GE announces High Efficiency Incandescent Light Bulbs. Why?
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 02.24.07
GE just announced "advancements to the light bulb that potentially will elevate the energy efficiency of this 125-year-old technology to levels comparable to compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), delivering significant environmental benefits. Over the next several years, these advancements will lead to the introduction of high-efficiency incandescent lamps that provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions." The bulbs will come out at 30 lumens per watt (twice a conventional incandescent) and top out at 60 lumens per watt. GE says "In addition to offering significant energy savings comparable to CFLs, the 21st century version of Edison’s bulb provides all the desirable benefits including light quality and instant-on convenience as incandescent lamps currently provide at a price that will be less than CFLs."
Now I would not suggest that the release of this statement on the same day as the launch of 18seconds.org. is anything more than coincidental. I would suggest that when every green group in the world is saying that CFL's do not have start-up or colour balance problems any more, that it is unfortunate that GE decides to promote this canard. I would also suggest that announcing a bulb that will be half as good as a CFL when it is launched in three years has just given a whole lot of people an excuse to do nothing. Changing lightbulbs now is one of the quickest, cheapest and easiest first steps around, a start on a long road. GE just put a nice big three year detour into it with this vaporbulb, and knocked the wind out of any movement to ban incandescents by throwing out the lifeline of incremental improvement down the road. Thanks, GE. ::GE Press Release
UPDATE: Just when I was thinking that I might be being churlish and should be welcoming this, I read this on AOL money and finance:
GE throws light on incandescent bulb ban movement
"GE is well positioned with lines of products, but this could certainly slow down the rush to legislation worldwide.
For me, CFLs are headache-producers, so if they want my old-fashioned bulbs they'll have to pry my hot, dead fingers from the filaments."
The movement is afoot to stop CFL's.
I personally think the quality of light thing is purely psychological. I expect a child who has spent his entire life under CFLs would find incandescents to be an unpleasant color. Even adults, if they didn't know an enclosed light fixture had been changed with a high quality CFL (good light, instant start, no flicker) would not mind or even notice the difference.
Why does treehugger have a problem with these future bulbs??? If they are as efficiant as CFL's, who cares if GE makes them. The consumer wins. Just shows how stupid a ban on incandecents would be. The free market is the enviroment's best hope, NOT heavy handed government.
Sure it's psychological but we're psychological animals. For example studies have shown that regardless of culture, most people find blue tinged food less appealing.
The real lesson here is that we should specify the results we desire and not a particular technology.
Consider the laws that ban 2 stroke engines from many lakes and parks ban hydrogen 2 strokes while allowing diesel 4 strokes which actually pollute much more. The correct solution would have been to have emissions testing, etc.
I hate to say it, but yes CFLs do produce light of lower quality than traditional Edison bulbs. That's just the truth and to say otherwise, while good intentioned, is just a lie. Period. I can see the difference with my own eyes.
I remember an article that observed that CFLs had a higher adoption rate in cultures where people generally made less eye contact.
LA: I have changed all of the lights in my house with philips marathon warm white bulbs, and perhaps if I had any incandescent edison bulbs left I might notice the difference, I have had a lifetime of warm and friendly broad spectrum incandescent lights. However since I no longer have that frame of reference I am quite comfortable. I also can put a vinyl record on the turntable and it sounds smoother and better than an mp3 out of my iPod and I hear a lot of people insist that they will never change from vinyl. At some point we are willing to give up that little bit of quality in sound or light for the convenience or the cost-saving or the environment. If in five years I can get that light quality back I will buy the GE bulbs then. For now I am happy with my CFL's that come on instantly and look just fine.
GOOD! If the only thing that this accomplishes is preventing nationwide incandescent bans, then it was well worth it. This whole 'environmentalism at the expense of personal freedom' thing is BS to begin with.
I bought some CFL's less than a year ago and I can attest that they STILL have the instant on problem. Its only a split second, but its noticeable and its annoying. Unless they've fixed this issue within the last year or so, Id say that "every green group in the world" is full of crap.
Instead of banning a specific technology (incadescent in this case) - couldn't the law be reworded to require a minimum lumen per watt ratio? This way we are removing inefficient implementations of any technology (could be Xenon, Incadescent, halogen, whatever).
Legislation should in general specify performance standards rather than advocating for or against any particular technology.
