photo originally uploaded by welshkaren
Philips (PHG), one of the world’s leading light bulb makers, wants to flip the switch on incandescent lighting – one of its major product lines. Yesterday the company joined a campaign to push for legislation to phase out by 2016 the use of energy-hogging traditional lighting in favor of more planet-friendly compact fluorescent light bulbs and LEDs. Another unlikely bedfellow in the effort to replace century-old lighting technology is utility giant Duke Energy (DUK). The Lighting Efficiency Coalition – an amalgam of several environmental groups and their corporate allies – supports legislation to promote the switch to less energy-intensive lighting through energy consumption standards for lighting, green buying programs for government agencies and financial incentives for consumers. According to the coalition, energy efficient lighting it could save the U.S. $18 billion annually in electricity costs – the equivalent of shutting down 18 coal-fired power plants or eliminating 158 million tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Philips, of course, stands to profit if it can dominate the CFL and LED markets. General Electric (GE) also sells CFLs but recently announced it was developing a more energy efficient incandescent bulb.
Green Wombat 
So we replace the incandescent with a flourescent that contains lead. Trading one bad for another is not a solution.
Before they ban the bulb they should come up with a switch box timer insert that works with the CFB’s.
So the savings will be $18M in annual electricity costs (a real drop in the bucket, by the way), but how much more $$ will it cost us for the bulbs themselves? What are the relative energy costs to actually produce the bulbs – is it more for the flourescent bulb?
This shows once again that Americans are letting big corporations take over the government and determining what we can and can not do. I agree we need alternatives, but I also agree with the previous post. Why must the contain lead? How can you call these environmentally friendly? Perhaps there are some big whigs who own lead mines. Silly stuff. We all deserve the fall of our country if we aren’t willing to fight for it.
Actually the savings are estimated at $18 billion, not million. This is substantial and deserves attention, with natural gas and oil prices the way they are.
Are fluorescent lights more expensive? Yes. Do they save Energy? Yes. Are more and more fluorescent lights going to be manufactured because of demand? Yes. If companies produce more fluorescent bulbs will they be cheaper? yes. Will they be better and better over the years? Of course. Lead is used now from what I hear because it’s cheaper. If more demand comes in, they’ll find better alternatives yet have enough profit to continue making them. When there is demand, everything else follows.
Bob: if we dont do things like this, in 200 years, there might not be a country. The US contains just 6% of the world’s population yet consumes 24% of its natural resources. The American way? Hogwash..you are the most wasteful, ignorant people on earth and will drive the whole human race into extinction if you dont get with the program….
CFLs contain mercury and must be disposed of at recycling centers. I know many people who use these bulbs, but everyone just throws them away because most cities don’t even have a recycling center.
So we’ll save $18 billion in energy costs huh. How much will we spend to clean up the toxic mercury component of CFLs when they end up in landfills because that’s where they will end up when they go bad.
Bob, Jim, Try reading the whole article.Jim, Not 18 milloin in savings, 18 billion. Not exactly a drop in the bucket. Bob, You are missing the whole point. This has nothing to do with how much extra money different light bulbs may cost you. It has to do with using less electricity therby burning less coal, which means less carbon dioxide in the air. These numbers are clearly significant when you consider how many other things we can do to reduce carbon emmisions. Why souldn’t the companies make a profit. They are the ones that developed the technology. They are the ones that put millions into the research. It’s called Capitalism
Please stop the emotional tirade and let’s all get down to basics…a comprehensive side by side or multiphasic matrix that presents the good, bad, and ugly of all the variables (costs of development, retail prices, potential toxic heavy metals in spent products and the recovery of same, energy savings both anticipated and real, recycling efforts for both incandescent and CFLs, cutting edge improvements in all lighting products, grass roots support, governmental incentives, educational initiatives and whatever else might be appropriate). Rather than screaming at each other, shut the hell up and get to work. If the boat is, indeed, leaking perhaps plugging the leak and manning the buckets is more rational than pointing fingers while we all drown.
Phillips will make more money with flourescent. If they want to switch that is fine, I’ll buy them from another company.
I had an apartment with nothing but flourescent lights. It felt like work and was not relaxing.
When I’m reading a book at night I don’t want the subtle flicker of a flourescent. I want the soft glow of a incandescent.
I think that CFL’s might not be the best answer. What about LEDs, would they be more efficient? With less hazardous side effects. With LEDs an paradigm shift in how we light our homes and how much much enegy we use could be a huge change, like moving from gas light to electric. Just look at the different ways that automanufactures are use LEDs for brake and headlights. A revolution in the works!
