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?"

11 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. Curious timing by oskay · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder how long they've been sitting on this!

  3. I don't believe it... by nweaver · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's why. These are INCANDESCENTs. Glowing filliments. You can try to reduce the radiation in the UV and IR, but you aren't going to get rid of it. Running hotter (the Halogen way) ups the UV content which gets filtered out or flouresced down (and if you have a flourescent coating, why not just have a compact flourescent).

    This is mostly a Political Marketing statement, trying to forestall bans or taxes on incandescent bulbs, as although incandescents costs more in the long run, they are cheaper when you pay at the register so people still buy a lot of them.

    Personally, I'd not want a BAN on incandescents, just a "wattage tax" on lightbulbs, say $4/100W tax on bulbs regardless of the mechanism (LED, CFL, incandescent). Just something equivelent to 1 hour a day use for 1 year (assuming .14 kwh power cost), so that at the register you actually see what the bulb will cost.

    --
    Test your net with Netalyzr
    1. Re:I don't believe it... by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I agree on the overstating of efficency. Odds are the process has been known for years how to make the bulbs more efficent but chances are it would make them more expensive resulting in fewer sales so they never moved ahead with the technology. The hands down winner though are LED bulbs. They use little power and have insanely long lives and don't suffer from surge shock like filament bulbs and even flourecent. The problem is obviously cost. It'll drop but it's hard to say how much and how fast. They are already being used in hard to reach areas to avoid the labor expense of replacement.

      I noticed several responders mentioning taxes and such. It's a mindset we have to be careful of. There's an attitude I noticed with a lot of SUV drivers that they'd prefer to pay a tax and keep driving the beasts. The problem is we need to get them off the road period not just tax them. There was an argument made in Who Killed the Electric Car? that we'll need more coal plants for all the electric cars. Well here's a little food for thought. If all the incandescents were changed to compact florescents not only could every home in amercia charge their electric cars without needing more plants and their electric bills would actually go down. Electric lights are still the biggest single use of electricity in this country.

    2. Re:I don't believe it... by Your+Pal+Dave · · Score: 5, Interesting
      They might be using tungsten photonic lattice technology. Note that this is an article from 2002, and claims a similar efficiency. IIRC this was discussed on /. at the time:

      Now a microscopic tungsten lattice -- in effect, a tungsten filament fabricated with an internal crystalline pattern -- developed at Sandia has been shown to have the potential to transmute the majority of this wasted infrared energy (commonly called heat) into the frequencies of visible light.

      This would raise the efficiency of an incandescent electric bulb from five percent to greater than 60 percent and greatly reduce the world's most vexing power problem -- excess electrical generating capacity and costs to homeowners caused by inefficient lighting.


      Five years to market doesn't sound especially unreasonable to me.
    3. Re:I don't believe it... by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There's an attitude I noticed with a lot of SUV drivers that they'd prefer to pay a tax and keep driving the beasts. The problem is we need to get them off the road period not just tax them.

      I own an SUV. I telecommute roughly 90% of the time, and can go days without even starting that vehicle. There are also times when I start the vehicle, and drive it to go do something that involves other people and payload. If I didn't have that vehicle, we'd need four small wind-up passenger cars to haul the passengers and payloads. There are no small, more-efficient vehicles that can go where I can go, and get the people there, too. What's more efficient? Four cars burning fuel, wearing down tires, occupying road space, and possibly getting dangerously stuck enroute to the destination... or, one vehicle that can carry at least half a dozen people and hundreds of pounds of payload on rough roads, through the mud or snow, and safely do so?

      Why should my vehicle be "taken off the road," but some college kid that drives 100 miles in his hybrid in one weekend bouncing between parties while I drive nowhere, gets to use his? You're holding the tool accountable for what people do (when you don't like the people that use the tool), and not even touching on the wasteful habits of people that use a marginally more efficient tool that you like better.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    4. Re:I don't believe it... by cptgrudge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

      I think it's because nearly everyone on Slashdot can be described by what I call the 3P Syndrome. Specifically:

      Pissy. More often than not, Slashdot readers seem to be pissy. They are easily goaded into responding to trolls and participating in flamewars. They will stubbornly support an illogical and inane position simply for the shred of joy they coax from a heated argument. In short, they are easily irritated.

      Pessimistic. Many Slashdot readers are pessimists. They look for the worst-case scenarios and will dismiss any possible silver lining of any act or concept.

      Paranoid. Slashdot readers may also be naturally paranoid. This is perhaps the biggest reason for apparent distrust of others' motives. Serious paranoia makes it very difficult to trust others, and it is only exacerbated by the first two factors.

      Even before mind altering drugs are considered, all Slashdot readers seem to contain these three qualities in varying amounts (some appear to be "normal"). But collectively, they sum up to a critical mass that gives Slashdot that unique community feel.

      I haven't thought up a satisfactory answer for Google and Apple, though. Maybe Slashdot users identify with them on some level.

      --
      Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
  4. 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

  5. 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.

  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