Is anyone else interested in incandescent because of the lack of blue spectrum that is even in warm LEDs?

[alpg88]

I'm interested insofar as I'd like to see developments in the incan tech that would put them at a more even footing with LEDs.

latest innovation i've seen is a halogen bipin inside a a bulb instead of just filament.

 

[jtr1962]

It is kinda funny when folks come to the incan section to poo-poo on incans that we still use because we obviously just like them. Things must be kinda dull over in LED land.

It was an issue back when lots of people lit their homes with incandescent. The waste of energy was staggering. Since then LEDs have gotten well over 50% of the home lighting market. Commercial and industrial use is virtually 100% LED. If people want to play with incandescent flashlights, it's a very niche thing which doesn't have any of the overwhelming negatives incandescent home lighting does.

Same thing with ICEs versus EVs. It won't matter if some people still insist on driving ICEs once they become a niche item.
But getting rid of ICEs, at least near major population centers, has multiple benefits.

 

[DaveTheDude]

Nobody talks about the fact no LED keychain light is currently available that has a warm tint and is night vision preserving low lumens except the incan solitaire.

Put some DC fix on the lens and a lithium primary or NIMH cell and it's great for that one particular purpose. Not good for anything else.

Yugi emitters?

 

[DaveTheDude]

Not to distract from the discussion of incandescent lighting origins, and on the subject of LED's without a blue light component, several medical penlights offer emitters that eliminate the blue component of the spectrum (R-G-0). Here's an example: Nitecore MT06MD Penlight. There are other manufacturers that target the medical community, but the lights these sellers offer are of unknown quality (at least in this forum). Just type the phrase "medical penlight" into your favorite browser and see if any of the results meet your requirements.

 

[F89]

I bought my missus one of those lights a while ago (Nitecore MT06MD).
I had to put diffuser film over the lens to smooth out the beam (too intense in the hotspot).
The low level isn't low enough (checking eyes and stuff for whatever purpose).
Anyway, she stopped using it after a while so I suspect it's not the best tool for its intended purpose.
It has a Nichia 219B (around 5000K, from memory). A nice LED but I'm pretty sure there's definitely a blue light component in its spectrum.

 

[F89]

Yugi emitters?

Also has blue in it.

As long as a light source is low enough, it's generally pretty good at preserving night vision.
I used to use a 660nm red LED that I was able to use at brighter levels than other lights and maintain decent night vision.
Not always practical but not using any light at all is the best bet.

 

[kerneldrop]

Not to distract from the discussion of incandescent lighting origins, and on the subject of LED's without a blue light component, several medical penlights offer emitters that eliminate the blue component of the spectrum (R-G-0).

What is the reason for omitting the blue light from a medical light ?

 

[jross20]

It was an issue back when lots of people lit their homes with incandescent. The waste of energy was staggering. Since then LEDs have gotten well over 50% of the home lighting market. Commercial and industrial use is virtually 100% LED. If people want to play with incandescent flashlights, it's a very niche thing which doesn't have any of the overwhelming negatives incandescent home lighting does.

Same thing with ICEs versus EVs. It won't matter if some people still insist on driving ICEs once they become a niche item.
But getting rid of ICEs, at least near major population centers, has multiple benefits.

Lord, there are some massive assumptions being made here and you've given me a headache...

LED's are not "just flat out better" than Incans. It doesn't work like that... LED's have poor light quality... UNLESS you spend the money to make a quality one. But, will most folks and businesses do this? Nope, so automatically light quality everywhere is downgraded. Sub 80 cri, (if not sub 70). 120hz flickering giving a sizable amount of the population strain and headaches that they don't understand. Not to mention that most LED bulbs and lights made now days DO NOT LAST as long as Incans. They have the ability to last on paper, sure, but most crap has extremely poor heat control and run too hot. Have you seen the "purple" street lights that plague a lot of the south? Failed LED's. (Not to mention that 5000-6000k at night is HORRIBLE and does not help you see better).
Finally, something that people never take into account with LED's is actual waste. An incan bulb is glass and metal, very easy to recycle and basically harmless. LED bulbs have circuity in them that, let's be honest, is just going straight into landfills. So, you can use less energy... BUT at the cost of something else. There is no such thing as a free lunch my friend. You traded higher energy cost for actual literal e-waste. LOTS of e-waste. And don't give me that "they can recycle it". The majority of e-waste recycling just gets shipped off to china to be burned.

