| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2007/12/19-29 [Science/GlobalWarming] UID:48836 Activity:very high |
12/19 So the dumbducks in Congress are legislating what type of light
bulb I can or cannot have. Are there CFL light bulbs to fit in
chandeliers? Won't that look like ass or are they more attractive
than the standard CFL bulbs? I am thinking of filling my garage
with incandescent bulbs prior to 2014.
\_ I'm with you. A good article on similar issue:
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm
\_ People talk about CFL emitting less heat. Won't that mean
that in winter we have to run the heater that much more
often to compensate? Where is the saving? Summer?
\_ Your brain has been classified as: petite.
Think outside the box.
\_ Do you have anything useful to say?
\_ Burning fuel in your furnace to heat the house directly is
more efficient than burning the fuel at a power plant to
generate electricity and then using the electricity to
generate heat at your house. Someone talked about this here
on the MOTD a few months ago.
\_ Thanks for educating the dumb ass op. I was hoping
he'd think a bit more before his knee jerk replies.
\_ Sure, it's more efficient to do so, but you have to
take that into account when doing these 'savings'
estimates.
\_ Your A/C doesn't need to work as hard in summer.
\_ Oh my god. You are dumb. Suppose what you said was
actually true, there will still be significant savings
during summer.
\_ Maybe not, because the days are long in the summer
anyway. Read the article above. It points out a lot
of problems with CFLs - dimmers, recessed lights,
ceiling fans, oven lights, timers, motion detectors,
and so on. Legislating technology is never a good thing.
There's a lot of research about CFLs that has yet to be
performed and yet we're committing to them as a panacea.
I think it's hasty and it's a mistake. If CFLs are so
great and save everyone money then they will win over
incandescents in the marketplace - and we are seeing
that to some extent already. If there's some environmental
cost not captured in current prices, then calculate it
and pass it on. Banning a functional and well-developed
technology in favor of a technology with unknown
implications is silly. In my house, I would have to replace
a lot of fixtures, wiring, dimmers, and so on to use CFLs
if I wanted to. That is not a net savings for me or the
environment. I have to imagine that ultimately our
government will realize this and allow us to have the
bulbs we want to have at an appropriate cost.
\_ Huh? When your incadescant bulb burns out, you buy
a CFL bulb to replace it. big deal.
\_ You're an idiot who didn't read the link or pay
attention to all the situations where a CFL
won't work! It's not always a drop-in replacement.
\_ 99 Ranch Market carries dimmable CFLs, 4 for $1.99. It
works well with the light fixture at my home.
works well with the dimmer at my home.
\_ "All ravens are black"
\_ "Since not all ravens are black, you must be wrong
when you said you saw a black one."
\_ "You can't prove all ravens are black by seeing
a black raven. Therefore there must exist ravens
that are non-black, and I don't need to prove it
or even see a non-black one."
BTW, how do you know it's "working well"? Read
the article. There is some chance it's not
working well at all and you don't know it
because you never tested it.
\_ Read my above post. I wrote it works well *with
the dimmer at my home*. I didn't write it works
well with every single dimmer out there.
\_ My point is that your data is useless so
why take up bandwidth with it. You never
answered my question: How do you know it's
working well?
\_ You wrote "you never tested it" and I said
earlier it worked well at my home. If by
testing you meant scientific testing, no I
do not scientifically test everything I use
at my home. Do you scientifically test
incadescant bulbs that you use at your home
such that you know it works well with your
dimmers?
\_ You wrote "you never tested it" after I
wrote it worked well at my home. By
"working well" I took it as 1) dims just
like incadescant, 2) doesn't make a humming
noise when dimmed, 3) doesn't change color
temperature when dimmed, 4) doesn't feel
warm, nor does the dimmer switch, 5) doesn't
fail after a few months, 6) doesn't cause
electric fire to my house after a few
months. I didn't measure actual energy
usage before or after. If by testing you
meant scientific testing, no I do not
scientifically test it. Do you
scientifically test incadescant bulbs that
you use at your home such that you know it
works well with your dimmers?
