ban on incandescent light bulbs

A bit of info on the ban in europe

I have not had to replace a single light bulb in my house for 10 years.

// seems ill have to remove those evil bulbs and just use led

Gotta say that I'd be really sad if incandescent bulbs become more expensive, or difficult obtain due to a favouring of CFL and other fluorescent lighting. A ban is just stupid and as many have said is a token action being taken by those who wish to appear as if they are doing something.

First and foremost the mercury content issue. I really can't believe anyone wants to risk bringing more of this into their home. Yes I get the argument that they consume less energy, and most energy is produced dirtily but why favour one 'dirty' technology over a 'cleaner' one without addressing the way the energy is being produced? If I'm producing my own energy and I want to use incandescent lighting who cares? Better than introducing waste I can't dispose of safely. Also, I live in Canada and the waste Heat isn't actually wasted..inefficient as it may be.

Second is the quality of light which is frankly terrible to live and work in. Back in my days as a lighting designer I used CFL's as strobes (by underpowering them) and other fluorescents commonly for specific qualities of light you can't obtain with incandescents. The available colour temps are cold, clinical, strange and uncomfortable..especially those that claim to mimic tungsten which end up making a pukey straw/yellow. Even with a square wave powering them incandescents are far more pleasant and don't mess with your sleep patterns. Using DC or a sine wave at 50-60 Hz (as in grid power) incandescent is great. Again I live in Canada therefore long winters and pretty short days a lot of the year. The longer I have to exist under fluorescents of any kind the worse I feel. I've tried all kinds filters and shades. The best thing I've come up with is literally a brown paper bag or other opaque shade over a CFL bulb to make it less terrible. Draw a face on the bag and its passable.

LED's have a lot of potential but the wattage/quality/power source can vary the quality of light a lot. Try using some of those 'holiday lights' under say a kitchen cabinet to light your counter top. I did..but it became clear that the quality of the LED's was not up to snuff for such an application. It provided a decent amount of light but when I looked water running in the sink under them it became clear that the cycles were visible. Don't try and read by light like that. LED's don't have a pleasant afterburn like incandescents to smooth over the square wave. I also agree that the availability of architectural LED fixtures has made for a terribly wasteful, unconsidered, and tastelessly LOUD fad but that's the society we live in I guess..

LED's will play a big part in my future off grid home, and should in any. They are a responsible choice. CFL's don't constitute a responsible choice in my mind. I know there are probably environmental costs to the manufacturing of LED's and incandescents but bringing more mercury into homes and landfills everywhere...is just plain bad. LED's are already easy enough to get hold of bulk and with a little know how and very little money you can build your own fixtures designed for 12 volt, 24 volt, 48 volt, or even 120/220 volt systems. You can buy all shapes and sizes strips, colours and colour temps and just need to create the proper power supply for your service. I will certainly continue to use both LED and incandescents in my home, but will never buy a CFL again.

I've also heard that their making various frequency LED grow lights now...seems promising.

Above all the choice should not be made for me or anyone else in this case. To legislate away a perfectly good and useful implement is just stupid. If you wanna bring mercury into your home in the form of a CFL I guess that's your choice to make but if you don't care about the quality of the light I would really suggest LEDs and homebrew fixtures.

Looks like at the turn of the new year, America will be saying goodbye forever to 40 and 60 Watt incandescent bulbs forever. You won't even be allowed to bring them in from outside the country for yourself alone. Stock up while you can. From the article, it looks like they are phasing out the other varieties as well in the next couple of years. Welcome to only having toxics or LED as your options. The Article.

Edit: I know the topic already touches on this ban, but I thought the article was a harsh reminder of just how soon they go away. Oddly enough, it makes me wonder what happens to the Easy Bake Oven sales. They work based on the heat given off by incandescent bulbs.

This photo is typical of what I see happening at job sites. The bulb is broken and polluting my air.

Does anyone know how to make an incandescent light? I understand the concept, but has anyone actually made one. I can conceptualize one made from a mason jar potentially.

This was something I had thought about as well and a quick search of the net pulled up these two items.
Here and Here.

The Ban is working!

I know it hasnt been forever but I just cant help myself. For those of you wasting your time comparing Incandescents to CFLs: stop. It was a transtional technology that will probably eventually be banned itself. Its now time for you to focus your efforts on the "evils", real or conceived of LEDs.

Thanks to the ban on incandesents, LED lighting is now cost-competitive with Incandescents and offers far better performance to boot. Yes, there are LED duds out there. However, the good products are very good.