And, please get real with EV's. They are never taking over; the impracticality is just absurd, the costs are extreme. NOT to mention that once again you are making a trade. TONS of batteries going straight to landfills. Do you really think they will recycle your battery with 1000s of cells for free? Get real.

Lastly, if C02 is your focus... Then you'd look at power generation, not cars. Vehicles are basically a fart in the wind compared to power plants. Swap everything over to Nuclear power and you'll cut C02 in half if not more. Though, to be honest the majority of this "climate change" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

FFS, your comment literally almost gave me a stroke.

 

[jross20]

Maglite still sells incan version of the classics. Some take a 2 cell version, add lithium ion batteries, a 5 cell bulb and end up with a 7 cell bright light in a smaller package.

I did one using a 2C HIPCO from the 1950's. It puts out about 100 lumens. 👍

I'm rocking several maglites with some mods and such. The MLT-25 is my go to thrower.

I also just restored a 10 watt xenon ultrastinger and I love it!

 

[jross20]

It is kinda funny when folks come to the incan section to poo-poo on incans that we still use because we obviously just like them. Things must be kinda dull over in LED land.

Agreed. Most folks don't understand the details or are not knowledgeable about light quality.

 

[Monocrom]

No.
If someone is personally affected by the Blue, I can see their interest being in building up a small collection of incandescent lights and lanterns that run off of more common bulbs. But for everyone else, especially scarcer incandescent lamps; no, not even remotely worth it. A waste of time. Found that out the hard way a few weeks back.

 

[idleprocess]

LED's are not "just flat out better" than Incans. It doesn't work like that... LED's have poor light quality... UNLESS you spend the money to make a quality one. But, will most folks and businesses do this? Nope, so automatically light quality everywhere is downgraded. Sub 80 cri, (if not sub 70).

Not everything needs high CRI, and high CRI is no guarantee of good color rendition.

Not to mention that most LED bulbs and lights made now days DO NOT LAST as long as Incans. They have the ability to last on paper, sure, but most crap has extremely poor heat control and run too hot.

I've used a ~dozen models of LED bulbs of varying grades from varying manufacturers. They A) handily outlast incandescent, and B) outlast CFLs - even the good CFLs of ~20 years ago. I think I've had all of three LED bulbs fail - one moderately pricey unit from 3M (probably a mistake choosing it TBH), a cheap GM Brightstik, and an original Cree bulb ... whose glass envelope separated, but it's otherwise functional. My longest-lasting bulb is a cheap first-gen 40W equivalent that's been running almost continuously in a mostly-enclosed fixture for more than a decade. Local makerspace installed hundreds of the cheapest 4000K mains-operated LED tubes they could source 8 years ago and none have failed despite ~24/7 operation in enclosed troffers.

They have the ability to last on paper, sure, but most crap has extremely poor heat control and run too hot. Have you seen the "purple" street lights that plague a lot of the south?

Got a few near me and it's a nationwide issue. Sh_t happens when you're making products to tight cost margins.

(Not to mention that 5000-6000k at night is HORRIBLE and does not help you see better).

4000K is about optimal for balancing electrical efficiency against color quality, although 3000K would be a bit better for not messing with Circadian rhythm - not that metal halide lamps haven't been doing that for decades as did mercury lamps prior. Far from my preferred CCT but immensely better than the almost negative CCT of sodium lamps.

I've seen all of one LED streetlight installation that was >4000K and it was a pilot project from ~15 years ago. It's probably end of life now and will hopefully be replaced with something lower CCT, less angry blue.

Finally, something that people never take into account with LED's is actual waste. An incan bulb is glass and metal, very easy to recycle and basically harmless. LED bulbs have circuity in them that, let's be honest, is just going straight into landfills.

