ShareThis Page

Nation saying 'so long' to a 'soft white' friend

| Sunday, Jan. 20, 2013, 9:59 a.m.

Slowly but surely the light is dimming on incandescent light bulbs for U.S. households.

Production of the old-fashioned “soft whites” will fade to blackness come 2014.

The 100-watt bulbs were the first to go, in January 2012. This year, 75-watt bulbs will be phased out. Next January, American factories will cease making the 40- and 60-watt orbs of light.

Of course, the transition will take awhile. Incandescents, which date back to the 1880s, will linger as long as stores have them on the shelves. Consumers will eventually have to select an alternative, however.

Already, millions of American homes are glowing with light provided by the “curly” CFL (Compact Fluorescent Light) bulbs, which burn much longer than incandescent bulbs. And LED (Light Emitting Diode) bulbs are even more efficient, although they cost a lot more.

The incandescent demise was spurred by several factors, including energy efficiency. By far, LED lights are the most energy-efficient; a 6-watt LED burns 30,000 hours or longer, compared to 6,000 to 15,000 hours for the “curly” CFLs and only 1,000 hours for “soft white” incandescent bulbs.

LED lights ‘warmer'

Speaking of “soft white,” the light color of CFLs and LEDs met the cold shoulder of consumers when first introduced to the market. Many people complained that the light generated by those bulbs was too sterile, resembling the traditional fluorescent tube lighting commonly used in the workplace.

However, that problem has been solved. The light quality of CFLs and LEDs has greatly improved in recent years, according to Shaun Valente, technology teacher at Laurel Highlands Middle School in Uniontown. Valente recently received a grant to teach his eighth grade students about LED lighting.

“LEDs use different light spectrums. Those using 3,000K produce warm light, while those using 5,000K produce cool — almost blue — light,” he explained.

Halogen-tungsten lights, another alternative, produce warm light similar to incandescents and they also burn long. But halogen lights produce high heat levels; LEDs are cool. However, halogen-tungsten bulbs cost less than LEDs — at least for now.

Environmental concerns

Environmental hazards are another reason that incandescent bulbs are being phased out. Both incandescents and CFLs contain mercury, according to various sources, although CFLs contain only minute amounts. Mercury is dangerous to the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, until recent years approximately 600 million incandescent light bulbs were disposed of in landfills.

Alternative lighting saves money even though it costs more up front, according to Valente, who uses many LEDs in his Fayette County home, especially in places that are hard to reach, because LEDs' lifespan is so long. “You really notice it in your electric bill.”

However, LEDs cost a lot, at least for now. “But prices of LEDs are coming down,” said Valente. Various sources predict the cost will drop dramatically after incandescent bulbs are phased out and LEDs are mass-produced.

CFL “curlies” and halogen-tungsten lights are the most cost-efficient for now. The bulbs don't cost as much as LEDs and they last much longer than incandescent bulbs. CFLs use 75 percent less energy; halogen-tungsten, about 30 percent less.

Laura Szepesi is a freelance writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.