Yet another "law of unintended consequences"

[AUTailgatingRules]

$50 Light bulbs.  REALLY??????



LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms




Email
Print

AP – In this product image provided by Osram Sylvania, an ULTRA High Performance Series omni-directional LED …
RELATED QUOTES
AYI   58.06   -0.34
SI   130.43   -1.37
^DJUSS   578.43   -4.76
By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer – Mon May 16, 6:05 pm ET
NEW YORK – Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.
The technology in traditional "incandescent" bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it's used in Hasbro's Easy-Bake Oven.
To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.
Compact fluorescents are the most obvious replacement, but they have drawbacks. They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away. They last longer than traditional bulbs but not as long as LEDs. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.
Another new lighting technology, organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, has had problems reaching mass production. OLEDs are glowing sheets or tiles, rather than pinprick light sources, as LEDs are. They're used as vibrant color screens for smartphones, particularly from Samsung Electronics Co.
But making OLEDs that are big, bright, cheap and long-lasting enough for use as light sources has proved difficult, in part because they use chemicals that are sensitive to oxygen and spoil unless sealed very carefully.
Acuity Brands Inc., an Atlanta-based maker of light fixtures, will be showing some OLED panels at the show. They will go on sale next year, but the price will likely make them technology showpieces rather than candidates for everyday lighting.
LEDs are efficient, durable and produced in great quantities, but they're still expensive. An LED bulb can contain a dozen light-emitting diodes, or tiny semiconductor chips, which cost about $1 each.
The big problem with LEDs is that although they don't produce as much heat as incandescent bulbs, the heat they do create shortens the lifespan and reduces the efficiency of the chips. Cramming a dozen chips together in a tight bulb-shaped package that fits in today's lamps and sockets makes the heat problem worse. The brighter the bulb, the bigger the problem is.
The most powerful pear-shaped LED bulbs in stores today — the kind that fits existing lamps — produce light equivalent to a 60-watt bulb, though there are more powerful ones for directional or flood lighting.
Osram Sylvania, a unit of Germany's Siemens AG, said it has overcome the heat problem and will be showing a pear-shaped 100-watt-equivalent LED bulb this week. It doesn't have a firm launch date, but it usually shows products about a year before they hit store shelves.
Lighting Sciences Group Corp., a Satellite Beach, Fla.-based company that specializes in LED lighting, will be showing several 100-watt-equivalent prototypes, including some that solve the problem of cooling the LEDs by using microscopic devices that move air over the chips, like miniature fans.
Before the 100-watters, there will be 75-watters on the shelves this year. Osram Sylvania will be selling them at Lowe's starting in July. Royal Philips Electronics NV, the world's biggest lighting maker, will have them in stores late this year for $40 to $45.
However, 60-watt bulbs are the big prize, since they're the most common. There are 425 million incandescent light bulbs in the 60-watt range in use in the U.S. today, said Zia Eftekhar, the head of Philips' North American lighting division. The energy savings that could be realized by replacing them with 10-watt LED bulbs is staggering.
To stimulate LED development, the federal government has instituted a $10 million "L Prize" for an energy-efficient replacement for the 60-watt bulb. Philips is so far the only entrant in testing, and Eftekhar expects the company to win it soon. But Lighting Sciences Group plans its own entry, which it will demonstrate at the trade show.
Philips has been selling a 60-watt-equivalent bulb at Home Depot since December that's quite similar to the one submitted to the contest. But it's slightly dimmer, consumes 2 watts too much power and costs $40, whereas the L Prize target is $22. Sylvania sells a similar LED bulb at Lowe's, also for $40.
However, LED prices are coming down quickly. The DoE expects a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb to cost $10 by 2015, putting them within striking range of the price of a compact fluorescent bulb.
Bob Karlicek, the director of the Smart Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., thinks that price is achievable.
But, he said, "it's not necessarily clear to people in the lighting industry that LED chips were ever meant to go into a bulb."
What's really needed, he said, is a new approach to lighting — new fixtures and lamps that spread out the LEDs, avoiding the heat problem.
Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook

[GH2001]

I agree with your post except for your use of "unintended". Don't think this crap is not intended.

[CCTAU]

And now kerosene is hard to find and expensive. We can't even go back to the 19th century. We are hosed.

