]

The first thing I did when I moved into my new home was replace every single bulb with CFLs. They sell them for 6 for $10 at BJ's Wholesale Club. It's amazing how many light bulbs there are in a 3-bedroom house. I think I replaced about 30 of them.

[ScareyJ @ Dec 24th 2007 8:39AM]

Like many other people, CFLs are just tiding me over til the LED or similar technology gets cheap enough. The cheaper CFLs still have problems dying, humming, color variation, non-dimming, and larger bulb size. Despite the qwirks, we still use them in about 80% of the house ... but a more picky person could definitely take issue with them.

[Speddy @ Dec 24th 2007 10:12AM]

So you are admitting that the inside of your house looks like a laundrymat?

Seriously, I use halogen bulbs, on dimmers, at 40% their brightness and they have lasted 6 years. The color temperature is spot on (pun). But the important info here is "dimmable". You can't dim CFLs unless they have a dimmable ballast. Until they make dimming LEDs that are affordable, I'm stocking up on the bulbs.

I see this as another government-industry sham much like the "OMG, the ozone is depleting, quick, ban Freon and jack up the price of recharging Autos, new fridges and AC units!" Suckers...we'll be dead before they realize what fools the US taxpayers are.-some US congressman and CEO in a bathroom stall playing footsies.

[Doug @ Dec 24th 2007 10:21AM]

Yeah, there's the solution... Replace something that works with something that causes headaches, costs more, is noisy, doesn't work as well, doesn't last any longer, and contains more deadly chemicals. Great solution.

[Rocketboy @ Dec 26th 2007 8:15AM]

"Quite honestly anyone who is buying those Incandescent bulbs now is not that "BRIGHT"! "

Or maybe they have lighting needs that are not met with the current crop of CF bulbs? Maybe we don't like having to wait for a bulb to heat up enough to display full illumination? Or maybe we have light fixtures that a CF bulb cannot fit into. Maybe we are using CF bulbs where it's considered a "BRIGHT" idea, but we realize that you just cannot shoe-horn them into everything and it will work just fine.

[Pc_Madness @ Dec 24th 2007 7:16AM]

Doesn't the Australian ban come into affect in 2008? :unsure:

[Shawin @ Dec 24th 2007 7:17AM]

Incandescent bulbs look amazing when used with a dimmer. I have huge 500W bulbs whose filaments and yellowish light look really good. Fluorescent light looks too artificial and is hard on the eyes. Incandescent bulbs are similar to a real fire and closer to nature.
If I have to, I'll make my own incandescent lights.

[Mark Kent @ Dec 24th 2007 7:30AM]

GE have some great CF bulbs, have them all through my house. 'Burn' at 2700K when an Incandescent bulb is at 2500K so really can't tell the difference; a nice yellow, mellow, light. Really can't tell they are CF unless you turn them off. Of course they are about $6.50 each but worth it to me, and can only get cheaper.

[Steve A. @ Dec 24th 2007 10:16AM]

"Fluorescent light looks too artificial and is hard on the eyes."

Popular mechanics would like to have a word with you . . .

http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html

[Shawin @ Dec 24th 2007 11:04AM]

Try to find a transparent bulb and a CF and try them each. See for yourself and you'll notice how the bulb looks better. Popular mechanics is about the technical stuff. Plus I don't use lampshades, and CFs look really weird when not wearing shades.
Maybe it's just me. But I care about the looks and not just about what's inside.

[nak @ Dec 24th 2007 7:46AM]

This obsession with so-called "global warming" is out of control. The whole problem will be moot in 50 years when we run out of oil. We should be burning up the rest of it as quick as possible instead of dragging it out with "efficient" light bulbs and "efficient" cars.

[Jamie Marsden @ Dec 24th 2007 7:49AM]

I can totally see the rationale for doing this - I only wish that there were better means of dimming CFLs - I use my bulbs dimmed at least 70% of the time, because I find that it suits my evening moods better. Whilst you can buy very expensive CFLs that operate at 3 or 4 levels of brightness, they do not have the smooth gradation that you get on an incandescent bulb.

[Matt @ Dec 24th 2007 11:31AM]

I totally agree. I went through our house to replace incandescents with CF's but there were only two rooms where the light I use isn't on a dimmer. Even my front exterior lights are on a dimmer. (It's a very attractive effect, by the way, especially when your near a city street light and don't need bright lights in your yard.)

Anyway, they can have my incandescent bulbs when they pry them from my cold, dead hands, or perhaps when they come out with CF's or other "approved" bulbs that work on my existing dimmer switches, and emit warm light.