That way we don't have to keep going back and re-writing the legislation. If the law were written for a minimum lumens per watt, wouldn't that get us where we want to go? Personally, I don't care if it's CFL or incandescent -- I want high-efficiency lighting. Besides, CFLs have mercury and even though on balance it's lower than the mercury coming out of a coal plant, it's still mercury. Here's a synopsis I wrote for a group I'm working with:
"1. CFLs aren't the only bulbs with mercury in them: the longer tubes have ~40mg in them and many businesses and institutions where they are primarily used don't know that they need to be returned to the distributor or a recycler when they burn out -- not broken up and put in the trash.
2. Mercury-containing lights fall under the EPA's universal waste rule change of 1999 as a hazardous waste. States choose to adopt the rules and California banned florescent lamps including CFLs in its 2006 Universal Waste law.
3. Of the 514 million lamps per year that are currently entering the solid waste stream, about 142 million are from residential, while 372 million are from businesses, government and institutions (Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers, 2004).
4. 70.8% of the mercury lamps used by business and 98% of the lamps used in homes are not being recycled (Ibid, 2004)
5. Based on 142 million lamps at 5mg each and 372 million lamps at 40mg each from business, government and institutions means that we are dumping 568kg and 14.88 tons of mercury directly into dumps each year, respectively. This is added to the mercury from electronic waste that is not being recycled giving approximately 40 tons direct to dumps each year.
6. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin and every expert is predicting that 100% of our dumps will leak their leachate into water tables given enough decades (not centuries). Many dumps have no clay liner. For instance, the Redwood Landfill in Marin County, California, which accepts waste from many counties (but not San Francisco), also happens to have been built beside a marsh and between two earthquake fault zones.
Mercury in dumps is a huge stored problem for subsequent generations.
Personally, I believe CFLs are a good short-term approach, especially considering we've got carbon to deal with, but must be replaced with day lighting, solid state lighting and other non-mercury-containing technologies as rapidly as possible.
On balance, I think pushing CFLs is still a good thing to do but we should take the opportunity to educate people on the mercury at the same time."
The free market almost always benefits the few over the many. Now, regulation can too, but not if done properly.
The fact is that 30 lumens per watt is currently about half of good CFL's today. If an effort was put into making efficient lights MORE efficient, as opposed to making inefficient lights efficient, imagine what things could be like.
What do you think the odds are that these bulbs will have a toxic or dangerous substance (other than Tungsten, which may cause leukemia and other problems) in order to increase the efficiency. I find it hard to believe it won't, I think a quartz halogen is the best you can do with incandescents (filled with a halogen gas like iodine, also very toxic).
look, people pushing for CFLs and trying to get the incandescent pushed aside don't do it because they only want CFLs. hell, most treehuggers are already looking forward to LEDs.
its only because they're more efficient and last longer. if GE is able to put out an incandescent that's as efficient and long-lasting as a CFL, more power to em. treehuggers will buy em because they'll be just as good as a CFL, and they'll know that it's because of their pushing that it happened.
The free market is the enviroment's best hope
is this the same free market that gave us coal pollution so thick parliament had to shut down because the thames ran black with soot? come on.
pollution is a negative externality which is kryptonite to a free market. its always cheaper for a run-of-the mill big business to pollute than it is to be green unless an authority is pushing them towards the latter. and when businesses do finally decide to do something about it on their own, it takes decades or more and the damage is already done.
I'm a big propoent of CFLS, but they do have color problems, and star problems, including flicker and warm-up to get brighter. I don't care what technology is used to generate the light - if its high-wuality and high efficiency, they can use voodoo for all I care.
Innovation is a good thing.
If sunlight is so "cool" on the spectrum, then people really have a natural inbreed need for warm light? Blue food is likely to have mold or bacteria in it. Warm light was unavoidable as an artificial light source until recently. If one generation toughs it out, odds are the next one to come along will think warm light is ugly.
Some people feel they give off a warmer, better feeling light.
If GE is making it, they have a large enough budget to sway the state of CA to modify their upcoming bill - "How Many Congresspeople does it take to change a lightbulb"
It's not much to complain about if the goal is achieved of keeping energy bills lower and saving electricity for the whole state.
Free market...waa waa waa. BS!!! Free market never includes externalises, never considers long term effects over short term profits, never does anything that might reduce profit by 1 penny unless it is forced to. Free market uses marketing to program the populous that products are good as is.
Get a friggin clue you clowns!
I like the posters who obviously didn't read the post. No, these bulbs will NOT be as efficient as current CFLs, not by a long shot.
My CFL takes a second to warm up...waa waa waa.
My CFL looks different than incandescent...waa waa waa.