For the typical A19 incandescent replacement, consider the CREE A19. I believe I saw it for 6-8$ at the Home Depot. Dimmable, 2700K, 25K hr life etc.. The best part: this light does 84% less damage to the environment in the form of dirty energy costs. Yes its more expensive upfront than a typical Incandescent but it quickly pays back in monthly energy costs and extremely long life.

For recessed can replacements consider the CREE CR4 and CR6. Pricier but coming down quickly and still a great investment for both monthly, energy costs and resulting hidden costs from using dirty energy to power them.

This technology was not even close to being available two years ago. Thanks to the ban, LEDs perform the same and better than Incandescents and thier prices are still dramatically dropping. I can understand that for a few people the finaincials still dont pencil out but those few are a very small minority compared to the vast american (human) population that could care less about being concious with thier dirty energy use.

Forgot to mention that Home Depots Eco-smart recessed lights featuring CREE technology are apparently the same exact bulbs as the CR4 and CR6 but at much reduced costs and perhaps a shorter warranty.

For those of you wasting your time comparing Incandescents to CFLs: stop.

A) Don't tell me what to do.

B) I hardly think this is a waste of time.

C) If LEDs are as good as you seem to think, then we really don't need a ban, do we?


I've already expressed my position on LED lighting in this post.


Incandescent light is amazing at providing heat and light at the same time. If a person is using electric baseboard heat, using incandescent light near that person is actually more efficient than using LED (or fluorescent) light.

I suspect that the quality of light that comes from incandescent is a higher quality than any of the other types. And that has huge value.

When your electric bill for light comes to $8 per YEAR then I think it is ridiculous to even consider LED lights or any other kind of light. And if the lighting bill for the home is significant enough to have a discussion about saving money on electricity by using different lights, then I think a more important discussion is a conversation about how to use the off switch and a variety of other strategies to get ample light without so much waste.

My big concern with CFLs besides toxicity, is that in attempting to mimic daylight, they may contribute to insomnia. Incandescents produce light that is closer to that provided by sunsets and campfires.

Lighting can make up a very small slice of the power bill in homes where electricity is used for space heating, water heating, cooking and air conditioning. Those are the areas where the most savings can be realized.

The way government and industry have banded together on this, reminds me of the anti-litter and adopt a hiway campaigns of the 1970s. At a time when industrial pollution was beginning to be scrutinized more and more, they needed a good distraction that would improve their public image. The relatively benign, but highly visual problem of roadside litter provided a platform for political and industrial leaders to appear to be tackling the problem.

These lights are integral to today's governments need to be seen as environmentally concious. So long as Joe Public thinks they are a good idea, they will serve their purpose. I doubt that there are many politicians who see the lights as a greenwashing campaign. The majority have likely swallowed the information as it has been presented.

"Rough Service" incandescents in all the standard wattages are available at http://www.newcandescent.com/ . They're more expensive, but it sounds like they also have far more longevity than the cheap ones from the box store. I'm used to having filaments break at the slightest jarring; maybe these hold up better.

Its true that there is much more potential in the other areas of home energy use but its much harder to regulate. Lighting is turning out to be easier than most thought. Not coincidentally, mandated savings in appliances are well underway and should be implemented more and sooner in my opinion. This includes the water heater, an energy monster. Could the government be enforcing heat pump technology in water heaters and dryers in the future? Perhaps, and I will support it just like the lighting.

I dont think lighting's chunk of 10-15%, is an insignificant amount either. Home Energy magazine recently pointed to the fact that in new, code-built homes, lighting and appliances are the biggest piece of the energy pie. This actually makes me happy as it shows so much progress in newer building envelope efficiency.

It was unfair of me to say youve been wasting time arguing against CFLs. I think youve done a great service to the community pointing out that CFLs are arguably less environmentally friendly than Incandescents. I dont think a very good case has been made with LEDs though and they have more to do with the success of the ban by getting us away from those things and to a healthier light source.

Its a fair argument for the contribution to space heating. There are some huge points to be aware of though, as nothing is as simple as an incandescent light bulb (ha!). Light bulbs mounted in ceiling fixtures will act as a small chimney sucking the conditioned air out of the ceiling and house which is naturally made up by cooler air somewhere else. This is especially true with recessed cans. Most of the population lives in more mixed climates and strangely enough, waste heat from light seems to hurt you in the cooling season more than it helps you in the heating season. For the vast majority, waste heat is a fairly serious problem that LEDs help.

Paul is also correct to be suspicious of the light quality. However, with LED CRIs now available in the 90s, the difference is unoticable to a vast majority. That dang majority is our main problem here and I dont think any public awareness campaign could have had any effect like the ban has.

