Incandescent Bans Initiated in Europe, Set for U.S.
Sept. 1 was a landmark day for energy-efficiency in the EU, as a new law requires retailers to stop ordering incandescent light bulbs. The bulbs are being phased out until 2012, with stores selling compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) and halogen bulbs instead.
The EPA recommends that burnt out CFLs are returned to local recycling centers or household hazardous waste events that accept CFLs. Photo: Amanda Wills, Earth911.com
In the U.S., incandescent bulbs will be phased out by 2014 under the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. Nothing will be mandated until 2012, although in many areas, energy companies are offering incentives such as mail-in rebates to switch to CFLs.
One of the issues involved in switching from incandescent bulbs to a more energy-efficient model is the upfront cost. CFLs can cost up to 10 times more than an incandescent bulb, and the even more energy-efficient light-emitting diodes (LEDs) can cost up to $50 for a single bulb. However, the cost difference is typically negated both in energy bill savings and longevity of the bulb.
So far, cost of the bulbs does not seem to be a deterrent. According to Time Magazine, Google recently purchased 25,000 LED bulbs from Lemnis Lighting, and Lemnis has sold 3 million bulbs in Europe alone. The company began selling them online to U.S. customers in August 2009.
A recent Consumer Reports study found that buying the more expensive types of CFL bulbs may not be necessary. The study tested 24 different bulbs and found that, at even $1.50 per bulb, can “outshine pricier versions while using far less energy and lasting far longer than incandescent bulbs, saving about $56 over the life of each CFL.”
Regardless of which brand of CFL you choose, it’s important to remember that each bulb contains a trace amount of mercury. This means that, unlike incandescents, they need to be recycled when the bulb burns out.
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.
Brian Dancer
posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 10:48 am
Your finishing sentence is so important; these bulbs must be recycled. Even if there is a small charge for this, the money saved over the life of the bulb on your energy bill will more than make up for it. That keeps the earth cleaner by recycling mercury, and keeps it cleaner by using less bulbs (longer life), and it keeps the earth cleaner by using less energy.
That said, I still think people should be encouraged to use them, instead of being forced. =)
JenniferClement
posted on September 3rd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
There needs to be easy drop off areas or pick up services (with reg. recycling collections) for the used CFL bulbs. If you don’t make it easy and accessible, I can guarantee that the masses will throw them in the garbage.
peter dublin
posted on September 4th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Unlike most people against this ban,
I agree with the need to do something about emissions (for all they contain, whatever about CO2)
But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,
and I think people who are less in agreement with
the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.
Let’s think about this:
Europeans, like Americans, choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves were banned… they were bought less anyway.
Supposed savings don’t hold up for many reasons:
(http://ceolas.net#li13x onwards)
A few examples here:
Brightness problem of CFLs:
Supposed equivalents are not actually equivalent in brightness, so
higher energy using CFLs needed for adequate brightness.
See recent testing of CFL brightness versus ordinary bulbs:
telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/6110547/Energy-saving-light-bulbs-offer-dim-future.html
CFL Lifespan is lab tested in 3 hour cycles. That does not correspond to real life usage and numerous tests have shown real life type on-off switching reducing lifespan. Leaving lights on of course also uses up energy, as does the switch-on power surge with CFLs
Also, CFLs get dimmer with age, effectively reducing lifespan
Power factor: Few people know that CFLs typically have a power factor of 0.5 – that means that power stations use up twice as much power than what the CFL rating shows. This has to do with current and voltage phase differences set up when CFLs are used.
Although consumers do not see this on their meters, they will of course have to pay for it on their bills.
This is explained with official links including to US Dept of Energy here:
ceolas.net/#li15eux
Heat benefit from using ordinary incandescent light bulbs
ceolas.net/#li6x
A little bulb near the ceiling may not seem like much, but
room heat substantially rises to the ceiling (convection) and spreads downwards from there. As shown via the above link with American and Canadian research references, half of more of supposed switch savings are negated in temperate climates.
Also: Much greater energy in CFL manufacture, transport (from China) and recycling, compared to ordinary simple light bulbs.
Effect on Electricity Bills
If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate
(not least in USA, power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise…
Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.
A direct effective way to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
ceolas.net/#cc10x
The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce consumption would make much more sense, since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.
A few euros/dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html
However, taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply better than bans also for ban proponents, in overall emission lowering terms.