\_ 1-6) aren't useful. I haven't tested
incandescent bulbs, but there has
been research done which shows they
work well. On the other hand,
research done on CFL bulbs shows
they do not work well. Your eyeball
test is not the kind of data we
should base public policy on. There
could be a 0.5% chance that you will
come home to a CFL-induced electrical
fire tomorrow for all you know.
\_ URL on the researches you mentioned
please?
\- are you going to decide which of your friends are "bulb worthy"?
\_ Common item now: http://www.google.com/search?q=cfl+candelabra
\_ Yes, but these are not clear. They look hideous, like some
sort of alien egg. Not exactly what you want in your $10K
Austrian crystal fixture. I would be willing to pay a lot of
money for regular bulbs on the blackmarket. Why not charge me
a polluter tax and let the free market decide which bulbs
we want? I feel this light bulb thing is a ridiculous fad.
We add a lot of mercury to the environment and we all get to
pay $6 per light bulb. I really care about the environment,
but this is enough to make me want to go kill some spotted owls.
\_ You're a fucking dumb ass. If you had a $10k chandelier
you'd have clue as to where to get a bunch of illegal
bulbs.
\_ I see. So I have to smuggle light bulbs in from Iran
in order to light my damn fixture. Sounds reasonable
to me.
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Where have you been doing your
shopping?
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Are those Calvin Kline brands?
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Are those Calvin Kline brand?
\_ Paying $6 per light bulb? Are those Calvin Klein brand?
\_ Keep in mind that if we simply turned off all light bulbs in the US
it wouldn't make a difference in greenhouse gas emissions.
\_ Huh? Do you mean to say it wouldn't make a significant
difference? Electricity in the US is mostly created by
burning fossil fuels and electricity powers lightbulbs, so
I don't see what you are trying to say here.
\_ If you look at world emissions, our lighting is something like
1%. Cattle farts contribute a lot more. You should go
vegetarian before CFLs.
\_ 1% of a gigantic number is still a huge number.
\_ Yep, but given the variety of causes and effects, it
can't even be measured reliably. And current growth is
about 3% per year. So that savings would be eclipsed in
4 months.
\_ So since growth is still happening we shouldn't try
to conserve anything? BTW 5-10 years after peak oil
you will see an amazing amount of involuntary
conserving happening all over the place.
\_ so by twisted logic, since encouragging
voluntary conservation isn't working, we should
encourage waste to sooner bring about
circumstances where conservation is forced by
unavailability of the resources.
\_ Okay, I see what you mean. Yes, you are right, there
are probably lots of easier ways to make an impact on
C0^2 emissions.
\_ CO2 (The 'O' is for Oxygen) is plant food. Methane is a
vastly bigger contributor to warming, as is water vapor.
\_ There has been an increase in the amount of water
vapor in the atmosphere? Where did you hear that?
\_ "According to the Food and Agriculture Organization
of the United Nations, the livestock industry is
responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions\
measured in CO2 equivalent"
responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas
emissions measured in CO2 equivalent"
\_ I predict many people with 100-Watt bulbs will replace them with 2
60-Watt bulbs, thus increasing total power usage in the US.
\_ How are you going to fit 2 bulbs in place of 1?
\_ Buy more lighting?
\_ Why would people buy more lighting? The CFL puts out the
same amount of light with less juice. Just because it
uses less electricity doesn't mean I want it to be brighter
\_ Actually, the CFL puts out less light for an "equivalent"
bulb.
\_ Actually, the CFL puts out less light for an
"equivalent" bulb.
\_ It probably depends on your brand of incadescents and
CFLs. I once used a light meter to check the light
output. For one brand of CFLs I get the same output
as my old bulbs, while for another brand I get slight
more (2/10 f-stop.)
as my old bulbs, while for another brand I get
slightly (2/10 f-stop) more.
