100-watt incandescent bulbs will no longer be available

[Gary350]

In about 3 months you will no longer be able to buy certain types of light bulbs. They will no longer be manufactured.

1/1/2012, no more 100 watt and 60 watt incandescent light bulbs.

7/14/2012, no more T12 or T8 with 2 pin fluorescent light bulbs.

1/1/2012, no more incandescent flood and spot light bulbs PAR 20, 30, 38.

1/1/2013, no more 75 watt incandescent light bulbs.

1/1/2014, no more 40 & 60 watt incandescent light bulbs.

The fluorescent lights are suppose to be like natural light. I wonder if they will work for grow lights? Anyone know anything about this?

Has anyone tried the new light bulbs yet?

I think I will go to Lowe's tomorrow morning and look at the new bulbs. I want to buy a new bulb just to see if I like it. Lots of people are hoarding the old style bulbs. Only 5% if a persons electric is lights according to what I read. I am only in 1 room at a time with 1 light on at a time, its not like I have all the lights in the whole house on. Wife walks around in the dark with an LED flashlight and watches TV in the dark. I don't think lights ad more than 50 cents a month to my electric bill. These new bulbs are suppose to save about 30% on the electric bill so it should save me 7 cents per month.

[DoubleDogFarm]

Compact fluorescents. In my repair shop recessed lighting, Can Lights, they burn out faster than the incandescent. In the cold shop they put out pathetic light.

Eric

[j3707]

I'm guessing halogen may step in to take the place of standard incandescent. LEDs too, but prices need to come down.

I'm doing some minor stocking of the current incandescents for reading lamps or whatever, just in case.

[TWC015]

I've only used 6500K T12 fluorescent bulbs for starting plants inside. They work fine for me. I just keep the bulbs to almost touching the leaves. I haven't tried any of the compact fluorescent lights to test on plants.

I don't like the new compact fluorescent bulbs. They still aren't up there with the old incandescent. Though they are supposed to last longer, I find that they usually last shorter than incandescents. Since they cost more to buy, I don't really see the savings if you only use a few bulbs for a few hours a day. I also don't like the warming up these bulbs need. They start out dim if they are cold. These also aren't good for bathrooms and other places where you turn the light on and off frequently.

[j3707]

I also don't like the warming up these bulbs need. They start out dim if they are cold. These also aren't good for bathrooms and other places where you turn the light on and off frequently.


My biggest beef with the CFLs too. I think they work pretty well as porch lights though.

[DeborahL]

I've read that some people get sleepy under flourescent light-I know I'm one of them.
When I saw that article I realized why I was always sleepy in school.
I think this new thing is INSANE.
One more freedom gone...

[garden5]

T8 with 2 pin fluorescent light bulbs.

Wait, now what am I supposed to use for seed starting?

Will I have to buy a new shop light?

[Gary350]

I went to Lowe's to check out the new light bulbs today. Some of the bulbs are like comparing water mellons to lemons. Here is informaton for the 100 watt incandescant bulbs compared to there replacements.

100 watt incandescant bulbs.
1600 Lumins
1000 hours life expected.
8 pack $2.48
16 pack $5.29
24 pack is not available.

100 watt replacement = 72 watts Halogen.
1490 Lumins
???? hours life expected not listed.
2 pack $4.98

100 watt replacement = 72 watt Halogen.
900 Lumins it will take 2 bulbs to = 1 1600 lumin incandescent bulb.
2000 hours.
1 bulb $5.49 each

100 watt replacement = 75 watt LED
900 Lumins
50,000. hours
1 bulb $54.98 each

Lowe's does not have any of the new fluorescent light bulbs or fixtures but that is not required for another 15 months.

For the price of the 2 pack 1490 Lumin Halogen replacement I can buy 20 incandescant light bulbs. No life listed for the Halogen so what if it burns out after 800 hours the price per bulb would be equal to buying 40 incandescant bulbs. What if it lasts 2000 hours like the other replacement I would still be better or price wise to buy incandescent bulbs. The 30% savings in electricity down not out weight the higher price of the bulbs. Assuming both bulbs have and equal life of 1600 hours, 2 incandescent bulbs = .31 cents compared to 2 Halogen bulbs = $4.98 thats 16 times more expensive for the same thing. I did the math for $$$ saved on electricity it takes 42 years to break even assuming the NEW light bulbs NEVER burns out.

