Contrary to rumor, the incandescent lightbulb is not going away—at least not right away. New U.S. regulations, starting January 1, cap energy consumption of a roughly 1,600-lumen bulb (equivalent to a standard 100-watt incandescent bulb) at 72 watts—which means the workhorse of home lighting will have to become about 30 percent more efficient overnight. The law will expand in the next two years to cover 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. There is room for improvement: incandescent bulbs currently waste 90 percent of their energy as heat. Halogen incandescents provide a more efficient, if pricier, alternative and will give compact fluorescents a run for their money. A light-emitting-diode replacement for 100-watt bulbs is expected to reach market this year; dimmer LEDs are already available. Consumers will be able to check federally mandated labels that give performance specs, similar to nutrition labels on food, but here we illuminate the essential facts.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Graphic by George Retseck and Jen ChristiansenSources: U.S. Department of Energy and Efficacy calculations based on currently available bulbs (traditional, halogen and compact fluorescent); SWITCH LIGHTING (led)
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
Thank you,
Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American