[GarMan]

There's NOTHING "unintended" associated with this.  These Leftist Goons in Washington know what they are doing.  Rather than letting free market forces demand and drive these new technologies, they are forcing us to comply with their ideals.  A far cry from our space program of the 60s and the technology booms that have occurred since.  You can't legislate innovation, creativity and success; you can only enable it.  Socialists refuse to accept this.  You don't want those new compact florescents, because you'll need a hazmat suit, clean-up equipment and a containment facility to deal with broken bulbs.  And, the LED and OLED alternatives will cost you 2-3 times as much as a florescent which already costs 15-20 times more than a standard incandescent.  Meanwhile, many of them [read: Al Gore, et. al] are holding potentially lucrative holdings in companies that produce these alternative products.  As some would say, "It's good to be king..."

[Townhallsavoy]

There's NOTHING "unintended" associated with this.  These Leftist Goons in Washington know what they are doing.  Rather than letting free market forces demand and drive these new technologies, they are forcing us to comply with their ideals.  A far cry from our space program of the 60s and the technology booms that have occurred since.  You can't legislate innovation, creativity and success; you can only enable it.  Socialists refuse to accept this.  You don't want those new compact florescents, because you'll need a hazmat suit, clean-up equipment and a containment facility to deal with broken bulbs.  And, the LED and OLED alternatives will cost you 2-3 times as much as a florescent which already costs 15-20 times more than a standard incandescent.  Meanwhile, many of them [read: Al Gore, et. al] are holding potentially lucrative holdings in companies that produce these alternative products.  As some would say, "It's good to be king..."

It's been going on since our country's founding.  Don't like it?  Make more money and be the fucker instead of the fuckee.

[GarMan]

It's been going on since our country's founding.  Don't like it?  Make more money and be the effer instead of the effee. 

Well sure to an extent, but it has really gotten bad since FDR.  And more recently, it's worse than ever.  Unfortunely, money isn't the answer.  They already have a relatively successful fairness campaign against greed, success and wealth, so that won't work...

[GH2001]

It's been going on since our country's founding.  Don't like it?  Make more money and be the fucker instead of the fuckee.

No...it really hasn't. Not to this level.

If you look at this closer, this is another case of the gov't forcing you to buy a product by creating only one option. Unless you don't want light.

[Vandy Vol]

A) It's a new technology, and as with any new technology, the price is initially going to be higher early on.  I would imagine that these prices will decrease over time.

B) Standard light bulbs last for 700 hours.  LED light bulbs last for 50,000 - 100,000 hours.  This is the equivalent of 5-10 years, if the bulb were constantly on.  Thus, it's going to last about 70 - 140 times longer than traditional bulbs.  Even if you found traditional light bulbs at $1 a piece, you'd spend $70 - $140 replacing all of the incandescent light bulbs that could have been replaced by one $50 LED light bulb.

C) A 60 watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $20 a year in electricity if it's left on 8 hours a day.  The LED replacement would cost $2 a year.  Considering that the bulb will last for 5-10 years, you will have made up for the cost of the LED bulb in electricity savings within 3 years.


Now, I understand that the LED bulb probably doesn't cost anywhere near $50 to manufacture, but they obviously have some negotiating room when it comes to charging the consumer a higher price.  The product will pay for itself in electricity savings long before it needs replacing, and it is actually cheaper to buy one of these bulbs which will last for 10 - 25 years than it is to buy incandescent bulbs over 10 - 25 years.  They may be making a killing off of the markup, but the consumer is saving as well.

[GarMan]

A) It's a new technology, and as with any new technology, the price is initially going to be higher early on.  I would imagine that these prices will decrease over time.

Absolutely...  They're just jumping the gun before market forces and production improvements had a chance to take affect.  Forcing everyone to purchase the new lights is going to be painful for the next couple of years.

B) Standard light bulbs last for 700 hours.  LED light bulbs last for 50,000 - 100,000 hours.  This is the equivalent of 5-10 years, if the bulb were constantly on.  Thus, it's going to last about 70 - 140 times longer than traditional bulbs.  Even if you found traditional light bulbs at $1 a piece, you'd spend $70 - $140 replacing all of the incandescent light bulbs that could have been replaced by one $50 LED light bulb.