Of course a ban is underway, but in phases, with reviews in a couple of years time…
The strange and unpublicised EU and industrial politics that went on before the ban took place:
ceolas.net/#li1ax
Maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American and Canadian debate?
AnnInFL
posted on September 6th, 2009 at 9:57 am
I am all for saving energy. I have tried CFL bulbs in my home, and I have found them to be disappointing. They often take several seconds to come on after I switch on the light. Even if they come on right away, they are dimmer at first compared with incandescents, and take several minutes to “warm up”. Sometimes I am finished using the light even before the CFL bulb gets going!! This is extremely ANNOYING. I have also noticed that the bulbs do NOT last as long as claimed. I am having to change CFLs about as often as I have had to change my incandescents. And they are MUCH more expensive! So what good are they? Is anything being done to improve the quality or reduce the cost? Maybe not, and that is why the government has to MANDATE (i.e. FORCE) us to buy these crappy products. And how many people will simply throw them in the trash instead of recycling them? We already have mercury now in ALL species of our fish! Thanks, government.
Linda A.
posted on September 9th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
I recently wrote to the EPA, and they told me that incandescent bulbs are NOT being phased out, but that they ARE going to be required to be more energy efficient. That’s good, because the EPA’s own web site says that incandescent bulbs are better to use in light fixtures that are on for 15 minutes or less at a time, and CFs are better in fixtures that are on for more than 15 minutes at a time.
AnnInFL, I’m sorry to hear about your “disappointing” experiences with CF bulbs. I’ve been using CFs myself for a few years now, and I’m very pleased with them. They come on right away, and provide light that’s every bit as good as incandescent, even BETTER, I think. I’ve yet to have to replace one because it burned out prematurely, and, they’re not all that expensive, at least not compared to LED bulbs. However, that they contain mercury is their sole drawback.
C Douglas
posted on September 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Please be aware that individuals with Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotopic_sensitivity_syndrome) are sensitive to fluorescent lights. The flicker ,or hertz, rate can trigger migraines and seizures.
LED bulbs are preferred since there is no flicker.
Also, the toxicity of LED’s are lower (white and blue colored LED’s are the least toxic) than fluorescents, more energy efficient and have a longer life.
Please take this information into consideration before jumping on the fluorescent campaign.
Dennis
posted on September 10th, 2009 at 12:45 am
I am against banning incandescent light bulbs – while almost all of my home is lit by florescent, with a few LED night lights also, I love the fact that I have the option of using regular light bulbs, which I do in a rarely used chandelier, and for most night lights for my elderly dog – the LED ones just don’t cut it, and the florescent ones haven’t worked well either.
I love florescent for most things, but the bulbs over the stove is halogen, which makes food look very appetizing. I find myself thinking about the very real possibility of power supply problems on our again power grid, where regular light bulbs will work with less voltage, and are easy to switch out to “tough service” or “lower voltage” bulbs for areas where problems are apparent. And if grandpa or grandma needs a particular bulb to make reading easier, they certainly deserve it! Banning incandescent bulbs is just plain stupid in my opinion.
lynniss
posted on September 12th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
#1: The government banning lightbulbs is ridiculous. Hey Congress, try banning crossing the border illegally and sponging off the welfare/healthcare system. Try banning lawyers from getting child molesters off with a hand slap. Ban your raises while 10% of the country is out of work. Priorities, please!
#2: Most people don’t recycle so having the added mercury in our landfills is going to negate any positive factors of the CFLs. I know, let’s have the government have police go through our trash and give us tickets if we don’t recycle! Or wait, I believe PAPER is the biggest landfill item percentage-wise. Let’s ban paper instead!!
#3: I am a recycling fool. I recycle my own items and I take items home from work to recycle, too. I try to get people around me to do it, too. Guess how many do it: 1. Why not all of them? because they “just don’t think about it.”
Point being: if you’re going to impact the world, thing big. A household may throw away 1 or 2 lightbulbs every 6 months to a year because incandescent bulbs last a pretty long time. However, a household throws away thousands of pieces of paper, plastic and metal per year. Don’t start with banning lightbulbs–end with banning lightbulbs after you’ve taken care of the other stuff.
Tex Lovera
posted on October 13th, 2009 at 11:45 am
The hypocrisy of the green community never ceases to amaze me.