While incandescent bulbs are indeed easy to recycle I've never seen them being recycled. And the economics of glass recycling are generally abysmal unless there's a consumer of waste glass all but adjacent to the processing facility.

 

[jtr1962]

Lord, there are some massive assumptions being made here and you've given me a headache...

LED's are not "just flat out better" than Incans. It doesn't work like that... LED's have poor light quality... UNLESS you spend the money to make a quality one. But, will most folks and businesses do this? Nope, so automatically light quality everywhere is downgraded. Sub 80 cri, (if not sub 70). 120hz flickering giving a sizable amount of the population strain and headaches that they don't understand. Not to mention that most LED bulbs and lights made now days DO NOT LAST as long as Incans. They have the ability to last on paper, sure, but most crap has extremely poor heat control and run too hot. Have you seen the "purple" street lights that plague a lot of the south? Failed LED's. (Not to mention that 5000-6000k at night is HORRIBLE and does not help you see better).
Finally, something that people never take into account with LED's is actual waste. An incan bulb is glass and metal, very easy to recycle and basically harmless. LED bulbs have circuity in them that, let's be honest, is just going straight into landfills. So, you can use less energy... BUT at the cost of something else. There is no such thing as a free lunch my friend. You traded higher energy cost for actual literal e-waste. LOTS of e-waste. And don't give me that "they can recycle it". The majority of e-waste recycling just gets shipped off to china to be burned.

And, please get real with EV's. They are never taking over; the impracticality is just absurd, the costs are extreme. NOT to mention that once again you are making a trade. TONS of batteries going straight to landfills. Do you really think they will recycle your battery with 1000s of cells for free? Get real.

Lastly, if C02 is your focus... Then you'd look at power generation, not cars. Vehicles are basically a fart in the wind compared to power plants. Swap everything over to Nuclear power and you'll cut C02 in half if not more. Though, to be honest the majority of this "climate change" nonsense is just that, nonsense.

FFS, your comment literally almost gave me a stroke.

Most of your arguments against LEDs are based on the state of the technology about a decade ago. Last I checked lots of CRI 90 LED bulbs are readily available. CRI 95 is starting to become available. General lighting LEDs start at CRI 80. That's the worst ones. If you see anything in the 70s it's likely one of the early installations.

Most of the other problems you mention are thanks to bean counters, not any issues inherent with LEDs. LEDs don't flicker at 120 Hz unless the designer is too cheap to use a proper driving circuit with large enough filter capacitors. Same thing with short lifetimes or turning purple. Cheap LEDs, inadequate heatsinking are what does that. Stop the race to the bottom in cost. I retrofitted some fluorescent night lights with LEDs back in 2010. They're on 24/7. They haven't dimmed noticeably, don't flicker, haven't turned purple. If you want to do the math, they've been going for about 110,000 hours. This is stuff I did as a hobbyist using LEDs as they were 13 years ago. It didn't cost much, either, maybe $2 for everything. Now LEDs are far better and cheaper. I could do the same retrofit for under a buck. It'll be 4 times as bright, and it'll probably last even longer. Design it properly, LED lighting will last longer than the structure it's in.

4000K to 5000K is probably optimal for streetlighting. Numerous studies on that. Any lower you start to lose peripheral vision, plus you need more lumens for the same apparent brightness. Any higher has no additional benefits, plus it causes glare. The HPS lights LED replaced were just beyond awful. They're literally the worst spectrum for seeing stuff. Plus the CRI is in the teens. We would have been better off just keeping the mercury vapor lights until something better came along.

Leave the EV discussion for the threads about it. Again the assumptions of most of the people who hate them are based on the state of technology like a decade ago.

 

[alpg88]

One of our office spaces at work was build in 2015, it is 20000sqf space, every single light fixture is led, not one failed yet, not a single one, most are on auto switches, but about 10% is on 24/7 they are powered by emergency circuit with back up batteries, so those 10% have been on for 70000 hours. and not one failure, they did not even dim, when the rest of the lights turn on all look identical.

 

[jross20]

Not everything needs high CRI, and high CRI is no guarantee of good color rendition.


