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 was happy to discover that the new law does not stop anyone from using incandescents and that specialty bulbs are exempt. I already have switched over to CFLs anyway and think if people buy an energy star or brand name bulb they will find themselves more satisfied than they might now believe. There are good reasons that businesses use fluorescent tube lighting and most of us manage to shop and work under them without any problem. There are many programs available through energy providers, Home Depot, Ace Hardware, and state household hazardous waste for recycling these lamps. There are also companies that specialize in prepaid bucket recycling programs that anyone can sign up for. CFLs are very durable and with a little care do not tend to break. Cleanup truly isn't much of a problem either - just remember not to vacuum up the residue. The problem is usually that a breakage occurs within a closed space so the instructions err on the side of caution.
Personally, I do not notice any difference in reading under CFLs than regular bulbs. They are also available in multiple light types (soft, clear, etc.). I also agree with the commenter that adding heat to your room during the winter is inefficient and not particularly effective. Regular bulbs that emit heat could also be a fire danger.
I believe you can find energy efficient lighting that is shaped like a regular bulb.
I have heard of some users getting short life from their CFLs. I am no expert but I have read that if they are in a hanging position instead of upright they may not last as long. Also, an energy star bulb might not be the cheapest CFL on the market but is probably a better investment. Since you have gone through a number of bulbs but not broken one as yet, your exposure concern might not be terribly warranted. That said, it is not without some validity. Be sure not to vacuum up any residue from a broken CFL as that spreads it into the air.
Regarding your older style lightbulbs, from the conversation I'm reading on this site, there are plenty of people willing to take them off your hands. Perhaps you could put them out for free at a neighbor's garage sale!
Just like anything--cars, furniture, cell phones--you can get lousy ones or good ones. Same with CFLs. I've had virtually 100% CFLs in my house for 15+ years. Many people comment (without knowing what kind of lighting I have--the bulbs are hidden behind shades or sconces, etc.) on how good the lighting in my house is.
Just because someone bought a Chevy Chevette doesn't mean that all cars suck. Likewise with CFLs. If you get the cheapest ones at Home Depot, then you may not be as satisfied with the outcome.
I have 3-way bulbs, dimmables, and normal ones. Many have lasted longer than a decade; I generally only replace 1-3 year. CFLs come in more than one color rendering (warm/cool) and a wide range of lumen output. If you make sure you give yourself plenty of light and choose a warm coloration, your satisfaction will be much higher.
I recommend efi.org for the best selection of bulbs.
As far as mercury is concerned. Here in the DC area, where our baseload electricity comes mainly from coal, more mercury is emitted at the power plant from the use of an incandescent than is contained in the CFL. Unfortunately, the emissions from the power plant are totally uncontrolled--ending up in our food, while the mercury in the bulbs can be taken back through recycling programs. Is it perfect? No, but it's a better option than just spewing it from smokestacks.
From another angle, let's ask a hypothetical question for those who are questioning this policy.
Let's say that incandescent bulbs became unavailable for some reason unrelated to government intervention--some natural disaster or resource constraint (stay with me--it's just hypothetical). Would you be smart and savvy enough to figure out how to effectively light your house? Or not?
I think most of you would be. You'd start doing your research; you'd ask your friends for advice; you'd try out some different and new lighting strategies. And eventually you'd figure it out, and you'd be happy with the result. The few remaining of you--those not smart or savvy enough--would end up like my deceased, curmudgeonly grandfather who just sat around complaining about everything.
Righto.
I didn't hear anything on the program re the investment these bulbs are. Suppose some of us 'older' folks buy the newer incandescents for the softer light for 50$...what happens when it slips thru arthritic hands and breaks? Or the grandchildren come by and the boys/dogs ar rough-housing (u know the rest). There's a significant difference between .60 and 50. Guess that's really a retailer question.
Also, the answers about backwards lamp compatability focused on the sockets - didn't catch whether that works for the simple shade-on-bulb type.
I do hope they will sell high efficiency incandescents, because I am a nature illustrator working in watercolors, and my artwork looks ghastly under LED's and fluorescents, and even under those blue OTT lights that supposedly mimic natural light (they don't). It would really make my art business much harder to run if I had to spend a lot of money searching for a bulb that will really work for my art. I love my 100W incandescent bulbs, I don't want to lose that lovely, warm light source for my work.
Why don't you call it "Bright" instead of "Lumens"? What is lumens? I know what bright is. Don't call it lumens.
What is a "compact incandescent" lamp? If it's incandescent, it's inefficient, but gives a pleasant light. You might be referring to CFLs with a round glass outer envelope (bulb) and a conical base just above the screw threads. That's not an incandescent; inside, it's a CFL.
Regards,
Using incandescents to warm a room a bit is, by itself, simply electric heating, and is almost 100% efficient. However, considering that most electricity comes from fossil fuel, probably only 1/4 to 1/3 of the energy in the fuel becomes electricity, so electric heating is environmentally costly.
