Incandescent Bulbs Return To the Cutting Edge 569
lee1 writes "A law in the US that is due to take effect in 2012 mandates such tough efficiency
standards for lightbulbs that it has been assumed, until recently, that
it would kill off the incandescent bulb. Instead, the law has become a
case study of the way government regulation can inspire technical
innovation. For example, new incandescent technology from Philips that
seals the traditional filament inside a small capsule (which itself is
contained within the familiar bulb). The capsule has a coating that
reflects heat back to the filament, where it is partially converted to
light. The sophisticated ($5.00) bulbs are about 30% more efficient than the
old-fashioned ($0.25) kind, and should last about three times as long.
So they are less economical than compact fluorescents, but should emit a
more pleasing spectrum, not contain mercury, and, one supposes, present
the utility company with a more desirable power factor."
lasers? (Score:5, Informative)
There was an article a month or so ago about how this guy used lasers to (I'm guessing) increase the surface area on the filament, thus increasing efficiency by something like 40%.
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3385 [rochester.edu]
Maybe both can be used for a super-lightbulb?
-xed
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly what I clicked on comments to post...
Wouldn't they be motivated to reach a cross-licensing agreement on the patents?
It would seem there would be mutual interest, but maybe I'm missing something?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"maybe I'm missing something"
like cost of production. I'm sure people are looking into the manufacturing process. once (if) it becomes economically competitive you'll see it in marketable products. not before.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is ridiculous. I've been using Philips HalogenA bulbs for about 15years already, how the fuck is this EVEN SLIGHTLY news? They have an excellent spectrum, are pricey and last about three times as long a a cheap incandescant. The NYT story is pure marketing to the ignorant, but HalogenA is an excellent product that deserves a wider audience.
Re:lasers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:lasers? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. The bulbe in my garrage are 150w equiv CFs. I can notice the warm up time, but it's about 15 seconds... on bitter cold days, maybe it's 30 seconds and sometimes they flicker to come on for a couple of seconds. The CFs in my other rooms produce quality light and I don't even notice their spin up time (aside from a half second delay after I throw the switch).
Getting quality light is all about buying the right color spectrum. Cheap bulb, cheap light. The SAME is true of incandescent, accepting that a cheap incandescent is a fraction of the price (up front cost), but can actually cost significantly more over an equivalent life (multiple replacements, plus energy costs).
LEDs still are not there yet (coming strong though). When LED can produce equivalent lumenns in acceptible color ranges for under $5 a bulb (maybe 5 years?) we'll see them starting to replace CF.
The mercury content in CF has also been not only dramatically reduced, but is actually not really a concern. It's not liquid mercury, it's a compund, and contamination is extreemely easy to remove with a simple vaccum. Also, placing them in landfill sis completely safe. There has NEVER been a single proven leak of mercury for any landfill. Though i agree they should be recylcled, same with all glass and all metal, and some plastics (and that's about it!) it's not a major issue.
I'm still working on replacing all my bulbs (there are over 90 in my current home, and another 16 outside, and I've only been there 6 months, give me time...), but I'm completely content buying good quality CFs. Actually, for 1 light, I'm completely happy using a pair of LED lights, even considering the cost, as it's 20 feet off the floor and in a bad spot for a ladder... I'll get to that one only after the current lights blow out...
i had about 40 CFs in my last home. The only sockets that did not have CFs were a few halogents outside, and a few rooms i used dimmers in (which there are now dimmable CFs...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Convince myself of full spectrum light quality? Honestly, it's damned hard to tell. Traditional CFs, especially sub 4000K have really awful spectrum maps, with about 6 peaks, and really poor blue and UV output across the board, and also weak in the reds. Full spectrum maps http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl/spectra.jpg&imgrefurl=http://web.ncf.ca/jim/misc/cfl/&usg=__xIT7BhJy3xPGzcum8adjVSsj85Y=&h=357&w=388&sz=12&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbn [google.com]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately, aside from a few hallway and stair lights (which are actually only on for monents a day, and the cost isn't justified for the savings), all my lights are recessed or parts of ceiling fans. One exception is an existing high efficiency florescent in the kitchen.
