Slashdot Log In
The Light Bulb That Can Change the World
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Tue Aug 29, 2006 03:49 PM
from the little-lightbulb-that-could dept.
from the little-lightbulb-that-could dept.
An anonymous reader writes to tell us FastCompany is reporting on the latest and greatest version of the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL). While CFLs of the past may have been efficient, they certainly were not effective. However, according to the article, CFLs have come as far as cell phones have since the mid 80s while still maintaining that high efficiency. From the article: "if every one of 110 million American households bought just one [CFL], took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Light Bulb That Can Change the World
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 1137 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
How many... (Score:5, Funny)
(http://evil.google.com/)
Re:How many... (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday July 12, @12:30PM)
LED based lighting would do even better (Score:5, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_
LED lights last up to 11 yrs with continuous use.
And use 1/30th the power of a regular light bulb, vs. 1/4 with a CFL.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/7aa8/ [thinkgeek.com]
Only thing really holding it back right now is price and the fact they
wouldnt sell many to repeat customers with an 11 year always on lifespan, lol.
The ones featured here on thinkgeek don't put off quite as much light,
but with 2 lights vs. one you can get there.
The price is the only real thing hindering it, but if you consider long term
energy savings, its awesome.
Re:LED based lighting would do even better (Score:5, Informative)
It's not a problem to you when it's sealed in the bulb, but it damn sure can't go into the landfill. Once it gets into groundwater, it very easily becomes methylated to become that nasty toxic stuff.
Long-term, elemental mercury is pretty damn toxic too. I'd mostly be worried about it being around kids. Still, if everyone burned CF's, there'd be a lot less mercury released from coal plants.
Re:LED based lighting would do even better (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.speakeasy.org/~xyzzy/)
If you look at the effeciency of one of the best high-power white LEDs, the Luxeon K2 [luxeon.com], it produces 60 lumens at 1.197 watts, for about 50 lumens/watt. A typical CF bulb (reading off the package) is 900 lumens and 14 watts, for 64 lumens/watt. If you look at a higher power verison of the Luxeon K2, it's 120 lumens in 3.72 watts for only 32 lumens/watt.
White LEDs are NOT seven times more efficient than flourescent bulbs, they are LESS efficient.
Consider the price too. I bought those 900 lumen CF bulbs at Home Depot for about $1.75 each. The white Luxeon K2 is $3.45 each for a less efficient (45 lumens) binning, you would need 20 of them to make a 900 lumen light bulb. And that's just for the LEDs, you'd still need electronics (which are not 100% efficient themselves!) to make an actual bulb. For example, that clearance bulb at ThinkGeek is $25 for a bulb with the power of one 60 lumen K2 LED. 15 of those $25 ThinkGeek bulbs would cost $375 and have the light output of just one $1.75 CF bulb!
The only advantage of LEDs is that they are more efficient the less powerfull they are. CF is more efficient the more powerfull it is. If you look at normal lightbulbs in the 900 lumen range, CF wins by a lot. If you look at something small like a one watt flashlight, there are no 1 watt CF bulbs, so LEDs are best.
Re:one watt flashlight (Score:5, Informative)
CF's would make a lousy flashlight bulb for the simple reason they are also not used in spotlights. They are not a point source light that can be focused into a beam. A 1 watt LED makes a great flashlight. I have one.
Re:How many... (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Monday November 21 2005, @11:45AM)
I remember paying $2000 for a new, mid-range computer. What has gone up because computers are cheaper now?
The cost of living doesn't go down, perhaps, but that's just because we get more. My parents didn't have central air until I was 14; I haven't lived in a place without it since. I remember my dad showing the power locks on his new car; can you buy a car without them now? Or, would you rather have a like-new '79 Rabbit, or a like-new Honda Fit? Homes are larger now with fewer people living in them. etc. etc.
No. T'ain't right. It's a Karma Light(tm) (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.dragonswest.com/ | Last Journal: Monday November 05, @07:35PM)
How many light bulbs does it take to change the world? No wait, that's not right...
The problem is people use these little efficient doodads to feel good about doing something green. Then they go out and buy a power-sucking plasma TV.
