$50 Light Bulb Wins Affordability Prize

I don't think they know what the word "affordability" means: Government-subsidized green light bulb carries costly price tag

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market. The price is $50.

Retailers said the bulb, made by Philips, is likely to be too pricey to have broad appeal. Similar LED bulbs are less than half the cost.

I like the idea of LED lights.  They do cast a pretty tolerable light, and they are extremely energy efficient.  The light in question is almost economically competitive at least according to the Post article if you accept their life span claims.  However, life span claims for compact fluorescent lights seem to have been exaggerated.  To make full use out of an LED light bulb costing $50 it's likely you'd have to keep it past significant remodeling of the original installation.  That's not impossible, of course, but it seems to be a significant problem.  What if they invent an even more efficient light source; will the government force you to throw away your expensive LEDs in favor of the newest technology?  I don't believe the government should be forcing the abandonment of incandescent lamps and the adoption of CFL and LEDs