The best argument against LEDs is their upfront cost but if you plan to use your lightbulb more than a 1000 hours, the cost is made back easily in average utility rates. Getting 1000 hours out of cheapy Incandescents would be the exception but the CREEs have lifespans 25x that.

I will try to stay away from this thread for another 2 years. I suspect that by then, LEDs will have CRIs of 95-99 and the upfront cost should be low enough for a simple payback of around a hundred hours in monthly, utility costs (usually very dirty energy). In four more years I think it might be safe to lift a successful ban which has catapulted a healthier technology into implementation.

Be aware of the difference of Color based on Kelvin temperature and Color Rendering Index CRI. LEDs are available in most colors, including the 2700 associated with incandescent. CRI is a little different, more associated with quality of light. I couldnt explain it if I tried but I know it doesnt get much better than 100. Anyone know of a good explanation link?

I dont think lighting's chunk of 10-15%, is an insignificant amount either.

I think that if people are putting that much money into lighting, then they are sloppy and doing it wrong. Possibly illuminating the entire house even if nobody is in it. Rather than spending money on subsidizing light bulbs, I think they should spend money on teaching people how to save on energy through general conservation techniques:

• turn off the lights when not in use
• design light placement so the light closer to what you need to see
• one 100 watt light puts out more light than two 50 watt lights
• provide a single low watt light for navigating a room and a bright close light for reading
• provide muliple levels of light in the room for occasions where more light is needed

These simple techniques, and a few others, can easily cut 90% or more off of the electric lighting bill.

As for "10-15%", the numbers I've read have been more like 7% to 8% - sometimes as high as 10%.

The bottom line: if LED technology is so great, then it doesn't need the incandescent to be banned.

Getting 1000 hours out of cheapy Incandescents

I would like to ask you study the phoebus cartel. And then note the abundance of incandescent light bulbs that are now commercially available that last 10,000 to 25,000 hours. And, of course, the century bulb - and incandescent light bulb that has been burning constantly for over 100 years.

Concerning those percentages.

In a well managed off grid home that uses wood and solar for space and water heating, bio-gas for cooking, and a solar chimney with earth tubes for cooling, I would hope that lighting makes up a large percentage of electrical usage. The only use for electricity in such a home would be for electronics, water pumping and lighting. The only electrical things that I have ever used in my cottage are my cell phone and 2 light bulbs run from a deep cycle battery. About 95% has been for lighting.

The percentage doesn't matter. What does matter is the total usage and the bill that comes with that. Here in B.C. we have s stepped billing system that punishes over consumption with higher rates. Power costs 6.9 cents per kwh until a threshold is reached, then the price moves to 10.34 cents per kwh. I think this is very cheap. Many think it is horribly expensive. I can run a 100 watt bulb for 10 hours for 6.9 cents. The current system allows 22 kwh per day at the cheap rate. That's a lot. I'd like to see a base rate of 10 cents for 10 kwh and then bump it to a dollar a kwh. I'm not running for office. Although I think the rates are too cheap, it's a better system than what used to happen when large wasters of power were rewarded with a reduction in their rate after reaching a threshold.

I have never consumed 22 kwh of electricity per day. Many people who I know, never use that much. We tend to be the ones who support the stepped billing system.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To all B.C. residents who can't live within this very generous allotment of cheap power. What's happening at your house ? Are you running a smelter ? Growing dope ? Heating a greenhouse with baseboard heaters ? Or, do you live with a bunch of dumb asses who leave the water running, the windows open and 3 TVs running to keep the cat happy while you're at work ?

My friend lives in a 2 bedroom condo. I counted all of the bulbs. There are 15 with an average wattage of 20.------- 20x15= 300 If every light were run at once, it would cost 21 cents an hour to light the place beyond reason. $2.10 would pay for 10 hours of that. Light is f-ckin cheap.

I will shut up soon I promise. Great and humerous points Dale. I wish all utilities charged rates that way and think time of use billing would be beneficial as well.

Mainly writing again to correct and clarify info from the Home Energy publication editorial which I re-read. The information is based on the Energy Information Administration EIA and is very interesting and relevant to this discussion. According to the EIA, residential energy use essentially used the same amount of energy in 2009 as it did in 1993. For the first time, heating and cooling is no longer the majority energy user. With this trend it wont be long before the appliance, electronics and lighting category is the main consumer (currently still heating but not by much).

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=10271

The victory here claimed by Home Energy is that Energy consumption in America's homes barely changed in 16 years despite increased population and average house size. They also suggest that "all those CFLs and LEDs are taking a bite out of the average home's electricity consumption."