Electrical use is way up since the 80's. Possibly because we all have tonnes more electronics bits to plug in and nearly everyone has a PC which adds a certain minimum for the hours its on. If you had a few lamps burning around the house which added up to the energy consumption of most desktop PCs you'd notice it right away and wonder why it's necessary. Alas, we sit at our keyboards and type merrily away (there's that batsard, ackthpt again, oi if only I had the mod points to bury him.) oblivious to the power consumption of our tin box full of CPU, DDR-RAM, HD, Whizzo Video Card De-Luxe, etc. Quite possibly we even have a reading lamp going beside us in the evening (I don't know about you, but at my age I get a headache looking at a glowing screen in the dark.) Plus there's all these little black plastic cubes and rectangles to run all manner of gizmo, which all add up.
On another thought. I've got these wicked little LED flashlights which run for 130 hours on a battery the size of an aspirin. When will I see these in my house, rather than a fluorescent lamp?
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Correction (Score:4, Funny)
(http://slashdot.org/)
A: 1 GWB.
-
Too much work (Score:5, Funny)
(Lives in AZ, uses CFLs everywhere)
Re:Too much work (Score:5, Insightful)
The mistake you make here is replacing like-for-like wattage bulbs. I went through my home and replaced the high usage bulbs with CFLs. And as the low usage ones die I replace them. But I replace them with CFLs of a higher equivalent strength. 60w incandescents get replaced with 75w equivalent CFLs, 75w are replaced with 100w. They only draw about 1/4 the juice of incandescents, so I still save big. But now I have more light in the same area, and the picket fence spectrum problem is reduced. Plus, when I can, I mix Cool White, Warm White and Daylight color temperatures. Looks odd, but only if you look at the fixtures and not the room.
I think it is worth the cost to my pocket and the Earth.
Thank you for consuming more than your share. The rest of us apprciate it.
Re:Too much work (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, I feel that way too. I got those big ass 75 watt incandesent bulbs in all my shit too. I used to give a ratts ass about the environment too but realized that I turn 40 real soon. By the time the environment changes so much that I care I'll be dead.
Now excuse me while I go out an price a big ass SUV and I need to pick up some old fashon CFC for my A/C.
I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing. (Score:5, Informative)
But I later learned there is real scientific evidence that full-spectrum light will put you in a better mood
There are full spectrum CFLs, check here: TrueSun.com [truesun.com]
FalconRe:I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday May 24, @01:08AM)
No kidding. I had to take some bulbs back because they weren't emitting nearly enough gamma radiation for my liking.
Severely undereducated (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.open-rsc.org/)
Oh help.
A certain component of sunlight in the near-UV region has been shown to affect seasonal depression. There are receptors in the top of your head that when near-uv hits it are stimulated to synthesize serotonin. That's whay you feel better when you go outside into the blue room and get some sunlight and why many people get depressed in mid winter (which is also why we have "march break").
You are NOT going to create this near-UV from an incandescent bulb, period. What you're getting with the GE bulb is a more bluish, less yellowish light. It has zero effect on your mood.
Vita-Lite (tm) is a full spectrum tube that does have this important UV component. Flourescent tubes work by creating UV when an arc excites mercury vapour. This UV then zaps the phosphour coating on the inside of the tube which converts it to visable light and the makup of the phosphour is what determines what kind of visible light the tube emits.
GE Chroma 50 and GE Chroma 75 are a (much!) cheaper replacement for Vita-Lite full spectrum tubes. The GE tubes will be marked "C50" or "C75" respectivly and are marketing these days in stores as "super sunshine" or something like that. Philips Colortone 50 is also equivalent. I think Osram/Sylvania makes one too but the name escapes me. These are the "big three" in fluorescent tube makers are make tubes for other companies to resell. Some of the Asian companies that make CFL's do such a poor job there was a recall on them as they were a fire hazard and I've watched ones not subject to the recall burst into flame. Stick with the "big three". They work.
Vita-lite makes one in a CFL. Not cheap (like all vita-lite products). The other GE/Philips/Sylvaina ones are available as 4' fluorescents pretty easily in stores. They do make them in other (smaller) sizes but they're special order, hard to come by and not cheap - 90% of all tubes are 4' and there's economy of scale.
Re:Too much work -- Arizona Joke Warning (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
The A/C costs of COOLING that 90% are another huge energy gain.
--Michael
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because they:
- are 3x-10x the cost of an ordinary light bulb
- are a bit dimmer than their stated wattage equivalent standard bulbs
- take a bit of time to warm up
- don't have quite the same color temperature as standard bulbs
- sometimes don't fit under (e.g.) ceiling fan light domes, especially the 100W equivalent models
Now don't get me wrong, I love CFLs and have replaced every single bulb in my house with one, but I can imagine quite a few people resisting the idea based on the list above.