Mercury is public enemy number 1 when it comes to waste discharges, being regulated to the parts per BILLION. But NOW, well, if one of your eco-friendly crappy new CFCs breaks (gee, when’s the last time you busted a light bulb at your house?), hey, it’s no big deal!!
Tell ya what, EPA: get the [EDITED] out of my house. Don’t tell me what toilet/showerhead/light bulb I must buy. Convince me on their merits! Or is that even possible?
Live free or die…
Rob
posted on October 20th, 2009 at 12:41 am
You all are very knowledgable people when the joke of how many people to change a light bulb is less then how many people to make the light bulb and get rid of the light bulb, there are issues the CFL is overated on life span and specifications and more hazardous waste. I do adgree with normal ballasted florescent lighting last longer burns cooler for light produced against the CFL but still the initial cost factor.
there is not a country that does not tax it’s people were they are the people and the constumer should always be right from a USA stand point. We all need to hold those in office no matter what country accountable we have to bug them to no end like this post we all agree pretty much cause your sane thoughtfull what you decide to buy and use properly and consequences.
Mike
posted on October 26th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
The argument that CFLs last longer is a load of bull. I have bought 10 CFL bulbs over the last 2 years, and despite the claim that they last “up to 9 years GUARANTEED,” a mere 3 bulbs still work today (some failed after as little as two months). Of course, I could send them back to the manufacturer for replacement under warranty, but where is the cost savings in paying for shipping?
All that aside, it really isn’t the fluorescent tube itself that is the problem. The problem is that all these bulbs are made in China with the cheapest garbage possible. The base of a CFL bulb has a reasonable amount of electronics in it, for the ballast, etc. And, having dissected a couple bulbs that have burned out, I can attest to the fact that these bulbs are made with horribly cheap electronic parts that overheat, causing the lamp to fail, rather than the fluorescent tube actually burning out. If the parts used were of better quality, there’s a good chance the bulbs would last much longer, but in their current state, I don’t see the cost savings even at dollar store prices if the bulbs have to be replaced every couple months.
Ramogg
posted on December 19th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Hello,
By the end of 2007, I replaced all my incandescent bulb with CFL’s to help the planet. My wife complain several times because the ugly light and how she fills nausea but the electric bill compensates all.
We experience every year health problems with my kids (like cold, influenza, etc). However, this year was excessive, over 6 events during year compare with 2 events in 2008.
A few weeks ago we discover a lot of mildew in all closets on each room, we never had this problem in the past. Looking in the thermometer I detect that Temperatures variates from 12-35°C and Humidity from 30-88% and most of the time is around 65-70% inside the house, just in 2009.
I evaluate to use a dehumidifier and it cost around 250 usd and consume around 350-500 Watts, this is not an option is too expensive.
If I evaluate the cost to save the planet, do we really save the planet buying more complex technology for lighting or heating?, I know that all electronics are produce with toxic components and chemicals. Are the CFL’s cheaper than Incandescent bulbs in the overall bill of the house? Are CFL’s safe for human use? The elimination of a simple technology as incandescent bulbs will really reduce the global warming?
I have no data from 2007 but I will make an experiment and replace again all CFL’s with incandescent bulbs. My thinking now is the following. Incandescent light produces heat also, heat dries the ambient and maintain humidity around 50-60% which does not cause mildew issues. This obviously will reduce the Dr’s, clothes and the house reparation bills that are comparable more expensive than electricity and my wife finally will obtain a nice light. By the way, she is suffering some headaches since one year I do not know if is related to this.
Do you have similar issues?
Drew
posted on January 3rd, 2010 at 8:31 am
Long live the medium base! You know true inovation is here when the new product makes the users of the old product look foolish for using the old product. When an office building buy’s new recess lighting without medium bases and the plug-in CFL’s deplete fast and never come close to meeting thier 10,000 hour avg… then the ballast that runs them needs to be replaced every two years or so at a cost of $50. Well, frankly the user of the new “Inovation” devices looks pretty silly. Self ballasted meduim base CFL’s are ready for prime time but, the urge of the fixture makers to create proprietary bases and sockets is going to ruin what we are trying to accomplish (reduced carbon output). Smart building owners will learn fast that these new sockets are there to drive up the cost of the devices that light thier building. Under engineering worked well in the computor business and will create super profits in the lighting business. The moral of the story is that where the fixture has room a medium or candle base, they should be used for maximum lamp choice!
