Author Topic: Oh the humanity, 40 and 60W incandescent bulbs are being discontinued in the US!  (Read 20716 times)

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
The thing that always gets me with this topic is that incandescents aren't disappearing under this law. What is disappearing is the traditional tungsten filament bulb, and only for general lighting fixtures (you can still get 'em for appliances). In its place, there are still new higher efficiency incandescent-based halogen bulbs for not much more per bulb. Yes, they're more expensive than the tungsten, but their filament life is considerably longer too.

Thanks for the info, this is really good to know!

Honestly, getting rid of incandescents altogether really WOULD suck for me because I live in a rental house that has 24(!!) recessed can fixtures, instead of regular ceiling fixtures. I did a little research since I'm desperately trying to reduce our electricity bill, and read that CFLs are NOT recommend for use in recessed fixtures. If we owned this place I would absolutely invest in LEDs, but I don't want to spend that money on someone else's house when I don't know how long we will be there. So when bulbs burn out, I replace them with the same old incandescents. (but if anyone has helpful info/a good alternative, PLEASE let me know!!!) :)

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5322
It also ignores the PF rating of these cheap CFLs that usually run somewhere around 0.6 at best. By the time you adjust for actual generator load to meet the VA requirements of a CFL, the effective power draw difference between them and the new long life, higher efficiency tungsten-halogens with a natural 1.0 PF rated at the same lumen becomes marginal.

What's the PF output of your house? Does the reactive power cancel out the reactive power of your other appliances (fridge, tv, microwave, laptop)? How does it affect your neighbor's out-of-phase electricity? If this is a problem, why isn't the electric company installing large caps in your neighborhood to fix the issue? (Answer below)

Even if a CFL's reactive power was a problem all the way to the generator (remember that there's both leading and lagging power dropped on the line), the increase is minimal and still way below a tungsten bulb's power needs. Finally, reactive power is returned to the load. The only loss is generally from line loss. If a 15 watt CFL saves 45 watts over an incandescent and requires additional power of ~2 watts, it's still a decrease of 43 watts. That reduces energy spent producing those 43 watts as well as 43 watts of line loss.


tl;dr - The PF of a CFL is a red herring.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 12:47:22 PM by bacchi »

Russ

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2213
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Boulder, CO
If we owned this place I would absolutely invest in LEDs, but I don't want to spend that money on someone else's house when I don't know how long we will be there.

Buy the LEDs, save all the still-good incandescents, switch them back in when you move out and take the LEDs with you

acroy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1699
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Dallas TX
    • SWAMI
From the link:

Quote
By 2020, a Tier 2 would become effective which requires all bulbs to be at least 70% more efficient (effectively equal to today’s CFLs).

Meh.  Requiring all products to meet the technical requirements of one specific product (in this case, CFLs) is just another way of limiting competition.  This is precisely the way corporate lobbyists work in conjunction with politicians.  "I'm not banning your large soda, I'm just requiring that it meet the same volume content as the 12-ounce one that I happen to own a bunch of patents on." 

I'm completely supportive of energy efficient products.  I just am highly skeptical of government interventions into product markets.  There's always more to it than meets the eye.

+1

This is a limitation of our freedom... Is this really important enough for Gooberment to get involved?

rocksinmyhead

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Location: Oklahoma
If we owned this place I would absolutely invest in LEDs, but I don't want to spend that money on someone else's house when I don't know how long we will be there.

Buy the LEDs, save all the still-good incandescents, switch them back in when you move out and take the LEDs with you

well d'oh to me :) Sometimes the best ideas are the most obvious...

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
This is a limitation of our freedom... Is this really important enough for Gooberment to get involved?

OTOH, isn't it a limitation of my freedom to force me to deal with the byproducts of your waste that you can't be bothered to handle yourself?

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
tl;dr - The PF of a CFL is a red herring.

It's not the red herring that you think it is. Your reply appears to be confusing both DpPF and PF at times, and you're trying to make an argument based on lumen output. My point is that incandescent is less environmentally damaging per watt used than nearly any other artificial light source, so long as bulb lifespans are equal between lighting technologies. The truth is, if you care about reducing your energy consumption, the PF rating does matter. If all you care about is buying those $2 subsidized CFL bulbs and lowering your kWh based electric bill, then yes, it is a red herring.

I'll try to keep it short and sweet. Let's strip out the giant capacitors, other appliances... everything. We have one generator, one 14W tungsten bulb, and one 0.6PF CFL bulb rated at 14W. Yes or no: will this CFL place a greater load on the wiring and generator than the tungsten bulb would?