That said, they are rapidly getting better (and cheaper!).
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 11 2004, @12:40PM)
Mercury (Score:5, Informative)
(http://127.0.0.1/ | Last Journal: Monday May 09 2005, @04:20PM)
Note that coal power plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions into the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used) the mercury released from powering an incandescent bulb for five years exceeds the sum of the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous CFL for the same period and the mercury contained in the lamp.
Given that, and that the Incandescents use 4-5 times as much electricity as Flourescents, that meanst that switching to a Flourescent, even though it contains mercury, will actually reduce mercury emmisions, if you get power from coal.
So remember, if you want to reduce mercury, you should first work to eliminate coal power plants.
Re:Mercury (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mercury (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday September 09, @10:43PM)
Selfish, short-sighted, delusional... the list goes on.
It's not as though your home wasn't in the environment.
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://n1vg.net/)
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.gypsymaps.com/)
Personnally, every bulb in my NY apartment is CF, primarily because I am not charged for heat and electricity costs a ridiculous $0.20 per kW-hr
Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)
in conclusion, gas-supplied houses with electric hobs will hasten the inevitable heat death.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://vcolo.com/)
I haven't ever bought regular bulbs so I can't be certain, but I would highly doubt that they are anywhere near the 10x range you imply.
- are a bit dimmer than their stated wattage equivalent standard bulbs
I haven't really found this to be the case, and even if it is true for a given brand of bulb, getting a higher wattage bulb to compensate still leaves you with 70+% energy headroom.
- take a bit of time to warm up
The latest bulbs I've purchased turn on instantly and are at 80-85% brightness right away. The warmup period is short, but long enough to not be visible.
- don't have quite the same color temperature as standard bulbs
You can find them in any number of colors, though granted most of them suck. A bit of experimenting would be in order, though I'm wondering this: where on earth has Consumer Reports been?? Maybe the light and color-measurement tools I'm slowly building up for LEDs should be put to use building a basic site with solid numbers for each of the bazillions of bulbs out there.
- sometimes don't fit under (e.g.) ceiling fan light domes, especially the 100W equivalent models
As stated in the article (a fundamental premise of which is that all of these concerns are now effectively solved...), "100W" bulbs are now getting compact enough for straight replacement. It just depends on the brand.
However, the main beef I have with the assertions the article makes is that CFL bulbs last 10 years. Maybe this is a function of older designs, but we haven't found CFLs to effectively last any longer than standard incandescent. Either the electronics crap out early, or the bulb dims and radically changes color (purple is popular) fairly quickly. The latest round seems to be a lot better, but they still buzz well within my hearing range.
FWIW, I've personally settled on Commercial Electric bulbs from Home Depot. They turn on instantly to very near full brightness, are bright and have a very nice color temperature (neither too sickly yellow/green, nor glaring "cool" blue). So far so good as far as lifetime...
Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://brianallen.isagenix.com/)
- are 3x-10x the cost of an ordinary light bulb
At less than $2 each, the ROI is VERY fast on a CF bulb. Unless you're very short sighted it doesn't make financial sense to use a normal bulb.
- are a bit dimmer than their stated wattage equivalent standard bulbs
With off-the-shelf CF bulbs I agree. With the ones linked above, using my preferred full-spectrum 5100K bulb, my experience has been just the opposite. I love the way they brighten up my home.
- take a bit of time to warm up
I haven't noticed this a bit. Instant on. They may get brighter after 30 seconds, but I've never noticed it, so if these ones do you'd need scientific instrumentation to pick it up.
- don't have quite the same color temperature as standard bulbs
With the full spectrum CF's linked above, that is a good thing! The few normal bulbs I have left put off a nasty yellow light compared to the full spectrum CF's. Gloomy and depressing. I just placed a $100 order before 1000Bulbs.com gets slashdotted so I can replace the rest of my normal, yuck-yellow bulbs.
- sometimes don't fit under (e.g.) ceiling fan light domes, especially the 100W equivalent models
OK, ok, size does matter. But they come in many different sizes and with a little planning I've had 100% success. I even rewired my kitchen chandelier to use these CF bulbs instead of those stupid tiny expensive candle ones. Couldn't be happier.
As you can see I'm sold on good full-spectrum CF bulbs. I have no affiliation with 1000Bulbs.com, they just happened to be what I was looking for and have good prices, products, and service.
Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So... (Score:4, Insightful)
While most Americans have more disposable wealth than the greater part of humanity's history, it is still not insignificant to look at spending $5-$15 on a light. Yes, with sufficient planning you could likely phase that in pretty easily over time and save in the long run, but we're asking that of people who live check-to-check for cigarettes, new cars, and cable TV.
In short, "more expensive" now is even more expensive than "more expensive" later so it will be put off by all but the most thorough and forward-looking planners.
don't forget CFLs last longer (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, considering the scale of power savings here. Over just one week of 4 hour-per-day operation, there is a 2kWHr difference between a 30W CFL and the 100W bulb it replaces, and I haven't even addressed cooling costs.
If you want further proof, look at just purchase costs. CFLs last several times longer, but cost more- yet they still last long enough that the consumer comes out ahead on replacement costs over the lifetime of the bulb.
The only problem I have yet to see addressed is that most CFLs don't work well in already-installed overhead recessed lighting; they don't like the higher temperatures, and the electronics bite the big one faster. Most people also like dimmable lights, and dimmable CFLs are much more expensive and harder to find.
Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.fimble.com/)
Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/)
Really? I've still got bulbs I purchased in around 1992 that are still working. The biggest problem I've had is that they dim as the years march on and get moved to places that require less light.
I have had some last less than a year, but I've found that those are related more to the fixture used than the bulb. Enclosed fixtures especially those with multiple bulbs will reduce the lifetime due to trapped heat. Any fixture where the bulb doesn't fit well and ends up under stress is also a bulb killer.
The biggest problem I have with compact fluorescents is the accumulation of dead bugs in ceiling fixtures. With incandescent bulbs the changes are frequent enough that bugs don't have time to accumulate.
Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.ceyah.org/~jandrese/ | Last Journal: Thursday September 13, @11:11AM)
I have been very impressed with the Commercial Electric brand sold by Home Depot however. I installed a ton of them 5 years ago when I bought my house and thus far only one has failed. They aren't even all that expensive, you can sometimes find 6 packs of 15 watt bulbs for ~$10-$15 on sale. I redid my Mother-in-Laws place with a couple of those packs and saved her a bunch on her power bill because she has this annoying habit of never turning lights off. Plus, I was tired of changing half of her bulbs everytime we went over there.
I've also experimented with the GE brand and a few others, but that was back before isntant on was common and many of them take several seconds to light, which turned me off on them.
Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://parodiac.com/)
About 30% of the halogens in my living room - where they get ample use - have not been replaced in 10 years, whereas I don't have a single fluorescent (tube or compact) that hasn't been replaced three times in that period. True, anecdotes do not make data, but I've learned to trust my gut feel more than advertisements.
I've converted (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://twoturtlelovers.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Friday May 25, @03:01PM)
Re:I've converted (Score:5, Funny)
What did your relatives do to you?
If this is true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Setting aside the debate over that statement - if it is even remotely true, then these bulbs are not just simply a 'good idea'.
They are a moral imperative.
Remember where those $100 bills that Hezbollah is handing out come from. Hint: they do not originate in Iran.
Re:If this is true... (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://booktextmark.mozdev.org/)
However I do believe that oil powerplants should be all changed to nuclear and hydro where possible.
Re:If this is true... (Score:5, Informative)
About half is generated by coal which contributes to pollution. The other big chunks are hydro, nuclear, and natural gas. Natural gas does produce CO2, but by far natural gas is the easiest type of power plant to get the permits to build.
It is really hard to build new Hydro plants because people are concerned about the environmental impact. When I livedin the northwest, I heard lots of talk about people wanting to get rid of the hydro dams because they believe it would be beneficial to salmon. (This seems NUTS to me.)
A lot of nuclear plants have actually been shut down. Still, the US gets lots of its energy from nuclear.
A huge chunk of the electricity used in the US is actually wasted by AC to DC power adaptors for electronics and also for standby mode in other types of electronics (TVs, VCRs, etc.)
If I could do whatever I wanted with energy policy, I would give serious consideration to re-starting existing nuclear plants that are unused and I would try to get as many people as possible to put solar panels on their roofs. I would also ban standby mode and try to find ways for consumer electronics to generate DC power more efficiently. More hydro plants would be good, but we are close to having as many as can be built. So, I'd look into building a few more, trying to reduce demand, and trying to close as many of the coal plants as possible.
how to reduce energy consumption (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://syn.cs.pdx.edu/~jsnow | Last Journal: Sunday July 11 2004, @08:36PM)
I don't think that banning standby mode altogether is a good idea; if implemented correctly, the energy consumption should be negligible. I think the easiest way right now to reduce electricity consumption without significant negative side-effects would be manditory energy-use labeling on all electronic devices (including components like video cards and hard drives) sold. These labels should state the maximum energy use (in watts) of the device when in use, idle (on and ready for use, but not actually doing anything), and in standby mode.