Chris
posted on January 8th, 2010 at 9:54 am
I’ve tried using many CFL bulbs in different lighting applications around my home. I havn’t been happy with any of them. Who says these bulbs last six years. I’ve never had one last longer than three months. If you turn the CFL bulbs off and on only a few times a day, they burn out very quickly. It seems that once they are installed, they need to remain on at all times in order to get any length of service from them. The technology on these bulbs needs to improve before the government decides to phase out the incandescent bulbs. Plus, if you need a bulb that dims, don’t even look for a CFL that you’ll be happy with. They cannot dim down near as much as an incandescent, they flicker and make noise. Plus the CFL’s are poison with their mercury content. There is no recycling center within several hundred miles of my home and they only take items from residents of the city the recycling center is in. So, into the landfill they go. How is that helping the environment? I guess since the incandescent bulbs are going to be phased out by 2014, I’ll begin buying stockloads of them to last my lifetime.
Mike
posted on January 20th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Here is my 0.02. Banning incandescent bulbs is a mistake. First with the Hg in the CFLs, my guess is that the large percentage of spent lights will end up in landfills rather then being recycled. People will find it much easier to walk to the trash can rather than transport burned out CFLs to a recycling center. We already have enough methyl mercury in the food chain supply with contaminated fish. The last thing we need is Hg in the groundwater from landfill leachate. The whole PC premise for not using incandescents is a bunch of bunk in my opinion…call it climate change or whatever the name du jour is, its simply not happening like its being stated. Sure, I can say this since my degree is in geology with 20 years of experience and knowing much more about earth history than Al Gore could ever try to articulate. The fact is the planet has been on about a 10 year cooling trend that has absolutly nothing to do with CO2 levels. Worried about coal fired plants? Get the “environmentalists” out of the way and build nuke plants. France has done very well with theirs.
Jill
posted on February 4th, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Anyone ever break one of these great energy efficient bulbs??? Happened to us last night. Luckily I had seen a piece about this on TV last year. My hubby immediately went on the net. Had to open the doors to get ventilation, clean up the mess by hand, duct tape, and lysol wipes to get the powder. Then had to throw out the rugs and bath mat, that’s right throw them out. Can’t put them in the washer or it will be contaminated and risk the possibility of exposing other clothes to the mercury. The bathroom fan has been running for 24 hours with the door closed, that’s right, can’t use the bathroom for 24 hours. The kicker – none of this is listed on the bulb packaging. The only thing it says is that it contain mercury. Thanks a lot ! Saving energy is not worth risking my childrens’ health !
Littleman
posted on February 13th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
Have tried “1″ CFL and it did in fact dim-out after a while, a period very close to the amount of time I usually get from a regular bulb. Might be a good idea, the CFL’s, but so much info out there about the mercury content and its known hazard to human life and the alleged savings makes me very skeptical about purchasing any more. Unemployment does not allow for a more expensive “theory.”
W.L.Roberts
posted on February 15th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
@C Douglas: I wasn’t aware of the issues with Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome – hadn’t even heard of it, as a matter of fact. But thank you for the link for more information. You can add Lupus to the list (http://www.lupus.org/). Since Lupus is so individualistic, not everyone is affected the same way, but in the past I have known patients whose reactions to flourescent light was equal to four hours of exposure to noontime, summer sun.
If the EPA is going to mandate the use of flourescent lights (compact or otherwise), then the EPA will be in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act – unless they’d prefer that we go back to beeswax candles and whale-oil lamps?
Nick in Japan
posted on February 25th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
I have lived in Japan for the last 10+ years now and I am all for CFLs… But they have their place and I do agree that incandescants are still my choice of light when it comes to reading. I have yet to have one last for more than a year except the ones in my bed side lamps. The ones in my living room point down as the ones in my bed room point up. I used the ole heat detector (my hand) and found that the CFL bases were extremely hot in my living room and cool to the touch in my bed room. Heat does play a major roll with the electronics. The CFL manufactures seriously need to address this issue before any legislation is enacted to ban incandescent.
I have noticed, only on really cold days, which the CFLs do take some time to light up. Other than that, I see not time delay in them coming on.
I suffer from migraines and if you do, you need to find out which Frequency is your trigger. They make dozens ranging from 3500 Hz to 11500 Hz. But most common household lights range from 5300-9000Hrz. I found that the 7300 Hz and up doesn’t trip my migraines.
