Environmental Outlook: Light Bulbs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-03-01/environmental-outlook-light-bulbs
The Clean Energy Act of 2007 requires general all-purpose bulbs to be about 25% more efficient than they are today. The myths and facts about what this will mean for consumers and the environment.
Guests
Jim Presswood
federal energy policy director, Natural Resources Defense Council
Kyle Pitsor
vice president, National Electrical Manufacturers Assn
Congressman Michael Burgess
Republican,Texas, 26th District
Oladele Ogunseitan
chair, department of population health and disease prevention, University of California, Irvine
Phil West
director, office of technology advancement and outreach, U.S. Energy Department
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I heard that incandescent bulbs would be outlawed soon.....as in NO LONGER AVAILABLE. Is this true? Listen, I have solar panels, I drive a Prius, I recycle......but I HATE those energy efficient bulbs and am really annoyed that the government would take away my lightbulb choice, if that is indeed what is in the works. They should outlaw SUVs FIRST.
There is a genetic skin disorder where people cannot be in to sun for more that a few minutes without developing rashes, sunburns and sometimes blisters. You could call it a heavy sun-allergy.
This is caused, among other things, by UV light.
The old incandescent light bulbs did not radiate much UV light (if any). But many of modern Fluorescent light bulbs do. This causes great problems for them!
If the old light bulbs would be banned (like it happened in Australia) they would either need to live in complete darkness or where heavy sunblock all the time even inside their own houses.
Right now, in the midst of a 6 month heating season, my incandescent light bulbs are 100% efficient. I teach my children to turn out the lights when they leave the room and am very energy concious in all other respects. I do not need nor wish the U.S. government to come into my home and force me to use unpleasant and uncomfortable (to my eyes) light bulbs. And what about my light fixtures for which there are no alternatives? It could cost a homeowner thousands of dollars to retrofit.
I despise the compact flouescent bulbs, and refuse to use them in my home. Their light is eerie and depressing and cold. I am stocking up on the incandescent bulbs - and I use nothing higher than 40 watt for most usage. I recycle, turn off lights when not using, etc. Why not force businesses to stop their energy waste?... And what about all the new flat-screen televisions that they say use enormous amounts of energy?
If we're going to talk about new energy efficient lighting, we'd be remiss if we didn't include ESL (electron stimulated luminescence), the new lighting technology developed by a New York based company called Vu1 Corp (view-one).
Their bulbs are energy efficient; have a light quality indistinguishable from incandescent light; they are fully dimmable; have the highest Power Factor of any of the energy efficient lighting technologies; doesn't contain any toxic materials (like mercury in florescent lighting or cyanide in LEDs); they last 10,000 hours (without suffering from "droop," like LEDs); AND they sell for about half the price of LEDs.
The first bulb Vu1 is taking to the public is an R30, for recessed lighting fixtures. This will be available in about 3 weeks. Later this spring they will be coming out with an common domestic A-style bulb. I'm really looking forward to these light bulbs and couldn't let today's show go by without mentioning ESL.
I concur with the comments on ESL. This is an exciting technology which appears to satisfy a number of competing demands. I look forward to trying ESL bulbs in the near future.
To reiterate what was already hinted at in another post, the incandescent light bulb converts some of the energy into heat and no energy is wasted as long as heat is a wanted biproduct. Consequently, during the winter months incandescent light bulbs are 100% energy efficient for most households.
Who would be surprised when we find out that this will end up being in total an energy waster instead of saver. Not only is the light emitted uncomfortable the hours of life ratings seem to be greatly exaggerated. Also there are many applications were the light source and time lag for the bulb to come up to full brightness is unacceptable.
The model for determining energy efficiency needs to include the energy required to deliver, receive, and process spent bulbs. They are filled with mercury. The overhead here is significant.
In addition, people in cold climates (such as my home state of Maine) benefit from the heat-emitting properties of the incandescent bulb. This byproduct energy helps to defray other expenditures in heating energy.
a regular light bulb makes 90% heat and less than 10% light.
A CFL is yellowinh ,contains mercury and is only 40% efficent
Only LEADs are long lasting, are 90% of more efficient and don't make heat. They are all I use and save more than they cost in a year !
This is the 21st century and we need to become much more efficnet in our homes, cars and lights and appliances.
Since I switched to CFL lightbulbs, I have went through so many of them that I want to switch back. They aren't lasting long at all. I've never went through so many!!
The incandescent light bulbs, as I read in the California PG@E pamphlet, actually are more energy effecient in the winter because a large part of their energy is emitted as heat instead of light. So the pamphlet argues that during the winter time, their energy emissions help warm a room.
Please think about those of us who suffer from migraines. These new bulbs tend to trigger migraines in many of us.
There is another side of the lighting problem - there are no bulbs that deliver a bright cone of light for reading or spot illumination. An engineering problem. And all our lamps just spread the dim light out indiscriminantly.
If you read the show summary you'd know that the law does not outlaw incandescent light. It just mandates better efficiency. As to the arguments about nursing homes and mercury: first, what are the Representative's opinions on watch batteries that have the same a amount of mercury as a CF bulb and what are his thoughts on mercury discharge from coal electricity plants as a waste product? I bet he's more open on those. Second, when was the last time you were in any industrial, retail, or medical facility that isn't primarily using fluorescent light already? That's a specious argument.
