Incandescent Light Bulb Ban in 2012

Date:September 17, 2009 | Author:Diane Tuman | Category:Home Improvement

Let’s face it, people don’t like change — especially government-enforced change. Whether it’s wearing seat belts, no smoking in public places, or highway speed limits, it takes awhile for people to adapt.

Which brings us to the light bulb.

As part of the Clean Energy bill passed in 2007, certain wattages of incandescent bulbs — the bulb that Thomas Edison improved upon in 1879 – will no longer be available for purchase beginning January 2012. Europe began its incandescent light bulb ban on Sept. 1 of this year and globally, Australia led the lightbulb ban way back in 2007.

Bulbs with watts between 40 and 150 watts will be phased out.

There are many concerns using fluorescent light bulbs and CNN recently ran an article countering most of these issues:

High amount of mercury in fluorescent bulbs.

There is mercury, but the amount of mercury in a fluorescent bulb is small — about 4 milligrams, which is over 100 times less than found in an old mercury thermometer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

If a bulb breaks, you need to call in a hazmat team.

Not true, says the EPA. “It’s not something to panic about,” said Celia Kuperszmid Lehrman, deputy home editor at Consumer Reports. “Tube fluorescents like we all have in our offices and schools have mercury too, and it’s not like they evacuate a school every time a bulb breaks.” Here is what you should do if a fluorescent bulb breaks.

Can’t throw fluorescent bulbs in garbage like you can with incandescents.

That’s true. You will have to to dispose of fluorescent bulbs much like you do other hazardous waste such as batteries, paint and cleaning supplies, but certain businesses (Home Depot, IKEA, TrueValue Hardware) will recycle them for free. Pack them up safely and bring ‘em into the store.

The switch to fluorescent bulbs doesn’t save that much energy

False. According to ENERGY STAR, “…a qualified compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL) will save about $30 over its lifetime and pay for itself in about 6 months. It uses 75 percent less energy and lasts about 10 times longer than an incandescent bulb.”

Multiply that by everyone in the U.S. and the savings are astounding. “If the whole country switched to fluorescents, says Noah Horowitz of the Natural Resources Defense Council, it would eliminate the need to build 30 new coal power plants and save as much electricity as used by all the homes in Texas.”

More information on the CFL

U.S. News & World Report published this worthwhile light bulb FAQ in 2007 and ENERGY STAR dissects how compact flourescent light (CFL) works.

(Photo courtesy Greenpeace)

« Previous Post Renovation Financing: How do people pay for home improvements? Next Post » FAQs on New Help for FHA Borrowers

Responses (90)

0 tweets 10 likes 80 comments

Vance Haemmerle 10:31 PM - Sep 17,2009

Nice. I just had a garage door installed with an opener. The opener instructions specifically say to ONLY use incandescent bulbs. How can vendors sell equipment that require incandescent bulbs when they will be outlawed?
Bay 6:07 AM - Sep 18,2009

Perhaps the savings from government mandated Command and Control Central Planning Light Bulb division can be used to build new coal burning plants to power electric cars.

I plan on stocking up on Thomas Edison light bulbs and leaving them on 24/7.
bluffguy 6:24 AM - Sep 18,2009

Now when someone has a “bright idea” will they draw the cartoon with a coiled squiggly light bulb ?
Aeryn Sun 8:22 AM - Sep 18,2009

Fluorescent lighting can trigger a migraine headache in those who are prone to them. What is to become of people who have to restrict exposure to fluorescents for this health reason?
Jay Thompson 8:57 AM - Sep 18,2009

“Ban” really isn’t the correct word to use for what will happen to incandescent lights in 2012. The act calls for light bulbs in a specifc lumen range (I forget exactly what) to have increased efficiency levels which, given current technology, incandescent bulbs can’t meet.

That’s not to say they won’t figure out how to do it by 2012.

Also, bulbs below 40 watts, abouve 150 watts (roughly) and 3-way blubs are exempt.

So some flavors of incansescent bulbs will still be around.
Jay Thompson 8:59 AM - Sep 18,2009

What they really need to ban are typos. Sorry about all of them in the comment above!
Diane Tuman 9:13 AM - Sep 18,2009

Jay — you’re right. It really is not a ban of all incandescents, but a phaseout for certain wattages. I made some updates to the post. Thanks for clarifying!
Ron Wilczek 9:15 AM - Sep 18,2009

I heard there may be a stimulus bill passing the senate to help more people by fluorescent bulbs …
DebtFree 9:26 AM - Sep 18,2009

RE: “the amount of mercury in a fluorescent bulb is small — about 4 milligrams, which is over 100 times less than found in an old mercury thermometer”

That’s nice, but isn’t the more relevant question how many milligrams is harmful to humans?
David 10:00 AM - Sep 18,2009

Diane,

What you say in your article and what Jay says in his post are opposite. Jay is saying that the mid-range incandescents will be banned, and you are saying that the low and high-range incandescents will be banned.
James 2:12 PM - Sep 18,2009

I am not sure how much energy this will actually save. My dad switched to CFLs, but now he just leaves the lights on all the time because he says “they use so little power, I can’t be bothered to turn them off”. Raising power rates will actually do more to save energy.
Portland Real Estate 4:38 PM - Sep 18,2009

They are still more expensive, but if you switch to LED then it solves both problems. LEDs use much less electricity than even the efficient CFL bulbs without generating any excess heat. They are more expensive, but they will last forever.