\_ I don't understand all the CFL hating. Almost my whole house uses
CFLs. They work fine, the light is fine, and they're pretty cheap.
(I saw them for $1 at Safeway the other day.) -jrleek
\_ You apparently have no sense of taste. There is no way the
CFL bulbs on the market right now are suited for many
lighting needs, including my example. I have an antique
chandelier I bought and sticking a bunch of those white eggs
into it isn't on my agenda. Do you think the people in
Congress are going to abide by this? (For example, George Bush
has a very expensive chandelier in his house in Texas.) They just
haven't thought it through too well yet or else figure the
has a very expensive chandelier in his house in Texas.) They
just haven't thought it through too well yet or else figure the
laws won't apply to them. I have to imagine there will be
all kinds of exceptions. You go to a romantic restaurant and
the inside is lit like Wal-Mart? Yeah, that's the future I
want to live in.
want to live in. Why not get rid of the fucking coal plants
and go nuclear instead of legislating my god damned light bulbs?
How much greener would the world be if all of Congress wore
buttplugs?
\_ You bought a chandelier and yet you have the gall to accuse
anyone of having no sense of taste? You're a moron.
\_ Seconded, the op sounds like a dumb ass.
\_ Yes, because chandeliers are a sign of poor taste and
IKEA is a sign of good taste. The lobby of the Ritz
is going to look really swanky with CFL bulbs in
place. Not everywhere has to look like some 20 year
old UCB CS student's dumpy apartment in El Cerrito.
\_ Wow, you're dumb and don't even realize it.
\_ Your argument is very convincing.
\_ I like your screed about Congress, but the new CFL lights
don't make a place look like the interior of Wal-Mart.
The better ones have a pretty neutral color palate, quite
close to incadescent. I agree with you on the chandelier
though. Maybe people will go back to gas for light in
these cases though. Wouldn't that be a hoot?
\_ Ha ha! I applaud your thinking. I can convert it
back to gas if I have to! Hee! The fact that CFLs
don't dim is why the place will look like Wal-Mart.
\_ LEDs!
\_ 99 Ranch Market carries dimmable CFLs, 4 for
$1.99. It works well with the dimmer at my home.
I guess we will just use candles again. Yay progress!
\_ I wonder what the carbon footprint of a gas powered
lamp is...
\_ You know what is even dumber about this idea? In probably 10
years we will have a new lighting technology that is better
in just about every way than CFL (LED) and we will have a bunch
of homes locked into an older useless technology because of
this law. Did you know that all new construction in San Francisco
has to have special flourescent bulb fittings as standard? That
is going to look pretty stupid in 10-20 years, I bet.
\_ Yes, it will, which is why you don't legislate technology.
A command economy is not as efficient as a market economy.
Let the market decide where it makes sense and where it does
not. With all of the contributors to pollution and global
warming our politicians decided to take a stand on LIGHT BULBS.
Not a tax, mind you, but an all-out ban! Next thing you know
they are going to tell us whether we should receive broadcast TV
in digital or analog.
\_ I thought they have already done that for TV. Aren't new TV
sets required to have digital tuner now, and analog broadcast
will be phased out by FCC in some year later?
\_ I don't mind that one as much because broadcast spectrums
are limited common resources. Gov't has to regulate it
to some extent, maybe not the way they did though.
\_ I think we shouldn't legislate CFL technology, but we should
legislater a certain efficiency requirement which happens to
match the efficiency of today's CFLs. I heard Phillips is
trying to improve incadescent bulb's efficiency (although I
have no idea how they can possibly do it.)
\_ Or why they would bother now, since they can't sell
them. Face it, light bulbs are not efficient. Even
CFLs are not efficient. Pick another battle to fight.
have no idea how they can do it.)
\_ Why legislate it at all? Government has much more important
things to worry about instead of micromanaging technology.
