The problem with banning incandescent bulbs is that there is no perfect source for light.  That's why we have so many available today.  They all have their strengths and weaknesses.  CFLs are more efficient, but they aren't the cure-all.  There are some places where they work fine in place of incandescent bulbs, and other places where incandescent bulbs do things that CFLs just can't.

I think a better solution would be to have better minimum performance standards.  That would also knock many new Chinese incandescent bulbs off the market and encourage improvement of incandescent technology.

CFL's do not work good anywhere, but are on some places usable as an temporary energy efficient alternative before the whole lantern would be replaced.
Integrating temperature sensitive electronic close to hot running lamp and jamming long lamp to small space are huge design flaws on their own, even as concepts. No wonder, it does so many troubles.

I have to admit, I use CFLs in many places in my home, but they havent replaced incandescent lights in all cases.  Most lamps (mostly 3-way) still use incandescent bulbs.  Lights that are on dimmers, motion sensors or that use candelabra base bulbs are all incandescent also.  The lights in the shop (unheated) are incandescent and my porch lights are halogen.  Even those have made a difference in the electric bill.

Nothing is sadder than a CFL at -20 degrees    They burn themselves out trying to light at -40

This is pretty sad, not to mention silly. @icefoglights, thats why I relpalced a standard incandescent outdoor fixture with a 70 watt Metal Halide one. Hope those aren't banned either.

How many CFL's do you see in freezers and ovens? None. This is what happens when the government messes with things it doesn't understand. Incandescents and magnetic ballast fluorescents forever!!!!

mr.Big i was talking about the incadescents not the halogens. a 70w halogen replaces100w incandescent.  i use halogen. about six of them.
colin the dimmable  cfls have been in the market here since late 1990s.  covered ones seem to to well in cold temps.

Dimmable CFL's are here quite same time, but those "compatible" with triac dimmers exhibit unstable operation at low setting. To fix this they require readjusting the dimmers "minimum level" setting (usually a trim-pot), to not allow reducing the power below the level required by the ballast to maintain it's minimum level power. The issue is, then in the CFL the full voltage has to be recovered (by a simplified PFC circuity) from narrow polses coming trough the dimmer, so when they are really too narrow, the internal voltage start to fall, so the lamp become unstable.

mr.Big i was talking about the incadescents not the halogens. a 70w halogen replaces100w incandescent.  i use halogen. about six of them.
colin the dimmable  cfls have been in the market here since late 1990s.  covered ones seem to to well in cold temps.

Well, the U.S. lighting ban has officially been postponed until October 1, 2012 as seen here. 

Admittedly, I use CFLs, but the good GE helical 13 watt ones, which in my experience are of pretty good quality.  Even on my "not so pure" electricity, they have lasted about a year and a half now. You can get them in bulk for stupid cheap and they are still pretty decent quality. There has only been one failure, after less than a week, so it may have just been a dud. Since I live off the grid, they work great at saving power when I have to make my own.

     However, I like incandescents better... they are always cool. I still collect incandescents, and there are a few applications where CFLs just wouldn't be practical. Like icefoglights, I live in Alaska.

I've never been convinced by CFLs:
- poor colour rendering (poor CRI and CCT around 3000K or below most of the time, 2700K being pretty rare);
- ugly shape in my opinion;
- very easy to break;
- too much plastic! and mercury, and fluorescent powder...

Incandescent are inefficient, but they're light (hence less carbon consumption during transport) and basic (hence only metal and glass in the trashcan when thrown away). Furthermore a friend who worked in politics agreed that this massive incandescent ban has been only a question of political lobbies.

Most of my bulbs are standard incandescent, however I have some interest in high-power LEDs: I use a  yellow 12W AmbiantLED in a reading lamp (nice 2700K CCT due to blue leds + phosphor exterior coating, unfortunately the 80 CRI is too low for this CCT) and a Rebel-based AmbientLED spot (great CRI but the colour is a little too different from an incandescent to mimic the latter).
I also use a couple of vintage and modern linear fluorescent tubes, in warm 2700 and 3000K tints as well.

The recent CREE XP-G 90 offers a 90+ CRI and a 3000K yellowish tint that is extremely close to a halogen filament. I've compared both side by side and literally felt in love with this LED. When I find a bulb based on this LED, it will replace some of my incandescent at home.

