Stock Up On Ican's - For your home

[hurricane]

I'm surprised they lasted this long! Incandescent light bulbs are 99.2% inefficient i.e. they create more heat than light. It's ridiculously old technology. I once heard a stat in Canada [from Bruce Mau's Massive Change]: if each Canadian [~35M people] replaced just one of their incans with a CFL, Canada could shut-down 18 of the 21 coal-burning power plants - whoa!

I think CFLs suck, but I'm really excited about LED bulbs.

 

[LuxLuthor]

I'm surprised they lasted this long! Incandescent light bulbs are 99.2% inefficient i.e. they create more heat than light. It's ridiculously old technology. I once heard a stat in Canada [from Bruce Mau's Massive Change]: if each Canadian [~35M people] replaced just one of their incans with a CFL, Canada could shut-down 18 of the 21 coal-burning power plants - whoa!

I think CFLs suck, but I'm really excited about LED bulbs.

My preference are to make something like a CFL or LED (for homes) not suck so that people wanted to switch over before passing laws outlawing incans. I know it's hard for some people to get what us Incan-Jockeys say repeatedly: "It's not all about efficiency."

Before you spout something like Incan bulbs being 99.2% inefficient, you should take the time to check facts yourself, rather than what some nitwit spouted somewhere. Then while you are doing your due diligence, maybe also check out these new Philips "Halogena Energy Saver" incandescents...or Osram's IRC bulbs.

The first thing you should do in hearing such a preposterous claim about CFL replacements closing 18 of 21 coal power plants is research the credibility of the person making such a claim, although this is Canada we are talking aboot, which exists in an alternate reality. Bruce Mau is a dropout of Ontario's College of Art and Design in Toronto who runs a design studio. Yeah, that's about on the same level of science and engineering expertise as a former U.S. Vice President had before making a movie about Global Warming filled with glaring exaggerations and wild inaccuracies.

Again, I'm not arguing about only efficiency of types of lighting. You want individuals to be FORCED to change, then first I would like to see a total ban on all forms of recreational and decorative lighting which is truly frivolous. First ban and get rid of all the outdoor sports stadium lights, concert & art spotlights, get rid of all the outdoor advertising lights on stores, billboards, casinos, highways, hotels and other businesses.

 

[wyager]

Um, LuxLuthor... That PDF you gave was totally useless, LOL. It was just an advertisement. According to the blackbody equations, 99.2% visible light is probably around the max efficiency your basic electric incan can hit (perhaps the numbers are a bit different, but the 99.2% figure sounds about right). so, a 100W bulb gives about .8 watts of visible light. Let's do some comparisons, all scaled to 100W

Red/IR c-mount laser diode-~50W
InN/InGaN diode-20-30W (maybe even above 60 watts in freak cases)
Modern high power LED (at emitter)-10-15W
Incan bulb-.8W


So... I think we have pretty clear loser. Sure, there are a few more efficient kinds of incan bulbs, but they're still not efficient. So before you tell him to "check the facts", try and make sure you're not reading an ad. Of course, if you want more heat than light than an incan is right for you :nana:

I don't know any numbers for CFL, so I can't comment there, but I really doubt that switching a few bulbs to CFLs can close 18 coal plants, LOL.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Um, LuxLuthor... That PDF you gave was totally useless, LOL. It was just an advertisement. According to the blackbody equations, 99.2% visible light is probably around the max efficiency your basic electric incan can hit (perhaps the numbers are a bit different, but the 99.2% figure sounds about right). so, a 100W bulb gives about .8 watts of visible light. Let's do some comparisons, all scaled to 100W

Red/IR c-mount laser diode-~50W
InN/InGaN diode-20-30W (maybe even above 60 watts in freak cases)
Modern high power LED (at emitter)-10-15W
Incan bulb-.8W


So... I think we have pretty clear loser. Sure, there are a few more efficient kinds of incan bulbs, but they're still not efficient. So before you tell him to "check the facts", try and make sure you're not reading an ad. Of course, if you want more heat than light than an incan is right for you :nana:

I don't know any numbers for CFL, so I can't comment there, but I really doubt that switching a few bulbs to CFLs can close 18 coal plants, LOL.

LOL! Of course I only gave him a link to the Philips promotional PDF, as it was only to identify the item, as well as mentioning the Osram IRC. Most LED Jockeys have no idea either item exists, nor what the Osram IRC incan has achieved in terms of lumens/watt. I guess you missed the part where I prefaced those items by "may also check out" those bulbs. I'm not going to do his work for him when I already know his number is wrong. :laughing:

Despite my saying twice that I'm not only talking about efficiency, in true LED Jockey fashion, you of course ONLY bring up efficiency, leading off with some unrelated gibberish examples of Red/IR c-mount laser & InN/InGaN diodes, when we are talking about replacing home light bulbs. :nana:

If you want to light your home with those, or even the most current crop of "modern high power LED's," be my guest. :tinfoil: Oh, and how's the heat working out on those "modern high power LED's"? How about their CRI?

To refresh your awareness, the topic is about being FORCED to abandon incands when some of us have not yet found an adequate (which includes CRI) and cost effective replacement. The "elites" suggested replacement is the mercury-containing CFL's that don't dim, supposedly give acceptable CRI output, and assume consumers are going to follow proper hazmat cleanup and disposal when they break or drop them, and are going to do something other than toss them into their rubbish to be crushed and dumped into the local landfill. :devil:

I'm glad that you at least saw fit to question the probability of the art school dropout's assertion of the CFL switch closing 18 of 21 coal plants.

