Protesters of the Incandescent Light Bulb







As far as aesthetics, people complained that incandescent light was glaringly bright. They preferred the soft, warm glow of gaslight. They even worried incandescent lighting was so bright it would cause them to go blind. Doctors wrote about a new disease called photo-electric ophthalmia in 1889 which was caused by continual electrical light being exposed to the eyes. (It was eventually debunked, thank goodness).

In addition to all of those concerns, electricity in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s was just plain expensive. When Edison’s electric lamps were first advertised for home use, they were largely battery-operated, as only three towns at the time had signed contracts with Edison’s agents to wire a central station. (Those were Roselle, NJ; Sunbury, PA; and Brockston, MA, if you’re curious).

For all the parts of a battery-powered electric lamp, you would have paid:

  • $1.50 for each light bulb, which had the light output of 8 to 16 candles; but would burn out very quickly
  • $5 for a lamp stand with a shade
  • $0.25 for a socket
  • $12 for a battery that would provide power for about an hour and a half

To put it into perspective, Edison’s workers earned upwards of $800 a year, and they could barely afford it!

Of course, incandescent light is now the most familiar light source out there to the general public. Isn’t it interesting to look back on a time when it wasn’t so popular?

Emily Widle

Emily Widle


  • lighthouse

    That was very interesting, thanks!
    Certainly there can be reluctance to change at all times.

    Those who support the phase out of “old obsolescent” bulbs,
    similarly point to wariness about motor cars replacing horse and buggy and so on.

    But gaslights, candles, horse and buggy were not banned just because more “modern” alternatives came along.
    That is the big difference today
    (and yes, it is effectively a ban on incandescent technology for ordinary lamps given the EISA 2007 45 lumen per watt end regulation, as commented before).
    Bans only make sense if it is what people want to buy.
    No point banning unpopular products!
    All lighting – candles, gaslight, incandescents, CFLs LEDs – have their advantages.
    The overall marginal savings (a fraction of 1% of US energy use) is hardly justified on the basis of any shortage of future electricity sources with whatever environmental mandate is desired, and which consumers, not politicians, pay for.