A big problem right now is that consumers have no way of comparing products in terms of energy efficiency (save for water heaters and the like, which are already subject to such rules). When consumers aren't educated, bad products prevail [wikipedia.org].
Re:If this is true... (Score:4, Interesting)
You want to hear real crazy in the northwest?
Tacoma, Washington recently decided to add another span to their overloaded Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge. (You might remember the original one was Galloping Gurdy... yeah, it's that bridge.) The designer who created the new bridge came up with a great idea... the Tacoma Narrows is known for having insanely-fast currents while the tide is coming in and going out. His idea was to put turbines in the base of the bridge tower to generate power during the tide shifts. Selling the generated power would, over the course of a few dozen years, pay for the construction of the bridge while at the same time providing clean energy to everyone nearby. Win-win!
But of course, this is Washington Wacko-Environmentalist State. Instead, his plan was cancelled because the Wacko-Environmentalist movement decided that turbines, even covered with safety grilles, would kill fish-- and God knows that the lives of 3 fish a year is more important than tons of clean power! So now the bridge has a conventional base with no turbines and, as an added bonus, all of us non-wackos have to pay TOLLS to cross it!
I have nothing against practical environmentalists, but that movement needs to filter a little more against the wackos who seem more against the advancement of humanity than the protection of the environment. Washington and Oregon seem to be the foundation of this wacko movement, unfortunately.
Re:If this is true... (Score:5, Informative)
This should be modded "-1: making shit up". There are currently ideas to install dozens to hundreds of underwater turbines near the Tacoma Narrows bridges, but it would be a huge, very complex, and very costly project. Currently it's only an idea being studied (or planned on being studied). No turbine project was canceled to save 3 fish, but of course slandering environmentalists and liberals is far more important than truth or facts (which is why Republicans can no longer be trusted).
http://www.djc.com/news/en/11180913.html [djc.com]
http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/50
None of this is really relevant to the article, but since this got modded +5 I had to respond.
Re:If this is true... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/)
They are a moral imperative only if you are deluded enough to believe that reducing electrical consumption means significantly fewer dollars flowing to the Middle East from the US. Hint: Imported oil makes up a vanishingly small percentage of the already tiny percentage of electricity that comes from oil. Don't be misled by the analogy you quote.
Effect (Score:4, Insightful)
None of these effects is pronounced, but the ripple spreads out. And that's just one of the things you have to accept with the quest to reduce oil-dependence: it will be thousands and thousands of little things that win the war. A few E85 SUVs here, a few electric cars there, some scooters and motorcycles for the cool kids. CFLs all over the place. Industry starts taking conservation seriously and revamps their processes (you can find hundreds of success stories of manufacturers bringing their power usage way down while simultaneously making their entire operation faster and more efficient). A smarter chemical industry. Old houses being replaced by better houses. Nothing can solve the problem in and of itself, but it all adds up.
White light? (Score:5, Insightful)
In my experience, the problem with non-traditional lightbulbs isn't that they're weak -- it's that they cast a harsh light. Many people I know would refuse to place even the most efficient light bulb in their living room if they didn't find the light warm and pleasing. When TFA says the light is "white," this makes me think that there is at least one problem remaining to be solved -- though perhaps it would be as simple as using lightly tinted glass for the bulb.
Re:White light? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:White light? (Score:5, Informative)
Up until recently (ie, the last six months or so) most of the bulbs you'd find in the typical discount stores were 4000-5000 degree.
Re:White light? (Score:5, Funny)
Great
Re:LED's !! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:LED's - they are coming (Score:4, Interesting)
So they are coming. Then again, Cree seems to have a history of "science by press release", where they announce these amazing specs, then never bring the product to market.
Saving the world one light at a time (Score:3, Interesting)
We are all guilty of leaving extra lights on and not shutting off the pc or tv, think of how much energy we can save if we switched off the internet just for a couple of hours (and I mean all of it, not just your terminal!)
Oil != electricity (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
What is really needed... (Score:5, Insightful)
My house is almost entirely on dimmers. Its a ten year old rennovation of a 70 year old house. Modern McMansions are almost entirely on dimmers as well.
With all these dimmers out there, you'd think you'd be able to get dimmable CFL bulbs places other than the very occasional lighting shop or online.