How about: my child was born with severe birth defects due to mercury poisoning... waa waa waa.
or
My coastal city was just inundated due to sea level rise and climate change...waa waa waa.
At least then your whining would have some merit.
Why not cut straight to the chase and promote heavy adoption of fiber optic lightpipes? The technology is here, and operating costs are zero. No complaints about light quality, and it can be supplemented with smaller amounts of any electric lighting system you choose. Mixed solutions tend to be more efficient than putting the burden on a single technology (CFL, LED, etc.) to perform in every possible situation.
Fact is, some people are just never going to switch over to CFLs. They don't like the light quality. They have health issues related to the flicker or the noise they emit. It would be folly not to acknowledge this. I'm in the process of switching all my regular bulbs over to CFLs but I still realize that some people just aren't going to do that, regardless of what I think of that.
If GE can present an alternative that's going to get those people to switch over to something that's not as efficient than CFLs but better than regular incandescents, then that's good. There have to be ways to reach the slow adopters.
Oh for goodness sake!!! There is no flicker or noise with high quality CFLs!!!! Anyone who thinks there is needs to wear a tinfoil hat. As for the "I don't like the light quality" statement, I say BOLLOX!!! If you are such an artiste that you can see any difference with high quality CFLs, then do yourself a favor and stock up on incandescents. The age of reason will not be held back for the likes of you. Of course you could admit to yourself that you actually CAN'T notice the difference, your just a kook, and you need therapy. ;)
Why all the moaning over a potentially better technology. I don't hear anyone complaining about better solar cells preventing people from adopting current solar cells.
fluorescents have a frequency of 60Hz, so some people may be effected by them.
I say if they make an incandescent lamp that is just as efficient as a CFL-good for them!!
There are still many applications where CFL's don't work well.
--Can you dim them--well not easily(unless you are a commercial building and can afford the dimming fluorescent technology).
--Can you put them on a motion sensor--well no, not the ones at the home store, unless you want to get less than 500 hours out of them.
Oh, by the way, dimming lights when you don't need quite as much light and putting them on motion sensors, so they turn off when the room is unnocupied, are other great ways to save lots of energy!!
It seems like CFLs have gained a blind allegience. Some person says they are better (and in many ways they are) so people stop thinking and apply them blindly forgetting that they aren't for each and every situation and that there are other ways to save energy too!
If this is really about energy conservation, then why are people upset when GE tries to make an incandescent lamp that saves just as much energy as a CFL. This conversation leads me to believe it is more about pushing a particular technology rather than finding solutions.
Mike--a guy who likes CFL's when they are applied correctly.
The fact is that they WON'T be as efficient as CFLs. Their stated goal doesn't make them more efficient 30 l/w to a bare minimum of 45, and a max around 60. Does anyone believe origional numbers when it comes to things like this? Companies cut corners. Although they say that they aim for 60, in ten years or whatever, CFL's will undoutably be more efficient too. Why bother bringing a flawed product up to snuff when you can make a good one better.
OK, again with not READING the post. These magic bulbs might be 50% as efficient as CFLs are now. 50%!!! HALF!!! Divide by TWO!!! What does it take to get through to you?
Dimmable??? My goodness, I've had TCP ceiling can lights that are FULLY DIMMABLE for over 5 years now. They get dimmed all the time, turned on and off right away when necessary, and basically abused based on the MYTHS you people keep holding to. Guess what? Only one in over 25 has burned out, and that was warrantied by TCP.
Also guess what? I've had many people over to my place who were unaware of the bulbs and who claimed to hate them. After spending the evening, having a nice dinner, and relaxing around the table, I dropped the bomb. Each one is now a full convert.
WAKE UP ALREADY. How on earth does it benefit you to stick to these myths and waste more electricity?
The sad part about this story, is that they have had this technology for long time. Ever heard of buying patents and burying them? Well I think this is one of them, like the tires that never wear out... Business is business, yes I agree, yet we can no longer think like this, we must be different and better.
I personally use a great deal of CLF's in my home, but as "Mike" states above, there will be applications for some time to come where CFL's are not the answer. Consider this:
1. Dimming. While CFL's that dim are available, I have yet to find them in any stores locally.
2. Ornamental lighting applications will not be suitable in most cases for CFL's. So far I've only seen "globe" style CFL's for the ornamental market.
3. Energy lifecycle. This is one of the achilles heels of hybrid vehicles too, is that a lot of energy goes into the construction of any FL application. You probably get that back over the longere life cycle, but if a new incandescent technology is on the horizon, that point gets blurry.
