FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It

[Lunican]

U.S.News & World Report
FAQ: The End of the Light Bulb as We Know It
Wednesday December 19, 11:01 am ET
By Marianne Lavelle

The incandescent light bulb, one of the most venerable inventions of its era but deemed too inefficient for our own, will be phased off the U.S. market beginning in 2012 under the new energy law just approved by Congress. Although this will reduce electricity costs and minimize new bulb purchases in every household in America, you may be feeling in the dark about the loss of your old, relatively reliable source of light. Here's a primer on the light bulb phase-out and what will mean to you:

Why are they taking my light bulbs away? Moving to more efficient lighting is one of the lowest-cost ways for the nation to reduce electricity use and greenhouse gases. In fact, it actually will save households money because of lower utility bills. Ninety percent of the energy that an incandescent light bulb burns is wasted as heat. And yet, sales of the most common high-efficiency bulb available--the compact fluorescent (CFL)--amount to only 5 percent of the light bulb market. Earlier this year, Australia became the first country to announce an outright ban by 2010 on incandescent bulbs. The changeover in the United States will be more gradual, not mandated to begin until 2012 and phased out through 2014. However, don't be surprised if some manufacturers phase out earlier.

How do I save money, when a CFL costs six times as much as an old-fashioned bulb? Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. Look at your utility bill and imagine a 12 percent discount to estimate the savings.

I've heard that CFLs don't really last as long as they say. Turning a CFL on and off frequently shortens its life, which is why the government's Energy Star program says to leave them on for at least 15 minutes at a time. Also, if you have dimmable light fixtures, make sure to buy CFLs labeled "dimmable." All CFLs that carry the government's Energy Star label are required to carry a two-year limited warranty, so contact the manufacturer if your bulb burns out prematurely. The Energy Star website has a good FAQ on CFLs.

I don't think that I like the color of the light from CFLs. When they first hit the market, CFLs had a limited range of tones. Now, manufacturers offer a wider variety, but there is not an agreed-upon labeling standard. The Energy Star program is working to change that. But for now, look for lower "Kelvin temperatures" like 2,700 to 3,000 for "redder" light, closer to old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, while bulbs with Kelvin temperatures of 5,000 and 6,500 provide more "blue" and intense light. A good photograph illustrating the difference is shown here.

I've heard that CFLs have mercury in them--isn't that bad? Consumers are rightly concerned about the toxic substance mercury that helps CFLs produce light. Even though the amount sealed in each bulb is small--one old-fashioned thermometer had about 100 times as much mercury--contact local trash collection for disposal instructions. Environmentalists agree that more work must be done on bulb recycling programs. Right now, you can return any CFL to any Ikea store for recycling, and the Environmental Protection Agency and Earth911 have sites you can search for other recycling programs near your home.

But if you break a CFL, you'll have a toxic spill in your home. Maine's Department of Environmental Protection has developed the best advice on the procedures to follow if a CFL breaks. Don't use a vacuum. Maine officials studied the issue because of a homeowner in that state who received a $2,000 light bulb clean-up bill from an environmental hazards company--a story that has circulated around the country and increased consumer concerns about CFLs. It turns out that the company's advice was overkill, and a subsequent analysis showed no hazard in the home. But the bulbs must be handled with caution. Using a drop cloth might be a good new routine to develop when screwing in a light bulb, to make the clean-up of any breaks easier.

By the way, don't think that incandescent bulbs are mercury free. In the United States, the chances are at least 50 percent that their light is generated by a coal-powered plant featuring mercury as well as other types of pollution. Popular Mechanics recently crunched the numbers to find that even if the mercury in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute almost double that amount of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

Isn't there efficient lighting without mercury? Yes. By 2012, the chances are good that consumers will have many more options to replace incandescent bulbs. Manufacturers already are deploying advanced incandescent bulbs that are efficient enough to stay on the market after 2012, although they are not yet as efficient as CFLs. Even more exciting are the developments with light-emitting diodes (LEDs), which are jazzing up holiday lighting. The European electronics firm Philips this year acquired several pioneering small technology companies and plans a big push to make LEDs practical for ordinary lighting purposes. The lights on the New Year's Eve Times Square Ball could one day brighten your home. LEDs last even longer than CFLs and will make bulb buying more like an appliance purchase than a throw-away item.

