GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology

finfife writes to tell us that GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology that promises to increase the efficiency of lightbulbs to put them on par with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). "The new high efficiency incandescent (HEI(TM)) lamp, which incorporates innovative new materials being developed in partnership by GE's Lighting division, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and GE's Global Research Center, headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, would replace traditional 40- to 100-Watt household incandescent light bulbs, the most popular lamp type used by consumers today. The new technology could be expanded to all other incandescent types as well. The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens-per-Watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps."The California legislature may want to revisit the wording of their proposed ban on incandescents (AB 722). How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?"

There are times

[by Anonymous Coward]

There are times when you *need* incandescent lighting, photography for one. Fluorescent is not suitable in all cases. And initial costs of fluorescents are more because you need the ballast etc.

The fact that these lawmakers don't understand enough of the technology to make it workable really gets on my chimes.

Re:There are times

[Jake73 (306340)]

I replaced the bulb in my EZ-Bake oven with an LED one. It took 3 days to cook the first brownie.

Re:There are times

[cens0r (655208)]

They actually tackled this on mythbusters. The idea of kickstarting a florescent is largely a myth. Basically if you need it for more than a few seconds, it will always be better than an incandescent.

Re:There are times

[Alioth (221270)]

That's a myth.

If it took an hour's worth of electricity to start a CFL (the old myth said 3 hours, but let's just call it an hour), you'd need 20 watt hours to flow in 2 seconds. Now let's do the sums:

20 watt hours is 20 * 3600 joules, i.e. 72kJ.

For 72kJ to flow in 2 seconds, you would need 36kW of power. 36 kilowatts. Your biggest appliance is probably your electric shower, a powerful one is 10kW.

To put 36kW into perspective, this is 150 amps at 240 volts.

Your entire supply from the power company is probably on a 40 amp breaker. Even if the 'kickstarting' myth was true for only 20 minutes power rather than the oft-quoted 3 hours, you're still going to blow your main breaker.

As you can see, the 'kickstarting' myth is implausable.

The reason why you might not use a CFL in a cupboard in which you only use the lights for a few seconds at a time is many of them take a couple of seconds to start, which is annoying for a light you only use for a few seconds at a time. But if you want high efficiency in that situation, you can always use an LED downlighter (available conveniently in a GU10 halogen downlighter form factor).

Re:There are times

[shmlco (594907)]

What gets on MY chimes is the fact that the politicians are considering laws banning incandescents and moving towards CFBs... and, suddenly, GE announces a "new" technology that will let incandescents be just as efficient.

I mean, I'm not putting on my tinfoil hat just yet, but the timing here seems to be more than coincidental. Just how long has GE been "researching" this technology?

Re:There are times

[timeOday (582209)]

Even if they *weren't* researching this for the past 100 years, it sure shows how stagnant a business can be until competition spurs it on.

Re:There are times

[PitaBred (632671)]

Don't you know? Anon is only for cases where you say something trollingly controversial, not funny. Like "Windows Vista is the greatest thing since individually packaged pepper-jack flavor imitation cheese slices!"

...shit. Forgot to tick the "Post Anonymously" box...

Could be quite useful...

[SECProto (790283)]

Now, people may get another option in lighting. CFLs cause an annoying flashing in the corners of mine, and other peoples, eyes. Not to mention, some people like the "warm" yellow colour of common incandescents. Could be an intriguing development of lighting technologies.

Re:Could be quite useful...

[Paulrothrock (685079)]

If you're not getting "warm" colors from CFL bulbs, you're probably using older bulbs. The flickering also points to this. My wife can't stand CRT monitors at 75Hz, but she hasn't complained about our CFL bulbs flickering. She's also got insanely good hearing and doesn't hear them buzz.

This is like the complaint people have with diesel engines. Yeah, the first diesels in the US were smokey and loud and slow, but new ones are virtually indistinguishable from gas engines and use 50% less fuel or more. Yet, people still avoid them because they don't want a "noisy, smokey, slow diesel car."

Re:Could be quite useful...

[danpat (119101)]

Have you tried any of the newer CFL's with non-magnetic ballasts? The oscilation frequency is now much higher, beyond what the human
eye can typically perceive.

Also, CFL's come in a range of color temperatures, some of which match "warm yellow" from traditional incandescents. They're not all "hard white".

A quick reference: http://medfordcan.home.comcast.net/Myths.html [comcast.net]

Curious timing

[oskay (932940)]

I wonder how long they've been sitting on this!

I don't believe it...

