I'm not sure if this is going to be true but what do you think guys?

http://www.cepro.com/article/leds_will_eliminate_all_other_lamp_sources_in_6_years/

That will be really sad for us that appreciate the older technology.  Sure we may save money but LED's are even more cold and sterile than CFL's.  I am very impressed with their light output they have now, warm white and all, and the energy savings is something else but gosh.  I truly am sad that mercury vapors are on their way out, such an organic light, ballasts you can hear and the arc you can see, and last forever they seem.  I remember back in early 1990's going into an electrical supply store with my dad and really liking both a clear yard blaster style fixture as well as an Electripak 140 watt decorative one, the style I read about had the rare frosted low volt bulb made by Phillips for Electripak.  That is where I lusted for a Phillips 18 watt LPS Mini-SOX Wallpack that I never could afford and where I saved up and bought my Electripak 35w HPS Wallpack that lived in my closet for 7 years approx (wired to lampcord) then on dad's old house where I grew up for 12 years and is now on my side of garage, still running great after 20 years! :-) (replaced generic HPS bulb with Sylvania Lumalux in 2010 when generic began not fully warming up and hanging in glow).

Hope that this scenario willn't happen, especially outside the US. LEDs can't replace lamps in general lighting. LEDs still didn't achieved more than 50 lm/w outside the laboratory and in commercial lighting products. Their life is no more than a few months average.
There are applications where incandescent is a must: Appliances lightings (Ovens, LEDs will be cooked within seconds in an oven, and will even less efficient than appliance incandescents (>5 lm/w at the best, because of reduced performed cause of overheating), stairways and bathrooms, and halogen is a must: Floodlights with motion detectors, vehicle headlights (Xenon MH lamps in headlights are safer and have greater performance only if they comes original with the original HID headlight. In all other cases, MH lamps are a safety hazard for oncoming traffic).
They just do this for money and not for environmental reasons really. LED lighting is horribly expensive and don't last long.
Also, LED lighting will have to be disposed in recycling centers for electronics (Where computers and hardware are usually recycled).

I hope it never happens.

LED's will become better by 2018 and MAYBE some of the problems with them will be resolved. But they will never be really ok for ALL purposes

Fluorescents i am sure will be for long time ahead - Nobody is going to convert the T5 electronic fixtures to LED - they are efficient enough as they are now. Older fluorescents - Unless they ban even more lamps there have to be older lamps and ballasts (at least electronic ones) available

If magnetic ballasts are not available, time to put my plan into action - measure existing good ballasts and find compatibles - They can ban "40W fluorescent ballast" but they can't ban "0.87H 50ohm 430mA inductor" which is essentially the same device. And if no such inductor found, go wind our own !

Incandescents and halogens appear to be in most risk. I am unsure whether the current bans are the final ones or there will be more. As matter of fact, those are enough to phase out most of the use of incandescents and halogens (as the remaining lamps are not covering most of the demand) so it is likely that what survives now will remain

Ash: I doubt that LEDs will be better with reliability. It is very hard to depress the heat of a cluster of HPLEDs crowded together, and it is currently not possible to depress the heat of regular LEDs.
If the heatsinking body of the LED lamps would be made of copper, which have much thermal conductivity of all materials that are currenty used for heatsinking for LEDs, CPUs, GPUs and computer PSUs, this would be better. Silver is even better, but it is very expensive. Copper is also very expensive for heatsinking of these things.

LEDs will be better with reliability when manufacturers learn the hard way where to not cut costs. Its not about the lighting type but manufacturing process control quality

But there are 2 more things i must say about LEDs :

1. Each lamp has its optimal form factor. For incandescent it is a bulb. For fluorescent it is a long tube - it is obvious since the early days of fluorescent. So why the hell is it not obvious that LED has its own optimal form factor ? For LED the optimal form factor is a long strip or planar with big surface area - LED strips are  proper use of LEDs. Cramming LEDs into the form factor of other lamps (spotlights, bulbs, tubes etc) is not good form factor for a LED device and is simply asking for overheating and trouble

We pretty much see it in CFLs which are another example of using inappropriate form factor : take a good fluorescent, cram it into a small lightbulb, get 1/3 of the light output lost as well as ballast overheating problems

2. LEDs are excellent for light packages up to about 5W for small source (not talking about LED strips where you can have it as long as you wish). Above this limit they are simply not appropriate - crammed too much power dissipation n too small device. So if you need higher density light source (or basically more than 5W) better go to fluorescents or something else. The streetlights with high density LED in them are one of the worst examples

The problem started, when some i***t thought he can cram a fluorescent into an incandescent fixture, when Philips came with the SL* and started huge campaign to use CFL's as a low energy alternative. To kick out the argument about mismatch between these new light sources and existing incandescent fixtures, a campaign started about "proving, how low energy alternative could be used there". This resulted into people being disappointed about more efficient light sources, creating a general reluctance to go from the incandescents at all, so become closed to all improvements in fluorescent technology made over past few decades.

And with the LED strips you should be careful, they are very tricky: They appear like you can attach them to anything and they would work.
WRONG!
They are relatively low power LED's, but in order to reach light output density suitable for serious illumination task, they are quite close to each other and are quite high biased (they dissipate about 4..5W/meter of length). So they dissipate quite substantial amount of heat. If the heat have nowhere to go (what is the case when glued onto some poor thermal conductor), they simply overheat and start to degrade.
In order to reach long life, they have to be really mounted on the metal heatsink. For that purpose are sold "decorative" profiles and it is very good idea to use them - as their main technical function is to provide the required heatsinking for all the LED's.