Again, that's probably the eventual goal, but market forces and product improvements need a chance to take affect.  I doubt the initial versions will do anything like that.  The average should still be a significant improvement over the incandescents, but we need to see it for ourselves. 

C) A 60 watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $20 a year in electricity if it's left on 8 hours a day.  The LED replacement would cost $2 a year.  Considering that the bulb will last for 5-10 years, you will have made up for the cost of the LED bulb in electricity savings within 3 years.

Again, it sounds great, but that doesn't excuse or justify the government forcing new technology before it's ready.  These LED replacements aren't even on the market yet, at least not in mass quantities.  How do they expect people to accept this?  And, are there any risks?  Many of us have learned about some of the risks and issues associated with the CFLs.  These LEDs sound great, but do they cycle?  Do they cause headaches?  What haven't they told us? 

Now, I understand that the LED bulb probably doesn't cost anywhere near $50 to manufacture, but they obviously have some negotiating room when it comes to charging the consumer a higher price.  The product will pay for itself in electricity savings long before it needs replacing, and it is actually cheaper to buy one of these bulbs which will last for 10 - 25 years than it is to buy incandescent bulbs over 10 - 25 years.  They may be making a killing off of the markup, but the consumer is saving as well.

So, now that you've justified it for yourself, what do you think about the government forcing you into these new technologies before they're tried and proven?  I'm sure they had great benefits for using asbestos once upon a time too, and lead had tremendous benefits that we have lost to apocalypse politics... 

[GH2001]

A) It's a new technology, and as with any new technology, the price is initially going to be higher early on.  I would imagine that these prices will decrease over time.

B) Standard light bulbs last for 700 hours.  LED light bulbs last for 50,000 - 100,000 hours.  This is the equivalent of 5-10 years, if the bulb were constantly on.  Thus, it's going to last about 70 - 140 times longer than traditional bulbs.  Even if you found traditional light bulbs at $1 a piece, you'd spend $70 - $140 replacing all of the incandescent light bulbs that could have been replaced by one $50 LED light bulb.

C) A 60 watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $20 a year in electricity if it's left on 8 hours a day.  The LED replacement would cost $2 a year.  Considering that the bulb will last for 5-10 years, you will have made up for the cost of the LED bulb in electricity savings within 3 years.


Now, I understand that the LED bulb probably doesn't cost anywhere near $50 to manufacture, but they obviously have some negotiating room when it comes to charging the consumer a higher price.  The product will pay for itself in electricity savings long before it needs replacing, and it is actually cheaper to buy one of these bulbs which will last for 10 - 25 years than it is to buy incandescent bulbs over 10 - 25 years.  They may be making a killing off of the markup, but the consumer is saving as well.

How's about I just don't fucking like the new bulbs? Too bright, I don't like the light they emit, yadda yadda. The old ones lasted 5 years and were less than 1 dollar each. There were better ways to cut cost in the economy than light bulbs that were dirt cheap anyway. The point is the forcing of policy down the public's throat against it's will.

[Vandy Vol]

Again, that's probably the eventual goal, but market forces and product improvements need a chance to take affect.  I doubt the initial versions will do anything like that.  The average should still be a significant improvement over the incandescents, but we need to see it for ourselves.

They have 60 watt LED light bulbs which have been on the market for some time now.  The article referenced the 100 watt bulbs, which are 1) less commonly used than 60 watt bulbs, and 2) the more expensive range of light bulbs, whether it's incandescent or LED.  The 60 watt bulbs are currently $40, but based upon the existence of the $10 million L Prize, it looks like they should be around $25 before the complete replacement takes place.

At any rate, they've been tested in the same manner that incandescent bulbs are tested in order to gauge their lifespans.  Regardless of how accurate the testing may when compared to real life scenarios, it's a standardized test that both bulbs would have to go through.  If the test underestimates real life scenarios, then it's going to do so for both of them, but the measured ratio of lifespan between the two will be the same.

Again, it sounds great, but that doesn't excuse or justify the government forcing new technology before it's ready.  These LED replacements aren't even on the market yet, at least not in mass quantities.  How do they expect people to accept this?  And, are there any risks?  Many of us have learned about some of the risks and issues associated with the CFLs.  These LEDs sound great, but do they cycle?  Do they cause headaches?  What haven't they told us?