I've used a ~dozen models of LED bulbs of varying grades from varying manufacturers. They A) handily outlast incandescent, and B) outlast CFLs - even the good CFLs of ~20 years ago. I think I've had all of three LED bulbs fail - one moderately pricey unit from 3M (probably a mistake choosing it TBH), a cheap GM Brightstik, and an original Cree bulb ... whose glass envelope separated, but it's otherwise functional. My longest-lasting bulb is a cheap first-gen 40W equivalent that's been running almost continuously in a mostly-enclosed fixture for more than a decade. Local makerspace installed hundreds of the cheapest 4000K mains-operated LED tubes they could source 8 years ago and none have failed despite ~24/7 operation in enclosed troffers.


Got a few near me and it's a nationwide issue. Sh_t happens when you're making products to tight cost margins.


4000K is about optimal for balancing electrical efficiency against color quality, although 3000K would be a bit better for not messing with Circadian rhythm - not that metal halide lamps haven't been doing that for decades as did mercury lamps prior. Far from my preferred CCT but immensely better than the almost negative CCT of sodium lamps.

I've seen all of one LED streetlight installation that was >4000K and it was a pilot project from ~15 years ago. It's probably end of life now and will hopefully be replaced with something lower CCT, less angry blue.


While incandescent bulbs are indeed easy to recycle I've never seen them being recycled. And the economics of glass recycling are generally abysmal unless there's a consumer of waste glass all but adjacent to the processing facility.

"Not everything needs high CRI, and high CRI is no guarantee of good color rendition."
(no idea why the quote thing didn't work on this first one. )
Yes, high CRI should be mandatory for just about everything IMHO. Why would you want poor light quality? And I'm refering to "good" high CRI. R9 and all that, yes I am aware and the goal should be a great quality high CRI.

4000K is about optimal for balancing electrical efficiency against color quality, although 3000K would be a bit better for not messing with Circadian rhythm - not that metal halide lamps haven't been doing that for decades as did mercury lamps prior. Far from my preferred CCT but immensely better than the almost negative CCT of sodium lamps.

I agree that 4000k light is the generally the best, but 3000k and 2700k have their use as well. For night time, the negative CCT of sodium lamps is very pleasant. Yes it is not accurate, but for this specific night-time use the trade off is worth.

While incandescent bulbs are indeed easy to recycle I've never seen them being recycled. And the economics of glass recycling are generally abysmal unless there's a consumer of waste glass all but adjacent to the processing facility.

But here is the thing, if incan bulbs are not recycled the overall impact to the environment is basically nil. So even if they don't, it doesn't matter. Generally we should assume the worst, i.e. assume they will not be recycled. LED's not being recycled = crazy amounts of e-waste.


In general, if we could force high quality (high CRI, R9, no flicker, etc.) LED lights being a requirement and heavily encourage using appropriate color temp, and somehow force recycling (which isn't financially practical sadly) then I would be all in for LED for general lighting. But, with good quality bulbs costing 20-30 a pop, I doubt this would ever happen. They'll just make whatever the cheapest thing is.

 

[jross20]

Most of your arguments against LEDs are based on the state of the technology about a decade ago. Last I checked lots of CRI 90 LED bulbs are readily available. CRI 95 is starting to become available. General lighting LEDs start at CRI 80. That's the worst ones. If you see anything in the 70s it's likely one of the early installations.

Most of the other problems you mention are thanks to bean counters, not any issues inherent with LEDs. LEDs don't flicker at 120 Hz unless the designer is too cheap to use a proper driving circuit with large enough filter capacitors. Same thing with short lifetimes or turning purple. Cheap LEDs, inadequate heatsinking are what does that. Stop the race to the bottom in cost. I retrofitted some fluorescent night lights with LEDs back in 2010. They're on 24/7. They haven't dimmed noticeably, don't flicker, haven't turned purple. If you want to do the math, they've been going for about 110,000 hours. This is stuff I did as a hobbyist using LEDs as they were 13 years ago. It didn't cost much, either, maybe $2 for everything. Now LEDs are far better and cheaper. I could do the same retrofit for under a buck. It'll be 4 times as bright, and it'll probably last even longer. Design it properly, LED lighting will last longer than the structure it's in.

