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."
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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