[nweaver (113078)]

Here's why. These are INCANDESCENTs. Glowing filliments. You can try to reduce the radiation in the UV and IR, but you aren't going to get rid of it. Running hotter (the Halogen way) ups the UV content which gets filtered out or flouresced down (and if you have a flourescent coating, why not just have a compact flourescent).

This is mostly a Political Marketing statement, trying to forestall bans or taxes on incandescent bulbs, as although incandescents costs more in the long run, they are cheaper when you pay at the register so people still buy a lot of them.

Personally, I'd not want a BAN on incandescents, just a "wattage tax" on lightbulbs, say $4/100W tax on bulbs regardless of the mechanism (LED, CFL, incandescent). Just something equivelent to 1 hour a day use for 1 year (assuming .14 kwh power cost), so that at the register you actually see what the bulb will cost.

Re:I don't believe it...

[ivan256 (17499)]

Running hotter (the Halogen way) ups the UV content which gets filtered out or flouresced down (and if you have a flourescent coating, why not just have a compact flourescent).

Plenty of reasons. Fluorescents aren't full spectrum; CFLs contain mercury; CFLs are expensive to manufacture; etc...

Re:I don't believe it...

[PPGMD (679725)]

I highly doubt that this is simply a marketing statement or that it was a technology that they were just sitting on waiting for proposed bans on their products. Likely they noticed that CFL were cutting into the sales of their regular bulbs and developed the technology so that they can compete.

Why does nearly everyone on /. assume that every company is out to deceive them? or that every press release (unless it's from Google or Apple) is a marketing lie? Sure every company is out to make money, but not every company is an Enron. CFLs are the perfect product, I use a ton of them, but there are certain applications where they are too costly to run because of less time on vs on/off cycles. I welcome this if they work as well as regular bulbs and last as long they will allow me to bring those rooms in line with the cost savings that my other rooms get with CFLs.

Re:I don't believe it...

[cptgrudge (177113)]

Why does nearly everyone on /. assume that every company is out to deceive them? or that every press release (unless it's from Google or Apple) is a marketing lie?

I think it's because nearly everyone on Slashdot can be described by what I call the 3P Syndrome. Specifically:

Pissy. More often than not, Slashdot readers seem to be pissy. They are easily goaded into responding to trolls and participating in flamewars. They will stubbornly support an illogical and inane position simply for the shred of joy they coax from a heated argument. In short, they are easily irritated.

Pessimistic. Many Slashdot readers are pessimists. They look for the worst-case scenarios and will dismiss any possible silver lining of any act or concept.

Paranoid. Slashdot readers may also be naturally paranoid. This is perhaps the biggest reason for apparent distrust of others' motives. Serious paranoia makes it very difficult to trust others, and it is only exacerbated by the first two factors.

Even before mind altering drugs are considered, all Slashdot readers seem to contain these three qualities in varying amounts (some appear to be "normal"). But collectively, they sum up to a critical mass that gives Slashdot that unique community feel.

I haven't thought up a satisfactory answer for Google and Apple, though. Maybe Slashdot users identify with them on some level.

Why? How about LONG criminal histories?

[Fantastic Lad (198284)]

Why does nearly everyone on /. assume that every company is out to deceive them? or that every press release (unless it's from Google or Apple) is a marketing lie? Sure every company is out to make money, but not every company is an Enron.

The reason Slashdotters are suspicious is that a large number of, (if not all) corporations are out to deceive the public. This is not conjecture. It's cold fact. GE is a great example, btw. You should look into some of their criminal activities [cleanupge.org].

1 Feb 1977 D.C. - GE ordered to stop misleading ad claims on color televisions and other home appliances

16 June 1981 Lincoln NE- GE ordered to pay damages over storage of spent nuclear fuel $8.5 million

May 1985 D.C.- GE fined for defrauding Defense department on contracts $1.04 million