It's an issue of demand load. As you pointed out, capacitors help to offset the immediate load on the grid when these devices are active, but they aren't perfect. What you overlook is that this additional infrastructure, build-out and energy storage had to come from somewhere in the first place. This is why power utilities are installing smart meters and starting to bill everyone by the kVA used because there are very real consequences that the power grid must accommodate to handle these devices, which eats up even more resources. As you said though, there are ways to offset that load... but they require overbuilding the grid, the generators and storing power. All that has to come from somewhere.

The common goal here with all of us should be to lower our overall and total energy consumption. The less we load the system in total, the more efficient the system is and the less resources are needed to keep it operational. Make sense?

CG

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
In the 15 years I lived in this flat I've never had to replace the incandescent globes in bedroom, kitchen and bathroom that were here when I moved in, all in "clamshell" fittings. I did have a ceiling leak that ran through the light fitting in the living-room and replaced the 2 incandescent globes there with "warm white" CFLs, one of which I had to replace after I inadvertently left that light on when I went away on holiday for 3 weeks (shame on me!).

That was 3 years ago and I still have to dispose of the 'dead' CFL globe. The recycling places my local Council offers are too far away for me to access without a car. So it sits there, and I'd love to be able to get rid of it responsibly. 

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5322
I'll try to keep it short and sweet. Let's strip out the giant capacitors, other appliances... everything. We have one generator, one 14W tungsten bulb, and one 0.6PF CFL bulb rated at 14W. Yes or no: will this CFL place a greater load on the wiring and generator than the tungsten bulb would?

Why would I want to replace a 14w tungsten with a 14w CFL? That makes no sense unless the 14w tungsten puts out as many lumens as the 14w CFL. Do they?

Quote
As you said though, there are ways to offset that load... but they require overbuilding the grid, the generators and storing power. All that has to come from somewhere.

If a system is built for a 60w bulb, it can handle a 15w/30va CFL. If we're looking at the single case of one CFL on a grid, then, yes, it will need equipment to handle/recover the reactive power. That's not reality, though, so I'll ask again:

What is the kVA coming out of your house? What's the kVA coming out of the average house? If you turn on your desktop or ceiling fan, does the kVA change? (Think of a cap and inductor in series....)

Quote
The common goal here with all of us should be to lower our overall and total energy consumption. The less we load the system in total, the more efficient the system is and the less resources are needed to keep it operational. Make sense?

Yes and that's why CFLs are better. You're confusing apparent power and real power. The reactive part of apparent power is not lost in the ether. It's recycled. Yes, it will need equipment and larger wires but that leads us to...

Your entire argument hinges on whether incandescent bulbs put our more lumens than CFLs. A quick search finds the incandescent lumens/watt around 18. Are there better halogens out there? A 43w halogen compared to a 15w CFL, even with kVA loss for the CFL, still uses more energy.

« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 04:51:46 PM by bacchi »

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Your entire argument hinges on whether incandescent bulbs put our more lumens than CFLs.

you're trying to make an argument based on lumen output. My point is that incandescent is less environmentally damaging per watt used than nearly any other artificial light source, so long as bulb lifespans are equal between lighting technologies.

It has nothing to do with lumens, and in fact, the point is that by sacrificing brightness and focusing on the type of bulb technology used per watt of light generated as opposed to the brightness had for that wattage, incandescent is far less environmentally damaging in home usage situations than CFL. If you hadn't noticed, the entire argument is to use less power, fewer resources, and less light.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5322
It has nothing to do with lumens, and in fact, the point is that by sacrificing brightness and focusing on the type of bulb technology used per watt of light generated as opposed to the brightness had for that wattage, incandescent is far less environmentally damaging in home usage situations than CFL. If you hadn't noticed, the entire argument is to use both less power and less light.

I still don't follow. Using less light is one thing and we should do that. But why would I replace a 14w tungsten with a 14w CFL? Wouldn't I just replace it with a 3w CFL and save energy that way? Same lumens, less energy. 3w < 14w.

Or, to follow your line of reasoning, I could replace it with a 1w CFL for less light and even less energy.


Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
I still don't follow. Using less light is one thing and we should do that. But why would I replace a 14w tungsten with a 14w CFL? Wouldn't I just replace it with a 3w CFL and save energy that way? Same lumens, less energy. 3w < 14w.

Or, to follow your line of reasoning, I could replace it with a 1w CFL for less light and even less energy.