4000K to 5000K is probably optimal for streetlighting. Numerous studies on that. Any lower you start to lose peripheral vision, plus you need more lumens for the same apparent brightness. Any higher has no additional benefits, plus it causes glare. The HPS lights LED replaced were just beyond awful. They're literally the worst spectrum for seeing stuff. Plus the CRI is in the teens. We would have been better off just keeping the mercury vapor lights until something better came along.

Leave the EV discussion for the threads about it. Again the assumptions of most of the people who hate them are based on the state of technology like a decade ago.

This is not about the technology a decade ago, this is about what is actually used right now by 90% of the market. Again, I said ON PAPER that LED's do last a long time and yes they can make good quality light... Key word... on paper. Most consumers/businesses are just going to want the cheapest thing and literally have zero idea that light quality is even a thing. Do you know how many customer homes I've been in that are just blasting 6500k+ (if not 7000k sometimes) ultra crappy LED bulbs? They just get whatever the cheapest garbage on. Folks are ignorant and want cheap, so OEM's make just that which is crap. And I've only see a handful of offices and homes with LED bulbs that don't have flicker. It's freaking everywhere and it drives me insane.

I didn't say you couldn't get good LED's, but they COST way more. $20-30 a bulb last time I ordered some. That's the problem. Sure the cost could come down, but why would OEM's even do that when 90% of the consumers just want cheap crap?

As for Sodium lamps, they work great for when you're driving at night and you don't need your retinas to be blasted, ruining your adjusted night time vision. 5000k for night time use.........? You and your studies are completely out of your minds. 4000k is definitely the absolute limit on that and 3000-3500k is the sweet spot. The level of the color temp has no bearing on "glare", that also makes zero sense. A 2000k light can glare just as bad as a 6500k one with the incorrect setupt (i.e. LED in a reflector housing made for incans). Sodium lamps are the worst for seeing quality, but lower color temps have far better range and less impact on your eyes while driving. If you wanted to implement roughly 2700k street lights that ARE NOT TOO BRIGHT, I would accept that.

And no, I will not "leave the EV discussion out". This impractical and unneeded nonsense needs to stop. The whole discussion makes zero sense because they are trying to "solve a problem" (that way is overblown) by forcing us to change what is effectively one of the lowest sources of C02. As I already stated, if they actually cared and wanted a "solution" they would go Nuclear. But, the key fact is they don't want a "solution", they want a "problem" to throw in your face.

You are the carbon they want to reduce. Can't have all these peasants having cars, that's not okay to them. Cars should be for the rich!

One of our office spaces at work was build in 2015, it is 20000sqf space, every single light fixture is led, not one failed yet, not a single one, most are on auto switches, but about 10% is on 24/7 they are powered by emergency circuit with back up batteries, so those 10% have been on for 70000 hours. and not one failure, they did not even dim, when the rest of the lights turn on all look identical.

Again, I said "on paper". Obviously if you use proper heat control they can last. The problem is the vast majority of businesses and consumers just want the cheapest thing you can get.

 

[jtr1962]

In general, if we could force high quality (high CRI, R9, no flicker, etc.) LED lights being a requirement and heavily encourage using appropriate color temp, and somehow force recycling (which isn't financially practical sadly) then I would be all in for LED for general lighting. But, with good quality bulbs costing 20-30 a pop, I doubt this would ever happen. They'll just make whatever the cheapest thing is.

