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."
Does the above estimate of energy savings take into consideration the energy and raw materials required to produce 110 million CFL bulbs?
Earlier last year, I started buying those Wal-Mart swirl bulbs and haven't looked back. I have replaced nearly every old light bulb with one of the swirls in my house now. It's an awesome idea, and I wish I could convince others to do the same. The savings on your energy bill is nice too! I have since given away to relatives my extra pre-purchased packs of old light bulbs, and I will never buy one of those oldies again. Swirl bulbs it is!
Setting aside the debate over that statement - if it is even remotely true, then these bulbs are not just simply a 'good idea'.
They are a moral imperative.
Remember where those $100 bills that Hezbollah is handing out come from. Hint: they do not originate in Iran.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
From TFA: "The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent."
In my experience, the problem with non-traditional lightbulbs isn't that they're weak -- it's that they cast a harsh light. Many people I know would refuse to place even the most efficient light bulb in their living room if they didn't find the light warm and pleasing. When TFA says the light is "white," this makes me think that there is at least one problem remaining to be solved -- though perhaps it would be as simple as using lightly tinted glass for the bulb.
Is for the big box stores to start carrying the dimmable CFL bulbs.
My house is almost entirely on dimmers. Its a ten year old rennovation of a 70 year old house. Modern McMansions are almost entirely on dimmers as well.
With all these dimmers out there, you'd think you'd be able to get dimmable CFL bulbs places other than the very occasional lighting shop or online.
I've switched essentially everything else in my house over at this point, except for the ones on dimmers.
flourescent light bulbs are an investment. and for normal people, light bulbs are not exactly the type of thing you think of investing in.
Honestly - since these bulbs are so efficient, shouldn't there be a government sponsorship / subsidization to make them as widely available (read: cheap) as regular bulbs? One would hope that it was be a no-brainer to include this in the energy plan - especially if we're funding experimental stuff like hydrogen powered fuelcells.
_Vishal www.squad9.com
While most Americans have more disposable wealth than the greater part of humanity's history, it is still not insignificant to look at spending $5-$15 on a light. Yes, with sufficient planning you could likely phase that in pretty easily over time and save in the long run, but we're asking that of people who live check-to-check for cigarettes, new cars, and cable TV.
In short, "more expensive" now is even more expensive than "more expensive" later so it will be put off by all but the most thorough and forward-looking planners.
" if every one of 110 MILLION American households did this thing"
Well geez, the title of the article should be, "Tiny numbers of stuff, multiplied by a HUGE NUMBER, gives you..., A BIGGER NUMBER! SURPRISE!!"
Guess what, if 110 Million People ate less, THERE WOULD BE A LOT LESS FAT PEOPLE.
Guess what, if 110 Million People gave me a dollar, I'd have $110 Million !
This is a non-story. This is just basic multiplication.
Natural Gas == electricity. Since deregulation of the power industry, power plant builders are looking for quick ROI, and a coal plant that takes 5 years to come online has a dismally slow ROI compared to a NG plant that can be built in 9 months. Never mind the fact that the NG plant is far weaker, thus requiring many more of them, and that NG power is quite a bit more expensive than coal power. Quite a bit of this nation's power comes from gas, which is often a direct tie-in with oil production.
"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. "
Yeah, I guess it sounds a lot better to put it that way than to say "A 0.5% reduction in electricity usage".
So we trade off co2 emissions for high levels of murcury being dumped in the land fills from disposal of the spent CFL bulbs?
Got Code?
One roadblock on the path to acceptance is the color temp or quality of light for these bulbs. As soon as I can secretly replace the bulbs in my house and my wife doesn't walk into the first room screaming at me, "Oh, my eyes!", I'll covert the whole house.
While the all too warm traditional bulb is rather a poor standard, it is what we're used to. CFLs are way too blue. Too cold.
I've tried a few (rather expensive) CFLs. Haven't found one yet that isn't religated to an less travelled part of the house -- usually closets.
For desk lamps the GE "full spectrum" natural light bulbs are the best yet. If the CFLs could put out that light I'd buy them at twice the price.
The last time I checked, the US generates very little electricity from oil. It's coal and nuclear these days.
I made the same observation. However, the point being made is that we generate electricity in ways that put carbon in the air, keep in mind that more than 50% comes from coal
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
You could see sheets of uncut $100 bills in one of the photos taken in the region.
1
http://www.kxma.com/getARticle.asp?ArticleId=3597
Work Safe Porn
Yes, considering the scale of power savings here. Over just one week of 4 hour-per-day operation, there is a 2kWHr difference between a 30W CFL and the 100W bulb it replaces, and I haven't even addressed cooling costs.
