G.E. to Phase Out CFL Bulbs

[Jayfar]

GE is phasing out CFL bulbs in the US by the end of the year, in favor of LEDs. I wonder how soon other makers will follow.

G.E. to Phase Out CFL Bulbs | NYTimes.com

By DIANE CARDWELL FEB. 1, 2016

Just a few years ago, the compact fluorescent light was the go-to choice for customers seeking an inexpensive, energy-efficient replacement for the standard incandescent bulb. But as the light quality of LEDs improved and their cost plummeted, manufacturers and retailers began shifting their efforts in that direction.

Now, the industrial giant General Electric is saying farewell to the compact fluorescent light, or CFL. The company said on Monday that it would stop making and selling the bulbs in the United States by the end of the year.

[snip]

Retailers have also been moving away from CFLs, which will have a harder time qualifying for the Energy Star rating under regulations proposed for next year, Mr. Strainic said. Those include giants like Sam’s Club and Walmart, which have fewer CFL options on shelves, he said. Ikea abandoned CFLs and started carrying only LEDs last year.

[snip]

[dangerouseddy]

hmm will they have the same lumens output for the same money?

[Ray]

That's fine with me. CFLs are fine as a replacement for incandescent lamp bulbs, but are a poor choice for plant lighting, as the spiral design wastes a lot of light to the interior.

LEDs continue to come down in price, so are getting to be a lot more economically viable. I recently replaced six 60W PAR30 spots in my kitchen with 11W LEDs, and I'm getting more light for 18% of the electricity. The LED lamps were $5.39 each, versus $3.19 for the incandescents (if you can find them).

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by Ray

That's fine with me. CFLs are fine as a replacement for incandescent lamp bulbs, but are a poor choice for plant lighting, as the spiral design wastes a lot of light to the interior.

LEDs continue to come down in price, so are getting to be a lot more economically viable. I recently replaced six 60W PAR30 spots in my kitchen with 11W LEDs, and I'm getting more light for 18% of the electricity. The LED lamps were $5.39 each, versus $3.19 for the incandescents (if you can find them).

If they were being phased out for lack of profitability there would be no debate as to the merits of the action. Being phased out by force of law raises issues which many find offensive.

[estación seca]

Fluorescents contain substantial amounts of mercury, and incandescents do not. I was much more upset by the legislative replacement of less-toxic incandescents with toxic fluorescents.

[gnathaniel]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

If they were being phased out for lack of profitability there would be no debate as to the merits of the action. Being phased out by force of law raises issues which many find offensive.

Offensive or no, some things need to be banned. Efficiently profit-driven markets typically only allow toxic externalities like mercury dumping to continue when there's actually a hidden subsidy present in the form of escape from the consequences. Government action forcing commons-users to internalize or cease their toxic dumping is actually PRO- rather than ANTI-free market when collective action is the only way to address negotiational asymmetries between large collectives and individuals harmed by collective externalities.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by estación seca

Fluorescents contain substantial amounts of mercury, and incandescents do not. I was much more upset by the legislative replacement of less-toxic incandescents with toxic fluorescents.

The root problem in both cases is the same. One business or perhaps a group of businesses realized they had a competitive advantage in an emerging technology, and lobbied politicians to outlaw the old technology the businesses were competing against. Obviously the general welfare isn't the primary concern in legislation that mandates the usage of products containing mercury while banning a competing product that doesn't. Rest assured that any environmental benefits to this latest example of cronyism are completely unintended. CFLs do have advantages over incandescents, but incandescents have advantages over them, lower toxicity being one. The main disadvantage to LEDs from a manufacturer's standpoint is the higher costs of production that have to be passed on to the end user. In a free market that's a tough row to hoe. It's so much nicer when the government plows your competitors under for you!

[gnathaniel]

Originally Posted by Subrosa

The root problem in both cases is the same. One business or perhaps a group of businesses realized they had a competitive advantage in an emerging technology, and lobbied politicians to outlaw the old technology the businesses were competing against. Obviously the general welfare isn't the primary concern in legislation that mandates the usage of products containing mercury while banning a competing product that doesn't. CFLs do have advantages over incandescents, but incandescents have advantages over them, lower toxicity being one. The main disadvantage to LEDs from a manufacturer's standpoint is the higher costs of production that have to be passed on to the end user. In a free market that's a tough row to hoe. It's so much nicer when the government plows your competitors under for you!

Very good points! I misconstrued your prior post a bit. The uncompensated externalities of power generation, including pollution with mercury and other heavy metals and increased GHG emissions, aren't trivial either, though. I've also read some good arguments that incandescents needed to be suppressed a bit to spur production of LEDs. Sometimes new technologies need subsidy to get over initial R&D 'humps' toward market viability. But yeah, mostly I agree with you that the incandescent phaseout was poorly done and not necessarily as motivated by concern for the common good as has been portrayed.

[Subrosa]

Originally Posted by gnathaniel

Very good points! I misconstrued your prior post a bit. The uncompensated externalities of power generation, including pollution with mercury and other heavy metals and increased GHG emissions, aren't trivial either, though. I've also read some good arguments that incandescents needed to be suppressed a bit to spur production of LEDs. Sometimes new technologies need subsidy to get over initial R&D 'humps' toward market viability. But yeah, mostly I agree with you that the incandescent phaseout was poorly done and not necessarily as motivated by concern for the common good as has been portrayed.

People who use a hazardous material need to pay for its proper disposal. Those who don't use it shouldn't pay to dispose of it. The only way that doesn't happen is when the government not only doesn't hold the users accountable for disposal, but actually subsidizes their usage by making the disposal a public cost. In that same vein, any technology that needs a financial push to get over any hump isn't ready for prime time, and certainly shouldn't be mandated regardless of any benefits, actual or perceived. Almost by definition such action requires at least one of the imvolved parties to commit a conflict of interest.