Will Philips make more money selling compact florescents rather than incandescent bulbs? Yes. The only basis for a corporate decision is impact on the bottom line (that’s what is taught in MBA school and I have an MBA). So let us not pretend that Philips has suddenly gone green. Its purely a business decision and what a cool way to have the government force consumers to purchase your higher profit products.
If the Govmt is going to mandate the change to FL bulbs and outlay incondessent They need to pay for conversion. Dont mandate have manufact phas in just as we do on gas it took a few years now everyone is using unleaded . Govermant mandates on short notice dont work. It will cost business billions to change .
I like CFLs OK. I’ve been using them in parts of my homes for years, but I’m annoyed that I’ve never seen an honest calculation of the energy cost. An honest calculation would take into account that in winter, we have to heat our homes ANYWAY. The calculated cost of the electricity expended by the incandescent bulbs should mitigated by the reduction in heating costs. And the lighting costs may well impose a huge multiplier effect burden on summer cooling. Personally, I tend to use more CFLs in upstairs rooms, where the house is generally warmer and heat is less desirable.
LED’s are the future.
There isn’t any lead in the CFL’s brainiac.
Obviously this is a clear ploy for them to gain money by increasing CFL sales. It’s atrocious and I hope it does not work.
CFLs are not bad, I have a few in my house, but some people have eye and headache problems related to flouroescent light and it would be ridiculous to force incandescent’s demise while ignoring some of the drawbacks of CFL.
Fred is right about energy savings. The numbers are not clear. I only got into CFLs recently but haven’t bothered replacing most of the high-use lights because it’s currently winter and energy lost to heat from an incandescent means less stress on the heating system. It’s in the summer when I don’t want that heat and if my air conditioning is going, it’s especially wasteful, losing not just energy on heat instead of light from an older bulb but also in direct conflict with the AC system. It’s clear that CFL offer more of an energy savings in the South, where heating is on for shorter periods of the year.
The first place I replaced my bulbs was outside, since energy lost to heat there is a zero-gain regardless of season.
Lots of general information about CFL, apparently none of you are familiar with Phillips’ various lines of CFL products. Phillips developed ALTO years before the fluorescent market was regulated so heavily simply out of enviromental responsibility, and a little business sense. Currently, approx. 9 out of 10 Phillips fluorescent products that I sell have an ALTO logo on them meaning they contain unprecedentedly low mercury and phosphorus levels. These lamps can be thrown away with the rest of our trash, some say with less harm to the environment than the diaper, styrofoam, etc. that will be sitting in our landfills until long after we are all gone!
CFL’S DO NOT WORK WELL IN COLD WEATHER. I REPLACED SEVERAL CFL’S BEFORE THEIR TIME. THEY ALSO DO NOT WORK WITH DIMMERS. LET US SOLVE THESE TECHNICAL PROBLEMS AND OVERTIME WE AS SMART PEOPLE OF THIS GREAT COUNTRY CAN MAKE OUR OWN CHOICES. LET US NOT GIVE AN OPEN LICENSE TO ANYONE, NOT THE CORPORATIONS, NOR THE GOVERNMENT INFILTRATED WITH SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBYISTS.
SRI, MINNEAPOLIS.
It seems overly coincidental that Philips owns Lumileds, the leading LED light producer. If legislation wipes out incandescent bulbs, Philips will take out a slew of competitors by moving the market into an area they dominate.
But don’t worry, it’s all for the environment. 🙂
That’s $18 billion a year in savings nationally, not $18 billion. Well worth the cost of the bulbs, let alone the elimination of the need to build new power plants all across the country.
I switched to these newer CFL bulbs two years ago, and my electric bill dropped like a ton of bricks, and the local electric company didn’t believe that I was using so little in energy – they had to inspect my meter to see that it was still working properly.
And for the commenter who thinks that the government should pay for the costs of consumer transfer, that’s ridiculous, they don’t do it with other materials that stop production once more safer forms of product become readily available, and are mandated. Why should they do it now.
More choices in lighting, heat and cooling sources are needed, not less.
The incandescent light bulb is one of man’s greatest achievements in the last 150 years.
Cheap to make, use, and relatively cheap to operate.
Forcing consumers to only have 1 choice sounds like communism, not capitalism.
I don’t care if it is just a light bulb.
Just like increased miles per gallon for cars has not really reduced gas consumption (people will tend to drive more), why wouldn’t people just keep their lights on more often and not turn them off with the new bulbs?
What about making homes that have a larger than X amount of square feet (you know Millionairs like Al Gore, George Bush) use a certain percent of CXL or LED bulbs?
Their homes use 20-30 times the electric compared to an average person’s.
They should reduce all the extra electric they use compared to the rest of us poor saps.