5 June 1987 Los Angeles CA- GE subsidiary fined $25.3 million for insider trading

20 Nov 1987 Cincinnati Ohio- GE ordered to pay damages on safety defects at Zimmer nuclear plant-$78 million

3 June 1988 San Francisco- GE and others ordered to cleanup groundwater contamination-$5.3 million initial settlement

29 March 1989 D.C.- GE fined for defrauding government on defense contracts $ 3.5 million

5 Oct 1989 Tennessee- GE ordered to refund overcharges on work at Brown's Ferry Plant-$2.6 million

23 March 1990 Shepherdsville KY- GE and others ordered to cleanup PCB contamination of soil and water

27 March 1990 Wilmington, NC - GE fined for discrimination against employees who report safety violations-$20,000

11 May 1990 Ft. Edward/Hudson Falls- GE ordered to cleanup PCB contamination of Hudson River -$10 million

27 July 1990 Philadelphia PA- GE fined for defrauding government in defense contacts-$30 million

11 Oct 1990 Waterford NY- GE fined for pollution at Silicone Products plant- $176,000

20 May 1991 D.C. - GE Ordered to pay damages over improperly tested aircraft parts for Air Force and Navy- $1 million

27 Feb 1992 Allentown, PA - GE ordered to pay damages on design flaws of nuclear plants -$80 million

4 March 1992 Orange County CA - GE fined for violation of worker safety rules on handling PCB's-$11,000

13 March 1992 Wilmington, NC- GE fined for safety violations at nuclear fuel plant $20,000

22 May 1992 Illinois - GE ordered to pay damages on design flaws of nuclear plants $65 million

22 July 1992 D.C.- GE fined for money laundering and fraud over illegal sale of fighter jets to Israel-$70 million

13 Sep 1992 Chicago, IL- GE ordered to pay damages for airplane crash-$1.8 million

12 Oct 1992 Nashville TN - GE ordered to pay damages from deceptive advertising on lightbulbs -$165,000
27 Oct 1992 D.C.-GE ordered to pay damages from overcharging on defense contracts $576,215

12 May 1992 D.C.-GE ordered to pay damages to whistleblower on illegal sale of fighter jets to Israel-$13.4 million

2 March 1993 Riverside CA - GE and others ordered to pay damages for contamination from dumping of industrial chemicals-$96 million

11 March 1993 Grove City PA - GE and others ordered to cleanup mining site $1.81 million

16 Sep 1993 NY - GE ordered to compensate commercial fisherman for PCB contamination of the Hudson River-$7 million

11 Oct 1993 San Francisco- GE ordered to offer rebates to consumers after deceptive light bulb advertising - $3.25 million

18 July 1993 Hudson Falls NY- GE ordered to clean up PCB contamination of Hudson River -$2.5 Million

2 Feb 1994 Perry OH - GE settles with utility companies on defective Perry Nuclear Plant.

14 Mar 1994 Ft. Edward NY - GE ordered to cleanup contamination of sediment from reaching Hudson River $100,000

14 Sep 1994 9.14.94 D.C.- GE fined for overcharges in defense contracts-$20 million

Re:I don't believe it...

[edwardpickman (965122)]

I agree on the overstating of efficency. Odds are the process has been known for years how to make the bulbs more efficent but chances are it would make them more expensive resulting in fewer sales so they never moved ahead with the technology. The hands down winner though are LED bulbs. They use little power and have insanely long lives and don't suffer from surge shock like filament bulbs and even flourecent. The problem is obviously cost. It'll drop but it's hard to say how much and how fast. They are already being used in hard to reach areas to avoid the labor expense of replacement.

I noticed several responders mentioning taxes and such. It's a mindset we have to be careful of. There's an attitude I noticed with a lot of SUV drivers that they'd prefer to pay a tax and keep driving the beasts. The problem is we need to get them off the road period not just tax them. There was an argument made in Who Killed the Electric Car? that we'll need more coal plants for all the electric cars. Well here's a little food for thought. If all the incandescents were changed to compact florescents not only could every home in amercia charge their electric cars without needing more plants and their electric bills would actually go down. Electric lights are still the biggest single use of electricity in this country.

Re:I don't believe it...

[ScentCone (795499)]

There's an attitude I noticed with a lot of SUV drivers that they'd prefer to pay a tax and keep driving the beasts. The problem is we need to get them off the road period not just tax them.

I own an SUV. I telecommute roughly 90% of the time, and can go days without even starting that vehicle. There are also times when I start the vehicle, and drive it to go do something that involves other people and payload. If I didn't have that vehicle, we'd need four small wind-up passenger cars to haul the passengers and payloads. There are no small, more-efficient vehicles that can go where I can go, and get the people there, too. What's more efficient? Four cars burning fuel, wearing down tires, occupying road space, and possibly getting dangerously stuck enroute to the destination... or, one vehicle that can carry at least half a dozen people and hundreds of pounds of payload on rough roads, through the mud or snow, and safely do so?

Why should my vehicle be "taken off the road," but some college kid that drives 100 miles in his hybrid in one weekend bouncing between parties while I drive nowhere, gets to use his? You're holding the tool accountable for what people do (when you don't like the people that use the tool), and not even touching on the wasteful habits of people that use a marginally more efficient tool that you like better.