Supposedly, the only known health hazard from LED lighting is due to our decisions to utilize lead in the manufacturing of the light.  This, of course, is not unique to these light bulbs, but all LED lights, including those in our cars, in street lights, and in our TVs.  I'm not an engineer, nor have I reviewed how these bulbs are built, but to my knowledge you're going to use the same or a similar method of lighting LEDs in whatever devices you use.  I find it hard to believe that people would want to oppose an LED light bulb because of health risks, yet they readily furnish their homes and offices with LED televisions, LED monitors, and mobile devices with LED screens.  This is, of course, in addition to LED flashlights, LED Christmas lights, LED candles, LED billboards, LED accent lights/architectural lighting, lighting for fiber optics, etc.  If health is legitimately a concern, then you'd think people would have been questioning the use of LEDs years ago.

My response was mostly aimed at the price, as this appeared to be the initial complaint lodged when the thread was started.  I understand that it could be frustrating that the government has mandated something like the type of light bulb that is to be used, but if your complaint with that mandate is solely linked to the price and nothing else, then that seems like a relatively ineffective argument against the mandate.  The bulb actually saves the consumer money, so unless there are additional complaints/concerns (as raised by yourself and GH), then I wouldn't see a reason to adamantly oppose the law.

[AUJarhead]

All it means is that I'm going to beat my son's ass when he knocks over the lamp, and breaks the $50 bulb.

[GH2001]

They have 60 watt LED light bulbs which have been on the market for some time now.  The article referenced the 100 watt bulbs, which are 1) less commonly used than 60 watt bulbs, and 2) the more expensive range of light bulbs, whether it's incandescent or LED.  The 60 watt bulbs are currently $40, but based upon the existence of the $10 million L Prize, it looks like they should be around $25 before the complete replacement takes place.

At any rate, they've been tested in the same manner that incandescent bulbs are tested in order to gauge their lifespans.  Regardless of how accurate the testing may when compared to real life scenarios, it's a standardized test that both bulbs would have to go through.  If the test underestimates real life scenarios, then it's going to do so for both of them, but the measured ratio of lifespan between the two will be the same.

Supposedly, the only known health hazard from LED lighting is due to our decisions to utilize lead in the manufacturing of the light.  This, of course, is not unique to these light bulbs, but all LED lights, including those in our cars, in street lights, and in our TVs.  I'm not an engineer, nor have I reviewed how these bulbs are built, but to my knowledge you're going to use the same or a similar method of lighting LEDs in whatever devices you use.  I find it hard to believe that people would want to oppose an LED light bulb because of health risks, yet they readily furnish their homes and offices with LED televisions, LED monitors, and mobile devices with LED screens.  This is, of course, in addition to LED flashlights, LED Christmas lights, LED candles, LED billboards, LED accent lights/architectural lighting, lighting for fiber optics, etc.  If health is legitimately a concern, then you'd think people would have been questioning the use of LEDs years ago.

My response was mostly aimed at the price, as this appeared to be the initial complaint lodged when the thread was started.  I understand that it could be frustrating that the government has mandated something like the type of light bulb that is to be used, but if your complaint with that mandate is solely linked to the price and nothing else, then that seems like a relatively ineffective argument against the mandate.  The bulb actually saves the consumer money, so unless there are additional complaints/concerns (as raised by yourself and GH), then I wouldn't see a reason to adamantly oppose the law.

No issue with them being available. The problem I have is a mandate. Which this essentially is. This 100 watt elimination from the market is part of a bigger phased process to only have one kind of bulb available. The govt has no place in this whatsoever. Supply and demand, free market policies are what should dictate what is out there. Its the natural order of how man has existed for 2000 years. And like I said, there are bigger fish to fry. Unless you are a hellbent environmentalist with an agenda (like the Obama-nation).

[AUTailgatingRules]

Here's the thing:

1.  Vandy Vol likes the idea of a $50 LED bulb and should be able to buy them if a company can find a way to bring them to market.

2.  I should be able to buy my cheap ass incandescent bulb if a company can continue to make, market, and sell them for a profit

The government has no business sticking their nose in the free market.  I gaurantee you that if both options were allowed to compete in the free market that the incandescent would far outsell the LED, but the LED would also be much cheaper due to competition. 