This is where the whole environmental impact of the bulb itself from creation to destruction starts to factor in, in addition to the far less robust nature of the device in operating conditions. An under-rated incandescent is less likely to burn out on switch on, and throughout its life. CFL efficiency and environmental impact calculations are built off of assumptions that they actually get the lifespan on the box, and incandescents barely get a tenth of that, and only then are those numbers also run against lumen per lumen usage between bulb types.

Then we level the playing field. We toss halogen into the mix that requires a fraction of the resources to create, we throw it on a dimmer that gives a now 100% recyclable bulb with minimal hazardous heavy metal toxins a lifespan that rivals the CFL box quoted lifespan (or more) and has minimal environmental impact if it isn't properly recycled, then we factor the issues with CFLs and power cycling and cheap ballasts cutting their lives drastically shorter, and there you have it.

Which would you rather have now? A $10 40W equivalent CFL running at 10W with a two year life expectancy, or a $1 24W under-rated halogen bulb that'll give you more than five years and about 40W worth of light? In a way, we do circle a bit back around to lumens in the argument, because through it we're able to quantify if the savings in power outranks its environmental impact at these lighting levels. The question becomes in this case, assuming 6 hour a day operation, is saving maybe 30.6kWh a year sufficient to offset the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs to get that lower consumption in addition to the environmental hazards that come along with making it? What about if you use it even less than that?

The CFL is only a clean technology here, because we hide the exhaust pipe in Asia. All artificial light is dirty and it comes down to trading one evil for another. You use open flame, you risk burning houses and create soot in your immediate environment. You use tungsten, you get less light per watt used and is a power consumption nightmare if you want to light the world to daylight levels at midnight. You use CFL in a disposable society, you create an environmental nightmare with mercury exposure. You use LED, you utilize incredibly finite resources that are difficult to recycle. Consequences for everything. The way I measure it, the important thing is to use as little as possible across the board. Trading the brightness for the least environmentally damaging to manufacture light from what I've seen and understood so long as I can make it last and keep my total usage as low as possible? It's the lesser evil.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 05:57:28 PM by I.P. Daley »

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
This is where the whole environmental impact of the bulb itself from creation to destruction starts to factor in, in addition to the far less robust nature of the device in operating conditions.

You know, people have done lifecycle analyses of light bulbs, such as this: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fapps1.eere.energy.gov%2Fbuildings%2Fpublications%2Fpdfs%2Fssl%2F2012_LED_Lifecycle_Report.pdf&ei=cqjHUoC6B9jeoAT2h4DIBw&usg=AFQjCNHz8IwxGrniZuQn6hhkIzD3ngMmWw&sig2=7zKy0jCDmeeUtWwWuFYq8g (the link is to a pdf - if it doesn't work, search on 'eere light bulbs lifecycle cost')

The report has a nice graphic showing estimated total cost.

Posthumane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Location: Alberta
    • Getting Around Canada
Most of my general lighting is thus:

43W 750 lumen Philips EcoVantage, 1000 hour rated, single phase rectifier dimmer (cheap selenium hi/lo/off switch)
Dimmer stats: 24.8W, 0.91PF, 27VA, ~330-380 lumens-ish (I don't have a pro digital meter, but the crappy Android light meter apps report this ballpark range with the light sensors). Room brightness is about perceptively equal to a traditional tungsten 40W, but a touch warmer in color. Math says it should only be 240 lumens, but it's definitely brighter than that. *shrugs* Should clock in around a 76k hour lifespan, again by the math. I have yet to have a cheap 1000 hour tungsten bulb blow on a dimmer since making the changes. Like I've said, I've got some on dimmers pushing 10k hours. One bulb well located in a 10 by room with white/light walls is plenty for general lighting. Task lighting may be necessary depending on proximity to the bulb and involved task.

We've got a couple of the 29W EcoVantages on the same dimmers for our bedside tables. I can't remember the numbers off those. It's not bright, but I can read by it if I'm in direct light... but my corneas also haven't hardened and gone yellow yet.
Thanks for the info about your lighting setup. Do you use any kind of reflectors on your task lighting? One of the reasons I've always liked LEDs is the built in lens which offers a fair amount of directionality (depending on the particular LED). I think one of the keys to using less light is not lighting up unnecessary areas like the corners of one's ceiling.
Anyway, your 330-380 lm output estimate is the equivalent of a 25 W bulb putting out around 13-15 lm/W, which is a little lower than most high power incandescents are rated but not by much, so the slight power reduction doesn't seem to reduce efficiency a whole lot.

(Keep in mind that luminous flux can't actually be measured directly using a point meter since the bulb and light fixture would have to be an isotropic radiator (radiating light equally in all directions) which none actually are. What you could actually measure with a point device is luminous intensity, usually specified in candella).