I really don't have anywhere in the house except in the bathrooms, where I could mount a fixture without a major rewiring effort, as there would be no existing wire where I'd put a light...
Also, especially in the master bath, the woman
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree.
Sometimes people try just a little bit too hard. CFL are, indeed, useful in 90% of the cases, but that does not mean they should be used 100% of the time.
Like you pointed out, they suck for outside in cold temperatures, especially on automated systems. Likewise, in places where the color is actually fairly important, like a bathroom mirror used to apply makeup, incandescents are better. And reading lamps that you sit and read under for hours probably should still be incandescent. Over my grandmoth
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
> * You buy the, absolute, cheapest CF bulbs possible.
That's it. You can't honestly be surprised that most people will buy the cheapest blister-pack Costco-special CF bulbs. The kind that have significant warm-up time, high infant mortality rate and shorter than average life. And throw them in the trash when they quit. It's the nature of consumerism.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm wondering what the hell the federal government is doing mandating what kinds of light bulbs we can buy and use?!?!
In order for me to answer that question in a way that you would most easily understand, I'd like you to answer the following question first: who pays to clean up the pollution caused by the power plants that generate electric power for the bulbs?
Re:lasers? (Score:5, Insightful)
who pays to clean up the pollution caused by the power plants that generate electric power for the bulbs?
It should be charged back to the power plants in question, and therefore be built into the cost of the electricity.
We're a lot further along that than we used to be 40 years ago, the plants capture a lot of the pollution rather than emitting it*. We're still not all the way.
As for the efficiency, I think that a 30% improvement is just enough to keep them available under the proposed bans, like what California proposed.
Can't find a link, but I remember the law requiring bulbs to be something like 30% more efficient, they weren't banning incandescents by name.
Of course, I also saw on a couple of the sites I checked that there was a proposal against CRT TVs. My old 32" CRT TV(Energy Star rated for it's time) takes less energy, as measured by a meter, both as a unit and per square inch of visible screen, than my new 42" LCD TV(also Energy Star).
*And make a bit of change selling the valuable commodities that would be pollution if just released
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My answer: Who cares? If you're implying that the federal govt. cleans up after current power plants, I'd say that was none of their business either. Where exactly in the constitution is that a mandated power of the federal govt?
If they were interested in clean
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Congress is also worried about not getting the United States blown up.
Mein Gott, will we ever stop hearing such ridiculous nonsense? Please, tepples, do a little bit of research. Learn a little bit about the design of nuclear power plants (modern designs, that is), and about the real risks and dangers. Learn about the absolute worst that could happen and discover that it really isn't that bad especially when compared to the number of people who are killed per kilowatt hour by coal, natural gas, or oil plants. Then stop spouting this tripe!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the government does then it's us as taxpayers.
Which is why the government is trying to shift the burden from taxpayers to people who use power by introducing "cap and trade" to include the cost of emitting pollution across state lines in the cost of generating power.
Only on paper (Score:5, Insightful)
Cap and Trade will make my electric bill go up, not decrease the profits or pay of executives at the power company. Now, I'd be willing to eat that cost if everyone else were going to have to as well, but that won't be the case. Manufacturers that can, will move their power intensive operations over seas to countries that don't participate in the cap and trade system. It'll save them money, lose the US jobs, and drive down the business of companies that cannot/willnot relocate somewhere else.
This is the fundamental aspect of business that many in washington do not understand. Any move you make to increase operating costs in the US will simply result in the gradual movement of those industries affect to other countries that are less expensive to operate in.
Unless you can get the UN to jam this system down the throats of every industrialized manufacturing country, it's just going to make the US economy worse while helping the economy somewhere else. Not a big problem while the US was booming, but definitely counter productive under the current situation.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the fundamental aspect of business that many in washington do not understand.
Just because they act to the contrary doesn't mean they don't understand.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Frankfort Indiana is a good example (my wife's home town). They used to be dependent upon a handful of large factories that have all closed down and moved overseas. Now they are dependent upon a larger number of smaller factories that have moved into town after the big boys left.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Shift the burden from taxpayers to electricity users who are... us taxpayers.