5W/M in a LED strip is not that bad. The sinister happens when the same 5W are crammed in a lamp that is supposed to be the size of a CFL

The strip alone is very poor thermal conductor, so the cooling is restricted to the area of the LED's alone, what does not give as much surface, it is not greater than the cooling fins of an E27 power LED lamp. And in most installation (on the horizontal surface, facing down) the air circulation is very restricted (the hot air has nowhere to rise), what make the situation worse compare to the "CFL-like" designs in the free air.
Moreover the high power LED devices (1..3W LED pucks, COB's,...) thermally perform way better in order to transfer the heat from the junction to the heatsink, so even when the heatsing of these is hotter than the naked strip, the junction itself operate cooler than typical strip (at that is, what really matter in terms of efficacy and life).

Of course the "corn" lamps utilizing the through-hole LED's are the pure disaster.

Update about LEDs. I read that Nick Holonyak Jr who invented the LED said it is nothing more than a diode that converts current into visible light and he said in traditional lighting the light is produced as a byproduct based on heating a metal or burning of chemicals (as in HID lamps). He said it is why LEDs are capable of being very efficient, with a theory of 100% efficiency in producing light (losses only from metal leads, contacts, drivers etc). What do you think?

I think we have a lot of light sources, each with its benefits and shortcomings, so why the heck should we only choose one of them and forget the others

The problem with LED efficiency is not that the junction would not convert all the power to the radiated light, but how to get the light out of the junction without being absorbed.
The current need conductive layers to reach the junction. That mean these layers have to go over the whole junction area, so cover it from all sides. But the conductive layers are always a reflector for any electromagnetic waves, so including the light, but depend on their resistance, it convert part of the light into heat.
Now how to make a device, where the junction had to be open to allow the light to escape, but at the same time closed enough to allow the electricity to reach the same junction?
So there is a long development to find a way through these rather conflicting requirements, but it is the conflict of the requirements, what make me to guess, than the maximum attainable efficiency would be far from 100%, so we would always have quite large portion of the input power to be carried away as a waste heat.

But even 50% efficiency would mean about 150..300lm/W (depend on the required color properties of the lamp), what is quite a lot in terms of efficacy, but still the 50% losses are a lot to cause a lot of pain in the thermal management design.

I think, than the LED's have the ability to "organically" (so without any government bans,...) push the other light sources out from most of the market in not as far time. But somewhere the incandescents (here I count even the halogens) would still remain the most optimal technology:
E.g. in cars front lighting it appear, than the incandescents are still the most fuel efficient front lighting as the main hi and low beam lights (so not for daylight running lamps). It is not because they would be so greatly efficient, but because they are lightweight (do not need any ballast box, nor heatsink,...) and their heat output keep the front lens rather optically clean, so they do not need any other cleaning systems (wipers/washers for HID, heater for LED's,...), what add the weight as well. And it is the weight advantage of the incandescents, what reduce the car fuel consumption way more than needed to create the electricity to run them for the rather limited time (how long do you drive at night compare to all driving).

But it is the brainwashing, what make the people to craze for the "more advanced" lights and so look at halogens as "outdated" technology.

Other area, where the incandescent would hold are the approach/landing light in aircrafts. Their burning hopurs are even less than in car headlights, while the aircrafts are way more sensitive for any extra weight. But there the mechanical robustness of the LED's/ fragility of the incandescents play yet another role to be considered...

I think, than the LED's have the ability to "organically" (so without any government bans,...) push the other light sources out from most of the market in not as far time. But somewhere the incandescents (here I count even the halogens) would still remain the most optimal technology:
E.g. in cars front lighting it appear, than the incandescents are still the most fuel efficient front lighting as the main hi and low beam lights (so not for daylight running lamps). It is not because they would be so greatly efficient, but because they are lightweight (do not need any ballast box, nor heatsink,...) and their heat output keep the front lens rather optically clean, so they do not need any other cleaning systems (wipers/washers for HID, heater for LED's,...), what add the weight as well. And it is the weight advantage of the incandescents, what reduce the car fuel consumption way more than needed to create the electricity to run them for the rather limited time (how long do you drive at night compare to all driving).

How I don't thought about the weight of the headlight type as a factor for fuel efficiency.
So it seems that the incandescent and halogen headlights are the most fuel economical headlights available, because they are much lighter than MH headlights (Ballast box), and LED headlights (Heatsink), and their lower weight is much more affects the fuel economy than the lower wattage of MH and LED headlights. So there is some misleading from the lamp and automobile manufacturers.
Also, MH headlights are significantly more glaring than halogen and incandescent headlights (Wider/uneven beams, higher color temperature (Bluer light), higher light intensity). Because of this, HID headlights were almost completely banned in Israel.

Update: I asked some people, and they answered that there is almost no differences between the weight of MH headlights and halogen headlights, and the ballast box of the MH headlights barely adds 25mg to the overall weight of the system, so no difference in fuel efficiency will be achieved with MH and halogen headlights.
Also, they said me that the power consumption from the battery, doesn't affect fuel consumption.

I think the "25mg" of the ballast box is a typo: one drop of water would be heavier...
I would guess the 250g would be real mass per ballast.

If I would take the simplest halogen headlight, it would be lighter than the simplest road legal MH. The reason is the extra complexity (mainly the projection optics), but the difference would not be as large (the projector assembly usually uses quite narrow lens diameter). The largest weight contributor of the MH is the ballast.

The LED's become quite heavy: On top of the headlights alone containing the heatsink (frequently with a cooling fan to make it smaller to save weight) you have to count for the mass of the ductwork of the headlight front glass heating system (to avoid water/ice buildup, what could sputter too much light and cause glare). Or the heating could be electrical, but then the electrical power consumption is about the same as of the halogens.