As far as the Mercury content and its toxicity. It is marginal at best. Your standard 18″ florescent bulb contains 4-6 times the mercury that a CFL contains. If you break one don’t freak out. Just have every one leave the room and open the windows. Most of the .04 micrograms of mercury are outgases. Any reaming mercury is locked up in the powder on the inside of the lamp. Once you clean up the broken glass and wipe down the immediate area. The remaining mercury is less than the natural background mercury levels. If you have a breakage on a carpet. Just vacuum it after picking up as much glass as passable with disposable gloves and 3×5 cards or cut up a milk carton. Then just throw away the vacuum bag. The 24-hour bathroom event and throwing away the rugs was way over kill. You would only do that if you broke a mercury thermometer containing about .1 grams of LIQUID mercury or more.
Bottom line it is just a choice. Do the risks outweigh the benefits for YOU.
Arthur
posted on February 26th, 2010 at 1:28 pm
This article and the comments do not provide complete and useful information about CFLs and enrgy use reductions.
CFL lamps are available from many manufactureres in many types. The cheap promotional CFLs do have short life, poor color, and slow start up.
The name brand CFLs (GE, Osram-Sylvania, Philips, Max-Lite, Ushio, Panasonic) do have better performance and better color. The newst CFLs are very small, start instantly, and have excellent color.
CFLs in enclosed fixtures need to have a high operating temperature, the manufacturers web sites have this information. Typically they work from minus 10 degrees F to 120 to 145 degrees F.
CFLs are not good for short operation and multiple switching as several people noted. They, generally, do not work on timers, dimmers, photocells, and many electronic control systems.
CFLs that dim may work on a limited number of dimmers, Leviton has a new dimmer that will work with many CFLs. CFLs that dim 20% or less are not seen by the human eye.
It is better to have a dedicated dimming system with a pin based lamp (4 pins) for optimal performance. Fluorescent color does not change when dimmed, light intensity is lessened.
We are nearing a tipping point with oil availability. Energy costs will increase (triple or more?) when peak oil avaiability is reached and supplies decline. 50% of US power is dirty coal. Supplies of coal are also declining. Reducing energy use NOW is the only way forward.
California energy use is nearly 50% less than the US average, this is roughly the same as Denmark. Energy codes, utility incentives, and the elimination of high energy consuming lighting, HVAC, and appliances all have contributed to the reduction in energy use in California. The alternative would have been to build 1 nuclear power plant every mile from San Francisco to San Diego.
CFLs are one part of reducing energy use by 70%.
Taking responsibility for our natural resource consumption is a mandate for each of us if we are to maintain a meaningful and enjoyable life.
Mona
posted on March 10th, 2010 at 1:03 pm
I read the article and comments w/ interest. I recycle everything I can and nudge others to do the same where I live, US, regardless of pushback. I can be rather annoying about it. In other words, I do my best to step lightly on the Earth. However…. CFL’s both in the beggining, and now w/ improved…. I find disturbing. Yes disturbing. The earlier ones I could hear and was unable to use. The improved ones I hear only slightly, but the noise is overshadowed by the light they emit. Unpleasant, unnatural and actually aggravating. I have extraordinary hearing (obviously) and although they have improved the ballast (or something) the light the emit is just as bothersome. I also had the experience when I used one in a stovetop overhead that it burned out in half a year.
For now I will stick w/ true full spectrum (Chromalux) lighting for my reading and ambient light, and true reveal for the others. Do I want to use a less power drawing bulb? of course. But the health costs, peace of mind, etc, far outweigh the concept. And frankly it is new technology, just like CELL PHONES! can’t wait for that other shoe to drop..
Jeffrey F.
posted on March 11th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Yay! I’m all for this, the ban. I’ve used CFLs since they were first available in stores. I’ve had to recycle about 5 of them in the last 10 years. The rest are still working. Our energy bills have been lower, because of this. I agree with the ban, because their are a lot of people out there that do not care about long term savings. They just go for the cheapest thing on the shelves, furthermore some people just love to resist change, and throw it in other people’s faces. I guess, in a way, the people for change, are doing the same thing, but sometimes, we need to “get back”. Hehe, seriously, though, I think overall this has been a great move, if only this practice were more popular with other things. For people against the ban, this is like saying leaded gasoline shouldn’t have been banned, and people should be able to choose what they want to purchase. If the leaded gasoline were cheaper, I guarantee, that some people would buy it, solely d/t cost. They don’t care, they just want cheap things, so they have more money to buy other useless cheap things, and replace the cheap things they buy, when they break, with other cheap things. Some people just don’t care, and need to be chided into things.