But doubt that will happen.
CFL’s contain small amounts of mercury not lead.
Realize that burning coal to generate electricity releases mercury directly into the atmosphere. It seems to me to be a much better deal to reduce electricity consumption by using efficient Compact Flourescent Lightbulbs vs. building more toxin-spewing coal-fired generating plants.
Even though CFL’s contain a small amount of mercury, we have an opportunity to prevent it’s release into the enviornment by recycling.
Burning more and more coal and continuing to use incandescents is not the answer.
I actually bought a pack of 4 CFLs yesterday at Albertson’s in California. The cost? 1.00 for the pack of 4, which is cheaper than regular bulbs. PG&E, our state electricity provider, is selling them cheaply so consumers adopt these lightbulbs & they were available on the top shelf where they sell hardware goods.
It’s about time that we get everyone onboard with energy savings. The commercial market has been converting to energy saving lighting for over 15 years now. Switching from their already low energy cost of FLB lamps to even more energy FLB lamps. And they do it because it works. It save them $$ on operating costs. It’s only natural now that the residential market follow from incandescent to CFL & LED’s. Philips makes a low mercury lamp called Alto, I’m sure they will apply that technology to CFL. The Model T was a great invention in the beginning but you would not drive it to work 20 miles. It would cost you too much. Just like the phonograph & vinyl records (another Edison invention)were replaced by CD’s (another Philips innovation)it just makes sense. Yes companies will profit but some will faulter. It’s the order of things. We should lead the way as Asia is awaken and so are the other 3rd world countries. The human race in the only species that can save the planet. We have to stop being so wasteful. Stop being a Haw and adapt to the changes for the benefit of those who will inherit what you leave behind.
CFLs have their quirks, but they’re worth it in the long run. Buying enough bulb is important, as is understanding a little about light temperature and the limitations of incandescent fixtures when fitted with CFL replacements.
Pardon me mentioning an article on one of my own sites, but this may be helpful to people considering CFLs for the first time
The complete guide to living with CFLs:
http://lighterfootstep.com/how-to-live-with-cfls.html
Switching to cfl bulbs is GOOD, even tho you’d still have to use regular bulbs on the timer units. I used to have a lot of regular bulbs blow out in my hood over the electric cooktop. I replaced them with CFLs, and have not had a blowout in over a year! Also, there are CFLs with a pinkish glow and a more white glow, so you have some choice. Do a couple of them hum a bit? Yes. But they are in use just to light a room for a very short time. So, progress is good in the lighting industry.
FACT: An incandescent bulb releases more mercury (from the coal fired power plants it takes to produce the same energy) than a CFL if it is recycled.
FACT: http://www.prepaidrecycling.com offers a CFL recycling kit for $15 for up to 12 CFLs.
FACT: EVEN WITH RECYCLING YOU STILL SAVE MONEY.
FACT: WE HAVE NO MORE EXCUSES! Spread the word.
Moving towards more efficient energy sources will be required in the future as the price of fossil fuels rise –not only in terms of money- and as society becomes more aware of the economic and health concerns associated with climate change.
Compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) give off more light, use 2/3 less energy than incandescent bulbs and last up to 10 times longer. Although the bulbs are still not perfect, they are so much more energy efficient that they are a step in the right direction. Each bulb saves you an average of $30 in energy costs and prevents more than 450 pounds emissions from power plants over its lifetime.
Earth Day Network encourages people to act on their own to replace inefficient incandescent light bulbs with energy efficient light bulbs this Earth Day, April 22. Anyone ready to take this step is encouraged to join Project Switch by registering online the number of light bulbs they will be replacing, at http://www.earthday.org .
Earth Day Network is a member of the Lighting Efficiency Coalition and supports the transition to energy efficient lighting by 2016.
We are delighted to inform you that Electricity bulbs & Tubes are growing daily in consumption due to incessant development and provision of infrastructure into rural areas of our counting. Nigeria.
In view of this we are of the opinion that, an establishment of bulbs and fluorescent tubes producing company will be very viable and profitable.
Beside, the competition in the sector is zero as no company or organisation is currently engage in the production of such electricity products.
You may wish to test the market by sending your products in commercial quantity after up a factory may be considered.
Our company is also prepared to act as your major Distribution if we can both agree on compatible terms for the business relationship.
We are we located with vast landed property and big ware house to receive a large consignment of goods and eventual construction of factory for the same purpose please send through our e-mail necessary information about your products, company and your standard for interest Trade relationship.
Thanks
LED’s seem to be our best option at this point. Combine these with creative engineering and mirroring to target lighting and you can’t get more efficient.