Via Kenneth Green and The Daily Caller, comes some research which suggests that ultraviolet rays from compact fluorescent bulbs may pose a risk to healthy skin cells.

From the studies abstract:

In this study, we studied the effects of exposure to CFL illumination on healthy human skin tissue cells (fibroblasts and keratinocytes). Cells exposed to CFLs exhibited a decrease in the proliferation rate, a significant increase in the production of reactive oxygen species, and a decrease in their ability to contract collagen. Measurements of UV emissions from these bulbs found significant levels of UVC and UVA (mercury [Hg] emission lines), which appeared to originate from cracks in the phosphor coatings, present in all bulbs studied.

I’d like to echo Ken’s reaction and snark:

…there are many good reasons to remove the ban (pardon me, “unattainable performance standard that will serve as a de-facto ban”) on incandescent light bulbs.

…

The “one-study never proves anything” rule still holds, of course.

Perhaps this won’t end up being a huge deal. But Congress acted to implement this legislation before this information was available, and it would have been nice to know that the government is encouraging consumers to switch to a new type of light bulb that may or may not be bad for our skin.

Finally, I posted recently about a Mercatus paper which criticized energy efficiency standards implemented by various government agencies (or Congress). The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy responded to the paper by denying that these regulations restrict consumer choice:

False claim #2:  Efficiency standards restrict consumer choice

Refrigerators are the most regulated appliance in America, having been subject to no fewer than six rounds of improved state and federal efficiency requirements over more than 30 years.  Think about it for a moment. Do you have fewer choices in refrigerators than you did 10 years ago? For those who can remember, than 30 years ago? How about for clothes washers? Or for light bulbs?

For each of these products, consumer choices have increased even as standards have eliminated energy-inefficient models from the market. Refrigerators come with a wider array of configurations (the latest rage is French doors—GE just added a second shift at its Louisville, Kentucky plant to keep up with demand), ice and water dispenser options, built-in designs, and other features than have ever existed. Clothes washer buyers have an array of energy- and water-efficient front-loading and top-loading designs covering price points from $400 and up to choose from, many with features like steam cleaning unheard of a decade ago. For light bulbs, manufacturers report that the standards spurred them to introduce a whole new generation of energy-efficient incandescent bulbs so that consumers can now choose among energy-efficient incandescent, compact fluorescent, and newly-introduced LED options. Consumers have more choice than ever.

Two years ago, if I wanted to, I could have gone into a grocery store and purchased one of those old school incandescent bulbs. In a few years, if the new efficiency standard for light bulb remains the law of the land, I will no longer be able to do so. The number of new light bulbs invented in the interim is irrelevant to the fact that I can no longer go and purchase that old bulb. These policies restrict consumer choice, regardless of the fact that consumer choices are constantly expanding due to a growing economy (or due to a misguided policy that mandates efficiency improvements).

Farhad Manjoo of Slate is convinced that a new L.E.D light bulb being produced will look similar to incandescent lighting and still save consumers money over the life of the bulb, according to their predictions and his calculations:

[...] On average, an incandescent bulb lasts about 1,000 hours—that’s about a year, if you keep it on for about three hours a day. Electricity in America also costs about 11 cents per kilowatt hour (that’s the average; it varies widely by region). In other words, a 50-cent, 60-watt incandescent bulb will use about $6.60 in electricity every year. Switch’s 60-watt-equivalent LED, meanwhile, uses only 13 watts of power, so it will cost only $1.43 per year. The Switch bulb also has an average lifespan of 20,000 hours—20 years. If you count the price of replacing the incandescent bulb every year, the Switch bulb will have saved you money by its fourth year. Over 20 years, you’ll have spent a total of about $142 for the incandescent bulbs (for electricity and replacement bulbs) and less than $50 for Switch’s 60-watt bulb. (I made a spreadsheet showing my calculations.)

The problem, of course, is that people don’t buy light bulbs that way—a lot can happen in 20 years, and it seems silly to think of light bulbs as a long-term investment vehicle. (Also, neither Switch nor any other light bulb company guarantees that their bulbs will last that long.) Sharenow concedes this line of thinking, and he’s got two answers. First, he argues that as LEDs are mass-produced over time, their prices will plummet—he estimates that a year from now, Switch’s 60-watt-equivalent bulb will sell for under $15, and could hit $10 the year after that. At that price, Switch’s new bulbs will be much harder to resist. The other advantage is that Switch’s bulbs are beautiful—the company has already seen interest from hotels, department stores, and other companies that are happy to pay for high-end decor. These firms will save money on energy and replacement bulbs and look good doing it. And once we see these bulbs showing up in fancy shops and hotels, we may become much more interested in getting them for our homes.

Besides, we won’t have much choice. With traditional bulbs going away, we’re going to need some other source of light, and nobody likes CFLs. LEDs are the light bulbs of the future. And I’m putting my money—well, a little bit of my money—where my mouth is. I’m buying two of the Switch bulbs for the lamps in our living room. Based on the demo I saw, we’ll never notice the difference, at least until we get our utility bills at the end of the month.

The whole thing is worth reading for an overview of the history of how we got to this point and the short coming of the CFLs. I will point out that though the author acknowledges that the CFLs have failed to live up to similar hype, he quickly overcomes any skepticism he claims to have had that this new technology will be widely adopted by consumers, will last as long as they claim it will (though CFLs have not), etc.

To his credit, he acknowledges the large number of uncertainties in his calculation for a mere $70 in estimated savings over 20 years (assuming electricity prices don’t go up or down, none of the bulbs break, that they last the 20 years they are claimed to last, etc.). Yet his conclusion is to throw his hands up in the air, saying roughly ‘the law is the law.’ It would seem that one could as easily conclude that this legislation was a bad idea and the government should back off it.

A lot of recent internet writing concerning light bulb technology has concluded that the regulation ‘worked’ because new technologies are appearing to replace the bulbs. Unfortunately, this analysis ignores opportunity cost. Yes, the U.S. can make laws which causes corporations to research new technologies, but their success does not signal that it was a good idea. What would those resources have been used for absent government regulation? Given the political lobbying that went into the legislation and the historical failure of top-down economic control, I can only imagine that the free-market would have put the lost time and energy to better use.

I checked my apartment to see how many light bulbs I have. It’s well over 20 and I live in Washington D.C. in a pretty small apartment. Replacing each bulb with one of these new, $20 bulbs would cost roughly $400, an amount I’m unwilling to spend on an unproven technology. The amount could be even much higher for other larger households. Does it really make sense to effectively outlaw a wildly popular technology in efforts to save tiny amounts of energy over the future? If it turns out that these bulbs work as advertised, consumers would likely begin to buy them on their own.

In related news, a new report claims that mercury vapor from broken CFLs can easily exceed the established limits deemed safe by the EPA. It is curious that we are being told that its necessary to spend billions on technologies to reduce mercury emissions from coal fired power plants, yet we are supporting policies that encourage the invitation of mercury into our home.