 

[wyager]

LOL! Of course I only gave him a link to the Philips promotional PDF, as it was only to identify the item, as well as mentioning the Osram IRC. Most LED Jockeys have no idea either item exists, nor what the Osram IRC incan has achieved in terms of lumens/watt. I guess you missed the part where I prefaced those items by "may also check out" those bulbs. I'm not going to do his work for him when I already know his number is wrong. :laughing:

Despite my saying twice that I'm not only talking about efficiency, in true LED Jockey fashion, you of course ONLY bring up efficiency, leading off with some unrelated gibberish examples of Red/IR c-mount laser & InN/InGaN diodes, when we are talking about replacing home light bulbs. :nana:

If you want to light your home with those, or even the most current crop of "modern high power LED's," be my guest. :tinfoil: Oh, and how's the heat working out on those "modern high power LED's"? How about their CRI?

To refresh your awareness, the topic is about being FORCED to abandon incands when some of us have not yet found an adequate (which includes CRI) and cost effective replacement. The "elites" suggested replacement is the mercury-containing CFL's that don't dim, supposedly give acceptable CRI output, and assume consumers are going to follow proper hazmat cleanup and disposal when they break or drop them, and are going to do something other than toss them into their rubbish to be crushed and dumped into the local landfill. :devil:

I'm glad that you at least saw fit to question the probability of the art school dropout's assertion of the CFL switch closing 18 of 21 coal plants.

Again-I'm not contesting the benefits of incans, I'm only saying that saying that incans are in any way efficient is plain stupid. The whole point of talking about those other diode types was to show that incans are archaic technology, and are extremely wasteful. Keep in mind, I use incans in my own house... However, attempting to deny that the blackbody property is the most wasteful way to generate light isn't very smart.

 

[LuxLuthor]

Again-I'm not contesting the benefits of incans, I'm only saying that saying that incans are in any way efficient is plain stupid. The whole point of talking about those other diode types was to show that incans are archaic technology, and are extremely wasteful. Keep in mind, I use incans in my own house... However, attempting to deny that the blackbody property is the most wasteful way to generate light isn't very smart.

For the 20th time, my issue of preference with incands is not related to efficiency, or whether it is archaic technology. Those are your issues, and I really don't care about them until there is an adequate replacement available at a favorable price point that allows people to choose a different source. I have said that numbers/percentages mentioned earlier are not accurate, and no awareness is provided of diverse incan sources.

Whether it is "extremely wasteful" is your opinionated statement, but I have never made absolute claims about incan efficiency relative to other light sources, only that there are qualitative variations within the category that LED Jockeys are not aware of, and wouldn't represent it factually even if they learn about it. Once you have eliminated all of the frivolous light sources I mentioned previously, then home incans can be banned if there is still a good reason.

You also have to step back and look at what is really driving this mad obsession with energy use that led to the ignorant light bulb banning, which I believe is totally unnecessary. I don't accept the reasons driving the whole conservation-only approach of energy management, or trying to dominate people through banning and bogus governmental regulation. I would rather see 25 nuclear plants built to supply additional clean energy rather than banning light bulbs. That would be what I consider a smart approach to the larger issue.

 

[bulbman]

I've only ever found one cfl that I like that doesn't give me a headache and haven't been able to find another like it.
And
Cfl's don't always fit in old fixtures
And
Too many people won't be forced to use something they don't want to use
And
People will just import incandescent bulbs from somewhere they are still made like mercury batterys for old watches
And
Warm white led's are a poor imitation of incandescent bulbs
And
If it ever happens that nobody makes incandescent bulbs anymore I for one will use candles before being forced into ANYTHING, how's that for a "carbon footprint"

Enough said!

 

[wyager]

Candles are probably more efficient than incandescent lightbulbs, in terms of carbon footprint.
Lightbulb-
Coal mine>coal burning plant (or insert other potentially harmful power source)>wasteful power grid>transformer to your house>house wiring>incandescence.
Candle-
Petroleum industry waste product>shipping>incandescence.

 

[copperfox]

LuxLuthor, I like you

 

[bkumanski]

Candles are probably more efficient than incandescent lightbulbs, in terms of carbon footprint.
Lightbulb-
Coal mine>coal burning plant (or insert other potentially harmful power source)>wasteful power grid>transformer to your house>house wiring>incandescence.
Candle-
Petroleum industry waste product>shipping>incandescence.

But try using a candle in a coal mine...

I must split the difference here with you two. While I agree (and understand the principal) that incans are not efficient, CFLs have too many issues (not for everyone, but some for many) such as headaches, poor quality (if they are mounted upside down like most new homes can lights they burn out fast due to heat), they have a noxious smell when they do (burning mercury anyone?), don't fit in all fixtures, have an odd color (even the neutral ones) and really don't seem to save all that much (didn't notice a change in my electrical bill by much) and what is saved is eaten up in the cost of the bulbs and their unrealistic lifespan. I mean common, how do you claim 5 years but get 4-6 months? Really? If cars were like this, we would all get our money back as lemons. If planes were like this, we wouldn't fly. Now tube florescents with separate ballasts seem to last forever, but those CFLs, unless mounted upright, don't last. I have tried several brands and no luck.

Regardless of what I think of the environment, MY pocketbook says they are worthless junk not ready for prime time. Efficiency is worthless if I am not the benefactor. Also, what about all of the decorative lighting? Lest we forget lights have aesthetic value beyond their ability to light our world. No CFLs in my chandelier or vanity :green:.

 

[u238]

LuxLuthor, I like you

I second this.

As far as the topic, I happen to absolutely despise fluorescent lights. I have never seen one that puts out pleasant light.

 

[M@elstrom]

True some of the output frequencies are nasty! but I've noted that here at least anyway stores have begun offering "warm white" CFL's which IMHO are a complete contrast to the previous limited offerings looking significantly more like traditional incandescent light output :thumbsup:

 

[rookiedaddy]

I was using those warm CFLs... but I'm doing this now...

started stocking up...