4. Ceiling fan applications. I put 4 CFL's in a ceiling fan fixture and they promptly burned out within a week (could be either voltage or current spiking from the fan motor that they are not protected against). I put my 12 year old halogen bulbs back into the fixture and now it's working fine again.
I'm baffled about this comment. Unless the commenter was unaware that CFLs are leaking mercury into the groundwater around dumps all over the nation?
CFLs do contain a tiny amount of mercury, and so everything should be done to increase their recycling and phase out that mercury (LEDs? a new tech?). But my understand is that CFLs actually lead to less mercury in the environment than incandescents because of the mercury coming from coal power plants.
Hey "baffled" Brian. Anonymous has it right. Mercury contamination of the environment per kilowatt hour used is several orders of magnitude higher than that caused by improper disposal of CFLs.
So to put it another way, the electricity saved by using a CFL over an incandescent prevents huge amounts of mercury contamination. The same scenario, instead factoring in an improperly disposed CFL, results in slightly less HUGE amounts of mercury contamination being prevented.
Here's a cure for being "baffled": www.google.com
I was speaking in terms of if GE made the goal of 60 lm/W. Until then I will accept any improvement as an improvement.
Speaking on the topic of dimmability. Yes, you can find CFLs that dim. But until they are readily available at the local home or hardware store, that does the majority of us no good. And I don't care if you put ones that say "do not use with dimmers" on dimmers and they kind of work--that doesn't count.
In the commercial arena (where I worked as a electrical engineer/lighting designer over the last 5 years) dimming fluorescent is expensive. You can get fl dimming that will go down to 10% wattage pretty reasonable, but going down to 1% is still going to cost a lot (100$+ per fixture). I know that they aren't working that technology into 2$ Swirl bulbs.
10% is often not good enough for most situations, because your eyes perceive a 10% lumen output as only 30% dimmed, which doesn't work in all situations.
And with switching on and off, I have experienced this in commercial buildings also. Put the cheap instant start ballasts in on a motion sensor and the lamps burn out really quickly (so quickly that economic benefits of the less energy are eaten up very quickly, not to mention the environmental cost of changing the lamps all the time). Yes there are ways to make rapid switching not a problem (by installing program start ballasts) but, again, this technology is not available average Joe at the home store and especially not in cheap CFL swirls.
There are a whole host of other issues that I didn't bring up. One is fixture efficiency (the CFL bulb might make all kinds of light, but what good does that do if only 30-50% of it gets out of that recessed downlight that you put it in)
Yeah, I know that you can get 'reflectorized' cfl lamps. But remember that reflector shroud reduces the light output of the bulb by 25-50%. From the Sylvania site:Sylvania 13W Swirl=800lm (initial), Sylvania 14W Swirl with R20 Reflector =500lm
If you really want to get picky, In a cold climate, like Wisconsin, where I live. Incandescent lamps are nearly 100% efficient for 8 months out of the year, because we use gas or electricity to heat the our homes anyway. Does this mean that we shouldn't use CFL, no, but it does level the playing field a little bit.
Controllability of the light is another issue. When people install swirl bulbs in fixtures not big enough to accommodate them, they produce glare by sticking out of the fixture. Glare causes our irises to shrink and, you guessed it, make the entire room look darker. Since incandescent lamps have a very small source (A tiny wire) the light can be controlled and aimed much easier (at high efficiencies with reflectors), reducing glare and making the room need less light (reducing wattage required).
I don't mean to be hostile here. I really do think that CFL lamps are a good thing and I do use them. I really do! :) I also think that they are great for many applications. However, it saddens me to see them applied incorrectly with a shotgun approach. When CFLs are misapplied, they probably do as much to hurt the cause as they do to help it.
I guess the bottom line is and will always be a place for incandescent and halogen sources (at least until LED's improve by huge huge amounts). In many places CFL's are a simple and wonderful solution, but in many it is not. That being the case, improving incandescent, halogen and xenon lamps are still improvements.
Mike
When all our electricity comes from Solar, Lunar (tides), geothermal, hydroelectric, Wind, Cowpower and Wavepower, then I guess being inefficient would be merely a personal choice.
It is too bad this is GE, because in many ways GE is helping OUR side get change: ie going to Washington with US-CAP, and has real technological improvements and ideas for many renewables on its site:
http://ge.ecomagination.com/@v=030220071715@/site/index.html
One idea I like is that a 75,000 sq ft roof, like a Safeway Supermarket - could Solar-power 569 homes nearby.