Is Thomas Edison turning over in his grave? Perhaps, but the incandescent bulb has had a good run, with the technology little changed since 1879, when Edison produced light with a carbonized thread from his wife's sewing box. The breakthrough that ushered civilization out of the candle era was so revolutionary that the light bulb itself became the culture's iconic image to illustrate any thought, brainstorm, or idea. But energy-efficient bulbs are a better idea, says Andrew deLaski, director of the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. "It's hugely important," he says. "A 60 to 70 percent reduction in light bulb energy use will save as much energy annually as that used by all the homes in Texas last year." That's a big savings.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html

[second_pancake]

I'm going to have to look up how halogens compare.  I actually bought into the whole CFL thing and started getting severe migraines from the light output.  It was very concentrated and didn't saturate a room like a good light should.  I replaced them all with my good ole halogens.  Yes, they emit a lot of heat, but I've had halogen bulbs that have lasted 4 years so to me, it's worth it...plus they don't make my head hurt;-)

[Jason]

Halogens are essentially a different type of incandescent.  They burn hotter and last longer and are a bit more effeciant, but not much.  Compact fluorescent and LED are completely different.  The CFL's you used might have had a higher temperature or Kelvin rating making the light a brighter white.  The CFLs you want are those with a lower temp rating that puts the light spectrum closer to that of incandescent, such as 2700K.

What the government is looking at is Lumens Per Watt.  A lumen is the measurement of light emmitted from a light source.  Different lamp types break down as follows:

Incandescent:
Life span: 700-1000 hours
Pros: cheap; gives a pleasant warm light that most people like,
Cons: least efficient of all the bulbs, short life span 
Efficiency: 7 - 24 lumens per watt


Halogen:
Life span: 2,000 - 4,000 hours
Pros: more efficient than incandescent bulbs; bright light 
Cons: burns very hot; more expensive than incandescent
Efficiency: 12 - 36 lumens per watt


Fluorescent (Tube):
Life span: 10,000 - 20,000 hours
Pros: bulb burns cooler; very efficient; can come in various CRI ratings; comes in different color temperatures
Cons: not cheaply dimmable; fixtures are slightly more costly; known to flicker at times.
Efficiency: 33 - 100 lumens per watt


Compact Fluorescent:
Life span: Up to 10,000 hours   
Pros: efficient   
Cons: cost of bulb; sometimes they can't physically fit; to replace incandescent bulbs   
Efficiency: 44 - 80 lumens per watt


LED:
Life span: 30,000 - 80,000 hours (100,000 hours)   
Pros: High durability - no filament or tube to break; long life span; low power consumption; low heat generation   
Cons: High cost of bulb (in the meantime)   
Efficiency: 30 - 60 lumens per watt (Labs are producing up to 150-200 lumens per watt but it a ways away from the market)   
Uses: wide variety of uses including general lighting, accent lighting, and decorative lighting



There are many other types of bulbs but most are used for lighting larger areas such as warehouses, roadways, sports facilities, etc and likely will never be used in residential applications.  LED will likely take over the market in the next couple decades but CFLs are an easy replacement for incandescent by being double or in some cases triple as effecient and by lasting 10-20 times as long.

[gatorback]

I like white light, not green, or yellow, or black.  Sorry, my art collection looks better in white.  How will my
Lincoln in Dali Vision look under LED's?

[RiversideGator]

This energy bill is an awful governmental intrusion into our lives and will even reduce our standards of living in several ways as well as kill people.  As for light bulbs, I personally prefer the light from an incandescent bulb and I pay my power bills so the kind of bulb I use is my business.  Also, the provisions regarding new car fuel efficiency will result in severe harm to the American car industry and will end up killing people because smaller cars equals more auto accident deaths.  Of course, to the environmental crowd the lives of people are less significant than those of snail darters anyway so what does a few thousand dead Americans mean to those wackos.  And, to top it off, our "conservative" President Bush signed this travesty into law.  What a piece of work these people are.   

[Lunican]

With an increasing demand for electricity and an aging infrastructure, I think this is a good step to help prevent future rolling brownouts and blackouts. Seems like blackouts would really reduce our quality of life and create a negative economic impact.

Also, if there are more small cars on the road as a result of the 35 mpg fleet requirement, wouldn't that save lives because there are less SUV's on the road crashing into people and killing them?

[gatorback]

Small cars kill people that's a fact.   This is why mass transit is good but we've got to make it more appealing then say driving your own Range Rover when and where you want...if you can afford the gas.  I can't but that's another blog in itself.   The problem is SUV's and trucks sales have taken off since 1995 and those 5,700+ LBS Rovers and Escalates, Nav Gators, are going to be on the road for a long long time.  We're looking at one bloody mess here folks.  (See Sweeny Todd for blood example.)