How much electricity you use (and thus how much of the cap&trade cost you bear) is up to you.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe Congress should mandate warp drive, since it's so good at inspiring technical innovation?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What's next...federal mandates on underwear design?
Spiderman Underoos or nothing at all!
not just that (Score:3, Interesting)
The article claims that it would be cheaper, and brighter than a compact-fluorescent, and the manufacturing process is simple. Additionally, the nature of the way they're increasing the light output allows for selective modification of certain areas of the spectrum; increasing certain parts of the spectrum and decrease other parts would make for a cleaner, notably whiter light.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The ironic thing is that the fluorescent bulbs are closer to sunlight in color. Sunlight is not yellowish (unless it's near the horizon). Nevertheless, I know what you're talking about. I've been using CFLs since the early 90s and am very used to them, but I still prefer the warmer light of tungsten.
The saddest thing to me about incandescent bulbs is how cheaply they're made. It's a huge waste. Bulbs can easily (but not as cheaply) be made to last for years, but you don't make as much money when your p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, if you mean incandescent bulbs. Long life = thicker filament = higher conductivity = moe current. CFLs, however are a different story. Cheap CFLs are often shorter life and lower efficiency than ones with better quality and higher price. The OP was talking about CFLs.
The OP is wrong about CFLs being closer to sunlight in color than incandescents. CFLs are said to have a higher color temperature, but this is not realy accurate - they have a huge spike in the blue end of the spectrum, but the spectrum is
Re:lasers? (Score:5, Informative)
Philips already has production tungsten halogen bulbs with standard bayonet and screw fittings ('EcoClassic 50' here in the UK) that only use about 50% of the power required by conventional tungsten lamps:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/news/press/innovations/2008/home_ecoclassic.php?main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en [philips.com]
Right now these are only available in lower wattages, and the 100W replacement still draws 70W like those in the NYT article ('EcoClassic 30' over here). But it looks like existing technologies should be able to bring down the power consumption of this class of bulbs across the board. Lots of details, teardowns of current devices and predictions of future developments here:
http://www.eceee.org/press/B_Class_lamps/BClassHalogens_and_beyond-eceeeReportDecember12.pdf [eceee.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:lasers? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
only 30% more efficient? (Score:2, Insightful)
just because of a more pleasing spectrum? The "mercury" issue should be easily solved by disposing the bulbs in the correct way (i.e. recycle).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "mercury" issue should be easily solved by disposing the bulbs in the correct way
easily...with a majority of dumb people disposing trash in the very street whenever they can ?
haha....you are so naive it is not even funny.
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:4, Insightful)
A modest proposal (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, mercury is toxic forever. It never, ever, becomes safe, no matter how long you wait. When the glass breaks it'll poison you just as well in a million years as it does today.
No, no, you're missing the beauty of it. Instead of using normal mercury, there should be a mandate for light bulbs to use mercury-194, which has a half-life of 444 years. A perfectly-manageable timeframe for waste storage.
Another cool thing is that the bulb lights up without even being plugged in. It actually generates energy rather than consuming it.
But here's the really cool thing: according to Wikipedia, Hg-194 decays by electron capture into Au-194. That's right, in 400 years half of the mercury in your light bulb will have turned to gold. Replace all of your household lamps with Hg-194 compact fluorescents, and you won't even want to throw your burned-out light bulbs away in the first place!
It's amazing how many seemingly-intractable environmental problems would go away if people would just think outside the box a little.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd better sell that Au-194 fast - its half life is 1.64 days! You'd be better off letting the Au-194 decay into stable Platinum-194 and collect that. It's a lot more valuable than gold.
Other sources quote the half-life of Hg-194 at about 520 years. The transmutation to gold is accompanied by a 328 keV gamma ray and the transition to Pt has gammas between about 300 and 1500 keV according to one source, and a 2.5 MeV according to another - not something you want in your house, but not too terribly energet
Re:A modest proposal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A modest proposal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:5, Insightful)
Planting a lawn in the middle of a fscking desert is not using water in an efficient manner, no matter how many days per week you're allowed to water it.
