Foxfury Scout
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 83 of 83

Thread: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

  1. #61
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Lux, who is going to finance the new power plants and distribution systems to support your inefficient lighting?
    I would be more worried about air conditioning compressors, pool pumps, electric resistance heating, and acres of parking lots lit 365 nights a year with metal halide fixtures before worrying about the macro effects of residential lighting on the grid.

    From the residential electrical consumer perspective, it would seem that electricity simply isn't expensive enough to motivate a great many of them to invest in alternatives. I do find it curious that electricity isn't more expensive in regions where the grid is said to be straining to supply demand and also wonder what it's going to take for investment in grid/generating capacity to meet that demand lest the grid start to fail more often.

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Unfortunately, it is the short sited nature that keeps building cheap coal plants instead of climate safe and far less polluting nuclear plants.
    The final bill on nuclear plants has tended to be an appreciable multiple of their original estimate. Could be argued that's a result of post- Three Mile Island paranoia, a shifting regulatory landscape, the long build process, or just the unspoken nature of nuclear design. Sadly, we're still making PWR's/BWR's without a truly workable fuel reprocessing model thus throwing away most of the energy in the fissionable elements in the form of long half-life nuclear waste. And even if we didn't reprocess the fuel, we could make reactors a great deal safer with pebble bed or other form of gas-cooled reactor with immensely simpler and inherently-safe designs.

    I do believe that whatever the legacy we leave behind for future generations happens to be, our nuclear waste isn't going to be as big of a problem as it's made out to be.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  2. #62
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,285

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Funny comparison as the "Reveal" bulbs do not have a true incandescent spectrum but a color enhanced spectrum .... actually blue shifted. They are filtered .... just like those annoying halogen headlights with the blue filters on them that actually reduce the output considerably as do the Reveal bulbs. Your rough service bulb and the reveal bulb will look completely different. The Reveal is noticeably bluer. To "accurately" compare your 100W rough service bulb, you should be comparing to a 75W incandescent which will be the same output and/or 50W halogen.
    Unless you have done a practical comparison with the various specific bulbs I mentioned, you are only trying to make points based on theoretical logic. Reveal bulbs are incandescent bulbs, and despite their faint light blue frosting, they do not in fact appear blue when illuminated. You may wish to review their specifications, noting the kelvin measurement. They are nothing like the annoying halogen high 4500-6000 kelvin headlights. I did accurate comparisons for my intended use, and the LiteTronics 20,000 120V have the actual readings I described and look the same as the GE bulbs in terms of lumen output. I'm not going to do any further measurements or checking them out next to halogens because I'm not going to need more bulbs than I have for the rest of my life.

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Lux, who is going to finance the new power plants and distribution systems to support your inefficient lighting? Are you going to explain to my grand kids our lack of tough choices for their higher levels of flooding, severe climate changes, etc? For every one of your experts who denies human driven climate change, I can counter with 20 that can show it is real. And it is not just pure climate change but the real effects of pumping so much CO2 into the atmosphere. Unfortunately, it is the short sited nature that keeps building cheap coal plants instead of climate safe and far less polluting nuclear plants.
    Well this part of your post and my response may finally move this thread into a closed status, but so be it. I'll respond as thoughtfully as possible.

    I and the people who use the electricity they use are financing new & existing power plants and distribution systems. As I said to JTR in the previous thread, before you talk to me about my lighting, go back and find a reliable study that determines the actual use of electricity for residential lighting. I took the time to go around my house, making an accurate listing of all the various incan bulbs, noting their watt ratings, and average time used and compared that to the kwh's billed on a years worth of electric bills...and it is a very small percentage. I would have to go find that other post, but from memory it was 1-2% of my bill.

    Then the next thing I want to see before you come and assault residential energy users, get rid of all the decorative and lighted advertising sources. Finally, after you get that taken care of, I want at least 30% of the federal government eliminated. That will lead to such massive savings, consolidation of duplicated resources/functions, and require thoughtful, functional prioritization of what is really important. Then come talk to me about my light bulbs.

    In any case, I won't be explaining anything to your grand kids, since I won't be alive that long, but I don't believe for a minute in the GW scheme which they had to change to "climate change" to deal with the negative vibes from recent global cooling trends. There are still those sticky exposed lies, distortions, and cover-ups to deal with from the repeated rounds of leaked emails.

    You would have to take the time to actually read the logical points raised by credible experts in the aging 10 point article posted at Canada.com to understand why thoughtful and intelligent people have long had doubts and questions. On a very simple level, there are too many variables and factors that were not taken into account with their predictive modeling, combined with not using reputable statistical analysis to give valid predictions.