Oh and by the way, let's not forget about the job losses caused by this stupidity.  The last USA based light bulb factory just shut down and fired all employees a few months ago. 

[CCTAU]

Uncle Fester will never look the same again......

[GarMan]

They have 60 watt LED light bulbs which have been on the market for some time now.  The article referenced the 100 watt bulbs, which are 1) less commonly used than 60 watt bulbs, and 2) the more expensive range of light bulbs, whether it's incandescent or LED.  The 60 watt bulbs are currently $40, but based upon the existence of the $10 million L Prize, it looks like they should be around $25 before the complete replacement takes place.

At any rate, they've been tested in the same manner that incandescent bulbs are tested in order to gauge their lifespans.  Regardless of how accurate the testing may when compared to real life scenarios, it's a standardized test that both bulbs would have to go through.  If the test underestimates real life scenarios, then it's going to do so for both of them, but the measured ratio of lifespan between the two will be the same.

Having just left Home Depot, I was able to confirm that they carry one brand of a non-directional 40 Watt version that sells for $30.  I didn't see any 60 Watt versions, and the shelves were pretty full.  I don't think it's a simple matter of them being out of stock right now. 

Standardized testing was also used for CFLs which also held many of the same wondrous promises of these new LEDs.  Since that time, I've purchased half a dozen of these magic light bulbs at $15 a piece...  Two of them have since failed, one failing with an explosive arc emanating from the power supply shorting out the lamp in which it was used, almost causing a fire as sparks shot across the room onto the bed and carpet.  I threw the rest of them away... 

Supposedly, the only known health hazard from LED lighting is due to our decisions to utilize lead in the manufacturing of the light.  This, of course, is not unique to these light bulbs, but all LED lights, including those in our cars, in street lights, and in our TVs.  I'm not an engineer, nor have I reviewed how these bulbs are built, but to my knowledge you're going to use the same or a similar method of lighting LEDs in whatever devices you use.  I find it hard to believe that people would want to oppose an LED light bulb because of health risks, yet they readily furnish their homes and offices with LED televisions, LED monitors, and mobile devices with LED screens.  This is, of course, in addition to LED flashlights, LED Christmas lights, LED candles, LED billboards, LED accent lights/architectural lighting, lighting for fiber optics, etc.  If health is legitimately a concern, then you'd think people would have been questioning the use of LEDs years ago.

Well, once upon a time, lead and asbestos were great products too.  When mixed in paint, fuel and floor tiles where people didn't ingest them, they were harmless.  Similarly, LEDs in our calculators, TVs, computer monitors and VCRs aren't much of a problem either.  Come to think of it, the same could be said for florescent lights.  I think that every business I know utilizes them, but have the risks ever really become common knowledge?  I don't think so...  Once you put these products into greater use in the home, we'll find out.  At least, the government didn't mandate lead and asbestos based products... 

My response was mostly aimed at the price, as this appeared to be the initial complaint lodged when the thread was started.  I understand that it could be frustrating that the government has mandated something like the type of light bulb that is to be used, but if your complaint with that mandate is solely linked to the price and nothing else, then that seems like a relatively ineffective argument against the mandate.  The bulb actually saves the consumer money, so unless there are additional complaints/concerns (as raised by yourself and GH), then I wouldn't see a reason to adamantly oppose the law.

I would say that the price is still a significant issue.  You're arguing cost over time which is a bit different.  Joe Sixpack may not have the future 3-5 years of cost savings in his pocket when his bedroom light burns out, and he needs a replacement. 

[Vandy Vol]

No issue with them being available. The problem I have is a mandate. Which this essentially is. This 100 watt elimination from the market is part of a bigger phased process to only have one kind of bulb available. The govt has no place in this whatsoever. Supply and demand, free market policies are what should dictate what is out there. Its the natural order of how man has existed for 2000 years. And like I said, there are bigger fish to fry. Unless you are a hellbent environmentalist with an agenda (like the Obama-nation).

Well, they're not eliminating 100 watt bulbs entirely.  California banned the 100 watt incandescent bulbs, but it's not a general ban on 100 watt bulbs.  Granted, California stupidly created this ban before a 100 watt LED, was readily available, but I'm relatively certain that halogen alternatives are compliant with the government requirements.  There are 90 watt halogen bulbs available to replace the 100 watt incandescent bulbs, and they're only a dollar or two more.