186
posted on March 15th, 2010 at 6:49 am
If I use solar I should be able to purchase 100 watt bulbs and burn them all day if I like..PERIOD!
Ever take a gander at the load of electronic components required and contained in a CFL?
People pushing these bulbs and most other “environmentally friendly” alternatives on others are usually uninformed, obnoxious, judgmental hypocrites.
Linda A.
posted on March 19th, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Below is from an e-mail I received from the EPA last July:
Subject
I’ve read that incandescent light bulbs will be phased out by 2012…
Discussion Thread
Response (Public Access) 07/21/2009 12:01 PM
Thank you for your inquiry to the EPA Web site. Your request has been received by the Headquarters Public Access Service, a contractor operated reference and referral service.
You asked if incandescent light bulbs will be phased out by 2012.
Federal energy conservation standard are enforced by the Department of Energy (DOE). You may want to contact DOE directly for guidance on this issue.
Contact the DOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Information Center at:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/informationcenter/
We were able to find the following fact sheet on the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy web site:
FACT SHEET: General Service Incandescent Lamp Provisions Contained in EISA 2007
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/lighting_legislation_fact_sheet_03_13_08.pdf (PDF, 2 pages)
From the fact sheet:
“The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President on December 19, 2007. The new law contains provisions for phasing in more efficient incandescent lamps, as described below.
1) Is there a requirement to phase out incandescent lights by 2012?
No, EISA 2007 established minimum efficiency and lifetime requirements which apply to general service incandescent lamps, as defined by the legislation. The standards that were promulgated by the EISA 2007 will require that manufacturers improve the performance of these lamps over two years, starting on January 1, 2012.”
So you see, folks, incandescent bulbs are NOT being phased out! They’re just going to be required to be more energy efficient, that’s all. Why would they be phased out when the EPA’s own website says that incandescents are better than CFLs in light fixtures that are on for less than 15 minutes at a time. It makes no sense.
That said, with the exception of their mercury content, I like CFLs myself, and I have them in all my lamps that are on for longer than 15 minute periods. They give a very pleasant light, and, in my experience, at least, they last a heck of a lot longer than incandescents.
Vanya
posted on March 23rd, 2010 at 9:47 am
OK, well, this is cool. I’m using for research for school, and it’s a great resource. Very interesting. Sorry that I can’t say more, but I’m in a hurry. I’ll post an in-depth comment later.
E. Bernard C.H.M.M.
posted on April 16th, 2010 at 3:40 pm
I have read the above discussions regarding CFL vs Incandescent bulb and a lot of what has been stated is true. EPA does recommend different bulbs under different applications. Not all bulbs perform the same to which I can personally attest. Incandescent bulbs are not being phased out in the USA; they are just being required to be more efficient. There is mercury (Hg) in CFL and fluorescent bulbs that is a concern the needs serious attention and reduces recyclability. People may choose to ignore the Hg issue in their home but if you are a business with employees you absolutely cannot. The amount may be small but the exposure is still exposure. Everyone talks about the energy cost but if you look at environmental sustainability there is some questions regarding the CFLs in this area due to the environmental footprinting.
Now, if you want something that is better then look to the future. At the end of this year or the beginning of next year GE is introducing to the market a new LED light bulb that will fit into a standard lamp base, that can replace an equivalent lighting output of a 40 watt bulb, and uses only 9 watts. The bulb will be expensive ($40-$50) but it is guaranteed to last 25,000 hours. With that said, look at your overall satisfaction and savings. No mercury, less materials used, better lighting, instant on, no flicker, and the energy savings can be substantial. Let’s do the math and compare it to the 40 watt bulb;
40 Watt bulb:
3 hours/day x 365 days/yr x 40watts x $0.20/kilowatt-hours(average utility cost including fees) = $8.76/yr
9 Watt LED:
3 hours/day x 365 days/yr x 9watts x $0.20/kilowatt-hours(average utility cost including fees) = $1.97/yr Return on investment: $8.76 – $1.92 = $6.84(savings per year) $50/$6.84 = 7.3 years or 7,993.5 hour which leaves 17,006.5 hours or 15.53 years of continued savings without the environmental impact.