[Jason]

I like white light, not green, or yellow, or black.  Sorry, my art collection looks better in white.  How will my
Lincoln in Dali Vision look under LED's?

Light is light.  LED, CFLs, and Incandescent may utilize different spectrums of light but all will light your artwork just fine.  All are also available in different colors.  The benefits of CFLs and LED is that you can light you artwork and the rest of your house with a fraction of the energy.

[Jason]

This energy bill is an awful governmental intrusion into our lives and will even reduce our standards of living in several ways as well as kill people.  As for light bulbs, I personally prefer the light from an incandescent bulb and I pay my power bills so the kind of bulb I use is my business.  Also, the provisions regarding new car fuel efficiency will result in severe harm to the American car industry and will end up killing people because smaller cars equals more auto accident deaths.  Of course, to the environmental crowd the lives of people are less significant than those of snail darters anyway so what does a few thousand dead Americans mean to those wackos.  And, to top it off, our "conservative" President Bush signed this travesty into law.  What a piece of work these people are.   

I've seen displays lit with incendescent and identical displays lit with fluorescent and wasn't able to tell which was which.  The only way to tell was to look at the bulb.  The difference was that the fluorescent display was consuming half of the power that the incendescent was.  Right now the bulbs are a little pricey ($3-$10 a piece for CFLs) but don't you think investing approximately $50-$100 on new CFL lamps for your home would be worth the 1 1/2 - 2 year payback?  Look at the numbers I posted above.

Here are some more figures for you:

The average home in the US is probably 3 bed/2 bath, would you agree?  Alright, assuming that the average home consists of a single ceiling mounted fan/light combo in each main room, that would equal about 8 (includes kitchen, living, dining) 75watt light bulbs which equals about 600 watts total.  Is it safe to assume that the average person uses the lighting 5 hours a day?  OK, JEA's rates are approximately 8.9 cents per kilowatthour (KWH) which would equal approximately 3 kwh per day.  Now multiply the JEA rate of 8.9 times 3 kwh and you get roughly 27 cents per day to light your house.  Multiply by 365 and you get $98.55 or we'll say $100 a year for those lights.  Note that that assumes you don't have to replace any in the meantime which is highly unlikely.

Now let try the same math using the CFL counterpart.  A 20W self ballasted (screw-in) CFL is the recommended replacement for a 75W incandescent lamp.  Using the same math you get approximately 0.8 kwh per day times JEA's rate of 8.9 which equals 7 cents per day or $26 dollars per year.

After a quick search online, I've found that the average 20W spiral CFL is about $6.00.  Therefore to replace all 8 bulbs in the average home would cost approximately $50 dollars.  Add to that the $26 per year to run them and you get a grand total of $76 dollars for the first year (better than spending $100).  The next year there is no need to replace the lamps because they last an average of five years.  So after about a year and a half they have paid for themselves.

All that being said, I think it is well worth the investment and if everyone started doing it the cost of bulbs would drop and the power grid would be much less strained.

Now I have no argument on government interference with the automobile industry, but one thing I do know is that a movement to live more effecient lives does more good than bad.

[Charleston native]

Jason, the fact is that the government is creating an intrusive, pseudo-bandaid for a problem that will continue as long as people procreate. The government is also interfering with "freedom of choice" that so many people want in their lives.

This bill will actually create more energy problems rather than solving them. The light bulb mandate is absolutely stupid, because it refuses to look at the other intangibles. First, incandescent bulbs generate more heat, so people who live in the colder climates will be affected. When they all convert to CFLs, they will have to run their heater more, thereby consuming more energy!! Second, CFLs do not produce the best lighting for reading, so people's vision will be affected, resulting in more burdens to health care. River has addressed the car mandate in the bill rather well, so I won't go into that. However, it demonstrates how more problems will be created with this bill.

All that being said, I think it is well worth the investment and if everyone started doing it the cost of bulbs would drop and the power grid would be much less strained.

Jason, the bottomline is that the current power grid needs to be expanded and updated with nuclear power. That is a long-term, proven solution that will benefit everyone, plus it sets the energy industry standard, which will eventually make coal plants obsolete.

What everyone is really overlooking is that this bill is not about saving the environment, even though it is packaged that way. No, the bottomline is MONEY. What a great scam to ensure company profits:

• Produce a sub-standard, piss-poor product with lower quality and performance but higher costs for maintenance (for the bulbs, expensive cleanup if broken; for the cars, using cheaper, lighter materials and reducing the amount of steel to build the frames).
• Make people buy it.
• Package and market it as a thing that will "save the planet".
• Politicians vote for it to look better in the media, assuring them another term in office.
• Eliminate manufacturing jobs and plants for the other products, i.e. eliminating costs.