I've switched essentially everything else in my house over at this point, except for the ones on dimmers.
link slashdotted but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.xboxtopic.com/)
flourescent light bulbs are an investment. and for normal people, light bulbs are not exactly the type of thing you think of investing in.
How many /.ers does it take to change a light bulb (Score:5, Funny)
(http://thekerrs.ca/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 01 2002, @05:40PM)
Why aren't they cheaper? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.bloored.com/)
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, so you're talking about a wealth-transfer program. Because I'm in a high tax bracket I'll help folks further down pay for their light bulbs. Should I also help them pay for their food and clothes? Maybe they should just move in? Ha ha, no thanks. Having to pay for your own stuff is the best possible incentive to stay in school, get a job, save a little, stick to a sensible budget -- i.e. to grow up. Who am I to deny the benefit of learning life's most important lessons to my fellow man?
In fact, most every tax bracket would benefit. There are long-term cost savings for the consumer, and those savings should more than counterbalance the taxes for the vast majority of taxpayers.
Sounds like doubletalk to me. Joe Poorboy, who would otherwise buy a $1 incandescent, buys a $3 swirlie instead because he gets $2 back from the government. Joe also enjoys a $20 reduction in his electricity costs over the life of the bulb (which you'd think would be enough to get him to buy the bulb directly, but I guess we're assuming poor people are irrational here). Nice for Joe. Richie Rich, investment banker, being no fool, also buys a $3 swirlie, and also enjoys a $20 reduction in his electricity cost. But he also needs to pay more taxes to cover the subsidy to Joe. How much? Hmm, well, the program is pointless unless it induces lots of people to switch bulbs, and of course by definition there are lots more poor people than rich, so Rich clearly must get whacked for a lot more than the price of one extra swirlie for Joe. Say he needs to cover the subsidy on 10 bulbs. That's $20 extra in taxes. So how does Rich see any net gain from the program?
Maybe you're thinking Rich and everyone would benefit from reduced general electricity costs, leading to less CO2 emissions, a cleaner environment, et cetera. Could be. But if that's your goal, how about attacking it directly, instead of in this weird indirect way? Tax the use of fossil fuels in power plants. Zone lots of land so it can't be used for power plants. Pass laws mandating scrubbers on power plant stacks. The problem with clever, indirect approaches to a problem is they have unexpected side effects. Just for example, you are aware, I assume, that the swirlies (unlike incandescents) contain 5-20 mg of mercury, an exceedingly nasty environmental toxin. What if the people you encourage to buy swirlies happen to be exactly the type that don't bother to recycle the bulbs? Ugh, now you've reduced electricity use but increase the amount of mercury in landfills. Maybe it works out on balance, but maybe it doesn't. That's the problem with complex mechanisms. The side effects are by definition hard to know before you begin.
The size of the bureaucracy has very little to do with the amount of money being spent.
Well, that depends, doesn't it? If the purpose of your bureaucracy is to build a fusion reactor, then maybe not. But if the purpose of your bureaucracy is to sort out which citizens get a $2/bulb benefit, and which others must pay for it, then I'd say, yeah, roughly speaking the size of the bureaucracy would scale with the number of people eligible for the benefit. I suspect the size of the Social Security Administration does indeed scale with the number of people applying for benefits, receiving benefits, dying and needing to have their benefits canceled, et cetera.
Subsidies early on could jump-start demand for CFLs, increasing production capacity, improving manufacturing techniques, and enabling them to compete more successfully in the market when the subsidies are eventually removed.
Come on. We're not talking about a market where no private party will enter because of the risks. Or some cottage industry where people are han
PG&E in California (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://bi-boy.net/)
But what about RFI? (Score:5, Informative)
Has any progress been made in reducing fluorescent light RFI -- or is even feasable/possible?
Re:But what about RFI? (Score:4, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
One of my co-workers is also a HAM fanatic. His light sockets are exclusively populated with CFLs, and he gets more interferance from the switching power supply than the lightbulbs.
At any rate, the RF is produced by the same process that creates the light -- the ionization of gas -- so there's really no way to prevent that. You could put a Faraday cage around it, but that would dim the light considerably.
I just did this in my entire house. (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.nomorestars.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 31 2003, @11:23AM)
I would say that I replaced 18 65W bulbs in regular light fixtures, 20 65W 'globe' lights in three bathrooms, 5 chandalier 45W bulbs, four outdoor 150W Spotlights, not including about 8 - 10 bulbs already installed in the 'light burned out' category since we moved into this home in May 2003.