Assume the new light bulbs burn out at the same rate as the old incandescent type bulbs, the new bulbs are 16 times more expensive but 30% more efficient. You can never break even new bulbs are about 11 times more expensive, its a bottomless money pit.

[DoubleDogFarm]

Alright, where is Rainbowgardener? We need the environmental side of this equation.

Eric

[jal_ut]

In about 3 months you will no longer be able to buy certain types of light bulbs. They will no longer be manufactured.

Where did this come from? Is this some political agenda? Everyone I know who has tried the new "bulbs" hates them. It is time for the American public to raise the roof. We should not stand idly by and let this be crammed down our throats.

[DeborahL]

I agree, James.
I shouldn't have to spend the rest of my life feeling sleepy.

[cynthia_h]

Alright, where is Rainbowgardener? We need the environmental side of this equation.

Eric

I'm not RBG, but...

When a CFL burns out (and we've gone through two in the past two years on our inside stairway, which light is turned on only when needed), it is considered hazardous waste. Burned-out incandescents may be tossed into the household trash; CFLs may not. They contain mercury and must be disposed of in an approved fashion so as not to distribute toxic mercury throughout the landscape.

If a CFL is dropped and breaks, special measures need to be taken to clean it up (I've posted elsewhere here at THG about the special measures).

Personally, I think it's absolutely INSANE to mandate that anyone use a light bulb

1) known to contain mercury,
2) known to need disposal as hazardous waste (when it's hard enough to get people to recycle newspaper...), and
3) in need of special measures when accidents happen.

An aspect of this mandate of CFLs and phase-out of incandescents that I rarely see discussed outside of the affected population is the fact that fluorescents are, for many, many people, a migraine trigger. The flicker of fluorescents--not always visible or consciously discernible, but there's no fooling the optic nerve--whether said fluorescents are traditional blue/white, full-spectrum, or CFLs in whatever conformation, can induce optic-nerve spasms in migraineurs, leading quickly to a migraine. I've always tried to have some natural light available in addition to the fluorescent overheads at work, whether in a school or an office. If natural light wasn't available (no windows), then a lamp with an Ott bulb or bright incandescent bulb helped as a counter to the fluorescent flicker.

Clearly, no one in Congress and no one in a Congress rep's family knew about the migraine trigger. I'm just waiting for the first ADA suit against this law. I very rarely "look forward" to anything involving the ADA, since it is used, at least in the S.F. Bay Area, to harass and intimidate small businesses out of existence. But, in this case, I don't think that Congress is a "small business," and I think the people being harassed and intimidated are those of us with migraines and possibly (although I don't know for sure) people with certain susceptibilities to seizures via optical stimuli. We will be legally required to expose ourselves to these medical disasters much more often--and even in our own homes!--thanks to this Act of Congress.



Cynthia H.
Sunset Zone 17, USDA Zone 9

[webmaster]

Where did this come from? Is this some political agenda?

It's a law that was passed four years ago during George Bush's term in office. George Bush signed it into law. This law that was signed into law by George Bush is intended to help nudge America into the 21st century by getting rid of an inefficient 19th century technology and thereby help secure it's energy independence, lower the amount of money spent by the U.S. Government and to protect America's security. Here is the purpose of the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Independence_and_Security_Act_of_2007]Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007[/url]:

The stated purpose of the act is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.â€

[DeborahL]

I see your point, but it is true that some of us really do have physical problems with flourescents.

[Fig3825]

My wife and I are building a house. We are installing Cree LEDs for all of the recessed lighting. LED lighting is where the future is heading.

We did the research and it'll take under 2 years for the fixtures to pay for themselves. Expensive up front, but the lifelong savings are well worth it. And the light is good as well. Not that bright white washed out colorless look that LED was in the past.

We may move out of this house before we have to change a light bulb!

[garden5]

What I don't get is why T12 or T8 with 2 pin fluorescent light bulbs are going to be banned? Aren't they energy efficient? What will the alternatives to these be?

[cynthia_h]

I hate the idea of mercury pollution but I also dislike the idea of America sitting idly by while the rest of the world creates the technologies and the jobs of tomorrow. So if that means I'm inconvenienced for a few years until something better is invented (hopefully in the U.S.) then I'm simply inconvenienced.

1) The mercury that's in the San Francisco Bay which is only NOW being addressed is a legacy from the 1849-era mining. Mercury is a very long-lasting environmental toxin, yet now the U.S. Congress has mandated that every single residence/office/hospital/building in this country use mercury-containing light bulbs. Mere micrograms of mercury are sufficient to cause fetal birth defects and CNS disorders in children and adults. These are much more than mere inconveniences.

