We never really understood the furor over banning incandescent light bulbs, which was to have taken effect Jan. 1, 2012. (Notice the use of "was"? More on that in a minute...). First, all incandescent bulbs were not to be be banned--only the 100 watt incandescent bulb, the most inefficient of the incandescent energy hogs, faced the guillotine. And that wasn't such a big deal, since manufacturers have already begun replacing the 100-watter with a more efficient 72-watt incandescent. It was much ado about nothing, as American ingenuity and efficiency overcame this with a snap of the fingers. Problem? Fixed!
Now, however, comes word that the ban on 100-watt incandescent bulbs has been overturned--the language tucked into the new 1,200 page spending bill that will assuredly be signed by our president. The rider in the spending bill simply defunds the Fed's ability to enforce the ban, and does it only for 2012. Here's an op-ed which lays out the hypocrisy of all of this, and the politics that extend back to 2007 when these standards were initially passed.
So who is the big winner here? Well, energy efficiency. We believe that anything that gets us all talking about monergy is a good thing. So since you're here, consider this:
--90% of the energy created by a traditional (incandescent) bulb is heat
and only 10% of it is light. (That is not a typo.)
produce 30% heat and 70% light.
--LED bulbs produce 10% heat and 90% light--and are rated to last up to 20 years.