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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
...given GE abandoned the technology in favor of more expensive bulbs with massive subsidies like everyone else...
Yeah, along with the 200 mph carburettor :-)