2014 means lights out for incandescent bulbs

Tags: , , , ,

Submitted: Wed, 01/01/2014 - 4:53am
Updated: Wed, 01/01/2014 - 1:59pm

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Come tomorrow, the federal government is flipping the switch on the incandescent light bulb.

By law, the production of the bulbs must stop across the country, so it’s lights out for 60- and 40-watt incandescent bulbs.

“I do plan on switching to LEDs very soon,” said Brian Callahan, General Manager at Batteries Plus Bulbs in Wilmington.

Over the last two years US companies starting phasing out incandescents starting with the 100-watt bulb followed by the 75-watt bulb. The government wants consumers to choose energy-efficient ways to light their homes, like fluorescents or halogens.

“This pulls 60 watts, which is half of an amp,” licensed electric contractor Marty Kalnen said of an old-school incandescent bulb. “This (fluorescent bulb) only pulls a quarter of an amp, so it gives you real good light.”

A fluorescent light bulb will cost you a bit more cash than an incandescent, but experts say your electric bill will go down.

“It’s that low-energy consumption of wattage that is saving you that electric cost per kilowatt,” Callahan said.

Consumers will still be able to buy incandescents until stores’ inventories run out.

“We have about 7,000 available in our warehouse, so if you are stockpiling them, we can get you as many as you need,” said Christina Child of Hudson’s Hardware in Wilmington.

That means Thomas Edison’s spark of genius will continue to burn even after the ban.

Experts say incandescent lights only give off the standard soft white color while alternative lighting allows for different color temperatures.


  • burgerboy says:

    them new flouresent lights are a bunch of peices of el JUNKO and are prolly made in tiajuana, thanks alot to them libber dumbocrats who thought that idea up, they had them normal bulbs for like 100 years since tommy edison invented them and they worked fine but them dumbocrats think they can make some el dinero’s by changing things, i bet borat heussein moojambo still has them normal bulbs in his house, typical hippocrite and to all you libbers who dont like it you can kiss my buttocks i am a teabagger and proud of it so shut your pie holes!!!!!

  • k says:

    At the request of big business, I guess banning the lowly, cheap lightbulb became a priority over our health and environment. Stockpile incandescents and when that is done, move on to newcandescents.

  • Anna Lever says:

    I think that it should be outlawed to only sell these so called energy savers. As alot of parents out there worry about there kids geting hurt on the play ground or eating something they shouldnt. Me and my husband worry about are daughter and her phisical well being because with this dumb goverment idea to sell energy bulbs that is also floresents are daughter has a rare but posibly deadly skisn disorder causing her extream pain. She cant be in derect sun light rays, uv or floresent light, or heat over 80°. The disorder is called Solar Urticarea. Her skin will blister and her blood start to boil. Like puting ur whole body in a pot of bubbling oil.oh by the way daughter is only four. So you tell me what is fair now people cant even buy a light bulb with out the goves two cent wtfh! Write me on my fb page Anna Lever

  • Guest2020 says:

    He’s spent all his time in office screwing it up even more. Bush was not a good president by any stretch of the imagination, but Obama is worse.

  • SMBeez says:

    As I stated, “Energy efficient- Good Idea,” the implementation is poor. Goes along the same lines as insurance for all, good idea, crap for implementation-Obummercare!!
    I do not umderstand your line of thinking! We should not be forced into spending more money for something that just does not work as it is supposed to!!! OH Wait!! Am I talking about light bulbs or The AHA??
    Do not just believe the crap being force fed us by the special interest (read LIBTARDS) groups that support this trash pile of an administration that is in the White House.
    Darn!! You got me good!!! Another classic Lib trick!! Divert the argument when you are losing it!!! HA!!
    These bulbs cost us more money! Do not last as long as claimed!! Have off color lighting!!! Are slow to come on!!!! Contain mercury that poisons the land they are disposed in!!!!!

  • GuestMan. says:

    Thank the republican’ts and Dubya for this one, Tea-Bagger.

  • kzpony says:

    Two Dem Presidents behind him didn’t see this coming and stop it? Back then, it was a pretty good idea…now it’s crap and its all the Republicans’ fault (as always).