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:4, Interesting)
Uh.. you can't just stick the bulb in the recycle bin. You have to dispose of it in the proper recycle bin. (and live in a community that has a proper recycle bin for mercury containing bulbs. Mine has a "special dispensation" for CFLs, so if I want my bulbs recycled I have to go out of my way to make sure it happens. Way out of my way. either a 30 minute drive to home depot which I think might work, or an hour and a half drive to the recycle company. by appointment. on specific days only.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's already a crapton of mercury in the environment. So much in fact, that it's becoming dangerous to eat too much fish. They absorb it, it never leaves their system, and then you eat them.
The question is: Do you spew more craptons of mercury into the environment by using incandescent lamps (since you need more power and hence need to burn more mercury-containing coal), or by using CFLs?
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:4, Insightful)
The craptons of mercury spewed by the power plant can, in principle, be scrubbed and recaptured.
But hey, the craptons of mercury tossed into landfills by Joe Six-Pack can, in principle, be reclaimed when you end up drinking it. So it all works out in the end, I guess.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:5, Informative)
The "mercury" issue should be easily solved by disposing the bulbs in the correct way
Breakage - accidents happen in the home, office and ...... car(?) OK forget the car for now. the is the list of steps to safely dispose of broken CFL coils (bulbs) -
Before Clean-up: Ventilate the Room
1. Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
2. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
3. Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.
Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
4. Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
5. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
6. Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the glass jar or plastic bag.
7. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.
Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug
8. Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
9. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
10. If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
11. Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.
Disposal of Clean-up Materials
12. Immediately place all cleanup materials outside the building in a trash container or outdoor protected area for the next normal trash.
13. Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
14. Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.
Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Ventilate the Room During and After Vacuuming
15. The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming.
16. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.
a great way to spend the afternoon, huh?
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare that to the method for incandescent bulbs:
1) sweep broken bulb pieces into adust pan and dump in the garbage
Plus I don't have to turn off my central air each time I clean the floor after that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because you break your light bulbs so often that this is a major inconvenience that makes it worth trading off the substantial efficiency gains? Something tells me you're doing something wrong...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
OK, besides the fact this is completely paranoid, the rest of the article was equally interesting and revealing: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf [energystar.gov]
We're not talking a lot of mercury here, in fact, we're talking about 2 mg. Also, this is NOT liquid mercury (elemental mercury) but a mercury compund, and exposure limits are increased accodringly.
The contamination levels for acceptible CONTINUAL mercury exposure are 0.1MG/m^2. and that's the AIRBORN
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
18. Obtain $3,000,000 grant from US Government to clean up toxic spill site and covert to carbon neutral "green space". Use a portion of the proceeds to build an onsite 24x7 monitoring station.
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:4, Informative)
Huh, 2 tablespoons of Mercury weigh a pound? What planet are these guys living on? They're off by a factor of _ten_ (22 tablespoons of Mercury weigh about a pount, assuming 15 ml per Tsp).
huh? you need to go back to either a science class or a math class.
density of mercury = 13.534 g/cm^3 (cm^3 = milliliter)
1 pound = 453.59237 grams
1 pound of mercury = 453.59237 / 13.53400 = 33.5150266 ml
33.5150266 ml = 2.26655574 US tablespoons
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I really should make a website akin to letmegooglethatforyou.
http://www29.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2+tablespoons+of+mercury+to+lbs [wolframalpha.com]
0.882 lbs.
Let's take a look, shall we?
Hg density: 13.534 g/cm^3
2 tablespoons is 29.57 cm^3
2 tablespoons of Hg: 29.57 cm^3 * 13.534 g/cm^3 .882 lbs
Result: 400.2 g ~=
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mercury is out there already. People with all these paranoid procedures are just being political, it's a fad. The only time I ever worry about mercury is when I go fishing in the local cesspool.
I have to agree with this. Yes, mercury is poisonous and harmful. Yes, people went mad from exposure to it. Thing is, the hatters and gold workers who went crazy and died often worked with gallons of the stuff, bare handed.
