If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Philips Seeks to Beat Incandescent ‘Ban’

Philips Lighting is launching a range of incandescent light bulbs that it says comply with impending energy-efficiency regulations.

The EcoVantage range has the same look, shape and feel as common household bulbs, available in soft white, true-color natural light and crystal clear options, and starts at $2.97 for a two-pack, Philips said. EcoVantage uses halogen technology to offer energy savings of at least 28 percent, the company added.

The lights are available in 29-watt, 43-watt and 72-watt versions, replacing 40-watt, 60-watt and 100-watt traditional incandescents. The bulbs will be sold exclusively at Home Depot, starting on Earth Day.

Philips says that if every American were to replace a traditional 100 watt bulb with an EcoVantage bulb, it would prevent emissions equivalent to 590,588 cars, saving $388 million in energy costs and eliminate the need for 3000 MW of power.

The company said the bulbs meet or exceed efficiency standards established in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, and are some of the most environmentally friendly incandescent bulbs on the market.

The acts’ regulations have often been described as a ban on incandescents, but the legislation does not outlaw the bulbs outright. Instead, it enacts efficiency standards that most incandescents are unable to meet.

California is phasing out incandescents a year early. But other states have pushed back against the regulations.

South Carolina legislators have introduced the Incandescent Light Bulb Freedom Act, which would permit manufacturers to make incandescent bulbs in the state, as long as the bulbs are stamped with the words “Made in South Carolina” and sold only in that state.

Last year Arizona lawmakers tried to pass a law similar to South Carolina’s, but it was vetoed by Republican governor Jan Brewer. Such bills have also been considered in Texas, Georgia and Minnesota.

Waste and Climate: Reducing Your Footprint
Sponsored By: Covanta Environmental Solutions

Run an Efficient EHS Audit Program - A How-to Guide
Sponsored By: Sphera Solutions

Merging Industrial Air and Water Pollution Solutions Provides Better Results, Lower Cost
Sponsored By: Anguil Environmental Systems

Environmental Leader Product & Project Awards 2018
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader


12 thoughts on “Philips Seeks to Beat Incandescent ‘Ban’

  1. Good for Philips! Ever try use a CFL in a garage door opener? Probably not and for good reason. I’ve been testing various CFLs in a garage door opener for the past five years. So far the score is something like 9 CFLs to one incandescent bulb. The same incandescent that was in the opener before I started the test.

    CFLs do not like shock and vibration.

  2. Good news. Maybe research on incandescent bulb filament alloys could make advances. Another important point is to avoid lighting where it is not necessary; excess lighting is part of our modern culture.

  3. Wonderful this is Philips the company that understands REAL taste of Good Lighting that can only be created by Incandescent no other artificial light source can replace. Name those latest LED light source, I guess this is advertised too much beyond reasonable level

  4. Garage door openers…you stike a very interesting point. You are using a 1/2 HP motor (about 350 watts) to open your door but you put a CFL on the lamp, which is saving say 40 watts?! Does anyone else see the illogical aspect here? I am not insulting the application of a CFL of a garage door opener (a light which is only on for a few minutes anyhow), but more the point of using a lot of energy for something a human can do yet seeking to save money with a CFL lamp? Get out of your car, get wet, get cold, stop whining and open the garage door yourself. THIS is the cultural issue we are faced with, using energy for human tasks when this energy should be dedicated for tasks such as lighting or mechanical benefit, which does not include open a garage door.

  5. The idea that this culture is confused on energy and needs vs luxuries is comical. I think that the point on the usage of CFL’s in garage doors and for dimming switches and motion sensor controlled lights is correct. If there is a ban on one, then there sure should be a fully funtional replacement. This is how I take the garage door application comment. As for getting out the car and open the door to save energy, I would have to ask “Iain” really? I would be confused at this since if you drive a car then you should stop and get a bike or walk, or read by candle light and not use a radio or TV as those don’t provide mechanical benefit. Oh yeah, I am sure that someone who is handicapped greatly appreciates you expressing that a garage door opener isn’t a mechanical benefit… You should just stay focused on the topic of the article.

  6. Iain, I think you are missing the point that Jack was making. We’re not debating the merits of having a garage door opener. It’s a common light source that many Americans have, and if given the choice, we’d like to be able to use a low-energy CFL. The point is that there are applications that exist where CFL’s are not convenient, and in some cases, can’t be used at all. I’ve yet to find a CFL with a stem long enough that fits in my garage door opener bulb holder to even make contact. Good comment, Jack. You are not alone.

  7. @José Rabello – You never miss a chance to repeat the false claim that CFLs emit dangerous amounts of UV radiation. They do not – the levels they emit are too small to worry about. You receive far more UV radiation in the short walk from your car to the grocery store door than you would receive from all-day exposure to a CFL.

    You are also incorrect about incandescents. They also emit UV radiation.

  8. What about an LED light for the same purpose like in garage opener? Doesn’t it withstand shock and vibrations better and offer more energy savings?

  9. READ the law people. http://energy.senate.gov/public/_files/getdoc1.pdf
    There are many exemptions to this law including “appliance lamps”, “rough service” and “vibration service” lamps and about 20 other types including 3-way (which has a good cfl option) and candelabra base types. This is NOT a ban on incandescents. It is a challenge to manufacturers to innovate. Congrat’s to Phillips for innovation on this and their LED and CFL products.

  10. “The electric light has caused me the greatest amount of study and has required the most elaborate experiments…. Although I was never myself discouraged or hopeless of its success, I can not say the same for my associates…. Through all of the years of experimenting with it, I never once made an associated discovery. It was deductive… The results I achieved were the consequence of invention – pure and simple. I would construct and work along various lines until I found them untenable. When one theory was discarded, I developed another at once. I realized very early that this was the only possible way for me to work out all the problems.” Thomas Edison

Leave a Comment

Translate »