It's really quite genius, even though it is ethically reprehensible.

[gatorback]

Jason, the bottomline is that the current power grid needs to be expanded and updated with nuclear power. That is a long-term, proven solution that will benefit everyone, plus it sets the energy industry standard, which will eventually make coal plants obsolete.

I'm confused.  Exactly what is the bottom line?  Are you seriously saying there's no other option except nuclear power?
I don't think that's true.  Our future holds myriad alternative energy sources including potentially the aurora borealis, tidal flows and bacteria. 

[Lunican]

This bill will actually create more energy problems rather than solving them. The light bulb mandate is absolutely stupid, because it refuses to look at the other intangibles. First, incandescent bulbs generate more heat, so people who live in the colder climates will be affected. When they all convert to CFLs, they will have to run their heater more, thereby consuming more energy!! Huh Second, CFLs do not produce the best lighting for reading, so people's vision will be affected, resulting in more burdens to health care. River has addressed the car mandate in the bill rather well, so I won't go into that. However, it demonstrates how more problems will be created with this bill.

I don't really see how it creates more energy problems than it solves. Your arguments are pretty weak. I think it makes more sense to turn a light bulb on for light and a heater on for heat. This way you don't get the undesired heat/light when you don't want them.

Also, increased health care costs from strained eyes? That's a stretch. Fluorescents are used in just about every commercial building already. In fact, what do you think is lighting up your LCD computer screen? If fluorescents cause eye damage we're already doomed.

[gatorback]

I didn't buy that strained eye cost point either.  A watt is  a watt is true and you get the energy savings from.... but if you don't have enough light you will hurt your eyes in the long run.  To not go blind you need illumination and you need it in the range of human vision. 

What's really funny here is that she could have compared the LED to the arc lamp and found the same visual light/illumination  with 1/100 the power. Wanna not go blind?  Use an arc lamp.   

[second_pancake]

OMG...you guys are freakin killing me.

First, thanks, Jason, for the comparison info.  I heard that about LEDs too...that within the next 10-15 years we'll be shopping for light-bulbs like major appliances because of how long the LEDs will last and the options we'll have with them.

Charleston native, looks like you and I disagree on things more than religion, lol.  Yes, the government's involvement does discredit "freedom of choice", however if your choice forces another to live outside of their own choice, then an alternative must me met. 

MY choice is to live as efficiently and self-sufficient as humanly possible.  Other people's choice NOT to do that directly impacts my way of living, from the landfills that are produced, to the carbon emmissions, to the foreign oil dependency...you name it.  Decisions are supposed to be made with the least impact on the individual well-being as possible.  I believe this does that.  It's not as if you're being told you have to live by candlelight again.  And the idea that people up north are actually heating their homes with their lamps...are you serious? Come on. "More expensive clean-up?"  If you break a bulb, wipe it up using a wet rag instead of vacuuming...oooohhhh, what a horrible atrocity . Btw, in case you didn't know, basics of supply and demand are, with greater demand comes a greater supply, and the costs naturally decrease, so your point that it will remain more expensive is false as well. I also doubt anyone is saying the lightbulb is going to "save the planet", just as the use of the CFL is not going to "kill people", but I'll address RiversideGator's comment later   It will most certainly HELP the environment, however by decreasing the amount of energy lost through use and manufacturing.  And since the producers of the CFL are the same manufactuer's of incandesant (GE, Phillips, etc.), and they have been producing CFLs since the early '80's, and there is going to be a greater increase in production of the bulbs, I don't see how there are going to be job cuts for the manufacturing jobs.

This energy bill is an awful governmental intrusion into our lives and will even reduce our standards of living in several ways as well as kill people.  As for light bulbs, I personally prefer the light from an incandescent bulb and I pay my power bills so the kind of bulb I use is my business.  Also, the provisions regarding new car fuel efficiency will result in severe harm to the American car industry and will end up killing people because smaller cars equals more auto accident deaths.  Of course, to the environmental crowd the lives of people are less significant than those of snail darters anyway so what does a few thousand dead Americans mean to those wackos.  And, to top it off, our "conservative" President Bush signed this travesty into law.  What a piece of work these people are.  