As well, if you have, say, only two100W bulbs lit, that's not creating much heat.
Regards,
[h of s]
It's a close relative of luminous tube ("neon") sign technology. Think of quite-long-life fluorescent lights, very likely custom manufactured to an architect's specs. They use high voltage (kilovolts), and are probably less dangerous (because wiring is concealed) than many "neon" signs in restaurant and store windows.
I'd say they are unusual.
Buff:
You asked about cold cathode lighting.
I replied, but apparently the reply doesn't follow your message; sorry! I posted it about 3:46 PM, Eastern time, 1 March.
What will revolutionize lighting is the incorporation of Visible Light Communication into LEDs. This will change the price point completely as it will eliminate inhouse and inoffice wiring, complex wireless and upgrades, all with the LED bulb. The new price point will allow the complete integration of light and communications, high speed and very secure.
[Reply to Mary Altman, whose CFL's fail quickly.
Her post was March !, 11:43 AM.
One possibility is that the CFL's overheat. There's some rather-sophisticated electronics inside the base, and it would fail quickly if it got too hot. You need air flow to cool it.
If that's not the problem, then, unfortunately, you apparently have been buying CFLs that are too cheap to last. Known, established, reputable brands should be trustworthy.
Good luck, and don't give up!
[h of s]
[[ Just discovered that changing one's username affects all messages one has posted. My regards to the site developer! There's more to it, but I don't want to clutter even more.]]
It's called the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) not the Clean Energy Act.
To see the proposed FTC label go to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/06/lightbulbs.shtm.
I've used CFLs in my house since the early 1990s and my Dennis the Menace son broke only ONE (last year) in 16 years.
Great show, great comments
[Reply to Christine (Hutson?) the watercolor artist]
Christine,
{Pruned version! I ran over the limit...}
I have a lot of empathy with what you say. Along the way, I've taught myself about color.
While there's a lot of technical stuff there, I'd suggest having a look: Wikipedia about Metamerism (color) In particular, see "Metameric Failure"; that surprised me, saying that people's eyes can differ!
Note where it says "Most types of fluorescent lights produce an irregular or peaky spectral emittance curve [...]"
(Not sure I have the energy to explain a spectral emittance curve in lay person's terms, much as I'd love to try. That, and a spectral reflectance curve, are as fundamental as you can get.)
While I ordinarily would not advise anyone to hoard, you might do worse than get a lot of incandescents for the future.
I also need to ask (rhetorically) whether you still like how your work looks by daylight, at least some blue sky, in the light from a north-facing window, or even in direct sunlight. (Quickly! Fugitive colors? Hope not!)
You're in about the same boat as a professional digital photographer who edits and prints her images. She would want a good CRT display (afaik, still better color rendition than flat panels, but a follow-up comment might say otherwise.) She'd also want a colorimeter to temporarily attach to her CRT's face, as well as color-profile software. For any serious work, color profiles are utterly essential. The printer, its inks, and the paper all are included.
Furthermore, like you, she'd want to have predictable and consistent workstation lighting.
I do wish you the best, and hope this helps, a bit.
[nb]
Reply to Frances McInerney (March 1, 3:51 PM):
That's truly interesting. LEDs can turn on and off very fast, afaik nanoseconds, and there are electronic light sources that are probably even faster.
The comms. protocol should be designed so there's no flicker; that shouldn't be hard to do.
The one restriction will be that there has to be a light path from transmitter to receiver; closing an opaque door will cut the comms. link. (Reflective-material-lined transoms, anyone?)
Sun W Kim wrote:
Why don't you call it "Bright" instead of "Lumens"? What is lumens? I know what bright is. Don't call it lumens.
"Brightness" would be the term. However, when you attach a number to the term, you need units of measurement, such as inches or millimeters of length. Lumens [is] the appropriate unit of measurement, technically of luminous flux. You might look into candela[s] and lux. (Wikipedia is OK on all three.)
Now and then, the general public needs to learn new units of measurement (as much of the world did when the metric system was adopted). Three centuries ago, nobody knew what a watt was; iirc, it wasn't even defined, back then.
The people in the lead on this are Nakagawa Labs in Tokyo. What they can do is amazing. Even communicate in the dark at sub visible frequencies to your computer, phone, TV etc.
(First, my apologies for posting replies, which I would have expected to follow the messages I was replying to. Apparently, this software doesn't work that way, unfortunately.)
I've lived with CFL ceiling fixtures (biax lamps) since 1998, and, along with a few other CFLs, find them totally agreeable
I've always bought my own replacements, being careful to select a warm-color type, and/or a low color temperature, such as 2,700 K. (Interesting that those I bought were made in the UAE; don't know which Emirate.) I find their color totally agreeable for long periods, although by John Ott's standards, they are quite deficient.