While you won't be able to match your theoretical lifespan of 76k Hr with a CFL, it can be done with a properly designed LED bulb. The key with LEDs is head management - the cheap ones without enough heat sinking will eventually burn out (sometimes rather quickly) whereas LEDs without heat issues run continuously for decades, including in short cycle situations. White LED bulbs put nowadays produce on the order of 50-80 lm/W. So, just as a quick comparison, using the lower end of the efficiency scale we would need a 7 W LED bulb to get the same light output as your light fixture (ignoring colour temperature for now). Using your six hour per day figure that's a difference of 39.4 kWh per year per bulb. I pay about $0.10 to $0.13/kWh so the electricity cost of using a 25W incandescent instead of a 7W LED is around $4-5/year. Since I can get LED bulbs at Costco for $4.66 ($14 for a 3 pack) they would have to burn out every year in order for the incandescent to be more economical to run. Of course, this is just looking at it from an economics point of view and I'm ignoring the environmental aspects in this discussion, though in a perfect world the externalities would be captured in the price of the bulb.

ender

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5839
Just an observation, I recently bought the 100W replacements instead of 60W replacements (which had over 2x as much lumen output, I think 1875 vs 800ish) for about 30% more each but I am very satisfied with their brightness once they warm up.


If you folks really dislike CFLs I would consider doing the same.

ritchie70

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 268
I help out my mother in law quite a bit with things. Was in her linen closet and saw probably 72 40 and 60 watt bulbs on her top shelf.

Sigh. The woman has zero savings, lives off social security and our generosity, has a $100+ monthly cable bill, a Fox News addiction, a mean temper, a sharp tongue and is constantly buying crap.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Thanks for the info about your lighting setup. Do you use any kind of reflectors on your task lighting? One of the reasons I've always liked LEDs is the built in lens which offers a fair amount of directionality (depending on the particular LED). I think one of the keys to using less light is not lighting up unnecessary areas like the corners of one's ceiling.
Anyway, your 330-380 lm output estimate is the equivalent of a 25 W bulb putting out around 13-15 lm/W, which is a little lower than most high power incandescents are rated but not by much, so the slight power reduction doesn't seem to reduce efficiency a whole lot.

(Keep in mind that luminous flux can't actually be measured directly using a point meter since the bulb and light fixture would have to be an isotropic radiator (radiating light equally in all directions) which none actually are. What you could actually measure with a point device is luminous intensity, usually specified in candella).

While you won't be able to match your theoretical lifespan of 76k Hr with a CFL, it can be done with a properly designed LED bulb. The key with LEDs is head management - the cheap ones without enough heat sinking will eventually burn out (sometimes rather quickly) whereas LEDs without heat issues run continuously for decades, including in short cycle situations. White LED bulbs put nowadays produce on the order of 50-80 lm/W. So, just as a quick comparison, using the lower end of the efficiency scale we would need a 7 W LED bulb to get the same light output as your light fixture (ignoring colour temperature for now). Using your six hour per day figure that's a difference of 39.4 kWh per year per bulb. I pay about $0.10 to $0.13/kWh so the electricity cost of using a 25W incandescent instead of a 7W LED is around $4-5/year. Since I can get LED bulbs at Costco for $4.66 ($14 for a 3 pack) they would have to burn out every year in order for the incandescent to be more economical to run. Of course, this is just looking at it from an economics point of view and I'm ignoring the environmental aspects in this discussion, though in a perfect world the externalities would be captured in the price of the bulb.

Someone who gets it, hooray!

Honestly, a lot of bright light task lighting if short-term (around 5-15 minutes) winds up just being flipping the switch for an overhead 60W (or equivalent - or lower depending on room size) incandescent, but they don't get much use. If it's longer term stuff like reading or whatnot, battery powered LED book readers, desk lamps, Thinklight, that sort of thing steps in... reflectors are quite useful, but once you get used to the dimmer light, you find you might not need as much task lighting as you might think outside of the kitchen and maybe reading after dark in the first place.

As to the LED lifespan point, I do know they can grow dimmer throughout their lifecycle and that heat management is one of the biggest points of longevity, but there's no money in making a lightbulb that actually lasts, especially when you can justify charging a premium price. The cheaper and more streamlined the manufacturing process gets, the cheaper these bulbs will get. Similar to the CFLs, the failure point will be those cheap and non-replaceable driver boards and inadequate heatsinks. Once we're past the early adopter phase, I don't trust manufacturers to deliver on the promises they make towards longevity, and many barely do already.