To a business this can be substantial not only from the energy savings but from the labor savings of not having to replace bulbs as often. There was a plant in Wisconsin that changed all of their lighting to LEDs and have recouped their costs in approximately 1.5 years and the lights are still and will be burning bright for quite a while longer.
I contend that the LED bulb cost is currently high but we all know that over time, as production efficiencies and competition increases, the price will drop. I am planning on purchasing some of them to see how they work. I will tell you that if I move in the near future I will be taking my bulbs with me. As an environmental professional who has attended many a sustainability seminar I have yet to find to much negative with the LED lighting. I can not say the same with the CFLs or fluorescent tubes. CFLs and Fluorescent tubes are an electrical energy savings improvement but they are not the solution. The environmental choice is yours.
ascoss
posted on June 10th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Climate change is a global problem, and yet each one of us has the power to make a difference. Even small changes in our daily behaviour can help prevent greenhouse gas emissions without affecting our quality of life. In fact, they can help save us money!
Bill
posted on July 1st, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Supposed Climate Change is NOT a big deal. They say that Global Warming is taking place. Well if it is, it will counteract the global cooling that went on for over 10 years. Chicken Little strikes again. Look atthe Ozone nonsense from years back. Freon suppsedly was burning a hole in the ozone layer. Now reports are the Ozone layer is “healing”? And this comes AFTER they raised the price of freon from .99 a can back a few years to over 60.00 a can now and it’s damned near impossible to get even with a license , which is more BS. However, you CAN get all you want in Mexico. Go figure. The replacement R134A won’t work in the old systems without extensive, expensive modifications. Once again the environmentalists have cost the average citizen in the US untold amounts of money with their “sky is falling” crying.
Keri Lappas
posted on July 5th, 2010 at 2:00 pm
People, please remember to not throw out perfectly good bulbs in order to replace with ‘greener’ ones. You may negate much of the total environmental savings by not utilizing the entire life of the resource you already have.
Steve
posted on July 10th, 2010 at 9:20 pm
Where I live, the only halfway nearby place to recycle CFL bulbs is only open one day a year, and is nearly an hour drive each way. Not to mention the huge amount of people that live even further away from this once-a-year recycling center. So, how many people are going to save up their CFLs all year long, drive an hour (or more) each way, and wait in line at the drop point at least an hour (thus spending a minimum of 3 hrs doing this)? Not very many. I’m sure my area isn’t the only one where people will be (and already have been) dumping these in the bin and sending the mercury off to the landfill.
And, for a real eye-opener, read up about what’s happening in China during the mining of the materials and the making of these CFL bulbs (workers are being poisoned, factories are spewing out toxins, and the land where the mines are is a toxic wasteland) Keep in mind that even though this may be thousands of miles away from you, what happens in one part of the globe affects the entire world. Here’s a place to start: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6211261.ece
Also worth noting – there is a warning being issued about UV radiation from CFL bulbs http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7661462.stm
Randy Palizzi
posted on July 14th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Are we creating a problem with this solution.
I am very concerned about the fact that people WILL NOT, ON AVERAGE, recycle their bulbs. Also, I have heard nothing mentioned about the hazrds for children and other for broken bulbs and how to clean that up.
I have had multiple CFL burn out in far less than 1/2 the time of the incandecent bulb.
I am afraid there is more hype than study here and more problems with this solution. As much as I look forward to phasing out the old bulb, we will need to deal with the hazardous waste issue in a responsible manner or we will be left with a far more long time, mounting problem.
Oliver Dean
posted on July 20th, 2010 at 2:34 am
Another factor not yet covered in this discussion is that there is an easy and inexpensive way of greatly lengthening the longevity of incansdescent bulbs. Use a dimmer! Dimmers are inexpensive and can replace the simple “on-off” light switches in household circuits. When you use the dimmer to lower the bulb’s brightness noticeably, the bulb is operating at a lower power than its rated power, which greatly extends the bulb’s life. You lose a little brightness that could be compensated for by using a slightly highter wattage bulb, and you get an amazing incrase in the bulb’s life. Perhaps some of you lighting engineers out there could provide some guidelines (how much voltage decrease results in how much increase in bulb life at various wattages, for instance).
