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."
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.)
flouro bulbs don't last (Score:1, Interesting)
flouro bulbs always break a lot quicker than conventional bulbs. I have found this in at least the last 6 houses I have lived in, so it's no good blaming it on the electrics as some had been newly rewired etc. How does this impact the 'energy savings'? I bet that it more than undoes the good done by using them! Never mind the cost!
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:lasers? (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:only 30% more efficient? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Canada eh! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Dimmer Savior! (Score:1, Interesting)
HalogenA bulbs have been available for about 20 years...
I'm sorry but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:only 30% more efficient? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:lasers? (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.
PIR Passive Infared (Score:1, Interesting)
Look up PIR in the bulb catalogs. They've been making these for a while. They shape the internal glass envelope and coat its inside surface such that it reflects a portion of the waste-heat (infrared) energy back towards the filament. In the steady-state, this changes the ratio of spectrum of energy emitted from the bulb (slightly increasing the percentage released in the visible band). Compared to fluorescent, especially the new T2 designs, its still pretty pathetic.
HOWEVER, if you've got a car and can't afford to install HID headlight conversions, there are PIR halogens available. They provide a little bit more output.
Re:only 30% more efficient? (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?
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.
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:lasers? (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 cleaner power, then why not relax laws and restrictions put in place back in the Carter administration and allow nuclear tech to proliferate, along with them being able to legally reprocess the fuel so it can be 'burned' more completely. Why kill the consumer end of things?
Re:A modest proposal (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 energetic.
Re:Government Regulation (Score:1, Interesting)
This is probably the most illogical post I have ever read.
"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"
Yes, because nobody has ever invested time and money into developing or improving a product that doesn't already exist. That's why we still have the same technology as 4000 B.C..
"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."
Yes, unfortunately, power stations do require time to build. This is one of those reality factors we're constantly dealing with. Finally, it is not in a companies best interest to charge you more, because their competitors will take all of their business, unless they happen to be a monopoly.
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:lasers? (Score:1, Interesting)
Here in the United States we so frequently demonstrate our inability to consider the long term consequences of our actions that our government can intervene in the light bulb market and only a small percentage of people will care about it.
Here in the United States we use what, twice as much energy per capita than people do in Europe?
Here in the United States, we apparently consider legislation equivalent to auto emissions standards to be tyranny.
Here in the United States, we have a god-given right to be stupid no matter what the cost to ourselves and others.
Here in the United States, no one is required to understand legislation, and few do.
Re:When pollutants cross state lines (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:Canada eh! (Score:3, Interesting)
I use less artificial lighting in the summer, actually.
Re:not just that (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 not a thermal spectrum. All efficient fluorescents have low color accuracy and are less similar to sunlight's spectrum than incandescents, particularly halogens which have both a true thermal spectrum and a high color temperature. Fluorescents also have overstated lives - output declines dramatically over time and at the end of their lives even electronically-ballasted ones flicker, causing serious negative psychological effects in many people. Also throwing away ballasts with each bulb as happens with CFLs is extremely wasteful.
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:Why? (Score:1, Interesting)
After using the CFL's myself, I'd agree with most of it, except for two locations. Kitchen and Bathroom. The CFL Light is HORRIBLE in those locations, for a number of reasons, the least of which being that humans just don't look natural and alive in CFL Light (yes, even the supposed "warm" and "good" ones.) It's too clinical and forced yellow/brownish. Another thing is in the kitchen, while the light seems to be acceptable for general use, I've noticed that the spectrum lacks a certian area around where meat is viewed. It's a bit harder to tell if the meat you're cooking is raw or not. The red of raw steak is reduced to what looks about right for cooked beef. Sure there are other methods of telling when steak is done, but you can't deny that visual inspection is an important one. Luckily I have under cabinet Halogen lights that seem to work fairly well for this so it's not as big of a deal for me, but not everyone has that.
Personally I hate CFLs, but I still use them as they're a necessary evil and work fine in certian locations (sheds, attics, outdoor lights, etc...) But there are places that just should never be forced to convert.
