Slashdot Mirror


The Light Bulb That Can Change the World

An anonymous reader writes to tell us FastCompany is reporting on the latest and greatest version of the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL). While CFLs of the past may have been efficient, they certainly were not effective. However, according to the article, CFLs have come as far as cell phones have since the mid 80s while still maintaining that high efficiency. From the article: "if every one of 110 million American households bought just one [CFL], took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads."

10 of 1,137 comments (clear)

  1. Re:White light? by tgd · · Score: 5, Informative

    Look on the package for the color temperature of the bulb. You want 2700 degree ones (which match incandescent bulbs so closely, if you didn't know it was CFL you wouldn't guess it).

    Up until recently (ie, the last six months or so) most of the bulbs you'd find in the typical discount stores were 4000-5000 degree.

  2. Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? by SpyPlane · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you RTFA, you'd see that they broke it down very nicely. The fact that these bulbs can last up to 10 years, saves WAY more energy and materials than the regular bulbs they replace. They even go into how many less Walmart trucks will be needed to haul lightbulbs around. Really, sometimes the articles do give important information!

    --
    "We need a fourth law of Robotics: Stop Fingering My Wife"
  3. Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? by Monkelectric · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that they don't last 10 years. I've been using CFLs for at least 5 years (back when they used to cost 10 or 15$ each). I've yet to have one last more than two years, and I'd say most don't last more than one.

    --

    Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley

  4. Mercury by Ironsides · · Score: 5, Informative

    From Wiki:
    Note that coal power plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions into the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used) the mercury released from powering an incandescent bulb for five years exceeds the sum of the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous CFL for the same period and the mercury contained in the lamp.

    Given that, and that the Incandescents use 4-5 times as much electricity as Flourescents, that meanst that switching to a Flourescent, even though it contains mercury, will actually reduce mercury emmisions, if you get power from coal.

    So remember, if you want to reduce mercury, you should first work to eliminate coal power plants.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  5. Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? by hawkbug · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'll back you up on that - I have them go bad all the damn time, probably faster than regular bulbs in some cases. It's frustrating, seeing a big "Guarnteed to last 7 years" sticker on the box, and only getting 15 months out of them on average.

  6. Re:The trade off by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Informative

    This sheet may prove helpful. In summary, CFLs prevent enough mercury emissions (from coal power) to offset their own mercury content. A typical CFL contains 4mg of mercury, over 100x less than a typical thermometer and almost 1000x less than the mercury switches frequently used in older thermostats.

  7. Re:What about the energy to produce the CFLs? by jandrese · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've discovered that quality matters a lot with CFLs, unlike regular light blubs where even the off brand guys do a reasonable job. For instance, the "America Something" brand that Wal*Mart sells is complete trash. Their colors are all over the map, they flicker, and they rarely last more than a couple of years. Half of the time the instant on stuff doesn't even work properly with them.

    I have been very impressed with the Commercial Electric brand sold by Home Depot however. I installed a ton of them 5 years ago when I bought my house and thus far only one has failed. They aren't even all that expensive, you can sometimes find 6 packs of 15 watt bulbs for ~$10-$15 on sale. I redid my Mother-in-Laws place with a couple of those packs and saved her a bunch on her power bill because she has this annoying habit of never turning lights off. Plus, I was tired of changing half of her bulbs everytime we went over there.

    I've also experimented with the GE brand and a few others, but that was back before isntant on was common and many of them take several seconds to light, which turned me off on them.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  8. Re:LED based lighting would do even better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Elemental mercury really isn't a problem; combinded to form a organic-mercury compound it's very toxic and most people confuse the two.

    It's not a problem to you when it's sealed in the bulb, but it damn sure can't go into the landfill. Once it gets into groundwater, it very easily becomes methylated to become that nasty toxic stuff.

    Long-term, elemental mercury is pretty damn toxic too. I'd mostly be worried about it being around kids. Still, if everyone burned CF's, there'd be a lot less mercury released from coal plants.

  9. Re:LED based lighting would do even better by tap · · Score: 5, Informative
    Don't believe the advertising copy, they play fast and loose with facts!

    If you look at the effeciency of one of the best high-power white LEDs, the Luxeon K2, it produces 60 lumens at 1.197 watts, for about 50 lumens/watt. A typical CF bulb (reading off the package) is 900 lumens and 14 watts, for 64 lumens/watt. If you look at a higher power verison of the Luxeon K2, it's 120 lumens in 3.72 watts for only 32 lumens/watt.

    White LEDs are NOT seven times more efficient than flourescent bulbs, they are LESS efficient.

    Consider the price too. I bought those 900 lumen CF bulbs at Home Depot for about $1.75 each. The white Luxeon K2 is $3.45 each for a less efficient (45 lumens) binning, you would need 20 of them to make a 900 lumen light bulb. And that's just for the LEDs, you'd still need electronics (which are not 100% efficient themselves!) to make an actual bulb. For example, that clearance bulb at ThinkGeek is $25 for a bulb with the power of one 60 lumen K2 LED. 15 of those $25 ThinkGeek bulbs would cost $375 and have the light output of just one $1.75 CF bulb!

    The only advantage of LEDs is that they are more efficient the less powerfull they are. CF is more efficient the more powerfull it is. If you look at normal lightbulbs in the 900 lumen range, CF wins by a lot. If you look at something small like a one watt flashlight, there are no 1 watt CF bulbs, so LEDs are best.

  10. Re:If this is true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    Tacoma, Washington recently decided to add another span to their overloaded Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge. (You might remember the original one was Galloping Gurdy... yeah, it's that bridge.) The designer who created the new bridge came up with a great idea... the Tacoma Narrows is known for having insanely-fast currents while the tide is coming in and going out. His idea was to put turbines in the base of the bridge tower to generate power during the tide shifts. Selling the generated power would, over the course of a few dozen years, pay for the construction of the bridge while at the same time providing clean energy to everyone nearby. Win-win!


    But of course, this is Washington Wacko-Environmentalist State. Instead, his plan was cancelled because the Wacko-Environmentalist movement decided that turbines, even covered with safety grilles, would kill fish-- and God knows that the lives of 3 fish a year is more important than tons of clean power! So now the bridge has a conventional base with no turbines and, as an added bonus, all of us non-wackos have to pay TOLLS to cross it!


    This should be modded "-1: making shit up". There are currently ideas to install dozens to hundreds of underwater turbines near the Tacoma Narrows bridges, but it would be a huge, very complex, and very costly project. Currently it's only an idea being studied (or planned on being studied). No turbine project was canceled to save 3 fish, but of course slandering environmentalists and liberals is far more important than truth or facts (which is why Republicans can no longer be trusted).


    http://www.djc.com/news/en/11180913.html
    http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/508 2737p-4630866c.html

    None of this is really relevant to the article, but since this got modded +5 I had to respond.