‘Socket Survey’: Many Don’t Know About Light Bulb Phase Out
OSRAM SYLVANIA released a new national study today, demonstrating that 78 percent of Americans do not know of the federal legislation to phase out incandescent light bulbs.
The “Socket Survey,” is the first study to evaluate the awareness of and attitudes about energy-efficient lighting and the upcoming phase out. According to the poll, although most surveyed were not aware of the legislation that applies to incandescent bulbs,:
- 88 percent consider the energy efficiency of their light bulbs before purchase
- 85 percent are aware that compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) use less energy than incandescents; 77 percent know that CFLs last 10 times longer than incandescents
- 78 percent believe CFLs are less expensive over the lifetime of the bulb
- 76 percent were willing to switch to CFLs in the future
- 21 percent have light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in their homes
The phase-out of the incandescent bulb was established through the 2007 Clean Energy Act. As part of the legislation, new efficiency standards for lighting will make a majority of inefficient light bulbs obsolete by 2014, with mandatory phase outs beginning in 2012.
One-fifth of U.S. energy is consumed by lighting, making the transition to more efficient bulbs paramount. As more bulbs are replaced, however, the waste generated by spent incandescents will continue to grow. Additionally, burnt out CFLs present an immense environmental hazard, as they contain the neurotoxin mercury. Properly disposing of and recycling these bulbs will continue to be a mounting concern as more people purchase and use them.
As of June 17th 2011 we have upgraded our comment system to use Facebook comments.
The below comments are closed and are listed for historical purposes.
Meredith
posted on December 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Count me in the 78% who didn’t know that the old bulbs would be phased out. We have been replacing most of the frequently-used lights in our house with CFLs, and now have a good-sized box sitting in the basement that’s half-full of incandescent bulbs – what should we do with them? We’ve considered giving them to charity, but the point in replacing them is to save money, so that feels like it would defeat the purpose :)
E.
posted on December 14th, 2008 at 2:46 am
How many people will actually dispose or recycle CFLs in the proper way?
I’m going to pull a number out of my madhatter’s hat and say 20%. It’s not a joke.
Handing out individual sources of mercury vapors in CFLs is not the answer to reduction of mercury. This source creates a major problem with disposal – millions of lightbulbs containing mercury – because ultimately they will be in garbage bins and landfills across the U.S.
Mercury thermometers were removed from the market, the answer is not to reintroduce a mercury product, such as CFLs. A mercury thermometer contains 500 mg of Hg, and a CFL contains 5mg of Hg. But when a university or business throws out 40 light bulbs at one time, and the neighbors throw out their light bulbs. The cumulative source of mercury from millions of CFLs is the problem, even if you don’t think 1 broken light bulb is.
The solution is to reduce mercury from coal burning plants through use of scrubbers and advanced technology.
A consumer product has a lifespan. Follow the lifespan of a CFL. First you have to mine the cinnabar. Cinnabar is heated to create mercury. Thus creating more mercury. Then you have to inject mercury into the thermometer – leaks here at the factory are possible. Then the consumer buys it, uses it and either breaks it or disposes of it. Now you have mercury in the garbage, which ends up in a landfill or rather in the air we breathe because mercury is a vapor. So we have effectively, added a neurotoxin to the ecosystem and into our health.
And believe me having mercury poisoning is a long and dangerous illness, that effects the brain and body. You should interview someone with mercury poisoning.
d
posted on December 24th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
E – very good point, we have more coal than anyone on earth, it’s a great fuel source, let’s work on making it cleaner (which is being done). By phasing out incandescent bulbs with cfl’s doesn’t mean the public is going to properly dispose/recycle them. Look at aluminum cans, plastic bottles etc, they are still everywhere you go and not being recycled or even disposed of properly and that is with cash for recycle programs. I am now using a few cfl’s myself and I like the idea of cfl’s, it’s great EXCEPT for the mercury, after doing some research I found that just handling a broken 8 foot cfl you may need to wear respiratory protection, bag and tag glass and debris and dispose as a hazardous waste. Yeah right Joe the plumber (John Q. Public’s cousin) is going to do that. Energy issues are huge, there are no easy answers – but if the folks being polled knew of the hazards would they change their response?