I'm actually all in favor of doing this, at least for indoor lighting where CRI matters more than outdoor light. And as an engineer who designs this stuff, the cost difference won't result in $20 or $30 bulbs. High CRI LEDs don't cost much more than low CRI ones. Besides, with LED cost around several kilolumens per dollar, the LEDs are often a small part of the overall bulb price. Getting rid of flicker is cheap and trivial. A decent filter cap costing a few tens of cents tops has you covered there. Overall, we might be talking about adding 50 cents to a buck to the manufacturing cost of a bulb. No reason those couldn't retail for a few bucks. Point of fact I recently got dimmable, CRI 90, 100 watt equivalent LEDs at two for $13 (sale-regular price was $16). They would probably have been less if there was more competition on the market. I also got a pair of ultraefficient non-dimmable bulbs for the entry foyer for the same price. CRI 80 but it doesn't matter for this use. They still look fine. 60 watt equivalent, uses only 4 watts (200 lm/W efficiency). Rated life as stated on the package 50,000 hours. They run cool, barely above room temperature. Little doubt they'll easily reach their rated life, and probably way beyond.

This is not about the technology a decade ago, this is about what is actually used right now by 90% of the market. Again, I said ON PAPER that LED's do last a long time and yes they can make good quality light... Key word... on paper. Most consumers/businesses are just going to want the cheapest thing and literally have zero idea that light quality is even a thing. Do you know how many customer homes I've been in that are just blasting 6500k+ (if not 7000k sometimes) ultra crappy LED bulbs? They just get whatever the cheapest garbage on. Folks are ignorant and want cheap, so OEM's make just that which is crap. And I've only see a handful of offices and homes with LED bulbs that don't have flicker. It's freaking everywhere and it drives me insane.

Isn't the problem the same with literally every cheap product out there? Seriously, if people didn't buy crap nobody would make it. If all they made were decent LED bulbs with good CRI, no flicker, long lifetimes the price wouldn't be $30. There's nothing about making those types of bulbs which would drive the price so high except lack of competition. Mandate these things by law, you'll have these bulbs available for $5 or less a pop, easily.

As for Sodium lamps, they work great for when you're driving at night and you don't need your retinas to be blasted, ruining your adjusted night time vision.

They make everything look flat, literally. No depth perception, no peripheral vision. I'd literally ridden into potholes I couldn't see under sodium light. I couldn't tell if there were potholes, or just dark patches on the road. Plus the yellow pallor they cast over everything makes outdoors look dingy and rundown. Snow under HPS looks like a dog peed on it.

5000k for night time use.........? You and your studies are completely out of your minds. 4000k is definitely the absolute limit on that and 3000-3500k is the sweet spot.

It's a range. 4000K is fine. World's better than HPS.

The level of the color temp has no bearing on "glare", that also makes zero sense. A 2000k light can glare just as bad as a 6500k one with the incorrect setupt (i.e. LED in a reflector housing made for incans). Sodium lamps are the worst for seeing quality, but lower color temps have far better range and less impact on your eyes while driving. If you wanted to implement roughly 2700k street lights that ARE NOT TOO BRIGHT, I would accept that.

Correct about glare but some complain higher CCT headlights glare more. It might just be their light pattern, not their CCT. NYC has some 3000K LEDs and 4300K on major arterials. I see much better under the 4300K. The 3000K are better than sodium, but that's not saying much. Nobody has tried high CRI lighting for outdoor use. The orthodoxy says it's not needed, 70s is good enough. But I think going to 90s would result in a measurable improvement in seeing at any give CCT. It would also reduce the blue spike, if some are worried about that.

And no, I will not "leave the EV discussion out". This impractical and unneeded nonsense needs to stop. The whole discussion makes zero sense because they are trying to "solve a problem" (that way is overblown) by forcing us to change what is effectively one of the lowest sources of C02. As I already stated, if they actually cared and wanted a "solution" they would go Nuclear. But, the key fact is they don't want a "solution", they want a "problem" to throw in your face.

Air pollution and noise. That's why EVs make sense. And their total cost of ownership is lower. All cars are a rip-off, but ICE ones especially are. EVs mostly just require changing tires and wiper blades. If you have home solar, "refueling" is free.

You are the carbon they want to reduce. Can't have all these peasants having cars, that's not okay to them. Cars should be for the rich!

Strictly speaking, cars are for the rich, or at least upper middle class. They're a bum deal. It's a shame we forced them on people by decimating public transit, along with suburbanization. Big mistake. I never owned a car. That's freedom. Freedom from insurance payments, car loan payments, gas payments, repair bills. If I travel by bike or foot I don't pay anything. If I need to travel further I only pay a fare when I need to travel. The rest of the time nobody is picking my pockets making me pay money each month just to own something, whether I use it or not. I'll have to hand it to the auto companies. They brainwashed the public but good.

