Starting Jan. 1, the United States will no longer manufacture or import incandescent bulbs – although stores can still sell what they have in stock. The phaseout is a result of federal rules to switch to more energy-efficient bulbs. Energy-efficient bulbs cost more than incandescent bulbs but last much longer and save on energy costs in the long-term. So why are people still buying incandescent bulbs and what will the phaseout mean for you? Get it? The greens passed a law banning incandescent bulbs because they were considered inefficient, energy wise, had a short life span compared to what they wanted to replace it with, at least so they claimed, and they created too much pollution, both on the energy generation/consumption/efficiency side of the calculation spectrum, and then they created lots of waste once they where spent and had to be done away with. But why take it from me? From the article: Incandescent bulbs cost much less than their energy-efficient alternatives – mainly CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) and LEDs (light emitting diodes). An incandescent bulb can cost as little as 70 cents. Meanwhile, a CFL bulb sells for at least a few dollars and an LED starts at $10 but usually runs around $20. The problem with incandescents is you end up paying more in electricity costs. Incandescents are inefficient – 90% of the energy goes toward heat and only 10% toward light. Incandescent light bulbs also don’t last as long as CFLs and LEDs. The typical incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours, while a 15-watt CFL bulb lasts 10,000 hours and a 12-watt LED bulb lasts 25,000 hours. In other words, incandescent light bulbs last about a year while CFLs can last 10 years and LEDs up to 25. All told, your energy costs can be 25%-80% less by switching to energy-efficient bulbs, according to Energy.gov. The alternatives sure do look awesome compared to these incandescent bulbs if you were to take this information they peddle as gospel. Also notice what’s missing? The fact that LED and CFL bulbs cost tens of dollars, each unit, compared to the cheap incandescent light bulbs, making it a shitty buy for the consumer unless they really do last at least 10, or more, times as long. Remember that important detail. And for now lets ignore the fact that neither the CFL nor the LED bulbs that are replacing incandescent light bulbs, produce the same amount of light. That’s not me making up shit. I have replaced some lights in my home with the ultra expensive CFL and LED bulbs, and in every case I had to drastically bump up the wattage to produce the same light. What used to take a 75W bulb to illuminate requires a 100W LED or a 120W CFL. And the higher the wattage on these replacement bulbs, the more pricey they are. Going from a $1.00 per unit (I am being generous since I used to pay less than $3 for a pack of 4 incandescent bulbs) price to anywhere from $6.99 to $25.00 for the alternative bulb (there is a wide distribution/swing in pricing, and the pricing also seems immune to competition since it’s another government mandated pile of shit that completely squashes the need for competition), one can see the conundrum. These things better work – at least when it comes to life span, since they already failed the light producing test and required higher wattage bulbs to produce the same light – as advertised on their longevity. Bet you already see where this is going, don’t you? Be patient: there is a lot more. Back to the article and why so many are not bothering with these miraculous devices. Despite the savings, many still stick with incandescents because they typically don’t spend that much in the first place on lighting in their homes. “There hasn’t been a lot of incentive to go more efficient because it’s not going to make a big deal on their electric bill,” said Joe Rey-Barreau, a lighting design professor at the University of Kentucky and a consultant with the American Lighting Association, about why some people haven’t switch to more energy-efficient bulbs. While an office building may use 21% of its electricity for lighting, a house uses as little as 13%, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Home improvement store Lowe’s did a study comparing electricity costs of an LED vs. an incandescent bulb. Energy costs for the LED added up to $30 over the bulb’s 22-year lifespan. Energy costs for using an incandescent bulb over that same period added up to $165 – savings, certainly, but perhaps not significant enough for many homeowners over two decades to alter their buying habits. Wait a minute? If you were saving between 25-80% on energy, that should make a huge ding on your electric bill, right? So why are we not seeing that efficiency savings in our bills? I bet that’s because you have to use a higher wattage bulb, and that means you are actually not doing a good comparison of efficiency. Maybe someone should have done the efficiency test while factoring the candle power output of these bulbs? Then they would have realized they couldn’t just compare a 75W incandescent bulb to a similar CFL or LED bulb? Go figure! Bad information produced by people with an agenda! And $165 (nice round number, huh?) spread over 22 years is not that big of a deal, I am sorry to say. I replaced my windows with energy efficient ones and my oil consumption to heat my home dropped to ½ of what it was. That saved me a shit load of money and made it worth it. Similarly, putting in a new central air unit and getting rid of 5 window units saved me about 48% on my annual electric bill. right-thinking/2013/12/31/i-am-going-back-to-incandescent-bulbs-man/
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 14:21:23 +0000