    For the record if legitimate dissent from experts was welcomed, and given due consideration--leading to more accurate conclusions as a result, I would be wholeheartedly supporting the idea of man-made global warming. For now, I say "flood, schmudd." Having a 20 to 1 ratio of scientists is truly meaningless, especially since many of those scientists have no expertise in the fields of predictive climatology. Things like that have been used to eliminate the normal scientific back and forth challenging of new ideas that leads to a healthy consensus. Ideally, there should be no politics in science. The single worst thing that GW proponents ever did was to give the leadership mouthpiece to a former U.S. Vice President. That moved it out of being a scientific inquiry into a political debate....where it remains today. How's that working out for ya?

    As far as your inaccurate representation about building cheap coal plants, you may wish to pick up today's Wall Street Journal, or purchase a subscription to read this article. I'll just post one of the punch lines:



  3. #63

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Lux, time for some education for you:


    1) Have you investigated how "green" Natural Gas is currently? Sure if it comes out of the ground in Iran, it's pretty green. However, what is going to be collected in North America is not green. Sure, it is green to burn (completely), but it is not green to collect. Actually any released unburnt Natural gas is terrible for the environment. It is a very strong greenhouse gas.

    2) It is obviously pointless to argue global warming with you. However, you cannot for a minute contradict massive human generated increases in C02. That makes the seas acidic and actually causes plants to aspirate considerably less. That lasts point could have significant effects we are just starting to understand. Let's not forget, we "were" in a down solar cycle and yet temperatures were rising ... but hey, that was just a fluke. Sort of like it was a fluke that we 3 of the warmest winters in the North ever were in the last 5 years and its a balmy 79 degrees today in a part of the world where there should still be snow on the ground ... that stuff we had 1/3 of normal this year as well. You know the earth could be in a natural warming cycle, but not at the speed things are changing.

    There is a saying in the science world that change happens not because new ideas are so obviously right, but because all the detractors finally die. The sun used to revolve around the earth and the earth was flat in the past. It is just a matter of time before "there is no global warming" will be viewed the same way.

    3) My point about the Reveal is that it is NOT a blackbody radiator light. It has a modified spectrum. To JTRs point, No, not even experts can reliably tell what is an incandescent, a florescent or LED bulb. What experts you may ask? How about interior designers who tend to be the most critical about the color of things.

    4) LUX, it's NOT YOUR PLANET. It's OUR planet. You know what, I do believe you should be free to pretty much do whatever you want as long as it does not either directly or indirectly impact me. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to think big enough to realize every time you turn on a light, take your 30 minute shower, etc. it does effect me. Pollution and CO2 knows no boundaries. It's just like smoking. IT IS NOT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE FOR ME WHETHER SMOKING BOTHERS ME. THAT IS UP TO ME. I, and others like me have decided we don't want your excessive CO2 and coal related pollution and green house gases. When you stop dumping crap into the atmosphere for your excesses then I will stop caring.

    5) I will say it is a typical 1% response to try to take the easy way out and blame such nebulous things as escalating energy prices for unemployment. (For the record, I am part of that nasty 1% as well). However, you and I know that is bull. Unemployment in the U.S. comes almost exclusively from one thing and one thing only. Off shoring of jobs and the related general greed to have something for nothing including you having a $200 TV and your neighbor no job. This situation has been made even worse by government and general public excesses that had us in the west living well beyond our collective means for the last 30-40 years and now faced with paying that back and hence even less money flowing in the economy to pay that back ...... yes, yes I know, Obama created that complete situation in the last 3 1/2 years. I am not sure how gas prices even came into play in this whole argument? What the heck does fast growing demand in China and India and a lack of financial controls allowing speculation have to do with pollution from light bulbs?

    I have managed many a people in my career and if it is one thing I have learned about the vast majority of people, some quite smart, is that they are not focused on long term results, but short term gains. It's the whole "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" mentality. That may be true for hunting quail, but it is not true for smart investing, whether that is financial investment or investing in the future of our planet. People WILL NOT make the right long term decisions until it is painfully obvious what that decision is in many cases. There are times, i.e. CRT versus LCD, CD versus turntable where it really did not matter to anyone but the purchaser when or if the change was made. Energy efficiency, whether it is bulbs, air conditioners, etc. do matter. There are real and significant social benefits towards driving higher efficiency. Joe Public is not only thinking just about himself, but thinking just about himself over the next month, 3 months perhaps, not 3 years, or 10 years. That is why we have government ultimately ... big picture stuff when it really comes down to it.