 

[idleprocess]

Yes, high CRI should be mandatory for just about everything IMHO. Why would you want poor light quality? And I'm refering to "good" high CRI. R9 and all that, yes I am aware and the goal should be a great quality high CRI.

Should is a heck of a presumption. Light sources should also score 100% on all quality metrics, operate at 300 lumens per watt efficiency, be adaptable to any desired CCT or color, last nearly forever, require no heatsinking, and be cheap as chips. In reality, the vast majority of the populace can perform most aspects of living, learning, working, playing under imperfect light sources quite happily.

I've done the bulk of my education, and work in engineering/manufacturing and IT under mystery CRI T12 floro tubes. Only recently have I started to work out of an office with purpose-built LED fixtures; the main difference relative to floros is the lack of 120Hz hum magnetic ballast hum. At the local Makerspace we swapped out the floros with LED (maybe 80 CRI? It was in 2015 after all) in one of the creative arts rooms first and they had nothing but praise; think they had but one Ott-Light before and after for detail-critical work.

Some applications are quite demanding and do need the best quality available - color matching, some medical, critical inspection - while some require just better than average such as some retail, certain assembly processes, etc.

For night time, the negative CCT of sodium lamps is very pleasant.

Aesthetics aside, it's deleterious to its purpose as safety lighting - visual cognition is greatly degraded with both LPS and HPS relative to all other practical alternatives.

But here is the thing, if incan bulbs are not recycled the overall impact to the environment is basically nil. So even if they don't, it doesn't matter. Generally we should assume the worst, i.e. assume they will not be recycled. LED's not being recycled = crazy amounts of e-waste.

Glass production is rather energy-intensive; it's cheap because of economies of scale and the relative simplicity of the process.

E-waste is a problem, but LED bulbs aren't a huge contributor and while RoHS is no panacea it is reducing the lead in landfills.

In general, if we could force high quality (high CRI, R9, no flicker, etc.) LED lights being a requirement and heavily encourage using appropriate color temp, and somehow force recycling (which isn't financially practical sadly) then I would be all in for LED for general lighting.

The CRI average is being dragged up - even store brands are 90 CRI. And you don't need to pay even $20 for a decent bulb better than store brand EcoValueSmart.

However, at the end of the day what we choose to use in our own domiciles this is a personal choice. I'll stick to a variety of 3500K -5000K LED, you choose what feels best for you.

 

[jtr1962]

Should is a heck of a presumption. Light sources should also score 100% on all quality metrics, operate at 300 lumens per watt efficiency, be adaptable to any desired CCT or color, last nearly forever, require no heatsinking, and be cheap as chips. In reality, the vast majority of the populace can perform most aspects of living, learning, working, playing under imperfect light sources quite happily.

Just a minor nitpick here but it might not be a horrible idea mandating CRI 90, maybe even a high number for R9, for anything designed for indoor lighting. As you said, the market is moving towards that anyway. And the flicker, that's something which just shouldn't exist for any kind of lighting. If I had a choice of mandating no flicker or higher CRI, I'd probably pick the former.

While on CRI, I've noted that LED of any given CRI is subjectively better than fluoro of the same CRI. By its nature an LED spectrum is continuous, albeit with humps and valleys. A fluoro spectrum is very spiky. They might tweak the spikes to get a higher CRI number but CRI is a less than perfect metric for measuring color quality. TM-30-15 is much better.

 

[idleprocess]

Just a minor nitpick here but it might not be a horrible idea mandating CRI 90, maybe even a high number for R9, for anything designed for indoor lighting. As you said, the market is moving towards that anyway. And the flicker, that's something which just shouldn't exist for any kind of lighting. If I had a choice of mandating no flicker or higher CRI, I'd probably pick the former.

Could make those a requirement for Energy Star, DLC, etc without going to the trouble of a mandate.