If this is true, then why has the stock dropped in price? One would think that this "good news" was a beneficial incentive for GE's stock price to rise.
Obviously, bringing things to light casts a shadow over consumer confidence in General Electric.
When, if the blog is true, shall these bulbs be available to the general public?

It's ironic that GE should be developing a more-efficient incandescent bulb just as various jurisdictions are contemplating the banning of the incandescent altogether.

GE's big enough to take care of itself, and if the high-efficiency incandescent (HEI) is as good in efficiency terms as the CFL, will likely be able to lobby to get them exempted from the bans. But had the HEI been developed by a startup, and the timing been slightly different, the technology might well have been suppressed by regulators.

http://photoncourier.blogspot.com

GE is the world's second largest company and is enfluenced by dozens of factors, it has more divisions and subsidiaries than you can count. Just because they have developed and "HEI", doesn't mean that their stock will rise, it's a product that willt take time to come to the market. GE is used to making advancements and progress all the time, this is just one of them. Keep in mind that their stock has risen and much profit-taking has been occuring in recent days.

Any investment in incandescent development is a good thing. As soon as incandescents achieve much better energy efficiency the public will be reminded en masse by the incandescent marketers, as well as health officials, of the many dangers of fluorescent lighting, including EMF radiation, the danger of mercury contamination, possible cause of miscarriage, possible cause of skin cancer, etc., not to mention the countless other more minor side effects, ie. unnatural lighting, headaches, nausea, etc. Al Gore and the marketers of CFL's are conveniently forgetting about these aspect of fluorescents for the time being. There have even been moves to ban fluorescents at different times and places, which of course, has always been economically ridiculous, but in ten years, well...

Interesting that GE just announced new incandescent technology, especially in the face of the demise by many of standard incandescent, due to the lamp's history of poor energy numbers. Makes one wonder how long the boys at NELA Park have had the "new" technology sitting on the shelf. I surmise it's going to be tough shutting down some of those bulb machines that have been paid for thousands of times over.

we are more than happy to pry your fingers loose. Incandescents are environmentally CRIMINAL.

When incandesants are outlawed, only outlaws will have incandesants.

Environmentally criminal? So is your car, and mine. Multiplied by how many. When will those be outlawed?

it seems there has been no comprehensive life cycle environmental and energy analysis on the conversion to CFL. Many people (myself included) do not like working under "cool white" fluorescents (the inexpensive ones - full spectrum are about 6X more expensive) and that is not surprising if you compare the spectrums of cool white with incandescent (which peeks in the infrared and is a continuous spectrum versus the spiky cool white one). Many studies have shown that the performance of students drops under cool white fluorescents and we have the hassle of having to dispose of them properly.

So there is a down side to CFL. We need to see a full life cycle analysis before we know if they save the environment or even energy in the long run. I imagine they are far more energy intensive to produce.

What commercial lobbies are involved in the push to CFLs?