    Let's get back to your argument about people about people not eating, trips, etc. by being forced to spend more. Well in theory, if they are spending more money in one area, that should drive down the price of others things. If fuel prices are going up, then the price of houses and mortgages should go down. In some ways that is exactly what happened in the U.S., though most of that was unviable loans. I could argue that in a TRUE supply and demand environment, that this is exactly what will happen. However, as soon as you have "speculators", or perhaps we should call them "investors" to soften the blow, or the 1% to make the leftists happy, then that TRUE supply and demand situation does not happen. You now have a manipulated market where the people with the money, not the actual consumers and supply/demand curve have control over the pricing. Yes, eventually even this can and does fall down like a big house of cards as it did recently, but we know who took it on the chin for the bailouts.

    P.S. when you are reading the Wall Street Journal, perhaps you should actually check their facts and what they mean. That addition to generation is PEAK generation. That is capacity, that IS NOT how much power will be generated by new sources. Hence that chart is highly distorted. Natural Gas plants will mainly be used for peak power, not base load. As you know, wind cannot be base load and with exception either are other renewables. That will fall on coal and nuclear with will run 24 hours a day flat out in most cases.

    To the person who complained about all the metal halides in parking lots, yes at first glance they seem terrible and yes the piss me off. However, keep in mind, parking lot = 1fc /10 lux. Interior is likely 20Fc/200lux. The interior lighting for whatever that parking lot is for is using way more power.

    Advertising ... yup, hate that too, but in the big scheme of things, not as much as one would think. A couple 100W incans uses as much power as a couple of 100W metal halide advertising lights (and yes I know some are bigger).

    I know that residential lighting is not the be all and end all of energy and environment saving, but at the end of the day, it is low hanging fruit. Let's face it, it is virtually no "burden" to use other sources of light. Maybe the light is not "perfect", but it is good enough. Hell I would love to drive 90 in 50 zones all the time to get where I want to go faster, but I can't ...... For the same reasons ... it impacts others negatively.

    As much as I believe in most of the fundamentals of capitalism, capitalism and the concept of I WANT, are not the be all and end all and have their place, but that place is not everywhere. Unchecked capitalism, as has often been shown, fails miserably, almost as bad as unchecked socialism. I not a fan of rampant socialism either. Capitalism and market forces do not solve all issues in the most efficient fashion. By the pure nature of our financial systems and stock market, capitalism is best at solving short term problems, not long term problems. ROI is measured in years, not decades.

    It is just that issue that creates many issues that we are facing. When a company is looking at a 3 year window, it is much easier to outsource production to a cheap labor country versus the long term investments in engineering, process, machinery, etc. to keep manufacturing domestically. Outsourcing creates short term profits. Over time though, it creates competitors. It also shifts wealth away from intended customers to other areas who are better served by your new competitors. It potentially reduces your long term competitiveness as knowledge and knowledge growth is lost, etc. On the surface, there will appear to be a net wealth growth, as is (was?) seen in the U.S., but this growth will be concentrated in a smaller and smaller percentage of the population erasing decades if not 100's of years of social growth and ultimately the foundations on what some western democracies were founded (i.e. power to the people).

    Frankly, I don't live in the U.S. so I don't give a damn whether you eliminate 30% of your Federal government, though I would gladly eliminate 30% of mine though current our provincial (state equivalent) government is my bigger issue. However, just like you talking about advertising, etc., etc., this is just more passing of the buck and not taking any personal responsibility for the issue. LUX, that is at the end of the day what I want you to bloody well to. Stop passing the buck and making excuses and bloody well take some personal responsibility for the state of the planet. If it just like stealing music, rioting, etc. Just because everyone else is doing it does not make it okay.

    Ok, enough of my soapbox, I need sleep.

    Semiman

  4. #64

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Unchecked capitalism, as has often been shown, fails miserably, almost as bad as unchecked socialism.
    Hmmm... I'm open to your argument, but I'm struggling to think of an example. I certainly agree that crony capitalism fails miserably, but crony capitalism isn't capitalism at all -- it's feudalism by another name. Can you think of a case where a truly free market, undistorted by government intervention, catastrophically failed? I don't mean just the ordinary boom/bust cycles, I mean a case where free markets took a country to oblivion (i.e. revolution). I can easily list dozens of countries taken down by socialism/communism just in the last century, but I can't think of one taken down by free markets. Any examples come to mind?

