The Overly Dramatic Demise of the Light Bulb

Remember when the fight against phasing out inefficient incandescent light bulbs was a big deal? Well it seems the sky didn't fall. Just recently, Canada joined the United States, the European Union, and Australia among several countries (see map below) to phase out the production and import of inefficient incandescent light bulbs.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


Remember when the fight against phasing out inefficient incandescent light bulbs was a big deal? Well it seems the sky didn’t fall. Just recently, Canada joined the United States, the European Union, and Australia among several countries (see map below) to phase out the production and import of inefficient incandescent light bulbs. While the jury is out on what exactly the best next standard is, at least they’re all much, much more efficient.

While the basic incandescent light bulb is being phased out, LED light bulbs are starting to take off. And no wonder, they’re 90% more efficient than the standard light bulb, and last 25 times longer. Talk about bang for your buck. But does this add up to anything really? Well, consider that Canadians alone spend 300 million (CAD) per year, equal to about 10 CAD per person per year. It’s a small chunk per person, but add the longer lifetimes of the new light bulbs, and you can see why consumers are starting to take note, not to mention business owners who use them in bulk and will see a quicker payback.

Fun/important fact: halogen lamps are incandescent, just 28% more efficient than the basic model. So really, the controversy was less than about banning one particular light bulb, and more about setting an efficiency standard, letting the market provide options. And yet, there sure was a fracas surrounding the introduction of the standard, but here we are, buying more efficient light bulbs that save us money over their lifetime.


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.


While LEDs are doing well, compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs emit light in a similar color range to incandescent light bulbs, and are thus for some a good and comfortable next step. Meanwhile, LED light bulbs have come down in price by about 80% in the last five years, somewhat akin to the cost crash of solar PV and lithium-ion batteries.

More recently, the LED (light emitting diode) inventors were awarded a Nobel Prize for their efforts, and where some lauded their achievement in being able to reduce electricity consumption, naysayers believe a rebound effect will wipe out efficiency increases, which is as exaggerated as it sounds. Nevertheless, energy efficiency and monetary savings are happening, and while the world is not really a color shade different today, it’s arguably a less wasteful one.

Tali Trigg is an energy analyst, technology policy advisor and writer. His work includes research and analysis on energy and transportation, with an emphasis on the role of cities in shaping transport energy demand and mobility solutions. His blog covers the wide range of mobility and energy, with deep-dives into numbers and maps, but is keen to cover anything transport-related and under-reported. Opinions are his own.

More by Tali Trigg

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

Subscribe