If you want further proof, look at just purchase costs. CFLs last several times longer, but cost more- yet they still last long enough that the consumer comes out ahead on replacement costs over the lifetime of the bulb.
The only problem I have yet to see addressed is that most CFLs don't work well in already-installed overhead recessed lighting; they don't like the higher temperatures, and the electronics bite the big one faster. Most people also like dimmable lights, and dimmable CFLs are much more expensive and harder to find.
Please help metamoderate.
I don't think that banning standby mode altogether is a good idea; if implemented correctly, the energy consumption should be negligible. I think the easiest way right now to reduce electricity consumption without significant negative side-effects would be manditory energy-use labeling on all electronic devices (including components like video cards and hard drives) sold. These labels should state the maximum energy use (in watts) of the device when in use, idle (on and ready for use, but not actually doing anything), and in standby mode.
A big problem right now is that consumers have no way of comparing products in terms of energy efficiency (save for water heaters and the like, which are already subject to such rules). When consumers aren't educated, bad products prevail.
I know it's rather selfish, but I'd rather reduce the risk of spilled mercury in my home than reduce mercury emmissions in the environment.
As I mentioned in other threads, in Ontario, Canada the total usage of energy by homes is 22%. A study showed that changing all of the homes to be completely energy efficient (switching to new efficient appliances, using energy at night instead of daytime etc.) will bring a total saving of less than 10% of total production. There is no reason for homes to do anything more than they are doing already and there is no reason to throw away the old working stuff and pay for someone to spend more energy to produce new stuff.
It's not 'I can't make a difference' attittude, it is a perspective that is lacking here. Powerplants are not god-given, we create them to satisfy our demand and that is as simple as that.
We will have to build more powerplants because we are going into the future and not back into the 19th century. The building where I live covers all expenses from my maintenance fee. So for 480CAD/mo I get electricity, water, sewage, hot/cold air etc. It's included. Personally I only use it when I need it, but most people do not. They use it any time they want and in any quantities they desire. Their usage reflects on my monthly fees. But I am not going to fault those people for wanting to use all of that energy. I rather see this is a production issue than a usage issue. We are in the 21st century and we will need more capacity every day. The way to do this is not by trying to limit what people are using, but by creating new capacities.
We have to switch from coal/oil to nuclear/hydro and at some point to thermonuclear. Whatever it takes, we can use up all of the energy that is available and it is good. That's what we do. You want to be 'one' with the nature, it's your choice but it is not the choice of 99% of all other people
You can't handle the truth.
Personnally, every bulb in my NY apartment is CF, primarily because I am not charged for heat and electricity costs a ridiculous $0.20 per kW-hr
70% of statistics are made up.
More than 10 years ago. I've been using CFLs since the early 90's.
But then, we Brits always were ahead of the yankees in lighting technology.
Agreed, and insightful point, but remember that the cold climate caveat only applies when the house is heated solely by electricity. As far as generating heat goes, gas/oil/geothermal are much more efficient in terms of money per joule heat than electricity. It also increases the total entropy of the universe less.
in conclusion, gas-supplied houses with electric hobs will hasten the inevitable heat death.
I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
Nuclear plants. They're not without their hazards, but they're more efficient and cleaner.
Canthros
The mistake you make here is replacing like-for-like wattage bulbs. I went through my home and replaced the high usage bulbs with CFLs. And as the low usage ones die I replace them. But I replace them with CFLs of a higher equivalent strength. 60w incandescents get replaced with 75w equivalent CFLs, 75w are replaced with 100w. They only draw about 1/4 the juice of incandescents, so I still save big. But now I have more light in the same area, and the picket fence spectrum problem is reduced. Plus, when I can, I mix Cool White, Warm White and Daylight color temperatures. Looks odd, but only if you look at the fixtures and not the room.
I think it is worth the cost to my pocket and the Earth.
Thank you for consuming more than your share. The rest of us apprciate it.
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
I know it's rather selfish, but I'd rather reduce the risk of spilled mercury in my home than reduce mercury emmissions in the environment.
Selfish, short-sighted, delusional... the list goes on.
It's not as though your home wasn't in the environment.
You can't take the sky from me...
None of these effects is pronounced, but the ripple spreads out. And that's just one of the things you have to accept with the quest to reduce oil-dependence: it will be thousands and thousands of little things that win the war. A few E85 SUVs here, a few electric cars there, some scooters and motorcycles for the cool kids. CFLs all over the place. Industry starts taking conservation seriously and revamps their processes (you can find hundreds of success stories of manufacturers bringing their power usage way down while simultaneously making their entire operation faster and more efficient). A smarter chemical industry. Old houses being replaced by better houses. Nothing can solve the problem in and of itself, but it all adds up.