Ok, a bit of an overstatement?  "Kill people?"  It's a freakin lightbulb.  Our species has existed on this planet for centuries with nothing more than candlelight and a fire, we're not going to die over a lightbulb.  And yes, the kind of lightbulb you use is EVERYONE's business, as I indicated above when addressing CNative.  YOUR choices don't outweigh my choices or vice versa.  The best decision has to be made.  There are sacrifices at both spectrums.  Personally, I think we should all call JEA and find out why they don't advertise alternate energy sources on their bills (which they have btw).  I also think we should be able to choose our power company based on their services.  Why can't I use FPL?  They have an option where I can convert over to solar.  In fact, why can't we all kill our dependency on our city government/entities all together and just live off the grid?  There is enough technology available, at reasonable cost, and enough sunlight here in FL that we could sustain our households strictly on solar power from our own backyard.  Furthermore, I don't feel a #$@% bit sorry for the car industry.  We don't NEED cars.  We need transportation.  It is not necessary to produce a new model of a specific car every year, nor is it necessary for an individual to go out and buy one when they have last year's model that works perfectly fine.  Good riddance to the car.  Everyone could benefit from getting off of their obese American butts and climbing onto the seat of a bike and moving under their own power, or how about those flying cars that run on water vapor like we were promised?

Smaller cars do not = more deaths. Smaller cars+giant SUVs=more deaths.  If, as you say, this lightbulb is going to mean fewer cars, and those cars, because of the new fuel bill, are going to be much, much smaller, than logic determines the number of SUVs on the road is going to be fewer.  The SUV would only be driven by those that can afford to upgrade the fuel efficiency of their engines, and for the fuel to put into them.  Don't understand the problem.  I guess the positive outcome of the bill, less dependency on foreign oil and fewer carbon emmissions resulting in a more balanced climate (think 85 degree summers instead of the projected 110 in the next 10 years, here in Jax), and smaller cars creating more available parking, are overshadowed by having to deal with what you have, or progressing through technology, eh?

Oh, and since I'm one of those "wackos", let me clarify that the lives of people are not "less" important, but AS important.  Now, I agree, as applies with any and all organizations, that there are people (GreenPeace for one) that go to extremes and do primarily believe that humans exist for no purpose than to destroy and therefore we must be destroyed; but that doesn't speak for all naturalists/environmentalists.  To them, I say, go ahead and rid yourself of the guilt for being born and do us all a justice by becoming one with the earth.  But for those of us that want to live in a beautiful and natural world and enjoy everything around us with respect and admiration, there have to be changes made...with equal respect for those that hate trees and would love to live in an atmospheric bubble.

And for your last line, Jason, "...but one thing I do know is that a movement to live more effecient lives does more good than bad.", I think I might be falling in love

Here's some fun reading:  http://www.cflfacts.com/
http://www.greenlightsusa.com/why_cfls.html

[Charleston native]

I'm confused.  Exactly what is the bottom line?  Are you seriously saying there's no other option except nuclear power?
I don't think that's true.  Our future holds myriad alternative energy sources including potentially the aurora borealis, tidal flows and bacteria.

No, I'm not saying there is no other option. However, this clean, safe option is continuing to be ignored by policy makers and environmentalists. These extremists have choked our nation's resources by simply banning us from drilling, making more oil refineries, building windmills on our oceans, and building more nuclear plants.

Lunican, the argument for banning incandescent bulbs is much significantly weaker, considering the overwhelming amount of evidence that disputes manmade global climate change/warming/whatever. Yet, we're creating laws for it? Have you ever lived in a place where it is bitterly cold during the winter months? Like the policy makers, you're not considering the intangibles. Regular lamps and lights do generate heat. Measure the temperature on a ceiling that is illuminated by a chandelier and below it, for example. Granted, it's not a significant difference, but it may just be enough for individuals to bump their thermostat switch up a little more. Light isn't the primary source of heat in the home, but it does help in maintaining a comfortable temperature. Eliminate heat from lights, and people will want to increase their thermostat temperature by a few degrees.

As far as eye strain, CFLs are different than industrial fluorescents...they do not provide the same amount of light. My LCD computer screen? I don't use the light of my computer to read or be able to see where I'm going.

This bill is a means of government to change the lifestyles of people in the privacy of their own home. People still have the option to recycle...it's not mandated. This bill goes beyond that...changing the products that people use rather than giving them a choice to do so.

2nd pancake, I'm sorry, your logic is so convoluted, I don't even know where to begin. In no way does my choice of using incandescent light bulbs force you to live outside your choice of CFLs. Same with a car.