A CFL contains ~4mg of mercury. Higher quality ones like Philips, contain ~2.5mg.
From wikipedia: "The typical "fever thermometer" contains between 0.5 to 3 g (.3 to 1.7 dr) of elemental mercury.[3] Swallowing this amount of mercury would, it is said, pose little danger but the inhalin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Dimmer Savior! (Score:5, Insightful)
The moment I find these in stores I am IMMEDIATELY buying a few and replacing every bulb attached to a dimmer switch in my house. Ask anyone with a light dimmer who switched to CFL's, and this'll immediately be their biggest caveat with the tech.
Re:Dimmer Savior! (Score:4, Interesting)
The moment I find these in stores I am IMMEDIATELY buying a few and replacing every bulb attached to a dimmer switch in my house. Ask anyone with a light dimmer who switched to CFL's, and this'll immediately be their biggest caveat with the tech.
The 'dimmer' cfls actually work pretty well, and the ones I have, have a better color temperature when dimmed than when full-on. Dimmed incandescents do very poorly when dimmed, shifting a lot of the energy into infra-red that you just can't see. Sure, you could save 25% of the power by getting 50% of the usable light*, but is that really efficiency?
*actually, I suspect it might be worse than that. That's just my first guess without doing any calculus.
Re: (Score:2)
If you already have them, it might be inconvenient to have them all replaced.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What I have seen are older ones that use a standard triac, using a diac and an RC pair to trigger the triac, and newer "electronic dimmer" ones that turn off the AC early, rather than turning it on late like the older ones. I haven't seen anyone selling PWM dimmers, if by that you mean converting the AC sine wave into a square wave and varying the on/off time. That'd be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you saying that the conversion from 120V ac to 3V-dc wastes is 0.05 % efficient ?
At the ultra-low output power drawn by an IR detector, yes. Especially when the manufacturer does not put too much effort (design, components) into power efficiency.
Just think about a computer power supply - they can reach 80+% efficiency, but only under certain load conditions. Above or below such load their efficiency can be much worse.
Tvs and similar equipment with a stand-by mode also typically draw anything from 1w to
Canada eh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But you guys also have the biggest allotment of cheap natural gas(to the point where some folks use it in their cars), meaning any process which converts electricity to heat is inherently financially inefficient over there. ;)
Re:Canada eh! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Or people who have pets, but don't want to buy one of those expensive heatlamp bulbs or whatever.
Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
You would find less overall electricity usage by switching to CFL and using the difference in power to run a heat pump. Worst case scenario, the ground doesn't have any heat to give you and your pump defaults to standard resistance heating, which is where you are now. All other scenarios are improvements on that.
Unless, of course, you're not currently using electric resistance heating as your main heat supply. In which case, by answering the question, "why not," you will also know why you're not saving anything by relying on your lamps as auxiliary heat.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny but not really true. You are only warming the ceiling. Much better to save the power and use it on something designed to spread the heat around the room.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a much better reason why you don't want to use lightbulbs to generate heat, which is that resistive heating makes very little sense. Either use gas,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Your missing the part where heat rises. Unless you are pointing a fan at your light bulbs you are only warming a small section of your ceiling.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My apartment, for one.
The only heater is on the wall just below the ceiling. Other stores have the AC in the ceiling, so that is which is also the heater. Many of the ACs here have a reverse cycle that heats the room.
I am in Japan, and they are very behind in that kind of stuff. Single pane windows, limited insulation and poor sealing make cooling/heating more expensive than it should be.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I use less artificial lighting in the summer, actually.
30% efficiency gain is even easier: (Score:4, Informative)
Stick a halogen light bulb inside an incandescent light bulb. That's what they sell around here to replace incandescent bulbs once they're no longer sold. Nice spectrum, no warm-up time, longer lifetime than the incandescent bulb it replaces, 30% less energy used compared to the incandescent.