I completely agree on the pricing issue, by the way... subsidies have so thoroughly distorted and hidden the real price of these CFL and LED bulbs on the market from the consumer, you don't realize how costly they actually are. The price should more accurately reflect the materials that have gone into them.



You know, people have done lifecycle analyses of light bulbs, such as this
-snip-
The report has a nice graphic showing estimated total cost.

And that would be a great counterargument if those numbers actually scaled in a linear fashion as the wattage usage and lumen output per bulb type decreases, if most CFLs actually lasted 8000 hours, and if people couldn't actually extend incandescent lifespans into CFL and LED service lengths.

Too bad it only focuses on 60W incandescent equivalents, uses hour lifespan ratings to base those calculations on that are irrelevant to the discussion and points being made given implementation methods and usage scenarios used, and ignores the energy costs of cleaning up after improperly disposed bulbs as well.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2014, 10:43:10 PM by I.P. Daley »

Posthumane

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Location: Alberta
    • Getting Around Canada
The cheaper and more streamlined the manufacturing process gets, the cheaper these bulbs will get. Similar to the CFLs, the failure point will be those cheap and non-replaceable driver boards and inadequate heatsinks. Once we're past the early adopter phase, I don't trust manufacturers to deliver on the promises they make towards longevity, and many barely do already.
I see where you are coming from on that point, and I would say there is a good chance you're right if things stay as they are. There are two things which could help alleviate that issue:

a) More oversight and honest testing of the products on the market. Since it's fairly well known that CFLs don't live up to their rated lifespans because test conditions don't reflect real world usage, the test conditions should be changed. Alternatively, the mean number of cycles between failures could be printed as a metric instead of or in addition to the number of hours. Right now there are some good LED and CFL bulbs for sale, and a lot of crappy ones. Consumers don't have any way to distinguish between them since price alone is not a good indicator of quality.

b) There is no need to restrict LED lighting to the point source, E27 base screw in bulb form factor. LEDs work well as distributed lighting such as light strips or panels, with standalone power supplies. Manufacturers who make LED drivers have an incentive to make them well if that is their product, rather than a standalone E27 base replacement bulb. I've added strip lights in the kitchen under the cabinets as task lighting, and plan to do so in other parts of the house as well. The same can be done with compact fluorescent tubes in various places instead of using them in traditional light fixtures made for incandescent bulbs.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
b) There is no need to restrict LED lighting to the point source, E27 base screw in bulb form factor. LEDs work well as distributed lighting such as light strips or panels, with standalone power supplies. Manufacturers who make LED drivers have an incentive to make them well if that is their product, rather than a standalone E27 base replacement bulb. I've added strip lights in the kitchen under the cabinets as task lighting, and plan to do so in other parts of the house as well. The same can be done with compact fluorescent tubes in various places instead of using them in traditional light fixtures made for incandescent bulbs.

I can agree to this point to a point. It's a great solution towards certain spot and task lighting, but as you've said, LEDs are directional by nature. Similar can be done in non E27 form factor for longer life with fluorescent as well, which can be omni-directional, but it still ignores the fundamental toxicity and light quality issues to the technology. It also brings us around to the nature and long standing success of the Edison screw form factor and room lighting nature of tungsten bulbs as well as the consequences of abandoning the current infrastructure that uses them. Globally, there's likely hundreds of millions, if not billions of E11/12/14/17/26/27 sockets (not counting the Moguls, which aren't likely to be found in a household) in use around the globe currently. What about the environmental impact and costs of retrofitting or replacing all of these fixtures to accommodate the necessary form factor changes to make the more efficient technology last longer? In the case of LED, how do you overcome its directional nature to rival one of the features that makes the Edison bulb so successful in many of its applications (that being, the omni-directional nature)?

Here's a great (and very tiny) example: My shul's ner tamid (the eternal flame) over our ark. We had been using a basic C7/E12 4W night light for years, but the things were prone to blowing about once every six months near the end. About a year and a half ago, we replaced it with one of these, not necessarily for the power savings, but for longevity as the newer C7/E12 tungsten bulbs just don't last very long anymore by design. It's been going strong since, but most of its light is shot straight up, out the top, and the sides of the fixture are only slightly visibly glowing when the sanctuary lights are up to their maximum output (not much visibly brighter than unlit). Unfortunately, due to the design, we cannot employ a reflector on the top to redirect some of that light due to the size of the flame fixture itself. Additionally, there's no great way to employ the dimmer trick on an incandescent at this form factor/size without running into the same visible illumination issues. Should we destroy an existing fixture and a custom piece of glasswork just to accommodate the idiosyncrasies of a "more efficient" light source because bulb manufacturers are also trying to artificially shorten tungsten lifespans to make the alternatives more attractive?

