Slashdot Mirror


GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology

finfife writes to tell us that GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology that promises to increase the efficiency of lightbulbs to put them on par with compact fluorescent lamps (CFL). "The new high efficiency incandescent (HEI(TM)) lamp, which incorporates innovative new materials being developed in partnership by GE's Lighting division, headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio, and GE's Global Research Center, headquartered in Niskayuna, NY, would replace traditional 40- to 100-Watt household incandescent light bulbs, the most popular lamp type used by consumers today. The new technology could be expanded to all other incandescent types as well. The target for these bulbs at initial production is to be nearly twice as efficient, at 30 lumens-per-Watt, as current incandescent bulbs. Ultimately the high efficiency lamp (HEI) technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs. Adoption of new technology could lead to greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 40 million tons of CO2 in the U.S. and up to 50 million tons in the EU if the entire installed base of traditional incandescent bulbs was replaced with HEI lamps."The California legislature may want to revisit the wording of their proposed ban on incandescents (AB 722). How about mandating a level of efficiency rather than assuming that innovation can't happen?"

9 of 619 comments (clear)

  1. There are times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are times when you *need* incandescent lighting, photography for one. Fluorescent is not suitable in all cases. And initial costs of fluorescents are more because you need the ballast etc.

    The fact that these lawmakers don't understand enough of the technology to make it workable really gets on my chimes.

    1. Re:There are times by cens0r · · Score: 5, Informative

      They actually tackled this on mythbusters. The idea of kickstarting a florescent is largely a myth. Basically if you need it for more than a few seconds, it will always be better than an incandescent.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    2. Re:There are times by Hawke666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was 30 seconds, and that only applied to traditional fluorescents. CFLs were very close to incandescent in that regard.

    3. Re:There are times by Alioth · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's a myth.

      If it took an hour's worth of electricity to start a CFL (the old myth said 3 hours, but let's just call it an hour), you'd need 20 watt hours to flow in 2 seconds. Now let's do the sums:

      20 watt hours is 20 * 3600 joules, i.e. 72kJ.

      For 72kJ to flow in 2 seconds, you would need 36kW of power. 36 kilowatts. Your biggest appliance is probably your electric shower, a powerful one is 10kW.

      To put 36kW into perspective, this is 150 amps at 240 volts.

      Your entire supply from the power company is probably on a 40 amp breaker. Even if the 'kickstarting' myth was true for only 20 minutes power rather than the oft-quoted 3 hours, you're still going to blow your main breaker.

      As you can see, the 'kickstarting' myth is implausable.

      The reason why you might not use a CFL in a cupboard in which you only use the lights for a few seconds at a time is many of them take a couple of seconds to start, which is annoying for a light you only use for a few seconds at a time. But if you want high efficiency in that situation, you can always use an LED downlighter (available conveniently in a GU10 halogen downlighter form factor).

  2. Re:Could be quite useful... by Paulrothrock · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you're not getting "warm" colors from CFL bulbs, you're probably using older bulbs. The flickering also points to this. My wife can't stand CRT monitors at 75Hz, but she hasn't complained about our CFL bulbs flickering. She's also got insanely good hearing and doesn't hear them buzz.

    This is like the complaint people have with diesel engines. Yeah, the first diesels in the US were smokey and loud and slow, but new ones are virtually indistinguishable from gas engines and use 50% less fuel or more. Yet, people still avoid them because they don't want a "noisy, smokey, slow diesel car."

    --
    I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  3. Re:Could be quite useful... by danpat · · Score: 5, Informative

    Have you tried any of the newer CFL's with non-magnetic ballasts? The oscilation frequency is now much higher, beyond what the human
    eye can typically perceive.

    Also, CFL's come in a range of color temperatures, some of which match "warm yellow" from traditional incandescents. They're not all "hard white".

    A quick reference: http://medfordcan.home.comcast.net/Myths.html

  4. Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... by Alioth · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's because you got a Daylight model. You can buy CFLs in incandescent orange if you want. I have one in the lamp across the room right now, and it's virtually indistinguishable from the incandescents I have (certainly a 'warmer' colour than halogen lights, that I have in the downlighter fixtures).

    You can get CFLs in pretty much any colour you like.