Any of you guys heard of the "Jevons paradox"?
Essentially, in 1865, W. Stanley Jevons (one of the guys
who came up with marginal utility) observed that modern
industrial society is based on the efficient use of natural
resources. For example, steam engines became popular
when they were efficient enough to be cheaper than horses and oxen. After Jevons, we saw exactly the
same thing with internal-combustion engines: as soon as they were more efficient than steam engines, they replaced them.
The point of this is that every little bit of energy efficiency that is introduced does not reduce resource consumption, but increases it. Ever look at one of those photos of the nighttime Earth? Cheap lights means the billions of people in
all those dark areas of the globe suddenly will afford
electric lighting! There's maybe nothing wrong
with this, but it DOES mean that more efficient lights
means more energy spent on lighting---not more watts per lumen, but lots more watts and LOTS more lumens! And this
means that there is DEFINITELY something wrong
with forcing more-efficient technologies before
they are due. We get to pay extra up front to
develop an immature technology and then we
accelerate the deployment of that technology in
new markets, accelerating the use of natural
resources. Wonderful, eh?
Perhaps rather than ban this kind of light bulb or that kind of light bulb--if we are going to legislate this--why don't we just cap the amount of energy a person, house or apartment can use?
This would bring about freedom to light our homes using technology that we like while still reducing the amount of power that we use.
Essentially that is how the commercial buidling market works. When you build a buidling in an area with an energy code they say things like for this type of building, you can use up to # watts per sqare foot.
Although these requirements can be quite constrictive--they still give the lighting designer some freedom to make a beautiful, unique and creative lighting design. These kind of requirements reward creative and technically sound lighting design and efficient, glare free and well designed FIXTURES (which we are sadly lacking in the residential market).
Mike
Incandescent light generates more heat than fluourescents, it's true. In the summer this is a drawback. In the winter, this means that one needs less heating from gas or other electric sources. In other words, warmth from light is not necessarily or in all cases waste. Most seasons, I use the lamp at my desk as much for warmth as for light; it's a heat source with the added benefit of illumination.
As for illumination, to say that it doesn't matter what technology generates the light is like saying there's no visible difference between blue and yellow sunglass lenses. It's not as extreme as saying that a cookie tastes like a ricecake because they have the same shape. But close. Please respect that fluorescent light, even compact, is depressing to some people, as harsh noise might be. And it's constant: affecting everything you see, everywhere you look, your view of the world. Maybe these people are overly sensitive, but a sensitivity to one's environment is (at least for some) precisely the quality that brings issues such as greenness into focus in the first place. It also probably means they're not the kind cavalierly to leave all the lights on in the house and not the kind to drive Hummers, or to drive much at all.
Let's not get accusatory. Give high efficiency incandescents a chance! (As if no companies, i.e., Philips, stand to profit from a ban.) People who don't care either way will use fluorescents if they're cheaper, but this won't mean they'll necessarily use fewer of them at once or use them less. It would be just as radical, but perhaps fairer, to give people personal energy quotas as to outlaw warm light.
Gentlepeople,
I and my wife can tell the difference between a 2700 degree Incandescent and a 3000 degree CFL. Yes I HAVE found ONE 2700 CFL. A big problem I have is the lack of labeling. Even by GE (try to get a lumens rating on the Candleabra bulbs. They basically refused to supply me that information).
There is a noticeable difference between a 100CRI Incandescent and a 90CRE (equivalent, note that the spectral analysis in not the same for all frequencies) CFL.
And the 60Hz on CFLs? You better believe it is noticeable.
Thing is how does it affect YOU. For our family, with our health constraints, we are very conservative in use of CFLs; staying with Incandescent.
I welcome GE's efforts. I just hope they have the lifetime needed. I have noticed a significant reduction in Incandescent lifetimes. I wonder, perhaps they are no longer being made to the standards as was maintained over at NELA park....
If the new GE bulbs work then so what -- as long as it saves energy there is nothing wrong with it. I am a firm believer in CFL's and have converted a lot of my home's bulbs to the CFL's. Most of them look just fine, much better than the CFL's from a few years ago. Most of the bulbs in my bedroom are all now CFL's. They generally are as yellow and warm as regular incandescents. I have only had one CFL fail thus far. I called Westinghouse to ask where to return it to and they just shipped me a replacement for free. So even without a receipt, they still honor their warranties. I actually don't think banning incandescents is the right way to go, because in some applications, you really must use one, or in some cases when aesthetics are critical to a room. Will Californians be forced to put CFL'S into their refrigerators or ovens (impossible) or hallway closets, completely inappropriate uses for the technology? I had received a dimmable candleabra bulb once and tried it -- just awful, greenish, and not very dimmable. A low wattage incandescent, however, was just perfect. The best way to move forward is to levy higher taxes on the incandescents to fund conservation and other green energy programs, etc. That way people could still have choice, but also provide a benefit for the environment.