(These are more rhetorical questions for everyone.) Why should we paint incandescent light as a villain? Incandescent lighting can clearly be made more efficient. Why must we as conservationists and environmentalists compromise our ethics to meet lighting requirements by dealing with the Devil so to speak? CFL has been and will be a nightmare in the home. If pollution and energy concerns are of issue, why are we continuing to feed the very problem that's causing it by continually supporting lighting up the world? Complaining about light pollution at night while using 800-900 lumen general lighting bulbs in your house is incredibly contradictory.

What we need to do is change our approach to conservation and the mindset that we all need so much light in the first place, then we have to admit that using more electronics to solve a problem isn't always a good thing. Unfortunately, these more efficient filaments are no doubt locked away in a mire of patents at this point, and given GE abandoned the technology in favor of more expensive bulbs with massive subsidies like everyone else... we need to save the Edison bulb from the well-meaning idiots and corporate monsters who put their profits over our little rock's future sustainability. It's a lighting technology that has its place and deserves far more respect than it's gotten this past decade.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 09:32:40 AM by I.P. Daley »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5322
And that would be a great counterargument if those numbers actually scaled in a linear fashion as the wattage usage and lumen output per bulb type decreases, if most CFLs actually lasted 8000 hours, and if people couldn't actually extend incandescent lifespans into CFL and LED service lengths.

Too bad it only focuses on 60W incandescent equivalents, uses hour lifespan ratings to base those calculations on that are irrelevant to the discussion and points being made given implementation methods and usage scenarios used, and ignores the energy costs of cleaning up after improperly disposed bulbs as well.

You need to read the lifecycle analysis studies again (at all?). They do account for the energy costs of cleaning up. This Danish study specifically mentions the environmental cost for production, running, and disposal and CFLs are better, period.

http://greenwashinglamps.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/iaeel-danish-life-cycle-analysis.pdf

The RMI (Rocky Mountain Institute) study states, "Ninety-three percent of the CO2e emissions from a CFL lamp occur during the operation phase, while approximately 7 percent occur during assembly." You can run the numbers yourself but, even if every CFL died at 1000 hours, they'd still be better than incandescent bulbs.

In other words, the production, while important, isn't the elephant in the room.*

You're also continually trying to compare apples and oranges as far as usage patterns. A 1w LED will last 75,000 hours and use less energy than anything your tungsten can scale down to that's usable. Why aren't you using high-quality 1w LEDs like I am to read? What's up with this wasteful 5w business? Over 10,000 hours, the LED would use 10,000w while the incandescent would use 50,000w and the LED would still be around.

Finally, where do you get the "the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs" from? Can you please source that? Thanks.



*The EERE study, the Parsons study, and the two linked above do take into account the disposal of the bulbs. In fact, the EERE study lists others studies that include disposal costs in the lifecycle analysis.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
You need to read the lifecycle analysis studies again (at all?). They do account for the energy costs of cleaning up. This Danish study specifically mentions the environmental cost for production, running, and disposal and CFLs are better, period.

disposal through recycling or incineration =/= environmental cleanup of a broken CFL bulb in populous areas and near potable water sources

The rest is showing your inability to comprehend words, do math, or keep up with the discussion.

Edit: I also find it hilarious that you're trying to prove me wrong about the hazards of CFL bulbs by citing studies hosted on a website that basically argues the same thing that I am using those same said studies.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 11:18:01 AM by I.P. Daley »

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5322
The rest is showing your inability to comprehend words, do math, or keep up with the discussion.

And studies supporting your conjectures are where?

Can you source your statement "the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs"? Thanks.


Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
And that would be a great counterargument if those numbers actually scaled in a linear fashion as the wattage usage and lumen output per bulb type decreases, if most CFLs actually lasted 8000 hours...

And where exactly is the evidence that they don't?  All I've seen is your anecdotal evidence, whic I match with my anecdotal evidence that they last lobger, on average.

Quote
and if people couldn't actually extend incandescent lifespans into CFL and LED service lengths.

Ignoring the fact that in order to do so, they have to be run well below their design rating, meaning lower filament temperatures, and so even more electricity wasted as heat.

Quote
Too bad it only focuses on 60W incandescent equivalents, uses hour lifespan ratings to base those calculations on that are irrelevant to the discussion and points being made given implementation methods and usage scenarios used, and ignores the energy costs of cleaning up after improperly disposed bulbs as well.