\_ Agreed. A energy tax or greenhouse gas tax will be
simpler and more effective, but that's probably not
politically good.
\_ That's because the average voter is a moron.
\_ Agreed again.
\_ GE is working on incandescent bulbs that are as efficient as
CFL's. http://tinyurl.com/38yg4s
\_ Why, when they won't be allowed to sell them?
\_ They can sell it outside CA.
\_ No. The ban is nationwide by the US Congress. |
| 11/22 |
|
| sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm Index Main Index NOTE PLEASE NOTE: My apologies for the length of this article, but this has turned into something of a horror story. Only a short while ago, I thought that the power factor issue was most important, then that a vast number of enclosed light fittings (probably hundreds of millions worldwide) cannot be used with CFLs was critical. Now, it turns out that dimmers are a far bigger issue that first imagined. These must be removed completely, not simply set to maximum and left there. Who's going to pay to have millions of dimmers worldwide removed by electricians? while you only pay for the actual energy used (as shown on the packaging), power companies have to provide the full voltage and current (also shown on many packages and/or other literature). The relatively poor power factor increases distribution losses and therefore the cost of getting electricity to your house. Now, we also have the European Union (EU) singing the same silly song. It was recently announced that the 490 million citizens of the 27 member states will be expected to switch to energy-efficient bulbs after a summit of EU leaders yesterday told the European Commission to "rapidly submit proposals" to that effect. I wonder just how much research was done before this piece of lunacy was announced? Speaking of the EU, these mental giants have recently decided to ban mercury altogether. While they will probably eliminate a few tonnes of mercury from those who would use it responsibly, there will be hundreds or perhaps thousands of tonnes (in CFLs and conventional fluorescent lamps) in the hands of the general public. Most will end up in landfill unless there is a very comprehensive education campaign for the householders throughout the EU and elsewhere. So far, there appears to be little or no effort anywhere to ensure that the public are made fully aware of the risks involved. Nothing in this article is conjecture or CFL bashing (I like CFLs, and use them wherever possible in my home and workshop), merely simple facts that a great many people have overlooked. The reasons are described below (yes, it's mostly technical), and for those who want to know more about power factor, the use of CFLs in existing luminaires, or any of the other factors involved, please read on ... References & Acknowledgements Several sections have been moved to separate sub-pages to try to reduce the size of this article. For the links to work properly, you must have JavaScript enabled on your browser. The sub-pages use script to create popup windows with a "close" button. You can open the files in a new window by right-clicking the link if you prefer. Introduction The current cry to ban the humble incandescent lamp (also known as GS - general service) may not seem like such a bad idea at first glance, but there are a number of issues that have not been addressed (or even thought about, based on what has been heard so far). Incandescent lamps are inefficient, typically over 95% of all energy consumed is converted into heat - not light. By comparison, the CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) has a dramatically higher efficiency, although it falls well short of a full sized (18W or 36W) standard fluorescent tube. Many people have tried CFLs in any number of locations, but they are not always liked because of their colour rendition (many colours look wrong under all forms of fluorescent lighting), and because they are considered by many to be rather ugly. These dislikes are not necessarily major issues of course, although there are many users who would disagree. Lighting is actually a very complex topic, and although it seems pretty simple on the surface, there are many factors to consider that proposed legislation will utterly fail to address. Just look at the European RoHS (restriction of hazardous substances) legislation as an example of how wrong things can get when governments become involved in things they don't understand. This article is not intended to be a complete and final discussion - because lighting is so complex, I am bound to miss things, and I can only rely on the information I can get my hands on. Hopefully though, this article may get a few people thinking of the long term implications of the proposed ban (which is almost completely meaningless in real terms). As a side issue, although I have (mostly) used the term "efficiency" in this article, this is actually relatively