Slashdot Mirror


Incandescent Bulbs Return To the Cutting Edge

lee1 writes "A law in the US that is due to take effect in 2012 mandates such tough efficiency standards for lightbulbs that it has been assumed, until recently, that it would kill off the incandescent bulb. Instead, the law has become a case study of the way government regulation can inspire technical innovation. For example, new incandescent technology from Philips that seals the traditional filament inside a small capsule (which itself is contained within the familiar bulb). The capsule has a coating that reflects heat back to the filament, where it is partially converted to light. The sophisticated ($5.00) bulbs are about 30% more efficient than the old-fashioned ($0.25) kind, and should last about three times as long. So they are less economical than compact fluorescents, but should emit a more pleasing spectrum, not contain mercury, and, one supposes, present the utility company with a more desirable power factor."

21 of 569 comments (clear)

  1. lasers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There was an article a month or so ago about how this guy used lasers to (I'm guessing) increase the surface area on the filament, thus increasing efficiency by something like 40%.

    http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3385

    Maybe both can be used for a super-lightbulb?

    -xed

    1. Re:lasers? by mftb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And what exactly is wrong with variety in the market (and bulbs for which you don't have to wait five minutes to reach full brightness)?

    2. Re:lasers? by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      who pays to clean up the pollution caused by the power plants that generate electric power for the bulbs?

      It should be charged back to the power plants in question, and therefore be built into the cost of the electricity.

      We're a lot further along that than we used to be 40 years ago, the plants capture a lot of the pollution rather than emitting it*. We're still not all the way.

      As for the efficiency, I think that a 30% improvement is just enough to keep them available under the proposed bans, like what California proposed.

      Can't find a link, but I remember the law requiring bulbs to be something like 30% more efficient, they weren't banning incandescents by name.

      Of course, I also saw on a couple of the sites I checked that there was a proposal against CRT TVs. My old 32" CRT TV(Energy Star rated for it's time) takes less energy, as measured by a meter, both as a unit and per square inch of visible screen, than my new 42" LCD TV(also Energy Star).

      *And make a bit of change selling the valuable commodities that would be pollution if just released

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    3. Re:lasers? by RDW · · Score: 4, Informative

      Philips already has production tungsten halogen bulbs with standard bayonet and screw fittings ('EcoClassic 50' here in the UK) that only use about 50% of the power required by conventional tungsten lamps:

      http://www.lighting.philips.com/gl_en/news/press/innovations/2008/home_ecoclassic.php?main=global&parent=4390&id=gl_en_news&lang=en

      Right now these are only available in lower wattages, and the 100W replacement still draws 70W like those in the NYT article ('EcoClassic 30' over here). But it looks like existing technologies should be able to bring down the power consumption of this class of bulbs across the board. Lots of details, teardowns of current devices and predictions of future developments here:

      http://www.eceee.org/press/B_Class_lamps/BClassHalogens_and_beyond-eceeeReportDecember12.pdf

  2. Dimmer Savior! by MukiMuki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The moment I find these in stores I am IMMEDIATELY buying a few and replacing every bulb attached to a dimmer switch in my house. Ask anyone with a light dimmer who switched to CFL's, and this'll immediately be their biggest caveat with the tech.

  3. Canada eh! by aoteoroa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I live in Edmonton Alberta, Canada where 8 months of winter is fairly common. Here our old incandescent bulbs have 100% efficiency because the heat generated does not go to waste :-)

    1. Re:Canada eh! by aoteoroa · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well partially true... Alberta has some vast reserves of oil and natural gas, but just like oil it is sold at international market rates. They don't sell it any cheaper to albertans just because its extracted here.

  4. Re:only 30% more efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Uh.. you can't just stick the bulb in the recycle bin. You have to dispose of it in the proper recycle bin. (and live in a community that has a proper recycle bin for mercury containing bulbs. Mine has a "special dispensation" for CFLs, so if I want my bulbs recycled I have to go out of my way to make sure it happens. Way out of my way. either a 30 minute drive to home depot which I think might work, or an hour and a half drive to the recycle company. by appointment. on specific days only.)

  5. Re:only 30% more efficient? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The "mercury" issue should be easily solved by disposing the bulbs in the correct way

    Breakage - accidents happen in the home, office and ...... car(?) OK forget the car for now. the is the list of steps to safely dispose of broken CFL coils (bulbs) -

          Before Clean-up: Ventilate the Room

          1. Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
          2. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
          3. Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.

                Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces

          4. Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
          5. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
          6. Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the glass jar or plastic bag.
          7. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

                Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug

          8. Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
          9. Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
        10. If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
        11. Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.

                Disposal of Clean-up Materials

        12. Immediately place all cleanup materials outside the building in a trash container or outdoor protected area for the next normal trash.
        13. Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
        14. Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.

                Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Ventilate the Room During and After Vacuuming

        15. The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming.
        16. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.

    a great way to spend the afternoon, huh?

  6. Wrong. by zippthorne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You would find less overall electricity usage by switching to CFL and using the difference in power to run a heat pump. Worst case scenario, the ground doesn't have any heat to give you and your pump defaults to standard resistance heating, which is where you are now. All other scenarios are improvements on that.

    Unless, of course, you're not currently using electric resistance heating as your main heat supply. In which case, by answering the question, "why not," you will also know why you're not saving anything by relying on your lamps as auxiliary heat.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  7. I'm sorry but... by cats2ndlife · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sorry but this so called new technology is a farce. 30% improvement in efficiency over 5% efficiency is still just 8% overall. At $5 apiece, which is way more then a CFL, which goes around $2.5 to $3.3 apiece, and it's 75% efficiency, I'm going for CFL.

    1. Re:I'm sorry but... by Chatterton · · Score: 4, Informative

      hum, hum...