Flourescents have a small amount of mercury in them.
l amp#Environmental_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_
LED lights last up to 11 yrs with continuous use.
And use 1/30th the power of a regular light bulb, vs. 1/4 with a CFL.
http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/7aa8/
Only thing really holding it back right now is price and the fact they
wouldnt sell many to repeat customers with an 11 year always on lifespan, lol.
The ones featured here on thinkgeek don't put off quite as much light,
but with 2 lights vs. one you can get there.
The price is the only real thing hindering it, but if you consider long term
energy savings, its awesome.
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
How many light bulbs does it take to change the world? No wait, that's not right...
The problem is people use these little efficient doodads to feel good about doing something green. Then they go out and buy a power-sucking plasma TV.
Electrical use is way up since the 80's. Possibly because we all have tonnes more electronics bits to plug in and nearly everyone has a PC which adds a certain minimum for the hours its on. If you had a few lamps burning around the house which added up to the energy consumption of most desktop PCs you'd notice it right away and wonder why it's necessary. Alas, we sit at our keyboards and type merrily away (there's that batsard, ackthpt again, oi if only I had the mod points to bury him.) oblivious to the power consumption of our tin box full of CPU, DDR-RAM, HD, Whizzo Video Card De-Luxe, etc. Quite possibly we even have a reading lamp going beside us in the evening (I don't know about you, but at my age I get a headache looking at a glowing screen in the dark.) Plus there's all these little black plastic cubes and rectangles to run all manner of gizmo, which all add up.
On another thought. I've got these wicked little LED flashlights which run for 130 hours on a battery the size of an aspirin. When will I see these in my house, rather than a fluorescent lamp?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
True, but that is only if every household only replaced one bulb. If every household replaced two or three (and major retailers like Target/Wal-Mart sell them in three-packs for under ten bucks) then the savings would be even greater.
This attitude in general is why energy conservation and alternative energy sources have such a hard time catching on; people act as though if it doesn't solve the entire energy problem then it isn't worth bothering with. You go ahead and wait for cold fusion. Personally I'd rather replace a few incandescents with flourescents, drive a Civic instead of an F-150, and vote for politicians that will actually fund alternative energy sources (such as wind).
That, and turn the light off when I'm not in the room and turn off the computer when it isn't really doing anything. Drive a few miles per hour slower. Cut the temp back by a degree or two in the winter. No one of these changes really makes that much difference, but if you could convince a majority of people to enact a majority of these changes it could actually make a significant difference.
Because after all, 10% is just 10 times 1%, right?
that's really funny. Unfortunately nothing would really change, only the prices would go up to reflect the loss of revenue.
I remember paying $2000 for a new, mid-range computer. What has gone up because computers are cheaper now?
The cost of living doesn't go down, perhaps, but that's just because we get more. My parents didn't have central air until I was 14; I haven't lived in a place without it since. I remember my dad showing the power locks on his new car; can you buy a car without them now? Or, would you rather have a like-new '79 Rabbit, or a like-new Honda Fit? Homes are larger now with fewer people living in them. etc. etc.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Everyone pays taxes, but not everyone pays them in equal amounts. If poor people pay little in taxes, but have high energy bills because they can't afford the up-front costs of CFLs, then that segment of the population will only benefit.
Ah, so you're talking about a wealth-transfer program. Because I'm in a high tax bracket I'll help folks further down pay for their light bulbs. Should I also help them pay for their food and clothes? Maybe they should just move in? Ha ha, no thanks. Having to pay for your own stuff is the best possible incentive to stay in school, get a job, save a little, stick to a sensible budget -- i.e. to grow up. Who am I to deny the benefit of learning life's most important lessons to my fellow man?
In fact, most every tax bracket would benefit. There are long-term cost savings for the consumer, and those savings should more than counterbalance the taxes for the vast majority of taxpayers.
Sounds like doubletalk to me. Joe Poorboy, who would otherwise buy a $1 incandescent, buys a $3 swirlie instead because he gets $2 back from the government. Joe also enjoys a $20 reduction in his electricity costs over the life of the bulb (which you'd think would be enough to get him to buy the bulb directly, but I guess we're assuming poor people are irrational here). Nice for Joe. Richie Rich, investment banker, being no fool, also buys a $3 swirlie, and also enjoys a $20 reduction in his electricity cost. But he also needs to pay more taxes to cover the subsidy to Joe. How much? Hmm, well, the program is pointless unless it induces lots of people to switch bulbs, and of course by definition there are lots more poor people than rich, so Rich clearly must get whacked for a lot more than the price of one extra swirlie for Joe. Say he needs to cover the subsidy on 10 bulbs. That's $20 extra in taxes. So how does Rich see any net gain from the program?