Hello Diane,
I can appreciate the environmental benefit of changing to CFL bulbs. However, one drawback of several that I am concerned with is that, as conservators will tell you, due to UV rays the light they emit is more harmful to fading textiles, photographs, and perhaps other media. This is something I do not want in my home.
Thanks for having a show on this.
If I'm not mistaken, all fluorescent lamps contain Mercury including the tube lamps that have been used commercially (in all offices and hospitals, and schools etc,) for decades. Where is the concern about them?
While I assume some energy in a 100-watt bulb is lost to mechanical degradation and other effects of non-light, non-heat electromagnetic radiation, my guess is that the vast portion of non-light energy loss is via heat, which is only a loss of efficiency if you don't want heat. With normal air movement in a room during cold weather, certainly heat from incandescent bulbs will raise the ambient temperature of the room and reduce, even if minimally, the need for other intentional heating of the room.
Defining incandescent lamps as inefficient depends on a fairly narrow definition of efficiency.
Using an incandescent bulb to augment heating of your house is an /extremely/ inefficient way of doing that.
Then what are you going to do in the summer when you do NOT want that heat? Change your bulbs?
Background: We recycle - everything, we drive small fuel efficient cars, our home is well insulated, and we keep the thermostats in the low 50 degree range. We have to, we have electric heat, in Connecticut, and have the nation's highest electric rates.
Guess what? We could keep ALL of the incandescent lights in our house on 24/7 for the entire heating season without consuming any more electricity. That is based on high school physics.
Congress, and over-funded federal agencies, please do not promote social agendas through legislation.
Yes we could use a $6.95 mercury bearing compact florescent, or the new $49.00 Philips light emitting diode (LED) to replace a 40 cent 100 watt bulb in the Summer season, and it will last longer. But, for room lighting (unless you are furnishing a motel room) please don't bother talking about less than 100 watt equivalent bulbs, 60 watt bulbs do not produce enough light.
Congress, please let the market place decide.
Breaking a CFL bulb is dangerous. It is hazardous waste.
If you break a CFL bulb, here is what you need to do. (Who will do this? Busy parents? The infirm? The Elderly? They young who think they will live forever anyway? The poorly informed?)
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup.html
This page presents only the most important steps to reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb.
► View the detailed recommendations.
► Download and print a three-page PDF version of this overview and the detailed recommendations (91K, about PDF) | en español (30K, about PDF)
Before cleanup
Have people and pets leave the room.
Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb.
During cleanup
Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.
After cleanup
Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
Lighting is the single most important element in creating mood and beauty in a room. The new energy efficient lightbulbs make everything and every place they illuminate ugly. The light is glaring, even when it is low, and depressing, and with it a room cannot look inviting or cozy. Why is it not possible to create a pleasing light with high energy lightbulbs? I realize it is a flimsy thing to pit beauty and mood against the health of the environment, but the rooms we light, whether beautifully or hideously, are where we live, and it is depressing to think that these places must now be made so much uglier. Even the 'warm' light bulbs have none of the beauty of incandescent bulbs.
I wish LED bulbs lasted as long as your guests are indicating. I have replaced more than 1/2 of the bulbs I bought in less than 12 months.
Monte wrote:
"Not only is the light emitted uncomfortable the hours of life ratings seem to be greatly exaggerated."
I heard that the problem with the savings based on the CFL bulbs lasting longer is that this was calculated when the CFLs were a higher grade/better than is now being put out in mass production.
I am all for conversing energy and reducing waste but the light emitted from the flouresant light bulb is depressing (think the opening scene of Joe Versus the Volcano). As someone who struggles with mood swings I have found having a well light home to make a difference in my mood.
I am disappointed that none of the 'experts' on this show seem to be aware of ESL.
see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13O-uAvC3j8
We have used LED bulbs for a long time and find that they do not break, last a long time and do not put out heat. We love them.
Energy efficient bulbs are a no brainer for heavy usage.
What about seldom used bulbs? Seldom used bulbs last over 20 years and consume very little power. Replacing them with a more expensive bulb is clearly not economic.
What about decorative bulbs? The replacements are often not attractive and / or not available.
Requiring the new bulbs is not good. Economic incentives will encourage their use without legislation.
Possible legislation may be required to provide that large retailers accept burned out bulbs for recycle to properly handle mercury etc.
I'm an apparel designer--I use a combination of natural light and the compact fluorescents in my studio. The soft whites are very close in color to natural light, and though it takes them a little while to "warm up", they seem as bright as the incandescents I replaced. I was changing bulbs on a twice yearly basis, but the compact fluorescents have yet to get changed out. Of the 20 bulbs I use in my studio and a number at home, I have had only one bulb go bad (I assume it was defective).
I really appreciate having the option to buy these, and hope for even better ones to get developed in the future.
I will not buy a CFL, but lots of people will.
Very few people will cleanup a broken bulb the approved way.
That is the problem.
And the EPA recommendation for a broken bulb on carpet is so long it will not fit in your comment box!
http://www.epa.gov/cfl/cflcleanup-detailed.html#rug