Unless you like luminous torture, do avoid Standard Cool White phosphors (internal fluorescent coating). They have wretched red rendition (almost no red light output, if any...), and are downright horrid to work and live under. Only advantage is that the phosphor is the cheapest, and probably relatively more efficient.
A supermarket would be insane to use them for lighting produce. (Have a look at the text on the end of one of their fl. tubes! Bet you can't easily buy one of those at retail.)
Inside the base of a screw-base CFL is some power-conversion electronics that feeds the bulb itself with high-frequency AC (tens of kHz, likely) and enough voltage. It must run cool, or die early. It's probable that, like typical high-wattage incandescents (such as film projector lamps), CFLs should be operated base down. Read the packaging!
There are also CFL replacements for three-way incandescent lamps, the type with a contact ring on the base. I have one, and it's a tad sluggish to start, but quite satisfactory.
For the future decades, I'm not sure LEDs will be the light sources of choice. Materials science is advancing rather fast.
[Reply to Francis McInerney, 20110301, 17:31]
Be dog-goned. I just Googled and downloaded* a PDF document. Was chagrined to see that it refers to a conference or such that I could easily have attended.
*I love 25 Mb/s FiOS symmetrical, and it's not that costly!
http://smartlighting.rpi.edu/resources/PDFs/smartspaces2011/Smart_Lighti...
(URL is truncated as you see it (nice!), but the link is complete.)
I'll be reading/studying, and soon!
Thanks bunches (to Diane, too.)
I only had an opportunity to listen to a portion of this broadcast topic. But one comment that replays in my mind was made by one of your guests relative to the life of a CFL. Essentially he said that if the CFL is not turned off in less than 15 minutes, it has a normal life span.
Because we had a few bulbs burn out within 12 months, I made a complaint to the company. They replied that I was using them improperly. In other words, they cannot be used in places where the room would only be illuminated for a short period of time (as your guest inferred). In our household, we insist that lights be turned off upon exiting a room. Well, "short periods of time" would apply to the bathrooms, laundry room, hallways, lights in our unfinished basement, unused bedrooms, closets and other areas where a quick switch is all we need. I suspect many households (especially couples without children) have the same routine. Other than living areas, how many rooms actually have the majority of lights burning more than 15 minutes??
We're especially concerned about mandatory CFL's when we doubt that most people will just throw the bulbs in the trash - unwrapped - especially in areas that do not have recycle-specific trash collection.
We see this whole program comparable to the hair-brained idea of using corn for fuel.
I'm really amazed at the lack of information given in this show. First off, if the lights are picked properly, there is no difference in the light given off by fluorescent and incandescent lights. The difference that people all complain about is the light color/ temperature. If you choose the proper light, it will match. You will be looking for 2700k or "soft white".
The last call I heard was complaining about the noise fluorescent lights make. This is a problem with older (like over twenty years old) and is something that needs to be repaired.
The one thing that I can agree with is the slow warm up times of CFL's.
When the clean up procedure was described, Dianne made it sound like putting the CFL's into a bag was a big deal, or at least an added step. If you look at your waste company's policy, they want ALL sharp objects to be put in some sort of container. That being the case, ALL broken bulbs should end up in a container.
The issue of mercury is also pretty ridiculous. As the guests pointed out, the amount is less than 1% of an mercury thermometer, which contains a fraction of the mercury as an old thermostat.
I'm not an environmentalist by any stretch of the imagination, but not using energy efficient lighting because of silly reasons like "they look funny" is ridiculous.
I think think that one of the problems people are having is that there are a number of low cost/ low quality bulbs out there, especially when they first came out.
One of the other issues people will have to deal with, especially at first is the fact that these bulbs are much, much more complex than an incandescent lamp. An incandescent is a filament in a vacuum. Pretty simple really. A CFL is much more complex, resulting in higher numbers of manufacturing problems and defective units.
On the issue of shorter life spans for CFL's is not as big of an issue as people are making out to be. They have a life span of 10k hours- even if your rapid switching cut the life down to only ten percent of the expected life (which it won't) that still gives you 1000 hours of life, and at five minutes a pop (or a little longer if you add an "o") that's 12000 trips to the bathroom.
These issue will also be reduced when building codes force new homes to be built with dedicated fluorescent fixtures which use higher quality ballasts and lamps.
here is another link to what I believe is a technology
superior to the others discussed on the program and
in most of the comments here.
ESL - Electron Stimulated Luminescence
http://tinyurl.com/5spjftr
again and in summary -
efficient 19.5 watts for an R30 (flood type bulb)
long lasting 10,00 hours
color quality - similar to incandescent
price - half of cheapest LEDs
no mercury
dimmable over full range with standard hardware
comes to full brightness instantaneously
I didn't hear anything about the frequency of light triggering seizures. I was listening to the lecture of a prominent neurosurgeon and he said the brain registers the frequency even if you can't consciously detect it.