SEP 03

I wonder how this will effect the entertainment industry. We all used a specialty bulb, but it is based of of an incandescent design. LED and CFL are not in a place where they can replace the current incandescent for theatre, movies and tv yet. Some LED tech is being integrated in, but it isnt good enough yet.

Compared to many years ago when I first started buying compact fluorescents for their long life, todays bulbs have virtually no flicker, much better "warmth" (color), and are drastically cheaper. I think we still have an incandescent in a box in the closet. I'm now looking forward to the improvements in LEDs for home lighting.

As somebody who is very conscious about when and how they use electricity already I find this sort of policy incredibly infuriating.

My electricity bill is just $20 a month (previous occupant was $110) and that includes incandescent lighting. Fluorescent lighting always makes me feel nauseous so I have made savings elsewhere with TV, computers and turning things off the moment they are not needed.

As somebody with a tiny electrical footprint I find it infuriating that people insist I must feel uncomfortable in my own home to save myself $1.50 a month when there are massive savings to be made through behavior and larger good selections.

As Obama said, you're not going to save the environment with lightbulbs.

[)amien

What happens to the incandescent bulb companies?

Why not just tax each bulb $5 or 100% (whichever is more) and use the taxes towards green energy generation?

Thats going to be a tiny CFL to fit in there.

Still, I'd rather not see an outright ban, just tax them and let the consumers choose.

@nate: Better yet is to tax the pollution/electricity in the first place.

Figure out how much electricity the average household in an area wastes. Then tax the electricity so if they stop wasting it then their bill is either what it used to be or less.

The whole banning incandescents is as stupid as the cash for clunkers programme and subsidising hybrids.

Pollution is the problem, tax the pollutant at the source and let those costs filter through. Then the industry, consumers and the market can reduce their costs back through ever more efficient products.

[)amien

To all of those silly people having a whinge lack of alternatives to CFL, why not equip yourselves with the facts.

Incandescent globes are still allowed for specialty applications such as the inside refridgerators, ovens, lathes and other machine tools etc. The ban is on household lighting.

Fluorescent light bulb have limited life span, as I've found from personal experience. At the end of their cycle they become quite a toxic problem since they contain mercury. Imagine billions switching to fluorescent, and producing staggering mercury waste...

I foresee another huge mess about to pile up.

I agree with Damien Guard, light bulb switching by itself is nothing. What we need is awareness of how to stop wasting energy. Either by: turning lights off when not in use, using lid for boiling liquids, insulating the home, driving efficient vehicle, using bicycle as an alternative, learning to recycle, compost, buying bulk food and filling up your own containers(instead of buying packaged goods)

Knowledge is a good start, practicing it is key.

I have replaced all incandescents in my house with the following acceptions:

* in the closet and in the attic (not used enough to be worthwhile)
* I have a couple of light fixtures for which a CFL will not fit.
* A couple of outdoor lights (CFL do not work as well in very cold weather)
* A 200W floodlight (I have never seen or heard of a 200W CFL)
* a desk light (incandescent is better for reading)

... there is still a need for incandescents in certain applications, and an outright ban is simply crazy.

Some of my concerns about an all-out home lighting ban are:

-- Recessed lighting can easily overheat CFL's, leading to an early death (and subsequent disposal to the landfill).

-- Other areas that will cause CFL overheating: flush mounted ceiling lights (closet fixtures), ceiling fan light fixtures, bathroom light/fan combination units, etc.

-- Outdoor home lighting is prone to dimming during cold Winter temps, and CFL's overheat and die early when placed in sealed outdoor fixtures.

NOTE: Most of my outdoor fixtures will not physically hold a CFL (I've tried!) They can screw in, but you can't put the fixture back together due to size interference.

Also, areas that rarely get used (like remote basement storage room lights), that get switched on for only a few minutes a month, will almost never recoup the electricity savings to pay for the high-cost bulb, and do not justify the industrial carbon footprint to build the CFL in the first place (for that particular application).

LED lighting might help in the futures, but at this time is also prone to overheating in recessed areas, and have a huge capital outlay that may not get recouped for infrequently used light fixtures.