In my own case, I have a 7-bulb decorator lamp that uses large globe incandescent bulbs mounted substantially base down I have always used it on a dimmer since I bought it in about 1984. My usage of it is at a dimmer setting that just decreases the brightness noticeably, but not drastically, on the average about 2 evenings a week for 3-4 hours per evening. (With 7 bulbs, the slight decrease in brightness from the dimmer is not enough to reduce the brightness of the lamp below a useful level.) Since I bought the lamp, I have burned out only two of the bulbs. All the 5 others are still the original bulbs. That means that 5 out of 7 bulbs have lasted 26 years! I’m not up to doing the wearisome math, but I’m sure most of you would agree that this amounts to a considerable savings in bulb costs!
That being said, I do enjoy the new Torchiere standing lamp with its circular, dimmable fluorescent bulb that I got for free by trading in my dangerous, high wattage, and hot Halogen Torchiere standing lamp at a Lamp Exchange event sponsored by our local Southern California Edison in partnership with the City of Long Beach (CA). So far, I’ve had very good luck with CFL’s and fluorescent lamps as far as longevity goes. I think the above comments by E. Bernard, regarding different brands and the implied variations in quality control among manufacturers, are a major factor in the differences of CFL longevity reported above. I already make regular trips to the hazardous waste disposal in our area, and it doesn’t seem to be that much more trouble to add a burned out fluorescent or two once in a while.
But I do look forward to less expensive LED’s that can eliminate the problem of environmental mercury contamination by those who cannot (or choose not to) dispose of CFL’s and fluorescent bulbs properly. Thanks, E. Bernard, for this info!
Pat
posted on February 2nd, 2011 at 12:40 pm
Banning something that works far superior to something that doesn’t work nearly as well for its specific purpose amounts to foolish priorities. If CFL’s worked better than incandescents, the market would have controlled, and people would have bought them years ago, rather than incandescents. Government legislation to coerce people to use what doesn’t work in place of what does is a sample of government gone tyrannical – even if it isn’t mandated for some years, until 2012-2014.
Time is not the issue; coercion is the issue, and mandating the use of certain products over others is tyrannical use of power – in any industry. Free trade means that there are alternatives; not ones forced to be used while others are banned. It is monopolistic power of trade instituted by police power of government – and that has always been considered the worst prerogative of government, the power to usurp the market. People with poor vision do not see as well with flourescents, and now will have no relief because of government market intrusion, and legislation.
Michael
posted on March 30th, 2011 at 6:22 pm
This has to be one of the most asinine developments ever! The only comparable act of idiocy I can think of has to be the introduction of low-flo toilets.
And, no, I am not some died-in-the-wool reactionary. I am a life-time liberal who just happens to have a little bit of respect for commonsense.
(Every low-flow toilet I’ve run across has lacked the ability to deal with human solid-waste in a single flush, often necessitating three or more flushes. The result in my household has been a substantial increase in water-usage.)
Now this!
Yes, Flourescent bulbs use less electricity. They also hum. Constantly. The only people who don’t seem to notice them are one so used to sitting next to a computer that they can’t imagine a world that isn’t buzzing in the background. Myself, I love silence. Real silence. The difference between worlds when I switch off a fluourescent bulb is like the difference between hell and heaven. You have to wonder what it does to a person’s psyche to “turn off” the incessant hum — a psychological disconnect process used by people in chronic pain or suffering from tinitis, but which reduces sleep and increases anxiety, depression, and aggressiveness.
And then there is the danger to our environment and our health from these bulbs. How are we to get rid of them. Does any person of IQ over 80 really think the majority of Americans are going to dispose of these things properly? You, dear reader, probably slip your bulbs into the regular trash and hope no one’s going to blow the whistle. And if you don’t, well, for every one person like you, there are probably thousands who aren’t. Whatever reduction in wastage is avoided through the use of Fluorescent bulbs it can’t possibly mitigate the damage of all this mercury seeping into garbage dumps and leaching into soil and streams.
eeS Group
posted on March 31st, 2011 at 6:09 am
When you come right down to it; the CFLs are far worse than advertised.
If you accept that they use 80-90% more energy than LED (light emitting diodes) and emit electromagnetic radiation (low level) you realize more of the downside of CFLs. Yes the cost of healthier, longer lasting, little heat output, nontoxic LEDs is higher (but the competition is driving that down too).
Honor yourself, your business, your home with an energy analysis to determine the long term sustainability of energy lighting alternatives and financial advantages.