Re: (Score:2)
Halogen light bulbs are a kind of incandescent bulb.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now that you mention it, yes. Why a product that's been on the market for years now is considered _news_ is beyond me, though. Or is it just that the US is lagging so far behind in lighting technology that is actually is _news_ over there?
cost over life (Score:2)
As long as the new bulbs cost more than the old ones + their total consumption in electricity over their lifespan this is a net loss.
I'm sorry but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm sorry but... (Score:5, Informative)
hum, hum...
Incandescent: 2.0-2.2% efficiency
Halogen: 2.4-2.9% efficiency
Compact fluorescent: 8â"11% efficiency
We are far from your 5% and 75% efficiency...But your point is valid but not so staggering...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2 [wikipedia.org]
Why? (Score:4, Interesting)
Gotta tell ya, I replaced all the lights in my house with the newer fluorescent bulbs, both white and warm, over a year ago and I can now no longer stand the light output of the incandescent bulbs; it seems too harsh. Go figure. I guess humans just adapt.
The white light works very well in rooms like the bathroom, toilet, shed and kitchen. The warmer lights almost everywhere else. People really need to stop throwing tantrums.
LED Lamps (Score:3, Informative)
LED are already here, costs still high but they beat flourescents bulbs in life span and energy consume, and lightup instantaneously.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Lame (Score:3, Funny)
What ever happened to microwave lighting that I saw on TV over a decade ago that was going to kick ass???
and where is my flying car and VR sex slave.
o.. and why does my car from 1997 get the same MPG as all the new ones that don't have massive arrays of lead acid battery's?
The light bulb is lame. I want my damn sharks with flipp'en lasers and you need to get off my LAN son....
Similarly... (Score:3, Insightful)
The last major gas mileage increase in North American cars came as a result of legislation.
CFL's can't be used everwhere (Score:3, Interesting)
A TOTAL ban on incandescent lamps? I think not. You can't put CFL's in the 'fridge. They won't work in ovens. They don't work worth a damn
with dimmers (I've tried several "dimmable" CLF's, they have a range of maybe 20%). Until they make CFL's or way cheaper LED bulbs equal to 60-100W incandescent lamps that work with a dimmer, I'll keep the "Edison bulbs" in my dimmable fixtures, even If I have to buy black market lamps from Korea.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have a CF in my oven. it cam ethat way new.
I have about 20 dimmable CFs. They work great, and have a range from about 20% to 90% of an equavalent CF. I have 60watt 5000K dimmers. They were about $12 a bulb when i got em, they're about $6 now.
If you buy the cheap crap Walmart pushes, you get cheap crap... Look online at one of the many 1000+ bulb stores, check the ratings on each bulb, and it;s FULL stats (temp, range, watts, lumens, etc).
You'll also not that the ban taking effect in 2012 actually onl
Light Bulbs...The LEAST of our worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Cripes, the infamous light bulb efficiency gimmick again. What's next, we gonna tie light bulb usage to Global Warming?
Seriously, any of you ever actually take a measurement of your electric usage in your house? Instead of screwing with 60W of light you use really only part of the day, take a look at your A/C unit. Older A/C units under 10 SEER drawing 20A or more will suck $80 - $120/month out of your wallet while new ones will draw less than 1/2 of that (7 - 10A). A dryer that runs 2 hours a day (not hard for a family of four) will run over $30/month pulling 20A. Own a pool? Average 1HP pump will suck another $25 - $35/month from your wallet if you run it according to what you've heard is "the norm". Geek running a server farm out of your home powered 24/7? Had a measly el-cheapo Dell headless tower that ran me $10/month by itself.
Point here is there's a HELL of a lot MORE we can fine tune and adjust lifestyles around to save a hell of a lot more than that 60W light bulb that you don't even turn off when you leave a room anyway.
Technology for Al Gores sake is not always necessary.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm all for foot-dragging when it comes to implementing repressive regimes.