  5. Re:Incandescent doesn't mean low effecency.... by AaronW · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's because you bought daylight bulbs. They are supposed to look like that since their color temperature is typically 6500K which approximates the color temperature of the sun. If your eyes have not adjusted to it and there are regular warm bulbs nearby then it will look bluish. Next time buy one with a lower color temperature, like 2800-3500K. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature for more information.

    -Aaron

    --
    This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  6. Why? How about LONG criminal histories? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 5, Informative
    Why does nearly everyone on /. assume that every company is out to deceive them? or that every press release (unless it's from Google or Apple) is a marketing lie? Sure every company is out to make money, but not every company is an Enron.

    The reason Slashdotters are suspicious is that a large number of, (if not all) corporations are out to deceive the public. This is not conjecture. It's cold fact. GE is a great example, btw. You should look into some of their criminal activities.

    1 Feb 1977 D.C. - GE ordered to stop misleading ad claims on color televisions and other home appliances

    16 June 1981 Lincoln NE- GE ordered to pay damages over storage of spent nuclear fuel $8.5 million

    May 1985 D.C.- GE fined for defrauding Defense department on contracts $1.04 million

    5 June 1987 Los Angeles CA- GE subsidiary fined $25.3 million for insider trading

    20 Nov 1987 Cincinnati Ohio- GE ordered to pay damages on safety defects at Zimmer nuclear plant-$78 million

    3 June 1988 San Francisco- GE and others ordered to cleanup groundwater contamination-$5.3 million initial settlement

    29 March 1989 D.C.- GE fined for defrauding government on defense contracts $ 3.5 million

    5 Oct 1989 Tennessee- GE ordered to refund overcharges on work at Brown's Ferry Plant-$2.6 million

    23 March 1990 Shepherdsville KY- GE and others ordered to cleanup PCB contamination of soil and water

    27 March 1990 Wilmington, NC - GE fined for discrimination against employees who report safety violations-$20,000

    11 May 1990 Ft. Edward/Hudson Falls- GE ordered to cleanup PCB contamination of Hudson River -$10 million

    27 July 1990 Philadelphia PA- GE fined for defrauding government in defense contacts-$30 million

    11 Oct 1990 Waterford NY- GE fined for pollution at Silicone Products plant- $176,000

    20 May 1991 D.C. - GE Ordered to pay damages over improperly tested aircraft parts for Air Force and Navy- $1 million

    27 Feb 1992 Allentown, PA - GE ordered to pay damages on design flaws of nuclear plants -$80 million

    4 March 1992 Orange County CA - GE fined for violation of worker safety rules on handling PCB's-$11,000

    13 March 1992 Wilmington, NC- GE fined for safety violations at nuclear fuel plant $20,000

    22 May 1992 Illinois - GE ordered to pay damages on design flaws of nuclear plants $65 million

    22 July 1992 D.C.- GE fined for money laundering and fraud over illegal sale of fighter jets to Israel-$70 million

    13 Sep 1992 Chicago, IL- GE ordered to pay damages for airplane crash-$1.8 million

    12 Oct 1992 Nashville TN - GE ordered to pay damages from deceptive advertising on lightbulbs -$165,000
    27 Oct 1992 D.C.-GE ordered to pay damages from overcharging on defense contracts $576,215

    12 May 1992 D.C.-GE ordered to pay damages to whistleblower on illegal sale of fighter jets to Israel-$13.4 million

    2 March 1993 Riverside CA - GE and others ordered to pay damages for contamination from dumping of industrial chemicals-$96 million

    11 March 1993 Grove City PA - GE and others ordered to cleanup mining site $1.81 million

    16 Sep 1993 NY - GE ordered to compensate commercial fisherman for PCB contamination of the Hudson River-$7 million

    11 Oct 1993 San Francisco- GE ordered to offer rebates to consumers after deceptive light bulb advertising - $3.25 million

    18 July 1993 Hudson Falls NY- GE ordered to clean up PCB contamination of Hudson River -$2.5 Million

    2 Feb 1994 Perry OH - GE settles with utility companies on defective Perry Nuclear Plant.

    14 Mar 1994 Ft. Edward NY - GE ordered to cleanup contamination of sediment from reaching Hudson River $100,000

    14 Sep 1994 9.14.94 D.C.- GE fined for overcharges in defense contracts-$20 million