Incandescent Light Bulb Ban in 2012
By: Diane Tuman, Zillow Content Manager | September 17, 2009
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)
- Stumble it!
- Categories: Home Improvement
Comments
34 Comments so far
Enjoy this post? Subscribe to the Zillow Blog feed or get updates via e-mail
Vance Haemmerle on September 17, 2009 10:31 pm
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 on September 18, 2009 6:07 am
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 on September 18, 2009 6:24 am
Now when someone has a “bright idea” will they draw the cartoon with a coiled squiggly light bulb ?
Top 5 real estate posts of the day for 9/18/2009 on September 18, 2009 6:44 am
[...] Incandescent light bulb ban in 2012 – Interesting piece on light bulbs, I had no idea the ban was [...]
Aeryn Sun on September 18, 2009 8:22 am
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 on September 18, 2009 8:57 am
“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 on September 18, 2009 8:59 am
What they really need to ban are typos. Sorry about all of them in the comment above!
Diane Tuman on September 18, 2009 9:13 am
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 on September 18, 2009 9:15 am
I heard there may be a stimulus bill passing the senate to help more people by fluorescent bulbs …
DebtFree on September 18, 2009 9:26 am
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 on September 18, 2009 10:00 am
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 on September 18, 2009 2:12 pm
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 on September 18, 2009 4:38 pm
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 on September 18, 2009 5:36 pm
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 on September 19, 2009 8:07 am
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 on September 20, 2009 3:48 am
sure hop they make these things better before I am forced to use them.
T, Caine on September 20, 2009 9:33 pm
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 on September 21, 2009 1:17 am
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 on September 21, 2009 1:18 am
I have to agree with TJ.
M. Pope on September 21, 2009 1:21 am
Too much government intervention
abe vigoda on September 21, 2009 6:29 am
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 on September 21, 2009 8:02 am
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 on September 21, 2009 10:55 am
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 on September 22, 2009 12:42 pm
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 on September 23, 2009 4:00 pm
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 on September 23, 2009 4:07 pm
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.
Incandescent Light Bulb Ban in 2012 | Zillow Blog - Real Estate … | Freedom from Smokes on October 6, 2009 1:07 am
[...] A nice web master placed an observative post today on Incandescent Light Bulb Ban in 2012 | Zillow Blog - Real Estate …Here’s a quick excerptkeyword Because its that it is dependence for nicotine, and the, but familiar taste of which they have grown to which keeps them coming back for more. After some time, you will experience the craving overwhelming you again, that sooner or later, they have to kick e heed of the following and follow them. Measure how well you can resist the temptation before you rush towards the nearest smoke. And nobodys kidding anyone when they claim the and feel of tobacco. The chief thing is that you keep drilling onwards with your effort. Consider it as something that will exercise your willpower and make it stronger. You have other people trying to do the same, and you would want yourself to win this one. It will take time, and there will be days that you wish you would just get a smoke but you are trying to pit resistance on your [...] [...]
Watch 2012 Online on October 7, 2009 8:00 pm
I haven’t used an incandescent for a couple of years now.
ben on October 19, 2009 11:56 pm
this is good idea
DF on November 13, 2009 1:42 am
CFLs don’t work on dimmer switches and I have a lot of dimmers in my home! What do I do?
Diane Tuman on November 13, 2009 9:14 am
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 on November 13, 2009 5:03 pm
Note:
dimmable CFLs should NOT be used in ordinary dimmer circuits
- a big FIRE risk
More: http://ceolas.net/#li18ex
DF on November 14, 2009 4:33 pm
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 on November 15, 2009 7:34 am
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…