I know that one of the main reasons people don’t by low wattage lightbulbs is that they cost something like $20 each. Even though, from what I understand, the energy it saves is more than the cost of the bulb, people can’t bring themselves to buy them.
Well, here in Taiwan, when I’m in stores, I see *only *low wattage lightbulbs, and they only cost about $6 each. Why are they so expensive in the US and so cheap here? Is it because they’re made here (I didn’t look on the box, but maybe someone has some in their house, and they can tell us)?
Hmmmm…what do you mean by low-wattage light bulbs? I just popped over to the Home Depot website and they sell 27w (replaces 100w) bulbs for $8 apiece. I think the ones I bought earlier this year were about $6 apiece too.
The 13-watt (60-watt equivalent) bulbs are shown in my newspaper at several stores for between $1-$2 each. Regular 60-watt bulbs are frequently on sale for about 25 cents each.
Very few people buy low-wattage bulbs in the US, so most stores don’t stock them, and manufacturers only make limited quantities of them. All this contributes to higher prices for them.
The only common ones in the USA are appliance bulbs, used in ovens or refrigerators. But even these are not that expensive – they usually run about $2-$3 per bulb.
In Taiwan, I believe many homes & rooms are smaller, so they could get by with a smaller light bulb than the standard american 60/75/100 watt ones. So there is probably a bigger demand in Taiwan than in the USA for such bulbs.
Also, are we talking about low-wattage incandescents or fluorescents? I think I paid about $8 for two 20 watt fluorescents (equivalent, apparently to about 75W incandescent) a few months ago. I use one of them as the porch light as it saves me maybe 30 kWh (about $3) a month. Plus, the whiter light works better. I don’t use anything smaller than a 40W incandescent. For the majority of my existing lighting, it’s all in ceiling fans, and most of those don’t take standard light bulbs (and the ones that do I don’t use very much anyway.)
The low wattage bulbs are florescent bulbs, which are more expensive to make, but on the flip side last much longer. Here is a 13 watt bulb that has the light output of a 60W incandescent. It has a rated life of 10,000 hours about that of between 5-10 standard bulbs.
So you pay more, you get more, or less depending on your point of view.
I just bought a whole mess of them for my home – I have found that two longstanding assumptions I had about them are wrong.
They are expensive.
In the past they were $15-20 each, so I just assumed they still were.
Not so – I found a multipack of the 60w replacement ones for a dollar or two a bulb.
They produce ugly light.
They did in the past, ugly harsh bluish light that made everyone and everything look pale and grey.
The modern ones come in many tones, and I find the warmest ones more pleasing to my eye than incandescent bulbs. Really neat.
It’s especially nice since we have 7 of those 65W floodlamps in our basement, and the kids leave the lights on there constantly.
I think much of my distaste for those bulbs came from a stint in Brazil at a time when they had severe droughts and there was forced rationing of electricity – everyone had one single sickly-pale fluorescent lamp lighting their whole dining room. What a dreary way to dine. The modern ones are much improved.
Most, if not all, the additional cost of those bulbs is due to their construction and probably not very closely related to their rarity. Appliance bulbs are constructed with more robust materials and components to resist temperature swings and vibration, which act to shorten the lifespan of ordinary bulbs. The heavier construction naturally costs more.
I agree the OP is probably talking about CFLs, given the $20 figure he quotes above. The reasons those are more expensive have also been given earlier. Personally, I like them quite a lot. Many people don’t, though.
I mean this belongs in GD, but why would you want to have your tax dollars percolate through some bureaucracy before turning into a discount on lightbulbs you’re going to buy anyway. :dubious: That’s worse than a mail-in rebate.
I was suggesting that low-wattage bulbs are subsidised in Taiwan, as diesel fuel is in Europe, or hybrid vehicles in the US. You know, 'cause they’re good for the environment and such.
Wasn’t a poke at the administration, but at American environmental/energy policy in general, really. Sorry.
My local 99 Ranch Market is selling flourescents with light output equivalent to 100 watt incandescents for 50 cents each. The low price is due to a subsidy by Pacific Gas and Electric, the local power company. I bought a case.
AFAIK, diesel in Europe is taxed less in places, not subsidised. Bio-fuels are taxed even less. Not quite the same thing as subsidization.
Would it be preferable to tax the less efficient light bulbs driving people to the more efficient ones and bringing their prices down through market forces?
Several years ago, when these bulbs were being developed, the US Govt Energy Department did subsidize them. Both direct subsidies, and sales guarantees (guaranteeing that if a specified minimum quantity was not purchased by open market buyers, governmental departments would purchase enough to reach that minimum).
They issued minimum specifications for size, ambient starting temp, burn orientation, etc. – basically, to have a bulb that would work in most standard lighting fixtures. This encouraged research & development to produce such bulbs, and get them into production and into the market. After that, sales have done well enough to continue work on improving these bulbs.
But the government subsidies several years ago really did jump-start this!
I have used some of these, CFLs, in the past with varying satisfaction levels.
Some brands, Feit Electric or Commercial Electric, bulds start off at very low light output and take some time to reach full brightness. Other brands, GE for example, start out at pretty much full brightness, but cost more to purchase.
Now I only by the GE units even though they cost more.
In Spain the subsidized fuel is tractor-and-heating-grade, not automobile-grade. It’s supposed to be a subsidy to farmers and to those people who still haven’t gotten around to modernizing their heating (since these are mostly oldsters).