Now, I agree with the free market concept to a degree.  I may like the look and cost of lead paint over non-lead paint, but ultimately it's been regulated due to health issues.  This whole LED light bulb thing is obviously not regarding protecting the public's health, but is rather related to energy consumption.

Should the government step in and legislate something like this?  I don't really know.  Reducing our energy consumption is certainly a worthwhile goal, but a mandate is probably not the best way to go about it.  Then again, without some form of "push" by the government, your average person is probably not going to bother with researching the lifespan on LED bulbs, the energy savings of these bulbs, and then decide to make the switch.

To me, it's somewhat analogous to recycling.  Various local governments have tried to push the concept of recycling with commercials, publications, and some even instituted a government run recycling pick up (though very few).  Despite the fact that, if the vast majority of consumers could find a way to recycle, prices of various products would reduce in price, and the need for landfills would decrease, yet people just choose not to recycle.  "I don't want to separate my trash," "The facility is too far away," "I don't consume enough recyclable materials," and so on are the excuses we hear.  At what point in time do you decide that the public is obviously not going to do it on their own, and that there is enough of an overall benefit for the government to spend time and money to somehow implement the program?

I will agree that the LED bulbs have not been given a chance on the market, and I do agree that this mandate has come far too early.  Although the LED bulbs are currently being manufactured, and will obviously be more readily available once the mandate takes effect, the government should have waited to see what the LED bulbs did on the market.

[Vandy Vol]

Having just left Home Depot, I was able to confirm that they carry one brand of a non-directional 40 Watt version that sells for $30.  I didn't see any 60 Watt versions, and the shelves were pretty full.  I don't think it's a simple matter of them being out of stock right now. 

Standardized testing was also used for CFLs which also held many of the same wondrous promises of these new LEDs.  Since that time, I've purchased half a dozen of these magic light bulbs at $15 a piece...  Two of them have since failed, one failing with an explosive arc emanating from the power supply shorting out the lamp in which it was used, almost causing a fire as sparks shot across the room onto the bed and carpet.  I threw the rest of them away...

To my knowledge, CFL was created solely for the purpose of indoor lighting.  I don't think that this particular technology was significantly used for several decades in screens and displays with successful results in the lifespan and reliability of the product.  I think the durability of LED lighting has already been proven in other fields.  Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if these bulbs are taking some drastic measures to change the way in which the basic concept of how illuminating an LED works, but I would assume that it can't be that different.  You're utilizing a light source that has proven its durability in other fields, and you're plugging into a standard socket that has proven to be stable for incandescent bulbs.  There's no major change in the electricity required or the type of socket utilized for the lighting as there was for CFL.

Well, once upon a time, lead and asbestos were great products too.  When mixed in paint, fuel and floor tiles where people didn't ingest them, they were harmless.  Similarly, LEDs in our calculators, TVs, computer monitors and VCRs aren't much of a problem either.  Come to think of it, the same could be said for florescent lights.  I think that every business I know utilizes them, but have the risks ever really become common knowledge?  I don't think so...  Once you put these products into greater use in the home, we'll find out.  At least, the government didn't mandate lead and asbestos based products...

An LED is just a small diode.  A Russian scientist took note that the diodes would light up when current was being passed through them.  This was in the 1920s.  As a result, we began using smaller diodes as sources of light, but the diode itself has been utilized in electronics since it was invented in the early 1900's.  Regardless of the fact that LEDs have been in our DVDs and VCRs as light displays for decades, they've been in all electronic equipment for much longer than that.  If there was a health issue related to diodes, I would assume that it would have been brought to the public attention by now.  And even if it wasn't revealed simply because of an oversight by the FDA and various researchers, then I'm not really sure why consumers are completely happy with their diode-laden computers, cell phones, televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles, MP3 players, etc., but would have a fear of health hazards from a diode source of lighting.

I would say that the price is still a significant issue.  You're arguing cost over time which is a bit different.  Joe Sixpack may not have the future 3-5 years of cost savings in his pocket when his bedroom light burns out, and he needs a replacement.