I'm keeping track of the power spent so far, and interested to see if there is a noticeable drop. Noticeable to me = $5 - $10 average. I'm not expecting a bill to go down by half, I do live in North Carolina and it's summer time so the AC is on full blast most of the time.
My next venture is into a PV System to offset the amount of energy I need to buy every month vs. the sun could provide. I'm still investigating that system but it appears that I could invest about $10,000 in a decent system, and get about half back in tax breaks from my state & federal government programs. If I get it in before the end of 2007.
Honestly with the Slyvania bulbs I used, I don't see a color temp difference. There is a slight delay from 'on' light output to full light output and even though they use a lot less power they are on average much bright light luminosity wise. But just in the last 5 years alone the delay you would see from light switch - light on has dropped to near instantaneous. There are several bulbs I put in 2003 that you can count out a second or so from switch on to light in the room. But these new ones come on when you turn em on.
Eh...lots of stuff can change the world... (Score:3, Informative)
(http://www.sugapablo.net/)
A CFL in every Home = 1 Nuclear Power Plant (Score:3, Interesting)
A CFL in every Home = 1 Nuclear Power Plant
I spent a lot of my weekend doing research on energy, power generation, etc. (See my MyWeb links) I decided to run some rough numbers, and have come to the conclusion that the best use of government funds is to probably have a CFL handout/trade-in program.
There are an estimated 110M households in the US, so if you replaced one 60W incandescent with a similarly lumen-rated 13W CFL (I'd estimate a distribution cost of $100M-200M), you'd save just over $4.1B in electrical bills over the lifetime of the bulbs ($0.10/kWh over 8000 hours). At 5 hours/evening of usage (~4.4yr), we're looking at almost a billion bucks a year. That's not a bad ROI.
Another interesting figure that comes out of that is that we're talking about a significantly large amount of power saved. Over the bulb lifetime, the number comes out to over 41M MWh, or based on the 4.4y estimated lifetime, about 9.4M MWh/yr. That's more than your average 1000MW nuclear power plant will be able to generate (about 7.8M MWh at 90% efficiency), and a significantly lower cost ($2-4/MWh for handing out light bulbs versus $50-80/MWh).
So, replacing 1 incadescent light-bulb in each of the 110M households in the country would save the equivalent of one nuclear power plant (or better yet, a bunch of fossil fuel ones, which function at a much lower efficiency (around 60%) and are usually lower capacity).
It's probably fair to say that up to 4 bulbs per house could be replaced before the law of diminishing returns kicks in. So we could save the equivalent of 4 nuclear power plants or 8-10 "dirty" power plants at 1/10th the cost of operating them, plus saving all the externalities like reduced pollution too.
Much better bulbs (Score:3, Informative)
(http://rob.rnovak.net/content/)
I've replaced all the outside lighting and the utility lighting in the basement with CFLs. All in all, I've replaced 700W of incandescents with 137W of fluorescent. They're much brighter, faster to come to full output, and purer white than any compact fluorescent bulb from the last generation.
They're absolutely perfect for work and utility areas. For living areas and reading light, however, I still prefer tungsten bulbs.
LED Bulbs? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I'm curious about the future of LED light bulbs - the potential from a bulb w/ 60,000 hours of life and power consumption under a watt is very attractive. I know light dispersion is an issue (e.g. they just don't throw out enough light), but what's on the horizon?
Re:The trade off (Score:5, Informative)
Newer bulbs that weren't mentioned (Score:3, Informative)
(http://clearpores.skincaremall.info/)
Interesting Factoids (Score:3, Informative)
It is estimated that between 6 and 16% of all electricity used in the USA on an annual bases is wasted because of this. (Source [berkeley.edu])
It is also estimated that:
(Source [sustainability.ca])
And that:
(Source [berkeley.edu]) Also interesting: (Source [michaelbluejay.com])
Personally, I'm more than happy to take the small effort of actually walking to the TV (and other devices) to turn it on/off instead of leaving it on standby. And you're not just saving the enviroment either, being aware and watching devices which "leak electricity" in your house can easily save you $$$ (yes, 3 digit number) on a yearly basis!
To add a personal bit of evidence discovered while inspecting all electrical devices in the house with something similar to the Kill-A-Watt meter [the-gadgeteer.com]: it is shocking to discover that a lamp is using 40 Watt while in use, and still 25 Watt when switched turned ""off""! Bad, bad design with perhaps some cheapo, heat generating transformer.