Maybe you're thinking Rich and everyone would benefit from reduced general electricity costs, leading to less CO2 emissions, a cleaner environment, et cetera. Could be. But if that's your goal, how about attacking it directly, instead of in this weird indirect way? Tax the use of fossil fuels in power plants. Zone lots of land so it can't be used for power plants. Pass laws mandating scrubbers on power plant stacks. The problem with clever, indirect approaches to a problem is they have unexpected side effects. Just for example, you are aware, I assume, that the swirlies (unlike incandescents) contain 5-20 mg of mercury, an exceedingly nasty environmental toxin. What if the people you encourage to buy swirlies happen to be exactly the type that don't bother to recycle the bulbs? Ugh, now you've reduced electricity use but increase the amount of mercury in landfills. Maybe it works out on balance, but maybe it doesn't. That's the problem with complex mechanisms. The side effects are by definition hard to know before you begin.
The size of the bureaucracy has very little to do with the amount of money being spent.
Well, that depends, doesn't it? If the purpose of your bureaucracy is to build a fusion reactor, then maybe not. But if the purpose of your bureaucracy is to sort out which citizens get a $2/bulb benefit, and which others must pay for it, then I'd say, yeah, roughly speaking the size of the bureaucracy would scale with the number of people eligible for the benefit. I suspect the size of the Social Security Administration does indeed scale with the number of people applying for benefits, receiving benefits, dying and needing to have their benefits canceled, et cetera.
Subsidies early on could jump-start demand for CFLs, increasing production capacity, improving manufacturing techniques, and enabling them to compete more successfully in the market when the subsidies are eventually removed.
Come on. We're not talking about a market where no private party will enter because of the risks. Or some cottage industry where people are han
GE understands that it's smarter to make money selling what people want to buy than trying to force people to buy what they don't want. Now if someone could tell the RIAA/MPAA and other Luddite organizations...
Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
You just answered your own question. When they're a simple screw-in replacement, they'll catch on. I've been waiting for the price and ease of use to come down, myself.
Little girls, like butterflies, need no excuse. -- L. Long
GE, too, has launched a green business initiative: ecomagination, an effort to make environmentally sustainable technologies an ever-larger part of GE's business. Swirls fit well, despite the inevitable cannibalization. "The real issue is, if we don't do it, someone else will," says GE's ecomagination vice president, Lorraine Bolsinger, of Wal-Mart's effort to push CFLs. "It's old thinking to imagine that you can hold on to a business model and outsmart the consumer. You can't."
There are several screw-in LED bulb replacements out there. Two problems though - one: they're incredibly off-the-wall expensive ($30+ for the lowest light output), two: they're arrays of superbright LEDs rather than a specialty thing, so it's very likely that they won't put out enough light to substitute for a standard bulb. Now, the price probably pays for itself very shortly, not only in electricity bill savings but having something that should considerably outlast a CF bulb, and most certainly an incandescent (CF burntime is more based on the number of starts and stops, due to the circuitry inside, generally about 3000 cycles AFAIK). Plus, IIRC, LED burntimes are measured in mean time to half light output, not MTTF.
It's a great idea, but it needs a lot of improvement before it goes mainstream. Availability at storefronts would be a good start. But if it's not obvious enough, most people are too stupid to do any sort of vaguely long-term cost analysis - a CF bulb will be far cheaper over its lifetime, even if they cost $5 instead of $0.75 initially. I've gone all CF bulbs, and while I'm not the billpayer of the house (well, actually I'm at school now so it's irrelavent, but as of a week ago...), I can tell that they're using a heck of a lot less power on the simple fact that I don't melt skin if I touch one when it's on (still unpleasant, but not unbearable-to-cooking). Nevermind the cool white bulbs, while unfairly more expensive, really are a bit better on the eyes IMO. Yeah, LED bulbs would be a big improvement in terms of watts per lumen, but aside from the whole AC and diode thing (I've seen LED-based Christmas lights, they drive me nuts like a 60Hz monitor, though many don't notice it), the initial cost really is too high at this point for non-DIYers.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
I'm Canadian so I'll let my socialist side do some talking: I have begun thinking that the government should consider legislating the light bulb industry, much the same way that the automobile industry is, by setting a standard of lumens/watt, and setting up a proper displosal program. Of course, the lumens/watt standard would be such that it would effectively ban the sale of incandescents for home use.
The amount of energy saved as all the old bulbs burned out would be enormous. While many groups kick and scream at the thought of any standards, the auto industry is a good example of how strict standards, when combined with an open market, produce hugely improved products.
because married women hate admitting they're wrong, she'll live with it rather that admit she thought it was incandescent.
And remember it venemously forever.
Ask my mom about the time my dad put generic cherios in a real cherio box.
Cheap storage VM.