CM
posted on December 29th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
The recycling issue could be easily solved if they allowed CFLs to be included in curbside recycling. But instead we are solving one problem by creating another.
Valerie
posted on January 3rd, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Here’s an answer to Meredith’s question concerning what to do with old incandescent lights – from another page on this website:
“HolidayLEDs.com Christmas Light Recycling Program
Don’t want to throw your old incandescent lights in the trash? Send them to us and we will recycle them for you and send you a coupon for 15% off.”
MKK
posted on January 11th, 2009 at 6:02 am
I suppose saving energy and money is the point of this story however, not to mention the serious long term health hazard from dropping and breaking a few of these CFL bulbs in a confined space such as a family room is disturbing.
Protecting our energy source is certainly important but the cost to your health and the health of your children should be paramount.
The cost to make these bulbs plus the health and environment problems seem to out weight the benefits. If this is the plan for the future, I’m stocking up on candles.
Anne
posted on January 22nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
I have to echo other comments here: the dangers of CFLs as they stand today do not outweigh the benefits. The great majority of people are not aware of the dangers to our communities health by simply throwing them in the trash (mercury released into our groundwater supplies).
Plus, have you read what the EPA recommends you do if you accidentally break one in your home? Leave the room for 15 minutes; throw away any items that come in contact with the broken pieces like clothes, bed sheets — even your carpet if small children play there!!!!
CFLs are bad news and not the right answer UNLESS someone figures out how to:
1. Make CFLs unbreakable
2. And make it so that the mercury is sealed in so well that bulbs could be disposed of with regular waste
3. Or have curbside weekly pick-up with other recyclables — but jeez, a lot of cities don’t even have curbside recycling for cans and bottles yet…
Stephanie
posted on January 28th, 2009 at 6:23 pm
One of our fluorescent bulbs just burned out. I know we should dispose of it properly, but where ? We live in the 01201 area code in Western Massachusetts. There are no recycling locations for our town. Now what ? I would hate to have to just throw it in with the rest of the garbage for Allied Waste to pick up. I refuse to pay to have it disposed of too. Now what ?
George A. Farhner
posted on February 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
The usefulness of the incandescent bulb is… MORE… than just for light. Since most of it’s energy ( about 85-90% ) is generated as…. HEAT….(aproximately 350 degrees F for a 100 watt bulb ) , it makes a very safe and non-toxic way to supply warmth to interior spaces during the winter months. This heat source can literally replace a gas furnace. As long as insulated window coverings are used and a small fan to move around the heat generated in the room. I speak from my own experience that THIS WORKS. Send me all your unwanted incandescent bulbs, (any wattage), and I will make good use of them !!!
Brett
posted on November 11th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
I read about this a while ago, and it really freaked me out. Well I called my states environmental- whatever, and they told me to toss them in the garbage. And that the mercury was vapor and, yes I swear it, they told me that it “disappeared”. Maybe they’ve been smoking the vapor, but its 80 miles to the nearest place that will recycle them- Home Depot. So I’m back with my old bulbs, after having bought about 10 of those stupid CFLs. Which by the way have indeed already burned out.
Carter
posted on December 30th, 2009 at 10:00 am
That the mandatory switch to CFL’s is largely unappreciated by consumers is no accident – this transition is intended to be stealthy. Unlike the enthusiasm with which manufacturers will position and advertise a superior new offering, across key dimensions (and I would argue, net net) this is an inferior product. And Sylvania, GE, etc., all know it. Flouescent lights have been available for decades – but their acceptancce had been generally limited to industrial and commercial applications because of the generally undesirable quality of the light and (to a lesser degree) the toxic materials used in the bulbs. If we wanted flourescent bulbs in our homes – except for utilitarian purposes – we could have them.
Execution of this transition is going to create yet another environmental disaster – one far more detrimental to the environment overall – than the estimated benefits associated with the aggregate reduction in power consumption that is forecasted. Yet another example of the law of unintended consequences resulting from well-meaning but pragmatism-deficient envoronmentalists.