I absolutely agree that education to the vast majority of energy users is needed and underfunded. Permies is a great source of information for doing just that. To help solve our societies energy problems however, its going to take a lot more than education and conservation. I just dont think Paul's excellent suggestions of efficient use are going to be adopted by the vast majority which is what this regulation is aimed at.

I also agree that electricity is cheap and thats one of the main problems. Its artificially cheap, as most electricity produced in our country is from fossil fuels which is arguably the most heavily subsidized energy industry around. Not only is it the most subsidized energy source, fossil fuels are unrenewable and causing millions of hidden costs that are not accounted for on our monthly energy bills. This is our main problem with a wasteful technology that is easily replaced by something just as good and MUCH more efficient.

Lets say that lighting does average 7%. That percentage in this country is an enormous amount of waste and pollution. That 7% is being burned in coal-fired power plants by millions of people upwind of my air, forests and streams. I dont think an ad campaign has the capability to cut that amount of pollution by 80% (like LEDS can) when energy costs are kept so artificially low.

We will unfortunately probably never agree on the bottom line argument; "If its such a great technology it doesnt need regulation to help it out". It doesnt get more politically charged than this but it is the heart of the thread's title. The same can be said for any renewable energy or conservation assistance. If you are going to make this argument then it could be extended to solar, wind, biomass, weatherization programs and electric vehicles. I hope most folks recognize that sometimes, the government can play a positive role in the implementation of important technology and infrastructure. It can take many forms and sometimes bans. To me, there is not much difference in the light bulb ban and similar restrictions on toxic dumping in rivers, coal plant emissions, and fracking discharge. If most of the population behaved like the fine peeps of permies we wouldnt be facing these problems and we wouldnt need government.

Correction --- I overstated the cost of running my friend's lights by a factor of 10. It's 2.1 cents per hour to run all those lights.

I was visiting a home where the mother is constantly badgering her grown daughter about the lights. She will turn off and dim lights in the kitchen, while the daughter is marking her student's homework. I checked the wattage and found that with full lighting, the kitchen uses 100 watts. The place is electrically heated and can consume over 5000 watts when all heaters are on. That's 50 times more. I attempted to explain this to the mother who is perpetually cold and under dressed for the season. Her mind is impervious to reason.

Light is visual. Heat is not. I've found myself making the mistake of assuming that people who have gone away and left a few lights on, are big energy wasters. If the completely dark house next door is kept 5 degrees warmer while the owners are on vacation, that house is the big energy waster. Nothing is visible to indicate this. If the energy from lights were as invisible as that from heat, politicians would never have jumped on the bandwagon. Only when you look at the power bill, can the energy from electric heat be seen by the human eye.

when incan...s are banned--and people want to squeeze more life out of the bulbs they have, a friend of mine used a simple trick that he said extended his bulbs life indefinitely--he added a dimmer in the circuit and always used it to turn his bulbs on--he said the sudden shock of the voltage and heat was a prime factor in the self destruction of the bulbs--that centennial bulb has never been turned off.

also as far as leds, i believe 25K hr lifespans is really the compromise the industry has come to in order to get more light and convenience out of individual leds-- when i was buying bulk leds and making my own "bulbs" the leds i bought were rated at several hundred thousand hrs--2-400k i believe , i'm guessing led bulb life could be extended 10 times by reducing voltage and turning them into dc fixtures

i've been using the christmas leds recently,,buy them the day after christmas at 1/2 price-- be there early, they sell out fast

anyway, i think these strands can be converted to dc, eliminating the pulsing effect i heard someone complain of

Has anyone got the details on the new legislation passed? I noticed in this article that they stopped implementation of the ban on incandescent bulbs! http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/13/politics/congress-spending/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

(Somebody tell Paul!)

UPDATE: I guess it hasn't "passed" yet, but apparently has bipartisan support... maybe as soon as Wednesday.

Looks like Page 435 of the bill contains the goods. (Bill at http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/CPRT-113-HPRT-RU00-h3547-hamdt2samdt_xml.pdf)

12 SEC. 322. None of the funds made available in this
13 Act may be used—
14 (1) to implement or enforce section 430.32(x)
15 of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations; or
16 (2) to implement or enforce the standards es-
17 tablished by the tables contained in section
18 325(i)(1)(B) of the Energy Policy and Conservation
19 Act (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(1)(B)) with respect to
20 BPAR incandescent reflector lamps, BR incandes-
21 cent reflector lamps, and ER incandescent reflector
22 lamps.

So the lights will still be banned, but they will take away the enforcement of the ban? So, the exact same story from two years ago.

Of course, it was the light bulb industry that lobbied for the ban.

