skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Noah Horowitz’s Blog

The Light Bulb as We Know It Is Changing

Noah Horowitz

Posted October 18, 2010 in Solving Global Warming, The Media and the Environment, U.S. Law and Policy

Tags:
, , , ,
Share | | |

In late 2007, President Bush signed a federal energy bill that established energy efficiency standards for the everyday light bulb.  These standards essentially retire the 130-year-old incandescent, which is so inefficient that 90 percent of the electricity it uses is wasted as heat. As there are around 4 billion screw-based sockets in the US, this is a really big deal. Once in full effect, the standards will:

  •  Cut our nation’s electric bill by $13 billion a year.
  •  Eliminate the need for 30 large (500 MW) power plants.
  •  Prevent more than 100 million tons of CO2 emissions, the main pollutant responsible for global warming.

To put this into perspective, these standards will save as much electricity each year as that used by all the homes in the State of Texas. 

Unfortunately some have decided to launch a campaign to “save” the inefficient incandescent light bulb.   Last month, Rep. Joe Barton of Texas introduced legislation that would return us to the past; its backers are spreading loads of misinformation along the way. The legislation represents a disturbing trend of bashing energy efficiency regulations across the board, regardless of their benefits. 

Interestingly enough, the lighting companies are not in favor of such a rollback. Flip flopping policies are the last thing they want. To its credit, the lighting industry’s trade association issued a press release that sums up its ongoing commitment to meet and exceed the new lighting efficiency standards. These companies have made major changes to their supply chains and invested billions of dollars in research and development and new production facilities. Preserving the most inefficient light bulb is no longer in their financial interests.

Barton’s bill also ignores exciting new energy saving lighting products that are beginning to hit market.  These replacement bulbs provide just as much light as today’s incandescents and last much longer, which means fewer trips up the ladder and significant cost savings for the user.

Not surprisingly, Edison’s 125-year-old bulb is a really bad deal in today’s economy. While today’s incandescent bulbs cost 25 cents to 50 cents per bulb when bought in a 4 pack, they are a really bad deal both for your pocket and the environment.  That’s because energy saving alternatives such as compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) use 4 times less energy to create the same amount of light.  Over a five-year period, a 100W incandescent bulb will cost $40 more than the comparable 25W CFL. 

Unfortunately many consumers are unable to get past the slightly higher first cost of the CFL, $2 (in a multi pack) to $5 (when bought one at a time), and unknowingly are being hit with higher electric bills.

What Does the 2007 Law Really Do? Contrary to many alarmist headlines, the law signed by President Bush in 2007 does NOT ban incandescents (or any other technology for that matter). The law simply requires new bulbs, beginning in 2012, to use 25 percent to 30 percent less power than today’s conventional incandescent bulb. The law is technology neutral and allows any type of bulb to be sold as long as it is a reasonably efficient one.  Consumers will have lots of choices including energy saving halogens, CFLs, LEDs, and even new and improved incandescent lamps. 

What about Jobs? The experience so far is that Osram Sylvania chose to retool its incandescent factory, one of the few remaining in the United States. In retooling its plant in St. Marys, Pennsylvania, Osram Sylvania preserved 265 jobs and protected the jobs in the feeder plants throughout the country that make the glass, bases and halogen capsules that go into the new energy saving bulbs.

Another manufacturer, GE, has a mixed story. GE invested $60 million to create a global center of excellence for linear fluorescent lamp manufacturing in Bucyrus, Ohio, an action that will double that plant’s jobs. But GE has also recently announced the closing of an incandescent plant in Virginia, a closing that will sadly result in the loss of 200 jobs.

Other job-related news includes:

TCP Inc., one of the world's biggest manufacturers of high-quality compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), is moving some of its production from China back to the U.S. When was the last time that happened?

Lighting based on light-emitting diodes or LEDs has created many new jobs in the United States; many more are on the way.

  •  For example, Cree, a North Carolina-based lighting company, recently announced plans to invest more than $500 million in two new factories that will provide more than 800 new jobs in the Durham, NC area.
  •  Also check out this story about Lighting Sciences Group Corporation, which is producing new LED light bulbs that will soon appear on the shelf at Home Depot stores.  The company recently won almost $19 million in federal stimulus bonds to expand operations to develop and manufacture energy efficient LED lighting in Florida's “Space Coast.” The development has the potential to create 832 new jobs over the next two years. While it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to make a LED light bulb, these factories are indeed quite sophisticated and provide the type of high paying green jobs that are in everybody’s best interest. In fact, many of the new hires could indeed be former NASA employees.

Overall the job creation story is overwhelmingly positive. The loss of one plant and its jobs, however traumatic for the impacted community, cannot be allowed to overwhelm developments that promise hundreds and hundreds of new jobs here in the US.

Stay tuned to this space for more news about changes in lighting technology. With the new standards set to begin soon and with massive innovation in the worldwide market, we’re all going to need guidance and advice as we enter the clean energy future.

P.S. – One last point I want to reemphasize: We will all still be able to buy a great bulb for every socket. Contrary to what some luddites say, consumers will be able to choose from a wide range of bulbs, using a variety of technologies, coming in many different shapes, brightness levels, and color temperatures (warm yellowish light to cooler bluish light). No one is requiring you to buy a CFL – not now, not ever.  The regulation is simply making manufacturers build you a better bulb.

In the interest of full disclosure, though, I’m a big fan of the new CFLs as they are now small enough that you can even pull one out of your pocket, as I demonstrated on national TV – with Hoda and Kathie Lee one morning. Also check out the October issue of Consumer Reports for their recent reviews of CFLs, which were quite favorable.

Share | | |

Comments

George WaldsteinOct 19 2010 08:56 AM

Most informative. Keep up the good work. Also, it would be useful to know in advance your scheduled TV and radio appearances.

ArtOct 19 2010 05:08 PM

Noah-

Eliminate the need for 30 large (500 MW) power plants.

^Please show me your proof.

Power generators have to keep a certain amount of reserve online at any given time to handle peak loads and unexpected outages and to keep the grid stable. Lighting makes up about 6% of the ENTIRE load on the grid.

Getting rid of Incandescents will reduce the load some but saying it will take large power generators offline, is pure bull.

The biggest draws on the grid are HVAC, electric dryers and cookstoves, water heaters, and large industrial buildings and manufacturing.

EthanOct 19 2010 11:25 PM

Ever try to run a CFL on a dimmer switch? They do not work. Often, these long-life bulbs burn out just as quickly as incandescent light bulbs.
And the light they emit flickers and is harsh.
Oh, they are expensive, too.
And, don't forget, they are hard to dispose of because they contain mercury, making them less appealing environmentally. The problem is the technology for the CFLs is not quite ready for prime time.
Still, I use CFLs, but I hate them.
I think government should step out of the way on this one and let the marketplace decide which light bulbs we should use.
Give me back my light bulb!

Leland TeschlerOct 20 2010 08:09 AM

Mandating CFLs ignores the situation I have in my cellar. I use the light in there for two minutes every six months or so. The ordinary light bulb in the cellar will last for decades. Now when it burns out, I am forced by mandate to replace it with an expensive "efficient" light bulb that will never pay for itself in my life time.
Any chance of letting me, rather than some politician, decide which bulbs in my house are worth replacing with CFLs?

MSLOct 21 2010 10:45 PM

Leland T's comment is typical of Tea Party thinking. I only care about me, me, me. Help the country and world - that's socialism.

After some of the Tea Partiers are elected, the US can be assured of zero progress and becoming a second rate nation.

The mandatory use of CFLs and other efficient lighting technologies is a no-brainer despite Leland's basement light.

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Noah Horowitz’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In