Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Toshiba Ends Incandescent Bulb Production After 120 Years

Posted by Soulskill on from the bright-ideas dept.

angry tapir writes "Toshiba has stopped production of mass-market incandescent light bulbs, putting an end to a 120-year manufacturing history of the products. The company, which is one of Japan's largest makers of lighting products, had planned to halt production next year but brought up the date by a year. It will now focus on more energy efficient products, including LED (light-emitting diode) lights, which contain a handful of white LEDs and draw a fraction of the power of incandescent bulbs."

20 of 430 comments (clear)

  1. so long... by eexaa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ....and thanks for all the friendly warm light.

    1. Re:so long... by BeardedChimp · · Score: 5, Informative

      And now for the entirely predictable posts claiming low power lighting causes cancer, are crap, and cause global warming...

      The first argument goes the mercury in CFLs is going to kill us. This argument comes up and is destroyed every time. It will suffice to say there is little mercury, isn't that dangerous and burning coal puts out a lot more.

      Then we attack the lights. They are crap, taking too long to turn on, not being bright enough and so forth. Arguments that might have been true 10 years ago but have been entirely overcome unless you insist on buying the cheapest pos you can find.

      I titter when I hear that because incandescent bulbs warm your house it means you don't need as much heating so you are saving energy and helping the environment! This argument is so weak all I'll say is heating in summer?

      Then there is people claiming that CFLs give them headaches, if I had more time I'd point out the studies where people are shown to have similar sensitivity as those who sense EM fields.

      This time instead of continuing to spout discredited crap, do a bit of research.

    2. Re:so long... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How about this: the color of the light emitted by CFLs and LEDs is ugly, and sometimes even hard on the eyes (especially with LEDs).

      For me, this is reason enough to stick with incandescent bulbs for the places I spend most of my time.

      If you consider my above statements to be "crap" then you shouldn't have skipped class on the day they talked about the light spectrum. The spectrum emitted unquestionably differs between lighting technologies.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:so long... by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >>>unless you insist on buying the cheapest POS you can find.

      I have Philips bulbs. I timed my 60watt-equivalent (13 watt actual) and it took 4 minutes to reach full brightness. And no it wasn't just a bad set, because identical bulbs I bought a year later still exhibited the same behavior.

      I was not aware Philips make crap products?

      And then there's the expense. Why should I spend $3.50 per bulb when I can get an incandescent for around 25 cents. And the incandescents have not been stagnate. New laser-carved filments inside old incandescents can produce the same brightness as a 60 watt, but only use 40 watts.

      So CFL v. old bulb == savings of about 25 watts * 1 hours a day (typical) * 30 days == 3 kWh saved off my 3000 kWh bill. Wow. Times 9 cents per kwH == 27 cents. Holy crap. Now I can buy one-third of a twinkie!

      POINT:

      Shouldn't our priorities be focused on more energy-expensive things like heating/cooling? If all new home standards were increased to "PassivHaus" standards, which bring heat/cooling to almost nothing, we'd save HUGE amount of energy.

      I tried the whole CFL deal.
      For fifteen years.
      And now I'm switching back

      Incandescents are the better technology due to simplicity (it's a resistor), cheapness (even poor people can afford them), ease-of-disposal (no need to empty the room like EPA recommends), cleanness (not reactive power), and does not interfere with radio waves (like radio, tv, wifi, et cetera). After fifteen years of testing CFLs, I've concluded they are inferior.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:so long... by Algan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Get CFLs that provide light with a color temperature of 2700K. That's approximately the color temperature of an incandescent bulb, and, to my untrained eyes, the color seems identical.

      Make sure you look for 2700K on the package. "Soft, warm white" might be 3000K, and you will notice the difference.

      --
      If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
    5. Re:so long... by ircmaxell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Then there is people claiming that CFLs give them headaches, if I had more time I'd point out the studies where people are shown to have similar sensitivity as those who sense EM fields.

      While I don't get headaches directly from CFLs, if I do have one, I typically find that some CFLs will make it worse (When I get a headache, I'm typically very sensitive to light. The fact that some bulbs make it worse than others leads me to believe there may be something about sensitivity to certain light frequencies) The difference, is that it's only SOME CFLs that cause it... The light output varies from model to model, and while I wouldn't avoid CFLs because of it, I may avoid certain models... EM sensitivity I think is largely psychological, but I do think that light sensitivity is a very real effect (But definitely does have some psychological effect)...