Oh, and strategicly placed power strips with a single master switch to operate for example your TV/Stereo installation make all of this very simple.
We Phased them In (Score:3, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday June 29, @04:58PM)
1) Great in the kitchen. We have six older recessed "can" lights, and the CFL's have performed well. It would possibly be better to convert to recessed halogen lights, but that's a spendy proposition. The CFL's illuminate task areas just fine.
2) Good in the living room and other reading/chatting areas. Haven't had any problems reading, and the light seems warm enough that we don't look like we live in a bus station.
3) Really good in hallways/stair areas. There's an elderly relative around, and the CFL's have done a better job than incandescents at clearly illuminating the upstairs hallway, stairwell, etc. I think this is because of the "white" quality of the light.
4) Awful in the bathroom. For some reason--maybe the light paint, glossy tiles, or mirrors--they turn you into one of the undead when you look into the mirror early in the morning. Incandescents are better here.
A couple of drawbacks we've noticed are:
1) They can make an odd noise. This seems to be a prelude to one of them going bad.
2) We seem to get an occasional bad one. That hurts due to the price.
3) They do take a while to come on. Hasn't been a problem so far except in the upstairs hallway.
I believe (but am not sure) that we're saving on electricity. Our utility company railroaded through a 72 percent increase over the next three years, so it's hard to tell at this point.
Energy Savings (Score:5, Interesting)
REAL Americans... (Score:4, Funny)
They work pretty well, but watch the "colors" (Score:5, Informative)
(http://ghostofcorporatefuture.blogspot.com/)
I read some, "They whine and buzz" - might have been older versions.
"They're dark" - ditto.
"They have mercury in them" - true, but as TreeHugger.com put it: [treehugger.com]
"Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don't contain any mercury. The highest source of mercury in America's air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity. Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent."
But before you take all the wonderful things I've said about them at face value, there is something I learned the hard way: check the color of light the bulb produces.
From the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org],
* "Warm white" (2,700 K) provides a light extremely similar to that of an incandescent bulb, somewhat yellow in appearance;
* "Soft white" (3,500 K) bulbs produce a yellowish-white light;
* "Cool white" (4,100 K) bulbs emit more of a pure white tone; and
* "Daylight" (6,400 K) is slightly bluish-white.
I accidentally bought "Daylight" bulbs for the bathroom. It made the room a psychotic blue-ish tint (I imagined Jack was going to start chopping through the bathroom door with an axe - "Here's Johnny"). Warm white seems like the color to get. Unfortunately, I bought an 8-pack, but fine for utility lighting, etc.
Subsidies (Score:4, Informative)
If you live under the domain of a more enlightened electric utility company (or, if you prefer, a more regulated utility), there may be subsidized bulbs or rebates available for your CFL lamp and fixture needs. http://www.efi.org/ [efi.org] offers limited quantities at subsidized prices, primarily in the New England area. Even if you're not covered by the subsidy, EFI offers retail pricing and honors manufacturers' warrantees -- if your 10,000 hour CFL goes out a few years too soon, it will be replaced with minimal hassle.
Brand can be king and you get what you pay for. If you've had a bad experience with a particular brand but like the concept of CFLs, try another. There are some really shitty CFL manufacturers, to be sure. If you don't like the light it gives off, try a different color temperature (higher is whiter/"bluer", 2700k is "standard," about as close as they get to an incandescent temp) and wattage.
Mercury content is fairly negligible and is offset by reduction in coal-burning plant pollution. They can be recycled with many local recycling programs. Magnetic ballasts in CFL fixtures have been replaced by more efficient electronic ballasts that cut down on intereference, hum, and slow start times.
In addition to CFL subsidies, rebates are offered on Energy Star appliances. Check http://www.energystar.gov/ [energystar.gov] if you're in the market and take the time to do the math in terms of overall price and energy payback.
Call your utilities and see what else they might have to offer. There are low-interest loan programs out there for more efficient heating/cooling equipment. Replace your windows. Get an energy audit. Take advantage of federal tax credits. Learn how to regulate solar heat gain. There are any number of ways to cut costs and bring energy demand down regardless, if CFLs aren't your bag.
GE gets it (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday March 27 2007, @09:48AM)
GE understands that it's smarter to make money selling what people want to buy than trying to force people to buy what they don't want. Now if someone could tell the RIAA/MPAA and other Luddite organizations...
Do they still hum, flicker, and cause migraines? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Are these better now?
One health issue with CFL (Score:3, Informative)