2) Maybe you, your family, and your friends don't suffer from migraines. Believe me, losing two or so days for every migraine attack (and in September I had about six) is more than an inconvenience--it makes holding a job very difficult, planning to do anything very difficult, and the pain, vomiting, visual disturbances, etc., are such that sometimes migraineurs are disappointed that this disorder isn't deadly. No, we simply have a lifetime of this crap to look forward to. And now, thanks to Congress and the attitude of people who consider migraines, visual-stimuli seizures, and other similar medical disorders to be mere inconveniences, things will only get worse.

I'm surprised, and not in a positive way.

Cynthia

[webmaster]

You missed this part of my post:

Last thing I want is more mercury, I hope flourescents are banned someday.

[gixxerific]

will these new light be workable with our current fixtures? I can't put CFL in some of mine they won't fit. What will the new lights be like? Are we going to have to all buy new fixtures to accommodate new lighting changes? If this is true won't this offset in a way the environmental benefit with all this hardware being dumped into landfills? What will happen to my seed starting area that will soon be defunct?

Why is the this mandatory? Did they ask us for our opinion?

So many questions.

Is the lighting industry giving handouts to make this all happen????

What about electric cars, oh wait we have too much oil to sell yet, can you wait a little while!

[john gault]

The idea that people are going to take their mercury-filled bulbs to a special disposal site in lieu of just dropping it in the trash is laughable. The landfills will be filled with millions and millions...of these bulbs.

BTW, yes I know where to go to properly dispose of these bulbs and I do, but just the most basic understanding of human nature dictates the the vast majority will end up in the basic trash disposal system.

[Fig3825]

I don't have to dispose of any of them because it'll be a cold day in hell before I buy the first one. I'll opt for the more expensive and longer lasting LED before I go to the CFL's. In the meantime, I'll just pluck 60W incandescents from the stash I've been building for a while now. I might even start selling them on the black market. (I've already been reprimanded by admin once for talking trash that teeters on the edge of legality, so I can assure you that last statement was a joke.)

In order to properly compare the bulbs, you have to do a cradle to grave comparison, and there are some good ones to be found online. Additionally, the lighting you choose to use should boil down to the things that are most important to you. Do you care about the environment more? Do you want the cheapest solution? Different lighting types each have their own issues.

For example, incandescents will ultimately put more mercury into the atmosphere because to power them over their life, it requires more coal to be burnt which releases mercury during that power generation. Even if the CFL ends up in a landfill.

I think CFL's, ultimately, are more expensive because, while you save energy, someone has to pay for special handling, disposal, twisting the glass bulbs, the tedium of coating the glass with phosphorus. In addition, the lumen life of a CFL is misrepresented as CFL's tend to dim over time, reducing their effective life. Furthermore, their power factor is typically around .5, meaning that it costs twice as much to power one since the effective wattage is twice what is listed on the box.

Again, it's all about what you choose to go with. Unfortunately, the gov't is taking away one of our choices.

[john gault]

In order to properly compare the bulbs, you have to do a cradle to grave comparison, and there are some good ones to be found online. Additionally, the lighting you choose to use should boil down to the things that are most important to you. Do you care about the environment more? Do you want the cheapest solution? Different lighting types each have their own issues.

For example, incandescents will ultimately put more mercury into the atmosphere because to power them over their life, it requires more coal to be burnt which releases mercury during that power generation. Even if the CFL ends up in a landfill.

I did read about the cradle-to-grave comparison when I was researching how to dispose of these bulbs, but I'm a little skeptical; I mean it makes sense because the bulb uses less energy, but I'm wondering if they're looking at the mercury that will endup in the landfills as basically isolated from the environment. That's the idea and the way landfills are designed nowadays, but any civil engineer will tell you that we really don't know if these landfills will keep the pollutants contained for x-amount of years.

Another thing I wonder about is that all this mercury in the landfills are quite a bit in one location, it's not dispersed, increasing the concentration in one area. I don't know I'm just not feeling good about these things being thrown away and forgotten about.

So I can't reference anything to refute the govt's claim; all I can say is that time will tell.

[Green Mantis]

After reading this, I am going to start stockpiling 60 and 100 watt bulbs!!!! I know we are in Canada, but what starts in the States always seems to come this way too!

Off to the store tomorrow!!!