meaningless for lights. The correct term is luminous efficacy, usually expressed in lumens / Watt. While not strictly accurate, comparing the relative efficiency of different light sources does make it easier to comprehend - few people outside of the lighting industry will really have a proper grasp of the concept of luminous efficacy, so I have elected to keep the term "efficiency" in the interests of making the article as easy to understand as possible. This is what happens when bureaucrats become involved in things they don't understand (like lighting for example). While I have no doubt that the figure is correct, it would be plain stupid to involve bureaucrats in something as trivial as a broken CFL. Yes, mercury is a potent neurotoxin, but metallic mercury is relatively safe. The real danger comes from the vapour and various salts and compounds (as may easily be created in landfill for example) ... Having said that, I'm not sure I'd be happy letting a small child play on the floor where any fluorescent lamp had been broken. Kids have enough things to cause them damage or injury without adding tiny glass shards and mercury to all the other concerns. Perhaps governments and CFL manufacturers could provide the necessary cleanup procedures that should be undertaken to ensure that the area is reasonably safe after "contamination". At present, you will find a great many conflicting opinions as how best to clean up after a breakage, but almost no usable information about the possible risk from the mercury itself. For myself, I'd probably not be at all concerned, but my kids are grown up and have their own homes. With small children around, I'd want to know with reasonable certainty that a recommended cleanup process would make the area safe enough for them to play on. Speaking of clean-up, I have finally had confirmation of something I had always expected would be the case. I was contacted by someone from a European lighting manufacturer with some scary information (I don't want to be too specific about his job function lest he lose his job for speaking out). He has visited Chinese factories where CFLs are made, and tells me that mercury spillage is common during the manufacturing process, and that the workers have zero protective clothing, masks or anything else to safeguard their health. This means (as many could easily have predicted) that while our environment may benefit by using CFLs, the Chinese environment and factory workers most certainly do not. In years to come, there will be massive clean-up bills to decontaminate factories and surrounding areas where CFLs were made, and with spillages happening regularly the long term health of the workers is certainly at risk. This is not confined to just one factory either - the same thing has been seen in several facilities visited by my corespondent. It seems that no-one cares (or wants to care) about things they cannot see. Until governments world-wide can ensure that proper safeguards and decent safe working conditions are a requirement for "environmentally friendly" products, these products should simply be banned from sale. On Australian TV only recently, it was shown that Chinese made air conditioners (with full test documentation) were found to fail the mandatory Australian "Minimum Energy Performance" criteria. Does anyone really think that all products that come from China will match the test results that come from Chinese laboratories? I certainly hope not, because one would have to be mentally ill to believe that these overseas labs will be as rigourous and thorough as those in the target importing country. Incandescent Surcharge There is one thing that could be done, it can be implemented quite easily, and will cause little pain and much gain.... |
| www.google.com/search?q=cfl+candelabra Candelabra Lamps A full ine of CFLs with the small candelabra (E12) base! Also, check out our decorative ESL3C Chandelier Shaped Candelabra CFL which may well be the ... BLI-CFL-Decorative-Globe-Candelabra-Base Low Mercury CFL's. Mini Mini Springlamp Bulbs Mini Mini Candelabra Base Mini Springlamp Bulbs ... Chandelier 7W CFL, Candelabra Base (40W Incandescent Equiv ... ecoLightbulbs Store Chandelier 7W CFL, Candelabra Base (40W Incandescent Equiv) - Specifications Light Output: 40W Incandescent Equivalent (280 Lumens) ... SRP: Compact fluorescent light bulbs Use CFLs instead to reduce the heat and save energy. Candelabra shape: This small-base shape fits in smaller light fixtures ... |