Also, I have to ask, how many lights do you really have on?? I mean, seriously that's like step number one. In any given night, I run two, maybe three 40 watt bulbs average. For about an hour and a half, the kitchen old school fluorescent is on. That's about it. So total I'm using like maybe 0.25-0.35 kwh a night. Sure, I know with some properly placed LED Lighting would probably help, but I'm more worried about the vaccuum cleaner, 2 pc's w/monitors (mine and my wife's), TV, etc...
Re:lasers? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:lasers? (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&tbnid=MkaZz_BjLo50ZM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=123&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dfluorescent%2Bbulb%2Bspectrum%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26um%3D1 [google.com]
don't look that dramatic. Halogens are nearly as poor... The "cheap" incandescents also have issues, and I've found the "reading light" and "true light" versions are equally as expensive as CFs. LED light is REALLY bad...
In a photo lab, or where validating fully acurate color representation is important I'm on your side, but for general home lighting, even some of the cheaper CFs have done me fine (in closets, hallways, etc). I use very high quality CFs in my reading room, computer room, and living room.
I have a few outdoor 150w equiv CFs. They come on in 1-2 sec at about 60% bright in the winter and hit full brightness in less than a minute (with the 90% to 100% taking nearly half that time). You must have bought cheap bulbs, or have older ones without instant bright technology. Some bulbs are using a higher powered capacity to run the bulb "hot" for the first 15 seconds or so, greatly reducing startup time with minimal impact. Then again, 150w+ bulbs are excluded from the ban, and even so, saving 120w for 5 minutes once or twice a day is a negligible effort.
For my driveway though, I use 2x 300w halogen bulbs, not incandescent... Even they take 10-20 seconds to warm up, but that's better than the 6x 150ws I used to use to get the same light...
Re:lasers? (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 grandmother's dining table, I put in two CFL and left one incandescent to fix the color of the food, which indeed was noticeably blue with all CFLs.
Right now, I've got a stack of CFLs, and I'm replacing lightbulbs as they burn out. Sometimes something I want to keep incandescent will burn out, and I'll replace something else and put that bulb in what burned out, but the option to purchase new incadescents must exist. (I have absolutely no objection to requiring manufacturers to decrease energy usage, though, as long as it's done slowly enough that the price does not increase a lot. Like cars should have been required to do for the last few decades, but mysteriously weren't.)
The people who insist that CFLs must be used 100% of the time are starting to piss off people like me and you who thinks they're only appropriate 90% of the time. I swear, sometimes the environmental movement is hurt more by people on its side than people on the other side.
Household lighting usage is such a tiny fraction of the total energy usage in this country anyway...if people want to bitch and whine about how much power we use, perhaps they could bitch and whine about industrial manufacturers who waste much more electricity than we ever do. And most of the electricity we waste is because of poorly-designed products, sold to us without any indication of how much electricity they waste.
Re:Can I use my universal remote? (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 5w while doing so, which seems hugely wasteful when literally one thousanth of this should be sufficient.
Yep. Low output power draw, simple design and cheap components will result in abysmal efficiency.
I would guess that the most power efficient solution would be to charge a big-ass capacitor once in a while and run the whole system off that capacitor. However, the cost of such a solution would make the whole system unmarketable.
Re:lasers? (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 is NOT going to give up the existing lighting. Putting on makeup under florescent light aparently is not acceptable... I put in full spectrum CFLs, and she made me take em right back out. but again, the lights over the mirror are only on for 20-30 minutes a day, the overhead light and the spots that point at the jacuzzi, shower, toilet, and in the closet are all CFL already.
I have a 3 floor house on a slab foundation, so any wiring effort requires major home surgery. There's some conduit in a few places, but it's for structured wiring, not electric. It;s a 2 year old house, 4500sqft, top notch with all the upgrades, except the builder and previous owner went cheap and skimped out on the $8K upgrade to put in a crawlspace, and only wired a few of the rooms for network (though all for cable), and no surround sound. It's going to cost me $1600 in professional installation becasue of the design of the living room to install $60 in HT wiring... (Open floorplans are great, until you want to have them recabled...)