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?"
Now, people may get another option in lighting. CFLs cause an annoying flashing in the corners of mine, and other peoples, eyes. Not to mention, some people like the "warm" yellow colour of common incandescents. Could be an intriguing development of lighting technologies.
I wonder how long they've been sitting on this!
Sounds good and all, but when is this new stuff going to be at stores? If it's going to take 1-2 years before we see anything at the stores, won't CFL technology in turn have improved that much more by then?
Good god I hope California does put in a minimum efficiency rather than just outlawing Incandescants....
I decided to be a good citizen and replace the burnt out bulb in my bathroom this weekend with a Daylight CFL that's rated at "42 watts but gives off as much light as a 100w incandescant". I put it in, turned it on, and could get the damned thing out of there fast enough. The light color just sucked... was far too "flourescent" for anyone to stand. I'm sure *someone* out there likes the sterility and coldness of flourescent light, but it sure ain't me and my wife. I went back to Home Depot, returned the bulb, and bough a high effeciency Halogen that takes 27 watts but puts out as much light as a 100 watt bulb. The perfect color of light, higher effeciency than the CFL, and lasts two years.... and it's an "incandescent" that would be outlawed.
Makes me wonder what other changes they're sitting on which could save money. Perhaps they already have the 4X version sitting on a workbench somewhere waiting for the time they'll need it for PR and/or Compliance purposes.
They make Power Generating Stations AND Lightbulbs? What's wrong with this picture?
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
LED's are the way to go if you ask me. Long life span, great performance, more color availability (more "soft" colors/natural looking lights). LED flood lights put out 200-300 lumens @ 7-11 watts of power. I replaced 16 external lights with LEDS and while it was a bit upfront cash my power bill has dropped drastically and no more whipping out the ladder every 2 months to replace burned out bulbs or ones damaged in the weather.
less garbage over the lifespan, less electricity, less footprint. Seems a dollar short and a day late if you ask me.
If this is so wonderful, why is GE closing one the two remaining Incandescent light plants in the US? http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories. nsf/story/8D30EC3A4F735E358625728C000EE86C?OpenDoc ument
Of course there should be skepticism, because it sounds like GE pulled some amazing innovation of out their subsidiaryhole just in time to fend off legislation.
Of course any legislation that talks journey rather than destination is misguided -- it is efficiency and other measurable metrics (e.g. amount of waste per unit, for instance) that matters, not how you get there. Putting specifics into the wording sounds more like some lobbyists got their money's worth.
Having said all of that, anyone who walks into a store and buys an incandescent is either a) stupid, b) very stupid, or c) they live in an apartment with unmetered electricity. I have a house full of CFs, and have had them for half a decade now, and not only is the colour pleasing with the modern ones, and there is zero flicker or start-up lag, but in the entire time I've owned CFs I've changed two whole bulbs, one being used outside in -25C temperature when it was only rated for indoor use.
"GE has announced an advancement in incandescent technology..."
It's amazing how quickly the threat of losing your core business to a new technology can drive innovation! Light bulbs have remained largely unchanged for how long? Suddenly there are promises of huge efficiency increases.
Are corporations that manufacture incandescent lights also invested in electricity producing companies? That would be about as good for efficiency as automobile companies owning stock in the oil industry...
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
Theoretically, all you need to do is keep the heat from leaking out of the bulb (radiation and conduction). Keep the filament hot with less electricity and you raise the efficiency.
Why? General Electric is probably the largest manufacturer of CFLs. Because there's more to the manufacturing process of a CFL, they're more expensive to make. Assuming that they have a 10% profit margin on both, the CFL bulb will make them more money.
My guess is that they know there is still a demand for incandescent technology for specialized applications and for those who demand incandescent lighting, so they have found a way to make it more efficient. Perhaps not as good as a CFL or LED, but nonetheless, its a win-win for cases where incandescent is ultimately used.
Five years to market doesn't sound especially unreasonable to me.
LEDs are over ten times more efficient and the directionality of the light can be solved in a number of ways. Mag-Lite did it by having a special package created that incorporates a more useful lens directly into the LED part. This allows them to have a mini mag-lite with an LED that still allows you to focus the beam by twisting the top of the flashlight and thus raising and lowering the reflector.
The only REAL problem inherent to LED lights is that they are expensive to produce.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Recent, name-brand CFLs have mostly acceptable color rendition. Where you will notice their shortcomings is with deep red objects, like red velvet. These usually appear as brown or magenta under triphosphor CFLs, because there is simply no real red in the spectrum.
Now, there are halophosphate and mixed halophosphate/triphosphor lamps which achieve > 90 CRI, but they trade off brightness. Chroma 50 tubes come to mind.
People like to mention LEDs as a solution. They're great for low-intensity lighting, but if you want something truly bright, you'll find you have problems with heat dissipation.
For those who like truly ugly AND wasteful (but retro!) lighting, try an uncoated, self-ballasted mercury vapor lamp. 160 watts and slightly less efficient than a standard incandescent.
TANSTAAFL
Fluorescent lighting can trigger migraines for some people.
This poses an interesting issue for the marketers to tackle once this goes to market. Hopefully they will be able to properly convey the "light output" as the deciding factor rather than the wattage.
Why would you trust GE? They haven't earned your trust, among other things they have a terrible environmental record. They may be trying to improve, but they're starting at the absolute bottom.
GE also has a huge public relations and lobbying staff. What do you think companies have PR departments for? It's to respond to crises like this. Australia bans incandescent bulbs, California starts talking about it -- and if it snowballs across the nation, suddenly GE's looking at writing off whole factories and a couple billion dollars. At that point, ethics go out the window.
So someone in the PR department calls up the head of whatever R&D department they have left and says, hey, do you have anything we can use to make a case that banning incandescents isn't justifiable. So some proposal which was too costly and was sitting on the shelf suddenly becomes the subject of a media blitz, even though it's best case vaporware, worst case FUD.
Why are you so credulous? Have you learned nothing from the auto industry's 30 years of broken environmental promises?
The flip side, however is that you can't just wish problems away or ignore them. Good engineers actively seek out the problems and figure out how to address them or work around them.
The trade press etc is full of all kinds of hype suggesting that there are silver bullets: "Use Product X and all your development problems will go away". The good engineer is no more fooled by this than the Good Housewife believes that Brand X detergent really gets your whites whiter than white!
Often the devil is in the details. A good engineer will know this.
Those of us who've been around a bit have seen a lot of activity from companies both large and small where the PR is better than reality (MS is an obvious candidate here, but almost all companies etc have a vested interest in what they are doing and telling us about). Is Bill Gates really a philanthropist or is he trying to buy karma?.
So, forgive me for restating your 3Ps in a more positive but meaningful terms:
Detailed (previously pissy): Ignore the details at your peril.
Cautious (previously pessimistic): Sure there are potential advantages, but look at the whole picture. Don't get sucked in without a healthy appraisal.
Skeptical (previously Paranoid): Why are they telling me this? What are they not telling me? What's their game plan?
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Note that micro-flourescents contain mercury that if not re-cycled ends up in landfills. Any legislating that mandates the use of mercury devices shall also mandate a recycling by manufacturers and consumers. In this instance (though I also have reservations about GE "timing) I say GO FOR IT GE. If incandescents can match or come close to mercury devices we should have it.
cursethedarkness