      Incandescent: 2.0-2.2% efficiency
      Halogen: 2.4-2.9% efficiency
      Compact fluorescent: 8â"11% efficiency

      We are far from your 5% and 75% efficiency...But your point is valid but not so staggering...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2

  8. Re:Government Regulation by gbjbaanb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Replacing a $0.25 bulb with a $5 bulb is not a good use of government power. People can do that on their own, if it suits them.

    no they can't - no-one in their right mind would buy a roughly equivalent 25c bulb for $5, and as a result, the manufacturers would not even bother trying to make and sell them. Net result: 25c bulbs are the only option.

    Sometimes you need some external stimulus to provoke a change in a stable environment, like sticking your finger in still water.

    Similarly, saying "the market will provide more power stations", well yes it will - eventually, in the meantime while the market is getting to the point where more power is required, you're suffering brownouts. Besides, it is often in the market's interest to let you suffer like that as they you will pay more.

    Sometimes you need more forward planning and organisation than market forces allow.

    These 2 factors are why we need and have governments, if only life was as simple as you think, we'd be living in a utopia.

  9. A modest proposal by Man+On+Pink+Corner · · Score: 5, Funny

    On the other hand, mercury is toxic forever. It never, ever, becomes safe, no matter how long you wait. When the glass breaks it'll poison you just as well in a million years as it does today.

    No, no, you're missing the beauty of it. Instead of using normal mercury, there should be a mandate for light bulbs to use mercury-194, which has a half-life of 444 years. A perfectly-manageable timeframe for waste storage.

    Another cool thing is that the bulb lights up without even being plugged in. It actually generates energy rather than consuming it.

    But here's the really cool thing: according to Wikipedia, Hg-194 decays by electron capture into Au-194. That's right, in 400 years half of the mercury in your light bulb will have turned to gold. Replace all of your household lamps with Hg-194 compact fluorescents, and you won't even want to throw your burned-out light bulbs away in the first place!

    It's amazing how many seemingly-intractable environmental problems would go away if people would just think outside the box a little.

    1. Re:A modest proposal by u38cg · · Score: 4, Funny

      Occasionally a crackhead^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H mod will be so impressed by a funny post that they will award it karma-bearing insightful mods as opposed to karma-less funny mods. Alternatively, they're so dumb they believed it, which is not as unlikely as it used to be.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:A modest proposal by u38cg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also, you can apparently get modded up despite calling them crackheads and dumb in the same post. Mods are asses. Neener neener.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  10. Light Bulbs...The LEAST of our worries by geekmux · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cripes, the infamous light bulb efficiency gimmick again. What's next, we gonna tie light bulb usage to Global Warming?

    Seriously, any of you ever actually take a measurement of your electric usage in your house? Instead of screwing with 60W of light you use really only part of the day, take a look at your A/C unit. Older A/C units under 10 SEER drawing 20A or more will suck $80 - $120/month out of your wallet while new ones will draw less than 1/2 of that (7 - 10A). A dryer that runs 2 hours a day (not hard for a family of four) will run over $30/month pulling 20A. Own a pool? Average 1HP pump will suck another $25 - $35/month from your wallet if you run it according to what you've heard is "the norm". Geek running a server farm out of your home powered 24/7? Had a measly el-cheapo Dell headless tower that ran me $10/month by itself.

    Point here is there's a HELL of a lot MORE we can fine tune and adjust lifestyles around to save a hell of a lot more than that 60W light bulb that you don't even turn off when you leave a room anyway.

    Technology for Al Gores sake is not always necessary.

  11. Re:only 30% more efficient? by hazem · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Compare that to the method for incandescent bulbs:

    1) sweep broken bulb pieces into adust pan and dump in the garbage

    Plus I don't have to turn off my central air each time I clean the floor after that.

  12. Re:only 30% more efficient? by hldn · · Score: 4, Informative

    Huh, 2 tablespoons of Mercury weigh a pound? What planet are these guys living on? They're off by a factor of _ten_ (22 tablespoons of Mercury weigh about a pount, assuming 15 ml per Tsp).

    huh? you need to go back to either a science class or a math class.

    density of mercury = 13.534 g/cm^3 (cm^3 = milliliter)
    1 pound = 453.59237 grams
    1 pound of mercury = 453.59237 / 13.53400 = 33.5150266 ml
    33.5150266 ml = 2.26655574 US tablespoons

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  13. Re:only 30% more efficient? by Ihlosi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Seems people already know how to use their water in the most efficient manner.

    Planting a lawn in the middle of a fscking desert is not using water in an efficient manner, no matter how many days per week you're allowed to water it.

  14. Only on paper by crmarvin42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can never shift the burden away from the Taxpayers for a utility. By definition a Utility is needed by all (or so close to all as to be insignificantly different). Any increase in overhead (Fuel, Taxes, Regulations, Environmental Stewardship, Waste handling, etc) will be passed on to the consumer to pay as part of their utility bill.

    Cap and Trade will make my electric bill go up, not decrease the profits or pay of executives at the power company. Now, I'd be willing to eat that cost if everyone else were going to have to as well, but that won't be the case. Manufacturers that can, will move their power intensive operations over seas to countries that don't participate in the cap and trade system. It'll save them money, lose the US jobs, and drive down the business of companies that cannot/willnot relocate somewhere else.

    This is the fundamental aspect of business that many in washington do not understand. Any move you make to increase operating costs in the US will simply result in the gradual movement of those industries affect to other countries that are less expensive to operate in.

    Unless you can get the UN to jam this system down the throats of every industrialized manufacturing country, it's just going to make the US economy worse while helping the economy somewhere else. Not a big problem while the US was booming, but definitely counter productive under the current situation.

    --
    Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde