With Fed ban on 100 Watt bulbs looming, substitute LED bulbs cost $50

If these mandated bulbs were efficient, that they saved enough energy to offset their higher initial price, no one would have to mandate them.

Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs. . . .
To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.
Compact fluorescents are the most obvious replacement, but they have drawbacks. They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away. They last longer than traditional bulbs but not as long as LEDs. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures. . . .

Labels: ,


Blogger Brad_in_MA said...

Knowing the ban was coming, I've started stocking up on 60-watt bulbs. About every other trip to the store, I drop an extra $3 and buy an 8-pack. My Lovely Bride thinks I'm nuts as I now have about a dozen packs stashed away. LEDs, CFs -- both solutions in search of a problem.

- Brad

5/17/2011 7:56 AM  
Blogger Bill Bulgier said...

Another freedom of choice taken without much noise from consumers. How many more jobs have been mandated away with this nonsense?

5/17/2011 9:52 AM  
Blogger Panta Rei said...

Not just the price of LEDs...
LEDs - like CFLs before them- have recently been found to have
serious home breakage and disposal concerns, having lead, arsenic and toxic vapor content, according to University of California (Davis and Irvine) research

They suggest wearing safety protection when breakage occurs and that
the bulbs should be recycled.

They also maintain that there was insufficient product testing before
LED bulbs came onto the market.
There was a law that was supposed to take effect on January 1 that would have mandated such testing, but it was opposed and blocked by industry groups, and has been put on hold...

5/17/2011 11:47 AM  
Blogger Panta Rei said...

RE "If these mandated bulbs were efficient, that they saved enough energy to offset their higher initial price, no one would have to mandate them."

Yes, the ban on the popular simple cheap safe types of
incandescents makes no sense, from any perspective...

not just re freedom of choice,
not just re usage safety,
not just re there not being an electricity shortage for paying
customers (and even less so in the future, with all the renewable and
low emission alternatives)
- but also the overall society energy savings are small, less than 1%,
as from US Dept of Energy own figures:

Besides, it can be noted how light bulb manufacturers have pushed for and welcomed this ban on cheap unprofitable light bulbs, as on the above website with documentation and references.

5/17/2011 11:52 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home