      As for the mercury argument, it only plays if you break a bulb. Sure, coal may put out more, but what's the average effect on each person with coal? I'd bet it's less than if you broke a bulb (and were directly exposed to the mercury). However with that said is the amount that's contained in a CFL dangerous? Is it beyond the LEL? The amount of mercury in a typical CFL is around 4mg (http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=cfls.pr_cfls_mercury)... Based on the MSDS http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/M1599.htm, that amount is WELL above the airborne exposure limits (40 times the OSHA upper limit). So the dangers of mercury are real, but the flip side of that argument is how many bulbs are broken? If you have a habit of breaking them, then perhaps it's a real concern. If you've never broken a bulb in your life, perhaps it doesn't concern you (Since exposure one time isn't nearly as bad as a repeated exposure)... But to say that it isn't dangerous is extremely short sighted and blatently ignoring the facts. Sure it's not a mitigate-able danger (just don't break the bulb), but it still exists...

      This time instead of continuing to spout discredited crap, do a bit of research.

      Ummm... No comment...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    6. Re:so long... by xaxa · · Score: 3, Funny

      You claim a:
      (X) medical ( ) economic ( ) environmental (X) aesthetic
      issue with CFL or LED-produced light. Your view is incorrect and/or irrelevant, here's why:

      ( ) Double-blind tests have proved people don't notice the difference anyway
      (X) There is no evidence that CFL or LED light causes headaches
      (X) The bulbs are available with different colour temperatures
      ( ) Modern CFLs attain full brightness very quickly
      ( ) LED bulbs attain full brightness instantly
      ( ) You are basing your argument on a 50-cent bulb bought at a discount store.
      ( ) Producing the extra electricity required to use an incandescent bulb releases more mercury into the atmosphere than is in a CFL
      ( ) Your oil/gas central heating is more efficient than using lights to heat your house
      ( ) You have to cool your house using inefficient air conditioning for most of the year
      ( ) The savings are negligible, compared to other efficiency gains that could be made
      ( ) As demand increases new bulbs will reduce in price

    7. Re:so long... by mikael_j · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...has effectively outlawed incadescents and replaced them with CFLs, has the EU power demand dropped?

      You can still buy regular light-bulbs here in Sweden, the first step was apparently only to outlaw the sale of certain lightbulbs (not the common 25, 40 and 60W bulbs that are the most common ones).

      It'll probably take a couple of years before the results (if any) can be seen.

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    8. Re:so long... by ircmaxell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's more to light than just color temperature... There's also emitted frequencies. So while an incandescent typically emits light evenly across the visible range, a typical CFL emits light in a more grained spectrum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp#Spectrum_of_light). So to emit the same "color temperature" and luminosity (brightness of overall effect), a CFL will need to emit more light in certain frequency ranges to compensate for the missing frequencies. And since the human eye doesn't perceive all frequencies equally (We're typically MUCH more sensitive to green than red or blue) it can lead to the light not "feeling" right. The net combination of the colors looks the same, but they are processed differently in the eye which leads to a real, measurable difference. A CFL can never be identical to an incandescent. It's a matter of the physics behind it. Sure, they can "approximate" the light output, but the difference will always be there (and hence why some colors are less discernible under a CFL than under an incandescent)... In situations where color is very important (Artists, designers, etc) an incandescent bulb will be far better than a CFL. In situations (like every day life) where it isn't important to get colors exactly right, then it doesn't matter. But the point is that there is a difference...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    9. Re:so long... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "color temperature" is only the beginning. The color-resolving power of CFLs is horrible, and this is absolutely obvious to me and others. This might have something to do with the fact that I'm a photographer and might be a little more visually-tuned than others. Maybe you can't notice the difference, maybe most people can't, and that's fine. However, CFLs put out ugly light; I have yet to see one that doesn't. LEDs too. Not slightly ugly, like extremely ugly. While they are light bulbs in the first-order sense (they put out light) and thus are good where you simply need some light (I use them in my handheld shop light) I can't imagine anyone using them to light a well-decorated interior or do anything else, really. Switching to an incandescent is like a breath of fresh air, even my wife can notice after adapting to those horrible, horrible phosphor emissions. Human eyes are adapted to looking at black body radiators.

      captcha: "spectrum"

    10. Re:so long... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I have Philips bulbs. I timed my 60watt-equivalent (13 watt actual) and it took 4 minutes to reach full brightness. And no it wasn't just a bad set, because identical bulbs I bought a year later still exhibited the same behavior.

      Maybe you should have tried a different brand then? I have CFLs in almost every fixture in the house. The only ones that take more than 1s to reach max brightness are a recessed light and my 200W-equivalent porch light.

      Some of these lights were rather cheap, too. :)

      I was not aware Philips make crap products?