In white LEDs, the higher the CRI, the lower the efficiency will be and the opposite.
CFLs have a CRI of 85 (Ra8).
I prefer T8 fluorescent lamps and PLs and preheat magnetic ballasts with either electronic or thermal starters.

The recent CREE XP-G 90 offers a 90+ CRI and a 3000K yellowish tint that is extremely close to a halogen filament. I've compared both side by side and literally felt in love with this LED. When I find a bulb based on this LED, it will replace some of my incandescent at home.

I would stay away from those "incandescent replacement" lamps (everything above 3W, what screw into the E27 socket), their lifetime and reliability is questionable. The issue is with the very poor heat management - the small form factor does not allow for sufficient heatsink, so they run VERY hot. And that usually cause the degradation of both the ballast, as well as the LED's alone.
Do not trust the "25000+ hour" life rating, that either mean, then after this time the LED "still emit light" (but that does not mean it is still usable; mainly on Cheepee products) or a very optimistic scenario - base down on a free air (so very good circulation of the cold air, the ballast is really kept cold; this is usually the case for the better and more expensive brands). In the real life the LED would be in way warmer environment, capacitors in the ballast reaching nearly 100degC, LED chips the 150degC, what could easily mean life/10 or even shorter...

Better use purpose build metal body LED fixtures, where the whole fixture body (so quite big device, compare to the size of the retrofit lamps) act as the heatsink. These operate the LED chips way below 100degC and capacitors below 50degC.

LED strips are good as well, mainly when used on metal surface (usually sold as the accessory to the LED strips - quite recommended) - they are distributed over quite large batten length, so is their power dissipation, so the batten temperature does not go much above 30degC (in 25degC ambient), what mean LED temperature below 50degC...

Thanks for your replies.

Indeed I know that heat is the major issue with LEDs (I've been interested in led flashlights since... 1999!) and indoor is not the best place for them. I don't expect most of 10-20% of the rated lifetime and I know the latter corresponds to 50% of the initial output, which means that I won't notice its gradual decrease.

About the "yellow" AmbientLED, the phosphor is exterior (you have a few blue LEDs within the lamp) so I guess it won't degrade as much as standard white LEDs with internal phosphor over the blue die.

Actually I use:
- one "yellow" flood AmbientLED in a metal-shaded floor reading lamp: thew reason is that the shade becomes very hot with an incandescent;
- another "yellow" flood AmbientLED outside for permanent night lighting of my balcony: the bulb is outside and bare on its socket so I don't worry too much about cooling; I must admit that this is also a test since this lamp is continuously lit from the evening to the morning (using an automatic cell switch);
- my AmbientLED spot because I wanted a narrow spot without spill nor heat, but it remains lit for 2-3 min most of the time.

I know LEDs are not an optimal solution yet, but in terms of light quality the XP-G 90 is impressive and very promising IMO.

Reputable manufacturers here in the USA rate the life of LED lamps as the length of time before the lamp produces only 70 percent of its original light output. That is a good way, in my opinion, to rate LED lamp life. At least the manufacturer is telling us how they are rating life, which is more than many questionable manufacturers say.

Reputable manufacturers here in the USA rate the life of LED lamps as the length of time before the lamp produces only 70 percent of its original light output. That is a good way, in my opinion, to rate LED lamp life. At least the manufacturer is telling us how they are rating life, which is more than many questionable manufacturers say.

This is, how they should be rated according to the standard and indeed, reputable manufacturers do so. But it is not 70% of the single lamp, but 70% light output of the large installation. So it mean either 30% of lamps hard-dead with no lumen depression on the remaining 70%, or all lamps working, but each at 70% lumen output, or smething between (e.g. 16% hard-dead and remaining 84% give 84% of their initial output => 70% of the total initial brightness).

But for nearly all of them it mean the base-down position in the free air, what is the least favorable for incandescent lumen maintenance, but favorable for the non-incandescent life and lumen maintenance. And the issue is, then in real life very few of the installations correspond to base down in free air. So mostly the lamp electronic and LED chips would run way hotter, so degrade faster...