"Oh for goodness sake!!! There is no flicker or noise with high quality CFLs!!!! Anyone who thinks there is needs to wear a tinfoil hat. As for the "I don't like the light quality" statement, I say BOLLOX!!! ... your just a kook, and you need therapy. ;)"
Wow Blo you sure have some issues. Just because you can't see flicker, or hear noise, doesn't mean they don't exist. It just means that your eyes and ears are less effective.
I work in the design industry and have also worked in the photofinishing industry. I have taken colour blindness tests on two occasions. Once for the photofinishing and once for my pilots license. I know that my colour vision is accurate and I can tell you that there is definitely a difference in the output of a florescent over an incandescent. I am not saying one is better than the other, just that they are indeed different and people DO notice the difference.
There most definitely IS a flicker with CFLs and it is most noticeable when you are working in front of an interlaced CRT screen and the flicker of the CRT conflicts with the flicker of the CFLs. If you spend 16 hours a day in front of a computer like I do, It can be very hard on the eyes. I concede that this is not the situation for everyone, but that does not mean that flicker doesn't exist.
Likewise with the noise, both my wife and I can hear it and it tends to get worse with some CFLs as they age.
It also is not true that others don't notice the difference if they are not told. My wife can't stand the light from the CFLs. I was convinced, like you, that if she didn't know, she wouldn't notice the difference. So I replaced two of the six bulbs in our kitchen thinking that with a mixture it would be even harder for her to notice. I had planned to sneak them in over time. She walked in the door, turned on the lights and said "What's that horrible light doing in here!"
Your experience is not everyone's experience, and while I believe we should move to CFLs until something better comes along, it serves no purpose to try and convince people that CFLs don't have weaknesses or that those problems are imaginary. It makes more sense to convince them that like everything else, they'll get used to it over time.
LA: "Changing lightbulbs now is one of the quickest, cheapest and easiest first steps around, a start on a long road."
It is none of those things if you have dimmer switches, or luminaires which will not accept CFLs, and it is particularly none of those things if you live in a jurisdiction where legislation forces you to use a registered electrician to replace the electrical fittings. And if replacement leads to having to then redecorate, well....
Like many others, I'm not opposed to CFLs, and I use them whenever and wherever I can, but banning incandescents is a step too far. Again as observed by others above, the best way to deal with energy consumption is the holistic system of a personal carbon allowance, and then people can decide whether to spend theirs on lighting or not.
And if/when such a system is fully implemented, I shall be very interested to see the up-front "carbon price" of a CFL, given the electronic components that it contains, and the extra shipping and storage costs that stem from its increased size and weight...
Well- looks like the bulb is banned!
http://biz.yahoo.com/usnews/071219/19_faq_the_end_of_the_light_bulb_as_we_know_it.html?.v=1&.pf=banking-budgeting
Hopefully GE will get the advanced incandescent to market soon. This is just outrageous! I *HATE* the colors that CFL's put off. They do hiss and flicker. Not to mention the mercury issue. Man, there will be some backlash to this I am sure!
Who would have thunk the govn't can tell me what type of lighting to use in my own home...
SUV's seem like the bigger culprit, eh?
i posted this first on the greenlightsblog:
here’s my problem with the entire debate- every flourescent bulb i have used or been exposed to for extended periods of time has wound up pushing me to migranes. i can hardly read by the large fixtures at school because the flicker to them makes my eyes ‘dance’ and cease focusing. the compact bulbs are so bright that i nearly have to wear sunglasses to keep my headaches away. how is banning incandescent bulbs supposed to keep me functioning? my mother, my husband, and others in my family are similarly afflicted. i love the idea of helping the environment- my family has no trash output, we compost and recycle everything and use wood-ash on our garden to keep the bugs away. we grow organic and cultivate as much as we can for canning and use in the winter and we even grow our own herbs. i love the idea of energy reduction, but where is our tradeoff? do i have to sacrifice my entire ability to function in society, including my ability to light my home, light my workspace, and go to school? how can those like me survive if we switch entirely to a bulb that keeps us in the dark *literally*?
just some food for thought.