Although almost *all* of my frequently used lamps in my house are CFL, and even some of my recessed kitchen lighting (yes, they die quickly, arg!), I will still hoard more than a few dozen 40w, 60w, and 100w bulbs for some of my fixtures that just can't use a CFL. I will happily import from Russia what I need for niche incandescent bulbs that just can't be CFL's.

Still waiting for LED lighting to supplant the CFL. Then the CFL ban will happen next!

The only reason I still want incandescent bulbs is for my lava lamp. It requires the inefficiency and heat from a classic light bulb to work. Not sure how I'll be replacing that.

You sound pleased at the energy savings... but it appears you have over looked the health of those who manufacture the bulbs, those who have broken bulbs in their homes, those who deal with the land fills where the bulbs are dumped and the flow on effects at each stage. That is before we consider the environmental impact of these so called "eco bulbs".

What about the heavy metals such as mercury?! If bulbs are breaking in homes, mercury is then ending up in all the clothing, carpets, drapes, furniture. This applies to the factory workers and the landfills having more toxins to leach into the surrounding environment. I notice the governments are making sure these things are disposed of properly... NOT!

If your energy came from a greener source, then maybe you help solve or reduce the issue opposed to just shift it round?!...

I totally think this is a good idea. Absolutely.

I can also see why people are frustrated to have to replace lightfittings that the energy efficient bulbs don't fit in, but maybe that is just part of the price we pay, our children and grandchildren will thank us.

But, I have a friend who bought a new light fitting last month and discovered when she got home that it only takes the old bulbs! So my advice to you guys in the US is, get the fitting manufacturers to start only selling fittings that will take energy efficient bulbs a while before the old bulbs stop being sold! Because businesses will happily keep churning them out right up to (and possibly beyond?) the last minute!!!!!

My question is, "What is going to happen when CFLs do eventually expire or break and head to "recycling" plants (or worse, land fills) and all that mercury deluges our environment?"

There has to be another way...

For all you folks worked up about mercury in CFLs, it's been estimated that the extra power generation for incandescent bulbs would produce about 4 times as much mercury pollution as is in CFLs. So this decision will also yield a net reduction in mercury pollution.

I just ordered another few LEDs for my house

http://www.yatego.com/addtronic/p,4a90b0dde1b92,45508ed5b216d9_3,i-glow-lle-14-led-kerze-e14-1-5w-50000h-b-ware?sid=12Y1252074143Y16b5dd11cd2d19c12b

LEDs are the future, they are becoming more powerful and more efficient, frankly I don't understand the fear.

People need to take their heads out of the sand. I disagree with banning in general but ICs deserve to be banned as they are a waste. All inefficient items should be phased out as a general rule though.

I appreciate the various comments here as the author has one personal eco-bias- energy. While energy consumption is a primetime eco problem, you can't deny that there are other issues with lighting. Cfls, leds, etc. use computer circuit boards with toxic metals and chemicals in them. Cfls use mercury in the bulb. Both use plastics as well. The lifecycle costs are important for all lighting options. Yes, incandescents are energy inefficient, however they are materially simple- glass, metal, some ceramics, some gases. You can recycle most of those componants fairly easily.

Next, let's talk technology. Incandescent manufacturers are finding new techniques to use significantly less energy- a very good thing. By outlawing them entirely, Europe has eliminated the opportunity for viable improvments. Would it be so bad if incandescents could be made as efficiencient as cfls? Sure, the old design is old, however with new technologies and modeling they can be made efficient.

I do agree with a few posters regarding the pricing of options. If you are concerned with energy conservation, a tax (which goes directly towards R+R of new technologies or incentives for manufacturers [and not the government to play with]) may work. If you think about recycling and toxic wastes, the tax should include some money to be put towards recycling and/or superfund type clean-up projects. Maybe $1 for each is reasonable, but you'll catch hell from those whom will say that the poor are unfairly burdened. BS.

Then there is consumption. People will have to deal with significant increases in their utilities costs in the next few years. The byproduct of cap-and-trade will be paying a LOT more for your energy. The byproduct of current conservation programs has been reduced consumption, leading to energy providers asking for higher rates because people aren't using as much and they need to keep making profits. Quite a dilema, eh?

