December 22, 2007


No Joke, Bulb Change Is Challenge for U.S. (CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH, 12/22/07, NY Times)

The new energy bill signed this week makes it official. When 2012 hits, stores can no longer sell the cheap but inefficient incandescent light bulbs that are fixtures in most homes.

Even so, light bulb manufacturers say that worries about greenhouse gases and the high cost of energy had them moving away from conventional incandescents way before Congress weighed in. For quite some time, they note, they have been trying to soften the light emitted by compact fluorescent lights, bring down the cost of light-emitting diodes — and yes, find ways to increase the efficiency of incandescents.

Posted by Orrin Judd at December 22, 2007 9:17 AM

Flourescent bulbs are too harsh and the flickering can drive you crazy, especially if you're already hyper-sensitive to it.

People don't know what's in store for them yet and when they do, I very much doubt soft white will be out.

Posted by: erp at December 22, 2007 10:23 AM

Time to stock pile incandescent bulbs.

I still go dumpster diving for toilets. I simply won't install a 3 flush wonder (brought to you by DC idiots)

Some one should invest in an offshore "Black Market Depot" with freon, incandescent bulbs, toilets that flush, toy guns, model rockets, and everything else "banned" by the metrosexual fembots destroying a perfectly good society.

Posted by: Bruno at December 22, 2007 10:43 AM


I've had two of those newer flourescent bulbs in my kitchen, and while there is the typical delay after you flip the switch, I've yet to have any flickering. I'm pretty much used to the light from the bulbs, and the rest of the lamps in my apartment will get those flourescent bulbs once the "soft whites" go out.

Posted by: Brad S at December 22, 2007 12:33 PM

Yea but calling out a hazmat specialist when one breaks in the house should even out the savings gained on the energy bills.

Posted by: KRS at December 22, 2007 1:05 PM

So this means no flashlights or Christmas tree lights? How about chandeliers and those "candles" in the windows that use small bulbs that in the shape of a flame?

Posted by: wthomas at December 22, 2007 1:56 PM

Typical government diktat...the electronics industry just went through major headaches to remove Lead from printed circuit boards/metals/power cord covers/etc. due to EU legal requirements (i.e. RoHS), now we're effectively going to push Mercury (which is worse) into every house.

FWIW, I see LED vendor dog-and-pony shows a couple of times a year at work. At the current rate of technology change, LED lighting will have passed CFLs by 2012. Don't know if they'll have the supply chain up to speed yet, but CFLs days as favored technology are numbered.

Be careful erp or Orrin will lump you with the rest of us CFL deniers...

Posted by: TimF at December 22, 2007 1:59 PM

Typcial government meddling in the market while technology is finding other solutions, i.e., high efficiency incandesant lighting (HEI) announced by GE this year: General Electric Reinvents the Light Bulb.

Posted by: jd watson at December 22, 2007 3:12 PM

They don't flicker and the light is pleasant.

Posted by: oj at December 22, 2007 4:11 PM

Tim, I don't even know what CFL means, but I do know that fluorescent bulbs flicker and reading by them is painful. What about halogen bulbs? How do they stack up? Bruno has the right idea, stock up on soft whites and hope for the best.

Posted by: erp at December 22, 2007 4:46 PM

Those are both accepted alternatives.

Posted by: oj at December 22, 2007 5:02 PM

No, it means new flashlights and tree lights. Forcing innovation is just good business.

Posted by: oj at December 22, 2007 5:03 PM

I remember when y'all would never accept unleaded gas either.

Posted by: oj at December 22, 2007 9:23 PM

I have so much respect for so much of OJ's analysis that its always disconcerting when I'm forced to face this bizarre idea he has about the good economic effects of government randomly prohibiting things.

Posted by: Ibid at December 23, 2007 8:59 AM

bizarre idea he has about the good economic effects of government randomly prohibiting things.

Add in the fact that it's only things about which he disapproves and it all makes sense. Compare and contrast his reacton to the idea of government having a say in who gets into this country.

I now expect the price of incandesents to start drifing up as governments start stockpiling them rather than leading the way. The excuse will be that incandescents are cheaper and they just don't have the budget (because ungrateful voters won't approve their tax increases) for the lights they are imposing on the rest of us.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 23, 2007 1:09 PM

Not random. You prohibit what you don't want and business will innovate what you do.

Posted by: oj at December 23, 2007 5:27 PM