Energy Efficient Light Bulbs - New Laws to FORCE You to Buy Expensive Specialty Light Bulbs
79Updated: Since I first wrote this Article LED has come down in Price... Get these instead of CFL and then you won't have to worry about Mercury!
![]() | Amazon Price: $13.99 |
Halogen, LED, or ? To Replace Incandescent Bulbs
The average person is probably not aware of new laws that will require the incandescent light bulb to be replaced. You are soon to be welcomed willing or not to the world of very expensive specialty light bulbs. That’s right the 60 cent light bulbs are going to be made illegal! This is not a joke, it’s a fact. It has already started in Europe.
Beginning August 31, 2009 stores in the European Union will no longer be allowed to purchase incandescent light bulbs. This law is now in effect. The new law is supposed to cut back on energy usage by 10% over the next decade. So people who know about this law have been stockpiling bulbs.
The United States is Banning Incandescent Blubs starting in 2012 – more on this later.
After 2012, consumers in Europe will have two choices: high-efficiency halogen lamps, which can yield energy savings of up to 50 percent compared to conventional incandescent; or compact fluorescent lamps, or Compact Fluorescent Lamps, which can provide up to 75 percent savings over conventional light bulbs.
European Commission officials acknowledged that C.F.L. bulbs contain mercury, but noted that typical coal-fired power plants release mercury into the environment too. Gee isn't that comforting. My friend Billy Smokes crack, so it's okay if I smoke crack too? That is some kind of forward thinking logic!
This law is idiotic and is nothing more than a trade
from one energy consuming policy to another which pollutes the environment. Just plain stupid!!! Mercury is a highly toxic substance. If you drop one of these bulbs and break it you do not want
to vacuum the glass shards as it will disperse mercury through all but the best
heap filtered vacuum systems. I can understand the "intent" of the law, but intentions in this case do not equate to the reality that the technology is simply not ready to replace the incandescent bulb!
It makes sense to save energy, but it does not make sense to mandate the use of a product that is clearly not the “right” solution to the problem.
I have purchased Compact Fluorescent bulbs and they are expensive, do not produce as much light as a conventional bulb at the same wattage, are slow to light up, and can be noisy. What is worse is they do not last nearly as long as the manufacturers claim. I had one bulb blow out in only a couple of months, no longer than a regular bulb would have lasted.
Incandescent Light Bulbs in the United States to be Phased Out in 2012
An energy bill passed by Congress in 2007 and signed by then President Bush sets energy-efficiency standards for light bulbs and traditional incandescent bulbs are not energy efficient enough to meet the new standards. The new rules are to begin phasing in the year 2012.
So what is the problem? Sounds like a good idea doesn’t it? The problem is the technology to meet these requirements is simply not ready. Will it be by 2012? Maybe, but at what cost. And we are not just talking money, we are talking impact on the environment, and other issues which the average person would never even think about like this gem:
The commission said it had found no evidence that C.F.L.s could trigger attacks of epilepsy in people already suffering from the condition.
The US Department of Energy is sponsoring what is essentially a technology contest called the “L Prize”. In a nutshell any company who can meet the requirements and produce the best solution for a replacement bulb is to be awarded $10 million dollars. At the time of this writing only 1 Bulb Manufacturer (Phillips) has submitted an entry.
There are rules of course to be awarded the $10
million. For example 75% of the bulb
must be made or assembled in the United States, and the light bulb
must last 25 times longer than an average bulb.
Which only makes sense since Philips is not USA
Based.
Again, I believe we all want to “save energy”, but what is the real cost? The Philips solution (An LED Light Bulb) currently costs in the neighborhood of $100 per bulb! So the economies don’t add up. Sure the cost will and should come down as manufacturing ramps up, assuming this is in fact the best solution. But how much does the bulb need to drop in order for the average consumer to not be gouged?
In my view this law may save some energy, but it is not going to save anyone money. All it will do is shift the profits from the energy companies to the light bulb manufacturers.
I’m all for doing the right thing, but you do not mandate policy until new technology is available to replace the existing technologies.
Energy Efficient Light Bulbs are simply not ready for prime time!
Comments Welcome.
Energy Efficient Light Bulbs to be Mandated
CommentsLoading...
Edison is rolling in his grave, and the Philips company as well as any other LED bulb manufacturer is probably licking their lips waiting for the results of this, another government-backed corporate sweetheart deal.
LED is definitely the way to go in terms of the technology, but we have a couple of years before they can be made in quantity and come close to resembling affordable. If they pass their cap and trade mess on through, we are going to be paying a lot more period. And, again we will get screwed with no benefit. At least Al Gore will be happy.
Good hub!
100USD a light bulb? wake up, you can easily find led light bulb for 10USD 100lm/W ir replaces 60W incandescent and uses 7W
I wonder how many of the lights on the strip are energy efficient? You would think all of them but I bet they are not.
Some really good information here.
But the price of LED's is coming down alot certainly in the UK. If you now take a 3 watt LED downlighter and compare the lifetime costs to a traditional halogen, taking into account purchase and running costs then the LED will save you around $200. This is largely to do with the extremely long life say 30000hours.
Mike - I'm with you 100% - the main point you are making is legislation - so many rules we are becoming a police state and we the people are counted only as a number. A number of willing mindless sheep to be more exact.
The lumins created by LED are ridiculously LOW. They are no where near efficient in lighting up say a work place or a street light. They may be fine in a dimly lit room but so is burning a candle.
Anti government control on consumer buying is more important than environment issues. Give people information and a fair priced option and we will make our own decisions.
Government control, regulations and required permits are getting to the point we will need a permit to fart as that will soon be realized as methane gas production... and god forbid we can't be allowed to manufacture gas without a flipping permit can we?
Thanks Mike
I've tried the new bulbs. They give me a migrane headache. I'm out trying to buy all the old bulbs I can find.
- LED Lighting - Is This the Answer for Lighting?
LED lighting has become much more prevalent in the last decade. Yet there are few states that offer rebates or incentives to the installation of LED lighting for residential or commercial lighting. Why is... - The Negative Side Of Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs...
Compact fluorescent bulbs are a more efficient way to provide electrical light within homes and other buildings. These bulbs are one of the easiest ways to save money. Despite the benefits, CFLs have a number of negatives as well. Health problems, me - LED Screw in Light Bulbs for the Home: Energy Star L...
We're ready for LED screw in light bulbs for our homes, but are they ready for us? Learn the problems with light emitting diodes for use as energy efficient lighting.












BkCreative Level 6 Commenter 2 years ago
All so true - the mercury is a serious threat and you must be extremely careful in handling these bulbs. How is that an eco-friendly improvement? It is not.
Further, in England people are already suing because these bulbs have been proven to be hazardous to sensitive skin - and to people with skin conditions. And yes, cost is a big issue there, why wouldn't it be here?
I wrote about the dangers in my hub entitled "Are Low Energy Bulbs Harmful to Your Health?"
Now that we know the US is following suit we need to start demanding answers now - about this folly, and spreading the word. There are already a million ways to reduce the use of energy with the bulbs we have.
Thanks!