We are headed towards a darwinist type selection process with energy. As more plug-in transportation gets popular, consumption will go up and the stresses on the grid will continue. Added to the above, the situation will arise where people will have to face much larger energy bills and finally choose what is important to them, money in the pocket or all of the lights on. Take a look at yesterday's article on the Arizona family selling their "extreme home makeover" house because they can't afford it, including $1,200/mo electric bills!! I'm betting that they left most things on all of the time. While the rest of us may not live in 5,000+sqft houses, we will be paying significantly more money to heat/cool/light, etc. our own spaces. Choose your battles carefully.

Didn't you post an article a few months back about how researchers have found a way to improve these bulbs to make them more efficient than CFLs?

I have no problem switching most of my household lamps out to CFL, my big problem is ALL of my recessed fixtures in the house (25+) are dimmable...CFLs don't do too well in this situation, and the dimmable models are horribly expensive.

Ill keep my incans for now thank you.

1) There are new incandescents that are very low wattage--what's wrong with those?
2) CFLs are an environmental nightmare, cause nausea, migraines, increase stress and anxiety, and have a stupid shape. You don't think they hurt my children? OK, kids, it's no problem you dropped that light bulb, just breathe deeply...nothing like a little mercury to start your day.
3) LEDs just are not ready yet; I'd rather see a tax on incandescents that goes toward solar panel and LED research
4) People who "suffer" from "anxiety" don't "appreciate" you putting "quotes" around things you don't "understand"

Worst idea I've heard today.

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-
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)

Just 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 the 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.

Conversely,
if energy use does fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans and electricity companies make less money,
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):
http://www.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:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax

Maybe the rising controversy of it will influence American and Canadian debate?

For those of you griping about CFLs' problems, remember there are still halogen bulbs, like these:

http://www.lighting.philips.co.../index.php

Those particular bulbs have better light quality than most incandescents, according to the New York Times, and I agree. I'm using one outdoors, and one in a fixture with a dimmer. They'll be available in the US until 2020, by which time I hope they'll have CFLs or LEDs that work with 40-year-old dimmer switches.

As for CFLs not fitting in fixtures, I've found GE's "smaller size" 40- and 60-watt equivalent CFLs very useful. They're shorter than a standard CFL, with a narrower base. In one case where the narrower base still didn't fit, some light bulb extenders from a hardware store helped fit the base, and the tops still fit within the fixture!

Why couldn't they ban low-frequency fluorescents, and force people to use the more energy efficient high-frequency ones? And yes, tax incandescents rather than ban them, so those of us who need them are not criminalised.

When my wife goes into a building with fluorescent lighting, she gets a migraine. Not a headache, a migraine. We're talking vomiting, loss of control of facial muscles and inability to speak, congnitive impairment including complete loss of memory.

My wife can no longer go into any public buildings. She can only shop at open air markets. If she has to go to hospital, she has to be blindfolded. If we want to visit friends, we have to take a big box of lamps and set them up throughout their house.

My sister used to suffer epileptic seizures under fluorescent lighting. She doesn't any more, because she died of a massive epileptic seizure.

High frequency fluorescents are better (and save more energy), although for reasons no-one wants to research they don't seem to completely solve the issue. The lighting industry says there is no problem, because high frequency fluorescents are the solution. This is disingenuous, because almost every shop and public building in our town, including new builds, uses the low frequency ones.

Peer reviewed papers, including a massive study by Wall-Mart, show that natural light improves productivity, reduces absenteeism, and increases revenue from customers over fluorescent lighting.

There is a problem. It is a little problem for most people and a huge problem for a few people. But no-one is interested.

Never knew that low frequency fluorescents could cause such major adverse effects in some people. I guess it isn't fair for some if there is an out-right ban on incandescent light. Taxing them is by far the better option.

The real worry is that not enough emphasis is played on CFLs being the middleman which has to be cut out, between incandescents and LEDs. The shops are full of those awful mini neon lights, yet LEDs are still occupying a nice. That will have to be changed, and quickly, because CFLs last awfully long ...

