Slashdot Mirror


Light Bulb Replacements

LoveOO writes Boston.com has a story about three companies which are trying to replace the Light bulb. I say it's about time and what about hydrogen powered vehicles? Two things that annoy me are filling the gas tank and changing light bulbs. It's time we did alot less of both."

9 of 976 comments (clear)

  1. Doesn't take much time... by JohnGrahamCumming · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Two things that annoy me are filling the gas tank and changing light bulbs

    OK. So how much time are you spending changing light bulbs per year? And was the total time spent submitting this news story longer?

    To be honest I don't think that changing light bulbs is a major household time sink. (Different story of course for people who deal with traffic lights, and hence the move to LEDs). I must spend minutes per year changing light bulbs, I waste far more time replying to /. articles complaining about people worrying about optimizing the wrong sort of time wasting activities. Oh wait...

    John.

    1. Re:Doesn't take much time... by marsu_k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > OK. So how much time are you spending changing light bulbs per year?

      Not much. But if regular bulbs everywhere would be replaced by less energy-consuming alternatives... there's a point to it, especially when you concider the recent news.

  2. Heard of Flourescence? by jeffmeden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't know about you, but im realizing the same benefits as they claim you get from LEDs, but my bulbs cost a whopping $2 for a lamp bulb and $3 for a fixture bulb. Flourescent! Cheap, no heat, hard(er) to break. Think about it.

    Jeff

  3. The thing is... by Sheetrock · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If you do the math, the regular old light bulb is still most efficient overall when compared to fluorescents or neobulbs. The amount of energy, resources, and pollution that goes into something has to be taken into account if you're really looking at reducing your impact on the environment.

    Additionally, you can't go wrong with nuclear power if you're looking at least polluting power sources. Many people look at solar as if its some sort of panacea, but the amount of energy that goes into making a tile is far more than you'll ever get out of it -- turns out that at the end of the day the thing everybody's been complaining about is the best option because all the pollution is contained.

    --

    Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
    -- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.




  4. The problem is cost by toddestan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The thing is, no matter how cheap they make LED lightbulbs, I doubt they'll ever get as cheap as the incandescent bulb, as the incandescent bulb is just plain out cheaper to make as it is much more simple. Therefore, the Wal-mart crowds will still buy the standard bulbs for years to come.

    What they should do if they want people to adopt these new bulbs is make it so all lightbulb packages have to display the average cost of the lightbulb over its lifetime. People may see that the LED or flourescent lights sitting on the shelf right now cost a lot more and don't buy them, but I bet they will when they see on the box that the bulb over it's lifetime costs a fraction as much in electricity used.

  5. Re:Patent abusing scum by alkali · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unclear to me how this constitutes patent abuse. If someone is investing major resources in R&D and coming up with nonobvious inventions, it seems entirely proper for that person to seek patent protection.

  6. Re:Hydrogen - The future of Buzzword Energy by EmagGeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ahh, good point, but you ahve to admit that it DOES HELP to move the combustion phase farther up the chain - because a power company can use oil or coal much more efficiently than your car can. A gas-fired power plant that produces hydrogen will probably be 5 or so times more efficient than your car is at extracting energy from fuel.

  7. Re:'Cause.. by einer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    but... he's saying that you have to burn stuff that produces carbon monoxide... to produce the hydrogen.

    So. Yeah. Producing (and therefore consuming) hydrogen adds to the net level of CO.

  8. Not exactly.... by raygundan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I keep seeing people say this, but it just isn't true. The reason stuff from the 50's seems to be well-built and last forever is because the crap is already broken and gone. All that's left is the good stuff. In another 53 years, nobody will remember the $40 VCRs that died in two years. But there will be people hanging onto commercial video-editing decks that really were built to last. And everyone will run around saying things like "i wish they built things as well as they did back in 2003!"