Slashdot Mirror
Laser Blast Makes Regular Light Bulbs Super-Efficient
guruevi writes with news that a process using an ultra-powerful laser can crank up the efficiency of everyday incandescent light bulbs. Using the same laser process covered several years ago, the tungsten filament has an array of nano- and micro-scale structures formed on the surface making the resulting light as bright as a 100-watt bulb while consuming less electricity than a 60-watt bulb and remaining much cheaper to produce. "The key to creating the super-filament is an ultra-brief, ultra-intense beam of light called a femtosecond laser pulse. The laser burst lasts only a few quadrillionths of a second. To get a grasp of that kind of speed, consider that a femtosecond is to a second what a second is to about 32 million years. During its brief burst, Guo's laser unleashes as much power as the entire grid of North America onto a spot the size of a needle point. That intense blast forces the surface of the metal to form nanostructures and microstructures that dramatically alter how efficiently light can radiate from the filament."
Grammar, though, not so much.
Well, the ideal solution so far seems to be widespread LED lighting, combined with widespread nuclear power. With nuclear power, we could use incandescent bulbs without polluting the environment until LED bulbs sufficiently come down in price to be viable for use in every home.
This is why they're opposed to nuclear power -- because it would allow our increasingly technological lifestyle to continue growing without killing the planet.
I completely disagree.
First, about LED lighting: what are the environmental costs of producing it? Remember, semiconductors are usually produced in expensive fabs, which are known for needing a lot of fresh water to run. Of course, they do have the advantage of much longer life than other light sources, so this may not be a big problem.
Secondly, nuclear power is NOT a panacea. Ignoring the radioactive waste issue, you're totally forgetting the environmental destruction it causes on waterways. Like any thermal power generation process, like burning coal, oil, etc., nuclear power needs a plant which sits on a river, so that excess heat can be discharged into it. It is subject to the Carnot cycle, so it's only 40% efficient at most; the rest of the energy produced is lost as heat. This heat goes into the river, which raises its temperature, causing all sorts of problems with the wildlife there. In addition, rivers only have so much heat-carrying capacity; when they hit their limit, the reactor has to shut down. This has happened many times in the summer, right when everyone's running their A/C.
Sorry, but any power source that relies on the Carnot cycle simply isn't sustainable, and certainly not "environmental". While I would agree that nuclear power is generally preferable to burning fossil fuels, it's not the solution to our energy needs as you make it out to be. The only real solution is to get our power directly from the sun. With ever-increasing photovoltaic efficiencies, we should be able to cover all our buildings with solar panels and get all the power we need, though we'll obviously need some ways of storing it for nighttime and cloudy days. Even for the near-term, large-scale solar would be an excellent addition to nuclear power, since nuclear plants cannot have their outputs cranked up and down to meet demand, and can only provide a baseline load, and solar power has no such restriction and produces the most power at the time of day when most people need it, and can also be located closer to the points-of-use to reduce transmission losses.
In the long term, the best solution is to build solar power arrays in space or on the Moon, and beam power back to earth with microwaves.