The new incandescent bulbs operate and look just like the old-fashioned bulbs that you are used to-they have the same shape and base design. And, according to Horowitz, most people won't notice any difference in the color or quality of light. What is different is that they have an improved filament design, which makes them 28% more efficient as the law requires. So, when you are bulb shopping for replacements for your old 100-watt incandescents, look for new ones labeled "72-watt soft white."
Still, the new incandescents cost a lot more:
The new light bulbs do cost more, but will save you money over their lifetime. On average, a new incandescent bulb will cost $1 to $2 compared to 25 cents.
We'll see if the lifetime claims hold up. I suspect their life span is less than what they say.
They'll be labeled differently to reflect light output rather than power usage (40 watts = 450 lumens, 60 watts = 800 lumens, 75 watts = 1100 lumens, 100 watts= 1600 lumens).
Still, while the idea that we have to be forced to use something even though the government says they are better offends me, it might now be as bad as I thought. I will take exception to this statement, however:
"Without the law, we'd still be stuck with the 125-year-old technology that was so inefficient 90% of the electricity used was wasted as heat."
Wasted? I live in Michigan. I like that "wasted" heat byproduct for all but about 3 months. And during those three months, I can turn off lights to rely on that sunlight thing. And use my oven less than I do in the winter when I leave the oven door open for a while after I use it to let that "waste" heat out into the kitchen.
The part about Lowes's, Home Depot, or IKEA taking your used CFL bulbs for free recycling (because of their small mercury content) cracks me up. In five years the crisis of mercury in landfills as people just toss the old CFLs into their garbage bin will be well discussed with new regulations proposed.
I don't think this law is necessary. If replacements are better, people will adopt them. And if not? Well, we should be free to make mistakes, shouldn't we? We just don't need to regulate every darned thing we do. But at least I'll have the option of new incandescent bulbs even if they cost a lot more right now. By the time I need them, they'll be a lot cheaper.
At least I'm not quite as annoyed at Bush for this law.
UPDATE: Oh, and what of the unintended consequences of the law that will save us so much money? Doesn't that calculation assume that we are at maximum demand for lighting?
What if, because the new lights use less electricity, that people put higher lumens bulbs in their sockets? Doesn't a lamp designed to safely draw 60 watts (and put out 800 lumens) have the capacity to now safely hold a new 1100 lumens bulb? Or turn on more lights? Or leave them on longer? Or, because the bulbs last so long, just put more fixtures up even in places that are difficult to reach to replace bulbs because you'll move or die before you need to figure out how to change them?
And as I implied, in cold places where old bulbs generate "waste" heat, won't heating systems eat up some of the savings from better light bulbs even if light usage remains static?
I just don't think the people telling us how much better the new lights are going to be are as smart as they think they are.