True, but it's worth mentioning that the ban doesn't mandate that only LEDs be used.  I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the halogen bulbs still meet the standards that the government has set.  A 60 watt incandescent bulb will run you $1.49, and the halogen 50 watt bulb will run you $4.99.  The halogen bulb lasts twice as long as the incandescent bulb, so Joe Sixpack is essentially spending $2.01 more for one halogen bulb ($4.99) that will replace two incandescent bulbs over time ($2.98).

[GarMan]

To my knowledge, CFL was created solely for the purpose of indoor lighting.  I don't think that this particular technology was significantly used for several decades in screens and displays with successful results in the lifespan and reliability of the product.  I think the durability of LED lighting has already been proven in other fields.  Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if these bulbs are taking some drastic measures to change the way in which the basic concept of how illuminating an LED works, but I would assume that it can't be that different.  You're utilizing a light source that has proven its durability in other fields, and you're plugging into a standard socket that has proven to be stable for incandescent bulbs.  There's no major change in the electricity required or the type of socket utilized for the lighting as there was for CFL.

Well actually, CFLs are essentially the same as the florescent lights that have been used in most office buildings and shopping malls for decades.  In fact, they're probably more similar to each other than the similarities between the LEDs on your alarm clock and the LEDs in these futuristic non-directional lights.

An LED is just a small diode.  A Russian scientist took note that the diodes would light up when current was being passed through them.  This was in the 1920s.  As a result, we began using smaller diodes as sources of light, but the diode itself has been utilized in electronics since it was invented in the early 1900's.  Regardless of the fact that LEDs have been in our DVDs and VCRs as light displays for decades, they've been in all electronic equipment for much longer than that.  If there was a health issue related to diodes, I would assume that it would have been brought to the public attention by now.  And even if it wasn't revealed simply because of an oversight by the FDA and various researchers, then I'm not really sure why consumers are completely happy with their diode-laden computers, cell phones, televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles, MP3 players, etc., but would have a fear of health hazards from a diode source of lighting.

Different purpose...  Different levels of exposure...  Different style, design and intensity...  The solder used in most circuit boards alongside these LEDS also has a high degree of lead, but with exposure being limited, it's of no issue to most consumers.  Just as with florescent lights...  Most of us were unaware of the risks associated with them because we didn't directly deal with them.  There was a maintenance man who took care of them after hours, and we never really got any closer to them than a few feet. 

Personally, I'm relatively certain that these LEDs are safe, but we still don't know enough about them.  The government is effectively forcing them down our throats before the technology is proven and perfected. 

True, but it's worth mentioning that the ban doesn't mandate that only LEDs be used.  I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the halogen bulbs still meet the standards that the government has set.  A 60 watt incandescent bulb will run you $1.49, and the halogen 50 watt bulb will run you $4.99.  The halogen bulb lasts twice as long as the incandescent bulb, so Joe Sixpack is essentially spending $2.01 more for one halogen bulb ($4.99) that will replace two incandescent bulbs over time ($2.98).

It's still a hardship on Joe Sixpack.  I normally get my incandescent replacements for less than $1 a piece... the benefits of buying in bulk from TheCostcos.  Having to spend 2-3 times more for a replacement to satisfy some gubme't bureaucrat's green fetish is unreasonable. 

[Saniflush]

Well actually, CFLs are essentially the same as the florescent lights that have been used in most office buildings and shopping malls for decades.  In fact, they're probably more similar to each other than the similarities between the LEDs on your alarm clock and the LEDs in these futuristic non-directional lights.

Different purpose...  Different levels of exposure...  Different style, design and intensity...  The solder used in most circuit boards alongside these LEDS also has a high degree of lead, but with exposure being limited, it's of no issue to most consumers.  Just as with florescent lights...  Most of us were unaware of the risks associated with them because we didn't directly deal with them.  There was a maintenance man who took care of them after hours, and we never really got any closer to them than a few feet. 

Personally, I'm relatively certain that these LEDs are safe, but we still don't know enough about them.  The government is effectively forcing them down our throats before the technology is proven and perfected. 

It's still a hardship on Joe Sixpack.  I normally get my incandescent replacements for less than $1 a piece... the benefits of buying in bulk from TheCostcos.  Having to spend 2-3 times more for a replacement to satisfy some gubme't bureaucrat's green fetish is unreasonable.

This takes into account the thinking that the government actually cares about it's people and recognizes that it gets it power from the people and not the other way around. 

We all know our government forgot this factoid decades ago.