      Every company has at least the occasional piece of crap in their product line. Phillips has a good reputation, but that plus you holding a crappy Phillips CFL in your hand does not prove all CFLs are crap.

      cleanness (not reactive power)

      Huh? Is this your way of slipping in Power Factor as a reason CFLs are bad? Well at least you aren't still claiming it means CFLs don't save any energy. LOL.

      Shouldn't our priorities be focused on more energy-expensive things like heating/cooling? If all new home standards were increased to "PassivHaus" standards, which bring heat/cooling to almost nothing, we'd save HUGE amount of energy.

      Yes indeed! We need to push energy efficiency from all angles and insulation is a huge one. It is being pushed, too, but hey I agree it should be a bigger priority than it is.

      After fifteen years of testing CFLs, I've concluded they are inferior.

      Why do I get the impression you concluded that long before fifteen years had passed, and at best kept up the "experiment" in the form of buying a new CFL every year or two just to stave off people that you should try em, not all of em take forever to get bright, etc.

      I mean, fifteen years and you haven't found a single CFL that performs well? It took me all of two trips to Home Depot to accomplish this. They exist. Your inability to find any after fifteen years is, um, shall we say, in conflict with the idea of this being a neutral unbiased experiment that you were conducting.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:so long... by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I can't imagine anyone using them to light a well-decorated interior or do anything else, really. Switching to an incandescent is like a breath of fresh air, even my wife can notice after adapting to those horrible, horrible phosphor emissions. Human eyes are adapted to looking at black body radiators.

      Yet architects and decorators have been utilizing fluorescent lights for decades in commercial and industrial settings.

      I personally find incandescents to be far, far too yellow. Give me a 'bright white' CFL any day.

    12. Re:so long... by kmac06 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about this? In a free country, don't tell me what kind of lightbulb I can buy.

    13. Re:so long... by Belial6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      CFLs are strobe lights. That is just what they do. I cannot perceive it in most bulbs, but there is a good reason that they tell you not to plug in the florescent lights in you garage to the same circuit as your table saw. In theory they strobe fast enough that humans cannot see them, but given that florescent lights can trick your eyes if they are in sync with your table saw, it is clear that the strobing is not 100% outside of human perception.

      I tried to move to CFLs early on, and had to go back to incandescent until recently. The problem was that the IR the CFLs would produce would cause so much noise that remote controls frequently didn't work, and even worse, sometimes the bulbs would issue commands on their own. The first time that I was sitting at home alone with the curtains closed, and the TV started changing channels on it's own, I got a bit freaked out. After searching the house for whoever was screwing with me, I eventually figured out it was the CFLs changing the channels and volume.

      I am 95% CFL now, and this seems to be a problem that has been resolved.

  2. Maybe I never noticed... by Pojut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but are Toshiba bulbs available over here in America, possibly under a different name? I don't recall ever seeing Toshiba-branded light bulbs on shelves here...

    --
    Living With a Nerd
  3. Go, go LED by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Excellent! Glad to see that they're moving into LED lighting; I love LED lights. I've been testing out several of the early model LED lights in my house, and they have been working great-- low power requirement, long life. And the technology has been getting better very rapidly.

    (And, unlike incandescent and CFLs, they're not particularly fragile).

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  4. Re:Flashlights by jaymz666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Mag makes LED torches too

  5. Efficiency by wh1pp3t · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It will now focus on more energy efficient products, including LED (light-emitting diode) lights, which contain a handful of white LEDs and draw a fraction of the power of incandescent bulbs.

    That use much more power and materials to manufacture than incandescent bulbs.

    I just love corporations using global stewardship to cover up apparent profit motives.
    /sarcasm

  6. LED (light-emitting diode) by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think by now you can stop expanding the LED acronym, especially on slashdot. Or are you someone who insists on putting devices for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation on sharks' heads?

  7. Re:I love LED lights by Mashdar · · Score: 3, Informative

    I work in the lighting field and have a few comments:
    1)The reason you can't find bright LEDs to go in your A19 fixtures is that they cannot be properly heat-sinked. Shedding heat is really important for LEDs, and requires some very nice heavy duty fixtures to keep the lamps at full output (heat wears the LEDs out faster, and they dim gradually rather than burning out).
    2) I refused to use CFLs in my house for years. You should buy several varieties and try them out, though. Some are actually very pleasing now. Sadly the choices for non-standard bulbs are still mostly terrible (I have yet to find a cheap R20 CFL I don't hate). Some of the Fiet lamps are for sale at walgreens for cheap and look pretty good. Seek lamps that say 3500K for the color temperature. (5000k will be very blue, 3000k or less will be reddish)
    3) Reading is an activity which ideally should have good lighting. Don't strain your eyes :)