If you want better, find it.  As for the energy costs of cleanup, perhaps the point here is that such cleanup isn't actually necessary?

In the case of LED, how do you overcome its directional nature to rival one of the features that makes the Edison bulb so successful in many of its applications (that being, the omni-directional nature)?

I don't know exactly how, but the couple of LEDs that I've gotten so far have managed it.  Perhaps too well, as I was hoping for something more directional than they actually are.  Indeed, you could easily turn your question around, and ask how to overcome the omnidirectional nature of the Edison bulb that makes it so poorly suited for many tasks?

Quote
Here's a great (and very tiny) example: My shul's ner tamid (the eternal flame) over our ark.

For something like that, I'd think you'd want to use several small white LEDs in your custom fixture.  Wired independently (like traffic signals, or LED taillights), so that if one element fails, the rest still work.

Quote
Why should we paint incandescent light as a villain? Incandescent lighting can clearly be made more efficient.

Except that incandescent lighting can't be made much more efficient.  That's down to fundamental physics, and the melting point of tungsten.  Even a perfect black body radiator at 3400C is going to put out much of its energy in the infrared.  You're not going to get really natural light, either, since the sun radiates at about 5500C.

However, if it could be made efficient, there'd be no problem.  There is no ban on incandescent bulbs, just an energy efficiency standard.

Quote
Why must we as conservationists and environmentalists compromise our ethics to meet lighting requirements by dealing with the Devil so to speak? CFL has been and will be a nightmare in the home.

Not so, in my experience, and I think that of most people.  In any case, CFLs are old tech now, and will gradually be replaced.

Quote
If pollution and energy concerns are of issue, why are we continuing to feed the very problem that's causing it by continually supporting lighting up the world? Complaining about light pollution at night while using 800-900 lumen general lighting bulbs in your house is incredibly contradictory.

But that's an entirely different issue.  Indoor lighting makes very little contribution to light pollution.  That's caused by people insisting on lighting up the outdoors.  I don't have actual numbers, but casual observation suggests that not much of this is incandescent or CFL, but metal halide or high pressure sodium.

Quote
...given GE abandoned the technology in favor of more expensive bulbs with massive subsidies like everyone else...

Yeah, along with the 200 mph carburettor :-)

mbk

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 146
If we owned this place I would absolutely invest in LEDs, but I don't want to spend that money on someone else's house when I don't know how long we will be there.

Buy the LEDs, save all the still-good incandescents, switch them back in when you move out and take the LEDs with you

This is what I used to do before. Nowadays the apartments come with CFLs.

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Can you source your statement "the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs"? Thanks.

You have access to all the same resources that I have. Another CFL defender in this thread already provided government backed studies that show CFL production uses even worse than a generous 10 fold manufacture increase per bulb than I'd even given it credit for. Ten times the resources per bulb, at least 2.5 CFL bulbs to match the same lifespan... there's your 25 fold increase. Try reading the same studies you're trying to smear me as not reading yourself.





You're adorable.

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047
...at least 2.5 CFL bulbs to match the same lifespan...

There's your problem: garbage in, garbage out.  If instead you use the generally accepted - that is, supported by more than your anecdotes - 6-8 incandescent to 1 CFL lifespan, you get a much different number.



You're adorable.

Why, thank you.  I never knew you cared.  (blush)

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Why, thank you.  I never knew you cared.  (blush)

I do James, and this is why we keep doing this.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5322

You have access to all the same resources that I have. Another CFL defender in this thread already provided government backed studies that show CFL production uses even worse than a generous 10 fold manufacture increase per bulb than I'd even given it credit for. Ten times the resources per bulb, at least 2.5 CFL bulbs to match the same lifespan... there's your 25 fold increase.

What government backed study? The EERE one? Table 4.5 shows the manufacturing costs for various bulbs. Is that what you mean? We know it costs more to manufacture CFLs and LEDs. It's about the operation, though, not the production. (Take a look at table 4.7.)

"For a CFL it was found that manufacturing energy use ranges between 0.3 and 12 percent averaging at about 4.3 percent."

Let me remind you. You wrote, "the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs." [emphasis mine]

You wrote it, you source it. Give me a chart, give me an abstract, give me something to work with.

You've already written that I can't comprehend words, do math, or keep up, so treat me like I'm a third-grader. Maybe I'll learn something. Thanks.
 