-Tyler
Cambridge MA Real Estate 5:36 PM - Sep 18,2009

This was passed in a hurry and really bums me out. I encourage sellers to remove the CFLs while their home is on the market – the light is just too dim and too slow to brighten. For myself, the huge variety is simply overwhelming – I can’t deal with making light bulb choice an ordeal – I spend enough trying to buy toothpaste. I’m stocking up on conventional light bulbs every time they’re on sale.

Liz
Victor 8:07 AM - Sep 19,2009

What about decorative flame bulbs? I’m not referring to the flickering kind, but the ones that are cone shaped and used in sconces/chandeliers? Some use a standard base, such as ours, but some have the more narrow screw-in bases and all are incandescent. I haven’t seen or read anything about these types of bulbs. I guess I need to stock up on these before they disappear.
New Orleans Mortgage 3:48 AM - Sep 20,2009

sure hop they make these things better before I am forced to use them.
T, Caine 9:33 PM - Sep 20,2009

Like you said Diane, people dislike change which is why something like phasing out incandescents had to happen with government intervention. The opportunity for energy savings is too great for a method that is virtually mindless for consumers.

Many of the milestones we need to achieve in order to reach a sustainable society will bring huge changes to our lifestyles (how are towns and cities are designed for services and transit, how to minimize car use, how to change packaging of products to decrease waste.) Light bulbs are a no-brainer and, as you point out, on the national scale the savings can be material.

For all of the whining that will happen with the switch, within a year the masses will adapt (we are actually a very adaptive race when we are forced to be) and it will simply be known as the status quo. Thanks for helping to debug some of those myths as well.
TJ Hooker 1:17 AM - Sep 21,2009

Now the government wants to tell me what type of light bulb I can use.

What a bunch of a-s-s-h-o-l-e-s.
Larry Flynt 1:18 AM - Sep 21,2009

I have to agree with TJ.
M. Pope 1:21 AM - Sep 21,2009

Too much government intervention
abe vigoda 6:29 AM - Sep 21,2009

You fail to mention all the jobs that will be lost in the US at companies like GE, Phillips, Sylvania, etc. that manufacture the old bulbs.

Guess where all of thes mercury filled bulbs that cost 20x more are manufactured? Rhymes with CHINA?

Wait until one of these new bulbs break in your house and want to clean up and dispose of the mercury. The EPA uses the word CONTAMINATED about a dozen times in the clean up instructions. How many of you want to be exposed to ANY mercury.

More social engineering from the big O.
Halogenica 8:02 AM - Sep 21,2009

Abe Vigoda, you are correct. US and Canadian light bulb factories are already closing, even though the U.S. phase-out will not take effect until 2012.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2009/07/ge_looks_to_close_niles_glass.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN0415830120090804

Meanwhile chinese workers are being mercury-poisoned to meet Western CFL demands. As are we, when CFLs break. Not to mention our children and grandchildren as millions non-recycled CFLs leak mercury that will end up in nature, move up the food chain and end up in us.
http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/2009/09/mercury-problem-even-worse-than.html

Aeryn Sun, those who cannot tolerate CFLs for health reasons can either stock up on standard bulbs, use halogen energy savers until they too are phased out, use LEDs if you can afford the high price and tolerate the slightly lower light quality and as of yet often weak output, or CFLs with double envelope (where the coiled tube is stuck in an outer bulb which effectively filters out UV). Or join up with others to campaign for your right to non-harmful light.

Jay is correct that the phase-out means that energy standards are raised so that no existing standard bulb will be able to pass, only a few halogen retrofit energy savers initially. Eventually these will be phased out too by a gradual raising of energy standards – unless someone comes up with a way of making them even more effective. The U.S. phase-out time-table I’ve described here:
http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/2009/07/bush-obama-energy-bill.html

And the EU time-table here:
http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/2009/09/bizzare-ban.html

Why both are a generally bad idea, I’ve described in various referenced articles on my blog for those who want more details.
Kim 10:55 AM - Sep 21,2009

We switched to CFL’s about 1 1/2 years ago to “do our part” and “save some money”. The majority of what we installed burned out in less than a month. The remainder are now dead. In addition, in our rural area, there was nowhere we could find to dispose of them (we’re use to the “bright” ideas in Washington pushed for “all of America” never really reaching us).