  • taxpayer says:

    How’s the “Hope and Change” working out for ya Guestman? Have you paid attention to the level of national debt added since Obama was first sworn in, paid attention to the real unemployment rate, or asked yourself “Was that trillion dollar “stimulus” really worth it? And lastly, how many “shovel-ready” jobs “created” are still around today?

  • GuestMan. says:

    The President doesn’t have enough time left in office to fix everything Dubya screwed up.

  • MG says:

    This is another example of stupidity when things are left to the government to “fix.”

    The focus in making this decision was based on energy production. However, the fact is that these so-called energy-efficient bulbs contain mercury. When you look at the fact of the sheer number of the mercury-based bulbs that will now be used in the U.S., that poses a significantly bigger environmental threat than the “old” bulbs ever would.

  • Guest Reply Redux says:

    Does this in any way affect Tulip bulbs? Or is that 2 Lips??

  • SMBeez says:

    Energy efficient- Good Idea!!
    As usual though implemented poorly!!!
    These bulbs are garbage!!!! They come on slow!!! They do not last as long as claimed!!! They contain mercury and poison the land!!! They cost the consumer more money!!!! GARBAGE GARBAGE GARBAGE!!!! Just another load of crap force fed the public by bleeding heart dem libs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • taxpayer says:

    this is another example of “elections have consequences”. The nanny state your president is creating will soon lead to more and more individual liberties being taken away…all in the name of “going green”.

  • Guesttoo says:

    I’ll agree with the “nanny state” part but it was President Bush that set this law in motion back in 2007.

    President Obama has enough issues without getting “credit” for something he didn’t have a hand in.

  • Vog46 says:

    I think I read yesterday that incandescents will NOT be imported either.


  • Guest Vader says:

    First of all, it mentions the US stopping production of incandescent bulbs. I am sure many will still be imported. Even though I do think consumers should be free to choose what kind of bulbs they want to use, I changed all mine to the compact fluorescents years ago. I am very happy with them. As I understand it, specialty bulbs like for ceiling fans and appliances will still be available and could be used anywhere.

  • Vog46 says:

    I agree – I changed a couple of years ago as well and I am very happy overall. They don’t last as long as advertised but my electric appeared to go down a bit after installing them
    I actually found some ceiling fan bulbs and these are a disappointment but the last batch I bought are holding up far better.
    Good job by Bush on pushing this……..


  • detailed says:

    Would it be too much to ask that a little effort be expended by the news team to develop news we can actually use? Do you have an editor that looks at what you post and report? This is not a criticism of this reporter, who usually refrains from fluff reporting. This story is simply used as an example.

    1. “A fluorescent light bulb will cost you a bit more cash than an incandescent, but experts say your electric bill will go down.” This statement is worthless without detail. How much more does a fluorescent light bulb cost and how much less energy does it consume? What is the payback period? If the bulb costs $4 more and saves an average of $0.25 per year, will the costs be recouped before the bulb burns out? Some examples would be helpful.

    2. Ask Mr. Kalnen why drawing less less amperage would yield “a real good light” and if this relates to light quality or just savings.

    3. “It’s that low-energy consumption of wattage that is saving you that electric cost per kilowatt,” Callahan said. This makes no sense at all. The electric cost per kilowatt (hour[sic]) is a fixed constant. For example, a kilowatt hour (kWh) might cost approximately 10 cents (higher Jul-Oct, lower Nov-Jun for Duke Progress customers). Running a high wattage appliance like a refrigerator and a low wattage appliance like a clock both incur the same charge per kilowatt hour; i.e. 10 cents. The higher wattage appliance would use more kilowatt hours of electricity over the same period and cost more dollars to run but the rate charged per kilowatt hour is identical.

    4. “Experts say incandescent lights only give off the standard soft white color while alternative lighting allows for different color temperatures.” This line is completely devoid of useful information and is misleading. Ask your videographers about filters and white balance.

  • guestyI says:

    FYI: The Energy Independence and Security Act was passed in 2007 and signed into law by George W. Bush.

  • taxpayer says:

    Obummer could easily have negated the full implementation of this legislation via Executive Order…just as he has done since he was sworn in. Any opportunity to bypass Congress, especially with the Republicans in control of the House, he has done…and will continue to do.

    However, given the extremist state of affairs at the EPA, we haven’t experienced the full wrath of what’s coming down the road.

Leave a Reply