I am very sorry for this article.

First, you have to know that only the highest wattage, 100W incasdescents are banned as of now. This must be added to actually get the real seed of the story.

But more important is that the listed reasons. The way it sorts the reasons why we Europeans are upset about this ban is so bad.

I have read many articles about this issue, trying to understand both sides. Why banning is good for electrical manufacturers is very clear. While an old bulb costs only 50 cents, a CFL could easily cost 10$. This is a simple way to increase their turnover, and margin.
But, why people do not always like this changing is because they tend to be smart enough to THINK about the CFL's NET ENERGY savings (?) over its lifecycle. This net energy savings are not yet proved totally. Even my household numbers can not justify. Mostly because manufacturers do lie about lifetime of the CFL. It is so bad, some of my CFLs died earlier than incasdescents (no, I am NOT talking about closet locations...)

BAN - The ban is only on importing / manufacturing 100watt Bulbs.

Price - The govt and energy companies are so keen on us using these bulbs that they are literally being given away or are available from supermarkets cheaply - we are getting 5 or 6, 8-11 watt bulbs (I have seen for £1 ($1.60)

It may be different elsewhere but in the UK we are heading for an energy crisis in 5 years time - work it out.

Stay safe. Timbo

So many people will resist change no matter what, regardless of if it's better for them. Let's debunk those three myths posted here:

* It will be very expensive to change the lighting system on fair rides, so expensive that those beautiful spectacles may never again light up the night sky.
--> News flash: incandescent bulbs must be changed fairly frequently as a matter of normal operation, because they don't last long. It costs no more to change an incandescent bulb to a CFL than it does to screw in a new incandescent bulb!

* Lighting systems for galleries are very precisely tuned and artists and curators alike have very specific needs that (apparently) sometimes require incandescent lights.
--> Many artists are embracing LED lighting, which in addition to being much more efficient than incandescent, also allows very precise color tuning and a very vivid realistic spectrum.

* People who suffer from "anxiety" believe that the bulbs harm them or their children.
--> There will always be nitwits in the world won't there...

John,

Just to counter a couple of your counter points.
1. Many fair rides, etc. blink the lights at rates which CFLs cannot operate. For example a light chase down the side of a ferris wheel. This would have to be done with LEDs which as mentioned would be a costly retrofit.
2. LEDs do not have a 'spectrum' of color. They produce a very specific and narrow wavelength of color. To get a 'spectrum' of color from them you have to use multilayer or segmented LED engines to mix the RGB wavelengths, which are still limited.
I am hoping for LEDs in the future, but they just dont seem to be there yet.

Studies has proved that by switching over to Energy Efficient Lamps, C02 emission from domestic consumption can be reduced by 60 percent by 2015. So I definitely welcome the ban as part of going green.

I HATE CFL bulbs with a passion, if they weren't installed in every public building, I wouldn't have to take expensive migraine medications all the time, or spend large chunks of my time in bed, throwing up with a horrible migraine.

I use LED bulbs in my room. But it would be nice if more bussiness's used natural light. Most stores are only open while the sun is up... My local walmart switched to using all natural light by installing skylights and keeping the lights off in the building during the day. I can shop there and not get a migraine.

... and each has drawbacks. I think it's disgusting that the government is going to ban incandescent bulbs. But then again I will be able to get them through my industrial connections, so I may never even realize the ban went into effect. But I will protest the ban at every opportunity as an illegal intrusion.

I find the dichotomy fascinating. I'm the greenest person that I know, I re-use everything, reduce by a whopping 90%, and recycle whatever is left. But I loathe the eco-nut-jobs that intrude into the culture and use the rule of law and the power of the government to force their views on the rest of us!

The Light is Green! visit http://solarandthermal.com/

http://www.Pearl-LED.com

Ok so I see my comment will fall to the bottom of the barrel and nobody will read this but I have a way to extend the value of the incandescent bulb and enhance its efficiency. Anyway some people realyy like the incandescent glow, bulb and what ever reason they have. My system will pay back well for using the incandescent bulb,
Gary

I am shocked to read all the anti comments on here. This is eco geek. I expect people on here to support environmental change.