So who wants to start an business that is illegal, but there is currently no funding to come and regulate the law?

Here is my video that sheds some light on this:

paul wheaton wrote:So the lights will still be banned, but they will take away the enforcement of the ban? So, the exact same story from two years ago.

Of course, it was the light bulb industry that lobbied for the ban.

So who wants to start an business that is illegal, but there is currently no funding to come and regulate the law?

Unfortunately, that's how I'm reading it as well - but I'm certainly no lawyer. Too bad!

Here are the clean up instructions for a broken CFL. The first direction is to open the house up and air out ....any small energy savings are out the window.

Before Cleanup

Have people and pets leave the room.
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
stiff paper or cardboard;
sticky tape;
damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.


During Cleanup

DO NOT VACUUM. Vacuuming is not recommended unless broken glass remains after all other cleanup steps have been taken. Vacuuming could spread mercury-containing powder or mercury vapor.
Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder. Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder. Place the used tape in the glass jar or plastic bag. See the detailed cleanup instructions for more information, and for differences in cleaning up hard surfaces versus carpeting or rugs.
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.


After Cleanup

Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials, including vacuum cleaner bags, outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
Next, check with your local government about disposal requirements in your area, because some localities require fluorescent bulbs (broken or unbroken) be taken to a local recycling center. If there is no such requirement in your area, you can dispose of the materials with your household trash.
If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.

Victor Johanson wrote:"Rough Service" incandescents in all the standard wattages are available at http://www.newcandescent.com/ . They're more expensive, but it sounds like they also have far more longevity than the cheap ones from the box store. I'm used to having filaments break at the slightest jarring; maybe these hold up better.

I second this!

I just ran some terrible math. Will try again later..

In 2003-2004 I went from incandescent to CFL. As I could afford, I went to daylight spectrum (6500k) from warm white (2700k) and bought mercury free as they became available. The 'flicker' I have not seen for several years. Now LED are getting into the same price range as comparable to 2003-2004, and I can get the spectrum range I wish.

Both times I did some experiments or samples before committing. I am about through with  my experiments, shifting to more task lighting and otherwise learning how to sip instead of gulp my lighting.

One I noticed in the last few years, 100 watt bulbs became illegal so they started to make 90W incandescent.

I know someone in Europe is importing incandescent bulbs and selling them as 'novelty globe heaters' at 2-3x the price. And has good business. I guess his customers keep a flap off the box indicating what the product is and the classification (novelty globe heater) in case the authorities ask.

We had fluorescents for decades so the  slide into HO and the decrease from T12 (1 1/2" diameter) to T8 to T5 HO (high output) is a more logical and slower progression once fluorescent was turned into the High Output... and they learned how to make the bulbs without things like mercury. The leap to LED is following the slide to CFL.

The gradual step banning has forced the advancement of the technology and reduction of the price, and the banning has forced the consumer into thinking more ecogreen (because they have to buy the more economical product) and thus use less energy. I'm not sure that is the right way either (by banning something), but at least the technology for hopefully something better will happen and come into the affordable bracket.

paul wheaton wrote:My brother told me that the US will soon ban incandescent light bulbs.  Anybody know if there is any truth to that?

I know that australia did something like that.

They did, but you can still buy them online if you know where to look and what to search on. See https://permies.com/t/31062/incandescent-light-bulb#594263

a bit more:

I realize this is an older thread, but since I just purchased a lifetime supply of incandescent bulbs, I thought I'd answer Brian's question.

Here's a good explanation of CRI from TakeThreeLighting.com:
"CRI refers to how accurately artificial light shows colors of the objects (or people) under them. Using a numerical scale from 1 to 100, CRI evaluates the color rendition and color accuracy of objects under different lights compared to how those objects would look under incandescent lights or natural sunlight. Technically speaking, incandescent lights and sunlight are considered “blackbody radiators” and have a perfect CRI score of 100…so they’re the benchmark. The higher the numerical value of CRI, the better the light fixture or bulb’s color rendition. Generally, a CRI of 80 or above is considered good, while a CRI of 90 or better is thought of as excellent. Think of CRI numbers as exam scores: 80s are Bs, while 90s are As."

Candlelight, sunlight, and incandescents show 100% of true colors
Fluorescents - 50 to 85
LEDs are usually in the 90s

It partially explains why the fluorescents and LEDs give some people headaches, especially those people with light eyes or those who are on the ASD spectrum (it has to do with a perception of flickering).

Personally, I'd rather go dark or back to candles rather than use the LEDs, but everyone should have the choice to do so.

If you're trying to understand color and light frequencies, try this tutorial science of color