U.S. Energy Bill Phases Out Incandescent Light Bulb

Most high school physics students used to be able to tell you that all of the electric energy consumed by any light bulb is ultimately converted into heat energy that is absorbed in its surrounding environment. The only energy loss in lighting a room is the trivial amount of energy that escapes as light through the windows and that is the same regardless of the light source.

Therefore, essentially all of the energy used by interior lighting ends up heating the inside of a home; and where most people live, most of the time, that reduces the amount of heat required from the central heating system by the amount supplied by the lights. I will leave the math to you, but the answer is zero energy savings indoors and we get to deal with mercury every time we break a CFB.

I’m doing everything I can to improve the energy efficiency of my home, but this provision of the energy bill troubles me. I have a variety of exposed bulbs in my house–flame-shaped in chandelier-type fixtures, round over bathroom medicine cabinets, and small round bulbs in ceiling fans. What kind of lights will I be able to use in these fixtures? CFLs don’t, so far as I know, come in these speciality shapes. Plus, I have a number of ceiling fixtures on dimmer switches. So far, although CFLs now exist that work with dimmers, the resulting light leaves a great deal to be desired. Yet another problem: I use three-way bulbs in several table and floor lamps which, like the dimmers, allows me to adjust the light level according to need. We’ve already switched one of our three-way lamps over to a CFL, and now have a higher level of light when we would prefer a lower light level (we can’t go to a lower wattage because we sometimes must have the higher light level). Then there are the lights where we have extremely low wattage bulbs–in one case, 10 watts and the other 15. Will we be forced to move up to 40 watt bulbs? Our porch light and our garage light are used in extremely cold temperatures in the winter–CFLs do not work well in the cold. Plus, the porch light is one of those very low wattage bulbs that I mentioned; the low light level is exactly what we need and want but will I still be able to buy low-wattage bulbs or will I be forced to purchase 40-watt bulbs? And, finally, what about the light fixtures that are switched on for just a few minutes at a time repeatedly during the course of the day? CFLs do not last as long as incadescents when used in this way, so replacing incadescents with CFLs is not going to save me, the homeowner, money; rather, it will cost me money, but any savings to the nation’s energy use will be, at best, negligible. And, oh, yeah, I basically agree about the additional heat issue, although in the summer, of course, additional heat increases the need for air conditioning in warmer climates, so that seems to be something of a trade-off.

I totally agree with all these comments by others. In my small 1200 sq. ft. house I have a track fixture in my kitchen which uses incandescents and the standard bathroom fixtures with exposed incandescent bulbs along with a couple of special order lights that use exposed incandescent bulbs as part of the design of the fixture. So this means that not only will I have to buy all new fixtures (here comes the profit for Phillips etc) but I will have a few thousand dollar bill from my electrician to retrofit my whole house with this IDIOTIC idea passed by our IDIOTIC lawmakers. I hate the light put out by these CFL’s and it should be my choice if I want to use them. Give us MORE energy, not less. This country is going backwards, not forwards. Yeah, lets follow the lead in the countries with dictators!