It is shocking that Europe has started change and once again america is 5 years behind. I am an american living in the UK.

We are on the edge of an environmental catastrophe. People and corporations have not made the changes necessary. Only Governmental legislation will push forward change. Ban things and force change before we kill the planet. Its the same with health insurance. Americans are so lazy and resistant to adaptation. What does it matter what colour the light is if we may not have any light soon!! Duh? Give up your luxuries and live like the rest of the planet for god sake.

Companies will make the bulbs better if they get the market share because stupid people are not able to buy energy wasting technology. And the new bulbs are not expensive. In Vermont they are subsidized with rebates. You can get them for the same as incandescents.

Stop being selfish and embrace change. Yes and even rewire or insulate your house to adapt it for the future. Duh?

I'd much rather see incandescent bulbs taxed in a way that would reduce consumption and offset the amount of CO2 for which they're responsible. I believe that they have a place in our world, and if it's important enough to you then you simply pay the price. I don't believe that poor people are overly burdened by having to buy CFLs. The price will continue to erode as these become the norm.

I am also very enthusiastic about LEDs, and believe that this is the best lighting technology. While Incandescent bulbs use 10% of the energy for light and 90% for heat, LEDs are just the opposite, with only 10% of the energy wasted as heat. LEDs are getting more and more affordable, and at some point I expect that they'll be competitive with CFLs. The great news is that there are dimmable LEDs now, though still very expensive. I bought a dimmable florescent and wasn't totally thrilled with it -- particularly given the premium I paid for it. It also did not last nearly as long as the non-dimmable counterparts. The only ICs I have left in my house are where I have dimmers.

I think choice is good. I'm afraid a ban would simply create an underground business for ICs - though it would certainly result in fewer ICs sold and thus used. But this is a slippery slope -- what other inefficient products should arguably be banned? Levying a tax on manufacture sales would drive up the price and capture revenue at a few points. That money could then be reinvested in R&D for lighting technology, or used in another way to subsidize the cost of more efficient alternatives to achieve appropriate economies of scale. Carrots and sticks have long been effective complementary tools to getting the horse out of the barn!

I know! Let's fill our landfills with millions of light bulbs containing mercury instead! Brilliant!

Heat generation benefits overlooked by all! while incandescent bulbs produce 90% heat, this does not mean it is wasted. In fact most is favorable. the average temp of the planet is 15C, which means that for most of the world's households need to heat their environments - even on summer evenings. Get it! Most of the heat generated by bulbs is in fact being put to good use since we need it anyway - precluding us from using other forms of energy to heat our rooms. When we go to CFLs - we will have to up the other forms of heat sources!!!! and at the same time we will be adding all that mercury to the environment since most of the bulbs will no doubt be broken during disposal!!!

Without question this is one of those self-righteous decision and policies that will do more harm than good!!

Why doesn't anyone put their pragmatic thinking caps on!

Wzass

There are applications where incandescent bulbs are used as heating devices.
The good thing about that is the heat element is encased in a fireproof shell, and the temperature can be controlled by the distance between the bulb(s) and the thing being heated.
No doubt incandescents use lots of energy, but they aren't made with mercury and one should look at manufacturing processes to make sure more energy efficient devices are not bigger polluters of the environment in other ways...

I agree with the sentiment expressed by various others that the correct move would have been to tax incandescents. I am frankly shocked at the apparent collusion of governments world-wide to ban rather than tax. I want to know why they are doing this. Does it make a more effective political point?

Besides the sheer arrogance of government bans on particular products, they don't help anyone, not even the environment. There are people out there who will pay a tax premium for incandescents and these revenues could have been used to subsidise environmental programs.

Ummm, so what if incandescents produce heat? Ever heard of the conservation of energy? Think about it, we heat our homes, right? If the incandescents produce heat, our heaters work that much less. In effect, the thermostat kicks the heater on a little less often than if we didn't have the incandescents operating. In the larger scheme, it's all equal, outdoor lighting notwithstanding.

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!