Too Little, Too Late (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, these new incandescents are 30% more efficient, but my CFLs are 400% more efficient than the latest "normal" bulbs they compete with. They're therefore 3x as efficient as these new incandescents. And these new ones, at $5 apiece, cost 8.75x what my CFLs cost in a box of 12. The CFLs will last something like 10 years, instead of about 2 for incandescents (maybe 5 for these new, less hot ones). But at such high efficiency, the CFLs add very little heat to the room to be cooled with my air conditioning - even more overall system efficiency. As for the spectrum, my CFLs side by side a new GE incandescent at the same luminosity show the CFL with a slightly yellower light, which is the "warm" light we like to associate with homey incandescent.
If we didn't have good CFLs, these new incandescents would be welcome. They might have some applications, given their small size, and cheap dimmability (dimmable CFLs cost 2-3x as much, last half as long, at least during their own early days). But within a couple years LEDs with 1300-1900 lumens will cost less than CFLs now, and can run directly on DC power - thereby increasing solar PV efficiency driving them by eliminating the 30-50% now lost on DC/AC/DC conversion. The LEDs will have a more tunable spectrum, last longer, and fit smaller fixtures, with even less heat inefficiency to cool (or disperse in enclosures).
CFLs today, LEDs tomorrow. Incandescents in movies about the 20th Century.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If we didn't have good CFLs, these new incandescents would be welcome.
We don't have good CFLs, ergo incandescents are welcome.
Silly questions (Score:3, Interesting)
The "rule of thumb" for the old, straight tube florescent bulbs bulbs was to only turn them off if you weren't going to be needing the light again for at least fifteen minutes. This is due to the start up energy costs to establish the initial arc in the gas. First question: Do CFLs have the same or similar start up costs? If so, it would seem that old style incandescent bulbs should still be used where the light is frequently turned on and off and, typically, the light only remains on for short periods of time (e.g., a bathroom light, closet light, refrigerator light, etc.). Second question: Is this "leave it on" period different for CFLs?
Cheers,
Dave
Re:Silly questions (Score:4, Informative)
Mythbusters covered your question a while back. It turns out that the startup energy for fluorescent bulbs was equal to about 23 seconds of runtime. So if you're going to be leaving the room for more than 23 seconds, turn off the bulb.
-b
Re: (Score:2)
I hope anti-government deregulation fanatics read articles like this to understand the benefits of proper government regulation. Unfortunately, I suspect they'll find a way to misinterpret it, as all party zealots do.
You mean like, oh, the research was already under way prior to the regulations being passed? Nah, couldn't be that, given that GE announced two years ago [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nor is there a need to reduce electricity consumption. If demand drive
Re:Government Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Replacing a $0.25 bulb with a $5 bulb is not a good use of government power. People can do that on their own, if it suits them.
no they can't - no-one in their right mind would buy a roughly equivalent 25c bulb for $5, and as a result, the manufacturers would not even bother trying to make and sell them. Net result: 25c bulbs are the only option.
Sometimes you need some external stimulus to provoke a change in a stable environment, like sticking your finger in still water.
Similarly, saying "the market will provide more power stations", well yes it will - eventually, in the meantime while the market is getting to the point where more power is required, you're suffering brownouts. Besides, it is often in the market's interest to let you suffer like that as they you will pay more.
Sometimes you need more forward planning and organisation than market forces allow.
These 2 factors are why we need and have governments, if only life was as simple as you think, we'd be living in a utopia.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes you need some external stimulus to provoke a change in a stable environment, like sticking your finger in still water.
So? If you don't have a reason to change this stable environment, then you don't need an external stimulus.
Similarly, saying "the market will provide more power stations", well yes it will - eventually, in the meantime while the market is getting to the point where more power is required, you're suffering brownouts. Besides, it is often in the market's interest to let you suffer like that as they you will pay more.
You're not suffering brownouts, if people are paying the proper price for electricity and its supporting infrastructure. The market doesn't have "interests". You mean electricity generators who are a subset of the market participants. And you don't pay more for electricity, if they're not delivering it to you.
Sometimes you need more forward planning and organisation than market forces allow.
Sure there is such a need. But there isn't a superior mechanism to the market for providing th
Oh rubbish (Score:3, Insightful)
Government regulation causes more problems than it solves. California's "deregulated" energy market was regulqated so that there was no incentive to provide reliable excess capacity.
Re: (Score:3)