Daley

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4199
  • Location: Cow country. Moo.
  • Got that mustache feeling.
Let me remind you. You wrote, "the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs." [emphasis mine]

Which would you rather have now? A $10 40W equivalent CFL running at 10W with a two year life expectancy, or a $1 24W under-rated halogen bulb that'll give you more than five years and about 40W worth of light? In a way, we do circle a bit back around to lumens in the argument, because through it we're able to quantify if the savings in power outranks its environmental impact at these lighting levels. The question becomes in this case, assuming 6 hour a day operation, is saving maybe 30.6kWh a year sufficient to offset the roughly 25 fold increase in resources necessary to create and use those CFLs to get that lower consumption in addition to the environmental hazards that come along with making it? What about if you use it even less than that?

Perhaps not the most graceful phrasing, but the intent of what was said is perfectly clear so long as you're not being a pedantic literalist or simply not reading what was actually communicated in the first place (you do that a lot). The word use in this context means the resources necessary to get it into your hot little hands.

What government backed study? The EERE one? Table 4.5 shows the manufacturing costs for various bulbs. Is that what you mean? We know it costs more to manufacture CFLs and LEDs. It's about the operation, though, not the production. (Take a look at table 4.7.)

The efficiency gap between CFL and halogen/incandescent diminishes as the bulbs produce less light... so yes, it is just as much about the production as it is the operation in my approach. The numbers in the EERE report indicate in reality the average CFL takes nearly 30 times the resources to produce per bulb than an incandescent or halogen. When you can get an incandescent to conservatively last 25k hours (and that's lopping the number physics says these bulbs should last by more than half) due to underrating (easily outlasting three CFLs in the same span giving them an 8k hour life expectancy - bumping us up to using 90 times the resources for the same produced light), and there's maybe a 15W difference in operation for the same light produced? Do you even understand how many hours 25,000 represents? That's 2.85 years of solid, continual 24 hour use. At six hours a day, that's 11.4 years. At three hours, the standard average daily usage stats used in "Lighting Facts" sheets on the back of bulb packaging, that's 22.8 years with an average annual electrical usage difference between the two of 15.3kWh, or 1.275kWh a month. Do you have any idea how much energy your television uses? Your computer? Your refrigerator? Your stove and oven? Your hot water tank? Your climate control system?

Now, re-run those numbers where you wind up with usage scenarios with CFLs failing at 2000 hours, which is a pretty reasonable and even generous expectation with most CFLs on the market these days under a regimen of turning lights on and off as needed and having frequent sessions shorter than 15 minutes of on time. How's that production cost look in relation to operation now?

Are you seriously going to crucify people for choosing halogen bulbs over CFL under this usage arrangement even giving you the benefit of the doubt on the maximum quoted lifespan for these things?

Jamesqf

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4047

Which would you rather have now? A $10 40W equivalent CFL running at 10W with a two year life expectancy, or a $1 24W under-rated halogen bulb that'll give you more than five years and about 40W worth of light?

Perhaps not the most graceful phrasing, but the intent of what was said is perfectly clear so long as you're not being a pedantic literalist or simply not reading what was actually communicated in the first place...

But the real problem there is not the phrasing, it's your assertions that a 40W CFL will cost you $10, and last just two years, and that a halogen bulb that costs $1 will last 5 years.  Both are, in my personal experience and AFAIK according to studies, just plain wrong.

Then there are the other problems with halogen bulbs, such as the fire risk from the bulb's high temperature.  (See e.g. the Windsor Castle fire.)  And the smell of charred insects, familiar to those of us who've mistakenly bought halogen torchiere lamps .

Quote
Do you have any idea how much energy your television uses? Your computer? Your refrigerator? Your stove and oven? Your hot water tank? Your climate control system?

Don't have TV or climate control,  Refrigerator & water heater I don't know offhand, but they're recent Energy Star models.  Computer?  Well, that depends on which one, and the load.  Roughly 17 watts for the laptop, when I'm just doing text editing or web browsing.  If I fire up the tower, and run a compute-intensive job that really loads both CPU & GPU, maybe 600 watts?

The point you seem to be missing is that these are independent*, parallel, and cumulative.  If I install efficient lighting, that doesn't affect my computer or refrigerator, nor does it keep the makers of such things from offering more efficient models.  If I also buy these efficient things, the savings from them adds to my saving on lighting.

*For the most part, though waste heat affects climate control.

Quote
Now, re-run those numbers where you wind up with usage scenarios with CFLs failing at 2000 hours, which is a pretty reasonable and even generous expectation...
Quote

Again, your problem seems rooted in your unreasonable assumptions.

ForumModerator

  • Global Moderator
  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *****
  • Posts: 2
This thread seems to be going nowhere even as the personal attacks increase.

Locking thread.  Hopefully anyone looking for relevant information can find it in the earlier posts.