Re:I don't believe it...

[ScentCone (795499)]

Wah. It's not fair to bash 99% of SUV usage, because 1% of SUV drivers are people like me who actually save fuel by using one. Wah.

I don't care if you want to bash. Have fun. What I do care about, and what I responded to, was the idiot who thought the best idea was to "take the off the road."

I think you've probably not even come close to using all of the available CPU cycles on your computer while you were busy being snide, so it's probably better for the environment if you use a much slower, lower-powered machine. Perhaps one of those wind-up, one-laptop-per-childish-user ones they've been talking about? Or... DO you use your computer entirely to its capacity? Doesn't matter. Even if you do, you're only in the minority, and since the majority of people with fancy computers don't really need them, we should probably not allow anyone to have them, right? Give it a rest.

Re:I don't believe it...

[Your Pal Dave (33229)]

They might be using tungsten photonic lattice technology [sandia.gov]. Note that this is an article from 2002, and claims a similar efficiency. IIRC this was discussed on /. at the time:

Now a microscopic tungsten lattice -- in effect, a tungsten filament fabricated with an internal crystalline pattern -- developed at Sandia has been shown to have the potential to transmute the majority of this wasted infrared energy (commonly called heat) into the frequencies of visible light.

This would raise the efficiency of an incandescent electric bulb from five percent to greater than 60 percent and greatly reduce the world's most vexing power problem -- excess electrical generating capacity and costs to homeowners caused by inefficient lighting.

Five years to market doesn't sound especially unreasonable to me.

Re:I don't believe it...

[j00r0m4nc3r (959816)]

Maybe they have a "Turbo" switch somewhere that will make my PC run even faster!

Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency....

[cloudance (139340)]

Good god I hope California does put in a minimum efficiency rather than just outlawing Incandescants....

I decided to be a good citizen and replace the burnt out bulb in my bathroom this weekend with a Daylight CFL that's rated at "42 watts but gives off as much light as a 100w incandescant". I put it in, turned it on, and could get the damned thing out of there fast enough. The light color just sucked... was far too "flourescent" for anyone to stand. I'm sure *someone* out there likes the sterility and coldness of flourescent light, but it sure ain't me and my wife. I went back to Home Depot, returned the bulb, and bough a high effeciency Halogen that takes 27 watts but puts out as much light as a 100 watt bulb. The perfect color of light, higher effeciency than the CFL, and lasts two years.... and it's an "incandescent" that would be outlawed.

Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency....

[Alioth (221270)]

That's because you got a Daylight model. You can buy CFLs in incandescent orange if you want. I have one in the lamp across the room right now, and it's virtually indistinguishable from the incandescents I have (certainly a 'warmer' colour than halogen lights, that I have in the downlighter fixtures).

You can get CFLs in pretty much any colour you like.

Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency....

[AaronW (33736)]

That's because you bought daylight bulbs. They are supposed to look like that since their color temperature is typically 6500K which approximates the color temperature of the sun. If your eyes have not adjusted to it and there are regular warm bulbs nearby then it will look bluish. Next time buy one with a lower color temperature, like 2800-3500K. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature [wikipedia.org] for more information.

-Aaron

After 100 Years The Innovation Hasn't Happened

[gig (78408)]

> How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?"

The reason people assume innovation can't happen is that it hasn't happened in incandescent light bulbs.

Anyway, twice as efficient is bullshit. Incandescent light bulbs are so outrageously inefficient that you are still wrecking the planet even with these new vaporware bulbs.

Banning incandescent bulbs will only spur innovation in LED and other modern solutions. Complaints about the quality of light are very valid, but when you have an LED bulb that is generating the same brightness as an incandescent and the LED is using 1% of the power and has 1000x the lifespan then it is time to get the incandescent bulbs out. You can replace an incandescent with an LED and still have power left over for a notebook computer with dual processors.

These new incandescent bulbs make me think of a non-hybrid gasoline car that ekes out 50 mpg so "you don't need a hybrid" but the point of the hybrid is not just to double the gas mileage today ... it's also to uncouple the gasoline from the drive train so that the car becomes agnostic about its energy source and the gasoline part can be replaced more easily with a fuel cell or battery or whatever other technology. The hybrid has room to grow and improve whereas a non-hybrid car getting great mileage is still stuck on gasoline. It's just a band-aid to cling to an old technology like gasoline or incandescent bulbs.