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]

[fred @ Dec 26th 2007 3:55AM]

"

But even ones that come on quickly only come on at 10-20% brightness at first, then take at least 1-2 minutes to warm up and reach full brightness. I find that incredibly inconvenient."

you must be basing your criticism on old bulbs.
all the ones i've tried from ikea or ge turn on very quickly. my philips t8 tubes turn on instantly.and i do mean instantly. electronic ballasts with instant start mean just that, instant. many cfs take slightly longer, but its not 10-20% brightness at start, its far more, and they are more than usable within 10 seconds or less.

for most applications regular bulbs are no longer justifiable. i like how ikea has always carried lights and fixtures that worked well wtih cf's unlike home depot or lowes.

"
The biggest fraud are the outlandish claims of savings for the average household. I've counted all the bulbs in my house, done the calculations and based on the actualy experience I've had testing CFLs, found that they don't actually pay for themselves. I save more money by hounding my kids to turn off lights when they leave a room (and to not turn the air conditioner way down in the summer and heater way up in the winter.)"
i've used a kill-a-watt meter to measure actual power use. they do save power and measure as advertised. using 75% less power is not insignificant. its not so much about saving money as about not being wasteful. its a rather small effort for doing good. we aren't talking about stopping eating meat or anything. if you can't be bothered to pick the low hanging fruit what are you teaching your children?

[Rocketboy @ Dec 26th 2007 8:20AM]

Dear Government,
I will buy the most efficient bulb on the market for the application that I need it for. For the companies that are able to make and sell a product that I find the one that fits my need, I will reward them with my purchase. For the companies that do not, I will not buy their products, and so, they will not receive any sort of incentive to sell that particular product. This is an example of something that happens in a free market. There's many sources of information about the free market in your local library, the Internet, or bookstores such as Amazon.com.

The more you know....

[Wwhat @ Dec 26th 2007 10:41AM]

Hah, we'll bury those chinese economic competitors in phosphor/mercury(-waste)! Clever, I guess..

[MBS @ Dec 26th 2007 11:34AM]

Awesome, now the Chinese will have somewhere to put all that lead they can't use in toy-paint anymore.
Now they can use it to manufacture those "environmentally friendly" compact florescent bulbs yay!

[Che @ Dec 26th 2007 7:29PM]

If you want good CFLs don't by the $1 bulbs subsidized by your utility. The color often sucks and the wattage is too low to replace anything but the smallest of bulbs.

Buy a nice TCP bulb with a color temperature you like. If you live for dim, yellow incandescent light, try a 2700K bulb. If you like light more like natural outdoor light, try 3300K, 4000K or even 5500K. I find that different rooms work best with different colors.

And don't buy a 23W Fluorescent to replace a 100W incandescent, it won't be as bright. Try at least 30-35 watts of fluorescent light for each 100W of incandescent you're replacing. Aim to make your room a bit brighter - reward yourself if you like a lot of light, like I do.

CFLs allow a more natural light temperature (not so yellow and more like sunlight), but have a less even distribution of frequencies, so they have lower Color Rendering Indexes than incandescents, which I think have a CRI of 100 by definition. There is a trade-off with regard to light quality with each having its advantages, unless you really love sickly, yellow light.

There is no trade-off with regard to price or energy. The energy used in production and transport is completely insignificant in comparison to the huge reduction in energy use. I believe the mercury in the CFL bulbs is also trivial in amount and people who whine about it are just raising a red herring to excuse their resistance to change.

All of that said, my new place (rented, so I can't change it) has small recessed cans, where decent CFLs won't fit. My CFLs from my last two places are in storage, although I'm making a lot of use of dimmable fluorescent torchiere (sp?) lamps.

I really despise the uneven light and multiple shadows I get with the halogen spots and chandeliers in this place. It makes reading very difficult especially if you're reading a glossy magazine. Indirect light reflected off a white ceiling from a lamp is infinitely preferable. That the lamps I use are fluorescent, save electricity, have a good CRI and are of a color temperature I like certainly makes the whole thing a much better deal for me.

[Che @ Dec 28th 2007 1:26AM]

A ban in 5 years is pretty stupid, tax them now (maybe $1 per bulb) to encourage people to use more efficient lights, increase the tax later (maybe $5 per bulb), but don't ever ban them. If it's really that important to somebody that they're willing to pay a price proportionate to the harm done, let them buy the damn things. With the right lever of tax, you could use the money to more than make up for the wasted energy.

[Stephen @ Jan 5th 2008 2:23PM]

Good god people, read before you bitch and moan:

"But second to that, the simple light bulb will likely bring the biggest energy saving to consumers.

The law calls for the phaseout, beginning in 2012, of the inefficient incandescent bulb that has been in use since the days of Thomas Edison. By 2014 these bulbs "will be virtually obsolete," says Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who wrote the lighting provision in the bill.

While the law will not dictate specific technology, the 100-watt bulb will have to be replaced, for example, by one that provides the same amount of light for 72 watts, with additional improvements required by 2020."

Halogen "Incandescent" bulbs already meet this requirement!
Wikipedia on Light Bulbs:
"Quality halogen incandescent lamps are closer to 9% efficiency, which will allow a 60 W bulb to provide nearly as much light as a non-halogen 100 W"

The eradication of the Edison bulb is a natural and needed evolution, be it legislated or not.

[The Interim Court Jester @ Jan 8th 2008 8:55PM]

Why do we continuously allow our government to mess with success? The technology we are accustomed to is not broken, so why fix it? The diminutive incandescent lamp is a proven, reliable device. It has served us well for 130 years and shouldn't be relegated to the highway of obsolescence. Nothing has been conclusively established about the health concerns related to the proposed replacement technologies and that's just enough to make me wary. Why is this happening? They want us to believe it's the green thing to do. It's green alright. Just follow the money trail.

[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