I will stock up on the incandecent bulbs and just do it the way I have always done it — turn off the lights when I don’t need them.

If only we could turn off the politicians and lobbyists.
BigDragon 12:42 PM - Sep 22,2009

I also have had issues with quality control on the CFL’s. Half of the ones I bought failed after a few weeks. The others have become progressively dimmer even after warming up. When it came time to dispose of the CFL’s, I could not find anywhere to take them. In fact, I had called Waste Management who wanted to charge some absurd fee to recycle those bulbs. A lot of the CFL’s make this annoying buzzing sound that drives me crazy and you cannot dim them.

I think the switch is a very bad idea. They should outlaw CFL’s! Make companies drop the cost on LED’s and then people can move to a better bulb. For now I’ve had my best experiences using halogen bulbs. I don’t think they should phase out incandescents. There are things that can be done to make them more energy efficient that have been ignored thus far in the quest for the largest profit margins possible.
peter in dublin 4:00 PM - Sep 23,2009

Listen to Halogenica above!

Also:

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and 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 etc – 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 tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.

The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter…
people -not politicians – pay for energy and power stations, and how they wish to use the energy produced.
There is no energy shortage – on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed –
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:
onwards
about CFL brightness, lifespan, CFL power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research

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.

Direct ways to deal with emissions,
with a focus on transport and electricity:
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.
This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.

Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also 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.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time…

Maybe the debate in USA and Canada will be affected by the issues being raised over here?
peter in dublin 4:07 PM - Sep 23,2009

Re mercury

- actually recent Maine government state testing more than confirmed the need to worry about breakages,
and has led to a tightening also of EPA recommendations
http://www.ceolas.net/#19x onwards
with governmental, institutional and other references.
Watch 2012 Online 8:00 PM - Oct 7,2009

I haven’t used an incandescent for a couple of years now.
ben 11:56 PM - Oct 19,2009

this is good idea
DF 1:42 AM - Nov 13,2009

CFLs don’t work on dimmer switches and I have a lot of dimmers in my home! What do I do?
Diane Tuman 9:14 AM - Nov 13,2009

There are dimmable CFLs. Go to your neighborhood hardware store and ask. Or, you can hire an electrician or do it yourself by replacing the switches so they don’t dim.
peter dublin 5:03 PM - Nov 13,2009

Note:
dimmable CFLs should NOT be used in ordinary dimmer circuits
- a big FIRE risk
More: http://ceolas.net/#li18ex
DF 4:33 PM - Nov 14,2009

But I like dimmer switches. I was the one who installed them. And I don’t like CFLs. The light quality is poor. And what about the fire hazard mentioned by ceolas?
peter dublin 7:34 AM - Nov 15,2009

The problem is (for ecample)that people set the light switch to max to make CFLs work

All about why CFLs should not be used in dimmer circuits

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm#dim2

(the rest of that site is a bit technical at times but is also a good read, also pointing out lots of other CFL disadvantages such as CFL power factor hogging energy use etc
– and he has no personal interest one way or the other)

You can try asking for halogen replacement lights
(like ordinary household incandescent lights but more energy efficient) – not the halogen low voltage types obviously unless you use transformer etc
Halogens have a whiter light and may look a little different but might suit
LEDs are only really suitable as spot lamps now (not give enough light, for spread in larger rooms)
The other way is to stock up on ordinary bulbs…
Daniel 6:32 AM - Dec 4,2009

Article was very useful and informative! Thanks for share!
Ender 5:50 PM - Dec 18,2009

How nice of the government to create such helpful legislation. These mind-numbing attempts by congress to look innovative and clever as they busily “solve” problems like energy consumption is something to behold. Up here in the northeast, I kind of like the heat that my 60 watt bulbs add to a room 8 months out the year. A room that is kept at 60 degrees will rise to 65 after an hour or so, just from the energy of one 60 watt bulb. That beats cranking up the oil furnace to heat that room up to a comfortable 65 degrees. I have yet to see a Chinese made CFL that lasts as long as an incandescent bulb. Unfortunately, the Chinese crap bulbs are flooding the shelves. Hopefully, this ill-conceived legislation will be delayed until something better than the CFL debacle comes down the path. With the damn CFL lamp on, I can’t even listen to a ballgame on my table radio with the EMI generated by the CFL. When something better comes along, the market will prevail. The average consumer in this country doesn’t need to be forced by congress into making “smart” purchases. In fact, their record on smart spending is rather dismal…
Sasha Buiter 6:16 AM - Dec 25,2009

I think this is a wonderful idea to talk about it, and I am really grateful I found your website!
Matt 12:28 PM - Jan 6,2010

@DF – that’s just too bad you like dimmer switches. The government has decided for you that you will not use them and you will use a CFL.