| tinyurl.com/38yg4s -> www.environmentalleader.com/2007/02/24/ge-developing-incandescent-light-bulb-that-matches-cfls-efficiency/ says that advancements to the light bulb invented by GE's founder Thomas Edison could potentially elevate the energy efficiency of this 125-year-old technology to levels comparable to compact fluorescent lamps. Over the next several years, these advancements could lead to the introduction of high-efficiency incandescent lamps that provide the same high light quality, brightness and color as current incandescent lamps while saving energy and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. According to GE, the new technology could be expanded to all incandescent types. 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 technology is expected to be about four times as efficient as current incandescent bulbs and comparable to CFL bulbs, GE says The question is, does GE have three years to improve the efficiency of incandescents? New Leaf Paper Manufactures with 100% Renewable Energy Join the Discussion Name (required) Mail (will not be published) (required) Website SUBMIT COMMENT Comments I write a weekly column for my local paper about climate change and I'm also someone with a condition called acrodynia, hyper-reactivity to mercury. In the spirit of walking my 'shrink your carbon footprint' talk, I changed every lightbulb in my house to CFLs. Over four months time I became acutely ill with mercury toxicity symptoms. The GE incandescents will mean I don't have to live by candlelight, sequestered in my own home. Acrodynia seems to be the result of a weak variant of a gene that governs mercury detoxification. My mother and sister have the condition as well and my sister's quality of life was destroyed by dental work in her late teen. There are those of us out here who will not be able to tolerate a CFL saturated world, especially since no one seems to know they have to be recycled as hazmat and there's a stringent protocol for cleaning up a broken one. May 13th, 2007 Let me get this, the proposed incandescent will be 2X efficient as today's bulb or half the wattage usage-OK. The new incandescent will last 4X longer but the PL will last 8-10X longer -resulting in a reduced waste stream. So what am I missing here and why did GE decide to do this after 125 years of the same old stuff-lossing market share perhaps. Yes there is a minute amount of mercury as the "starter" process as there is in all fluorescent lamps to ignite the light for a millisecond in every facility you walk into from your bank to your grocery store. And all manuacturers have gone green there to having cut that amount to less than half. From a dispose aspect- that is why one should recyle as businesses are required by law. The math says simply that over the life of the PL your energy savings will extemely-extremely outmatch the amount of mercury from your local power plant to generate power for that new technology incandescent. Also unless one is planning to digest your PL then I suggest one's mercury problem lies somewhere else. And your existing GE incandescent bulb, candle lights, fireplace, etc all have more direct toxic gases / materials. So before we jump off the ledge, do the math and study the science before one generated folklore misinformation. This sounds like another urban legend in the making--perhaps generated by the people who make a living manufacturing incandescents-hmmmmm. June 7th, 2007 In response to Ann Beckett please note that the power use saved directly translates into less mercury emissions into the environment via coal fired power plants. The amount of mercury emitted overall decreases because of this fact in spite of the relatively small amounts of mercury contained in CFL's. Also keep in mind that the mercury in these bulbs would only be released if they are mishandled. On balance it is still wise to buy and use CFL's in place of incandescents. August 26th, 2007 Another drawback to CFLs is that they are only designed to work at temperatures above zero degrees F It's reported that the DoD has some that can function at minus 20 F, but below that, you're out of luck for light. And even if the bulb starts, the light quality and intensity decreases redically as the temp declines. A complete ban on incandescents is short-sighted and stupid. Next time your restauranteur needs a frozen steak from the walk-in, you go in and hold the flashlight for him. September 14th, 2007 How much energy is expended in the manufacturing of an incandescent bulb? If the CFL can operate 8-10 times as long, then there will be less need for incandescent bulbs to be made, reducing pollution caused by making the energy needed to manufacture them, besides the power to produce the light, or the power required in air conditioning a home normally heated by incandescent bulbs. Of course, in cold climates the incandescent bulb may be more desireable since they need the extra heat from the bulbs to reduce demands on the furnaces. But I agree with the question concerning GE boasting that they can make incandescent bulbs as efficient as CFLs. Granted there may still need to be incandescent bulbs just because of certain conditions that make CFL's not suitable. But GE should still offer the more effifient models for those applications rather than the old technology. |