The government has affected many different aspects of home construction, some good, like primary building codes that keep home safer and set standards for quality construction. Other things, like regulating low-flow toilets that don’t flush, top-loading washers that don’t wash, have been more… problematic. Now, consumers are facing an essential “ban” on all residential incandescent lights that is slated to start next year for 100 watt bulbs. So, are you ready to turn in your incandescent bulbs?
Turn in Your Incandescent Bulbs?
So how is this a “ban”? In December 2007 the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This act mandates that all household and commercial light bulbs producing between 310 and 2600 lumens be 30% more energy efficient then 2007-era incandescents by 2012-2014. This would put them in step with halogen technology. The efficiency
standards starts with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and works its way down to 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. How far does the US intend to go? By 2020, all the gloves come off and all general-purpose bulbs (with no exceptions) will need to produce at least 45 lumens per watt. This level of efficiency is similar to current compact fluorescents (CFLs). The only exemptions from the Act of 2007 are reflector flood, 3-way, candelabra, colored, and other specialty bulbs.
Because incandescent bulbs simply can’t reach these levels of efficiency without dramatic cost increases, consumers are essentially, for all practical purposes, facing a ban on cheap lighting. On top of that, the “discovery” that CFLs actually contain toxic mercury, caused a massive backlash in the market – one that makes CFLs persona-non-grata for most. Of course, it didn’t help that CFLs took forever to come out in multiple color temperatures and spent a good amount of time in the 13,000K range. Anyone who didn’t want that “office blue” light in their homes had to stick with conventional lighting or pay a ton of money for specialty bulbs.
Because of the new standards in the Act, the normal incandescent bulb has to be phased out and replaced with either energy efficient incandescents, CFLs or LEDs. To us, this has always seemed like an arbitrary, mandatory ruling that has little basis in research or manufacturing processes. What that means is that the US might have well said they wanted a bulb that was 99% more efficient. They had no idea what the costs or results would be when they passed the legislation. Rather, they just implemented the law and let the chips fall where they may – as if the very law itself will produce the means to accomplish their goals.
So how does this break down in our minds? Well, in several ways. Here’s a list of our Pros and Cons as well as our thinking on why energy efficient mandates may or may not be good for Americans.
Pros
- Less energy use/costs per bulb
- Potential for better energy distribution/production if multiplied across the nation
- Eventually economy of scale will reduce alternative light bulb (LED, CFL, etc.) pricing
Cons
- Least expensive solutions are difficult on the eyes (high color temperature)
- Increased costs of bulbs currently outweighs energy savings in many applications
- Mercury in CFLs is freaking toxic! (requiring special hazardous removal procedures)
- Manufacturing processes must be artificially shifted to support new products
- Potential for shortfalls in supply due to mandated demands of more expensive bulbs
- Often requires special disposal procedures for expended bulbs
- Uses more plastics and components, which take up resources
- Energy-efficient incandescents don’t yet exist, those that do are called halogen lamps
Brief Case Study
Though prices continue to drop, compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs)
can run anywhere from 3-5 times the cost of a compatible incandescent. After all, there can be up to 25 additional components (or more) within a CFL bulb. As a country, some liberal estimates put the savings at $12 billion a year by 2020, though these numbers are highly optimistic and come out to $85 per household each year. Here’s how our numbers work out for one of our own homes:
- Number of standard 100W incandescent bulbs (includes exterior buildings): 11 (total energy 1100 watts)
- Number of standard 60W incandescent bulbs: 30 (total energy 1800 watts)
- Cost to outfit home in incandescent bulbs: $41 (total energy 2900 watts)
- Cost to outfit home in CFL bulbs: $62 (total energy 643 watts)
- Cost to outfit home in LED bulbs: $1,025 (total energy 301 watts)
As you can see, the savings aren’t nearly as dramatic… and on top of that, we paid an extra $21 (50%) for bulbs to outfit the home with CFL and nearly $1000 more to upgrade to LED. For that money we save 2/3rds and 5/6ths of our lighting energy costs each year.
Now, don’t get us wrong… the numbers definitely tell a story of longevity and cost savings – but often it takes many years to show results and the highest cost savings typically use artificially inflated, best-case numbers. There’s also the difficulty of dimming CFL and LED technology – the electronics required are astounding and really jack up the costs. On top of that, the cheapest solutions often come at a proce – quality. Go anywhere and shop CFLs and you’ll quickly find that you often pay a premium for things like dimmable technology and warmer color temperatures. The cheapest solutions don’t dim, and they color your room like a commercial office – blue light – that promotes eye strain and is generally sickening in my opinion. This will change over time, but it’s a frustrating interim period to say the least. Just how quickly the market catches up, and what the final prices will be for advanced bulb technology that works, is anyone’s guess.
If you’re after long-term savings, the new transition may end up being a good thing – except for the fact that you could have done all of this on your own without government interference. Being forced to use non-incandescent lamps prematurely is going to result in higher costs for consumers at a time when the economy is already suffering. Plus, a lot of the reasons for adopting new standards has to do with curbing global warming – and with the increased pollutants from a greater number of internal components, were not sure the trade-off is worth it, let alone intellectually honest.
This May Not Be an Issue
Turns out there are a lot of people up in arms over their light bulbs. Representatives Michael Burgess and Joe Barton, for example, are introducing legislation (along with some other senators) to the Light Bulb Freedom Act. The purpose of the new bill is to overturn the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act. Some of the “damage” has already been done, however, as manufacturers have all but stopped making traditional incandescents. The question now is, will consumers face a “light bulb tax” as arbitrary energy standards are enforced on a public and manufacturing sector that aren’t backed up by natural demand? Our favorite quote is from senator Jim DeMint:
“Americans are fully capable of choosing the best way to light their own homes and what best fits the needs and budget of their families … it’s clear the ‘nanny state’ mentality has gotten out of control in Washington.”
You’re dang skippy, Jim. Carry on.