Now get in line and do as you are told!
Mac 8:38 AM - Jan 16,2010

We have a relatively large new home with 196 incandescent lights, all on dimmers. (This large number coupled with dimmers actually reduces our power consumption — we can have exactly the light we want, where we want it.)

This arbitrary legislation is pretty much a disaster for us, considering a dimmable CFL is considerably more expensive than the already expensive regular CFLs. That coupled with awful lighting quality (no green wavelengths), the flickers, the noise…

Just one more instance of the political left abusing its power.
Keith John Sampson 8:00 PM - Jan 24,2010

All the CFLs are made in Communist China. Soon our land fills will be overflowing with tons of Mercury poison. From 1994 until 2009 I used expensive CFLs but they all burned out way ahead of time and then I had a large bag full of toxic lamps to recycle.

CFLs are not good for the environment or the pocket book.
Kevin 3:20 PM - Jan 25,2010

Central Planners rejoice as your Utopia is at hand! The irony is rich, as now that the wheels have come off of AGW, what is the prime reason for a government official to enforce how I choose to illuminate my private residence?

The Israelites pined for the good old days in Egypt when, though enslaved, there was meat in the pot. Nothing new under the sun, except the history you don’t know.
Shelly 8:34 AM - Jan 29,2010

The United States federal government better get out of my back yard! I have had it with this garbage! I’ll be damned if I’m going to continue to allow them to tell me what I will or will not do with, or inside of my property with out a fight.

If they want cleaner more efficient energy, then they need to be investing in nuclear energy. Oh my! We can’t have nuclear energy…its sooooo bad. That’s just the crap we have been taught. We’re over here using coal to generate energy, while France supplies 80% of their energy from nuclear plants. What the hell is wrong with that picture? It is stupid.
JD 9:39 AM - Feb 2,2010

Yea, lets rid of something that has been around over a hundred years that really is not a problem, to replace it with something else that is only made in China – All the older technology that is made here in the states keeps going bye bye. After this restriction on incondesent bulbs we will lose 5,000 + jobs just in Ohio – just what we need – nice job “go green retards” – why don’t you focus on air conditioning or something that uses large amounts of energy instead of thinking a light bulb is going to save the world – Duh. We can’t run a country without manufacturing and industry, there is no other job source that can employ large amounts of people with basic skills. Industry is whatkeeps our schools, police, fire dept and city workers going with the revenue it creates and pays in taxes, why do you think schools are always trying to pass more levy’s and citys cut – because manufacturing is steady leaving and dying. So Keep Pushing all that crap made in China that Al Gore and all the other jerks keep bullshiting you about just to make them more money.
Andy 11:09 AM - Feb 2,2010

Ban on 2012? Don’t worry, the ban will not last long. the world is gonna end that year after all. oh.. wait..
Mike Daniel 4:26 AM - Feb 3,2010

My house has Solar cells charging batteries for use at night……..I added some extra cells and still use ALL INCANDESCENT in the house…Also for security lighting as they are always INSTANTLY on…..Mike
TransCanada Rentals 7:53 PM - Feb 4,2010

Finally. These are the measures that should absolutely be set in place. There’s a time to make money, and a time to save the planet.
Mark 7:40 PM - Feb 7,2010

Sorry, but its not the governments job to tell me which light bulb I can or cant buy.
Insurance 8:20 PM - Feb 7,2010

ban AC!
Halogenica 5:09 AM - Feb 11,2010

TransCanada Rentals wrote:
“Finally. These are the measures that should absolutely be set in place. There’s a time to make money, and a time to save the planet.”

Well, as incandescent lamps are markedly less profitable – and markedly less toxic – than CFLs, what this legislation creates is more profit for manufacturers and more mercury ruining health and environment both in China and its end markets.
Apartment Rentals Blog 8:17 PM - Feb 19,2010

@Halogenica

Ya, and mercury is the real bad stuff. Highly toxic.
Jon 10:29 AM - Feb 21,2010

Many people do not like the squiggly shape of CFl’s, although they can be encapsulated into a floodlight or a regular A type bulb shape. I have not seen dimmable A shape CFL’s in stores. They would sell like hotcakes if they were. They have been invented however and are available online. As it is, LED’s will be the way to go once they figure out how to make a soft white color. Right now they seem to be a cool white which many people do not like. In regards to hazmat, I think that it is all a scam and it ends up in regular landfills along with the regular trash.
Halogenica 11:07 AM - Feb 21,2010

Yes, LEDs are getting better but are not quite there yet. The very best top range LEDs are now decently incandescent-looking but it’s still a dead light that lacks that special sparkle and glow which incandescent/halogen light has.

LED light also isn’t very bright yet, and isn’t capable of actually spreading around the room or reaching from ceiling to floor; it sort of fades halfway so you need to have it very, very close to it in order to see well in it.