    I would also note that, historically, the worst pollution has been committed by state-run economies. In an ideal world you have healthy competition between businesses, which will gladly externalize their costs, and the government, which won't let them. Modestly regulated free markets approximate that ideal. By contrast, highly regulated or centrally planned markets are run, regulated, and exploited by the same people, so it should be no surprise that they become corrupt and cease to serve either their customers or the public interest. If you want a cleaner planet, the first step is to make it a freer planet.

  5. #65

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    First off I did note I am a capitalist. I am not a socialist and stand my Maggies stattement that the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of others peoples money to spend.

    I think I could argue though that social democracies are the least polluting on avergage. Let's hope the U.S. Does not default as well.

    Love Canal, even health costs from cigarettes could be viewed as capitalist failures. Keep in mind, I defined capitalism as small picture and government as bigger picture.

    Another potential capitalist failure .... Average US vehicle fuel economy and how currently damaging that is.

    The issue with most of your comments though is that you defined socialism as goverment intervention and it is not. Socialism is direct government spending. I am not advocating that. I am advocating government controls ... As there always has been, to common for the good of all goals. Capitalism can and does work effectively in that framework today. Any number of safety and security issues comes to mind. Environment is both.

    Semiman

  6. #66

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    why did they need a waiver from doe???? rough service bulb fall under special bulb caregory that was exempt from the ban in the first place??

    In December 2007, the federal government enacted the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which contains maximum wattage requirements for all general service incandescent lamps producing from 310–2600 lumens of light.[39] However, these regulations never became law, as another section of the 2007 EISA bill overwrites them, and thus, current law, as specified in the U.S. Code, "does not relate to maximum wattage requirements."[40]
    The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs and end with 40-watt bulbs. The timeline for these standards was to start in January 2012, but on December 16, 2011, the U.S. House passed the final 2012 budget legislation, which effectively delayed the implementation until October 2012.[41]
    Light bulbs outside of this range are exempt from the restrictions. Also exempt are several classes of specialty lights, including appliance lamps, rough service bulbs, 3-way, colored lamps, stage lighting, and plant lights.

  7. #67

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    While you guys are on the topic of banned bulbs, I thought I'd point this out to you: http://www.connexions.com/t12-phase-out. Apparently, the government isn't going to stop at banning regular bulbs. Nope. They're moving on to florescents, starting with T-12s and some T-8s being banned on July 14, 2012, about a month and a half away. The article I read stated that nearly 30% of all florescents sold in the U.S. are T-12s. This means that anyone with a T-12 fixture will have to replace the fixtures to more expensive T-8 or T-5. How much do you think this will affect business across America? When is this insanity going to end? These bulbs are selling because they are cheap. All these bans do is make the cost of doing business skyrocket in the U.S. when the economy is failing. Why can't the American people have the choice? Let the free market work and people will make the best choice for themselves. Any outdated technology will go away when people naturally move on to newer and better technology and companies stop making products simply because no one buys them anymore. When people can afford to make the switch to something better, they will. Apparently, when you can afford to just isn't fast enough for the government (who can't live within their own means). How is this environmentally friendly? 30% of all florescent fixtures in the U.S. will have to be disposed of, well before they stop working. This will be just like Cash of Clunkers. What a waste. Rant off.

    I am glad to see some companies still being able to make their product despite the ban. However, having to get permission from the government, that depends on you for revenue, to continue to make your product legally is like a dog biting the hand that feeds it while expecting filet mignon the next time it's fed.

  8. #68
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked on Fenix View Post
    While you guys are on the topic of banned bulbs, I thought I'd point this out to you: http://www.connexions.com/t12-phase-out.
    The commercial you linked doesn't substantiate its claim. 40/60/100W incandescents are still on the market in spite of the ban supposedly taking effect at the beginning of this year, so it's hard to imagine how immensely-more-efficient T12's are going to be banned.

    Given that the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 sets targets for lumens-per-watt for general lighting which T12's should handily meet (assuming they fall within the categories in the legislation to begin with), it's hard to envision how they're being banned. Perhaps manufacturers have lost interest in the declining market for T12's and are simply dropping their lines? As best I can tell, businesses - the biggest market for floros - haven't been buying T12 fixtures for some time given the overall superior performance of T8 & T5 floros.

    These bulbs are selling because they are cheap. ... All these bans do is make the cost of doing business skyrocket in the U.S.
    If cost were truly the concern that some many claim, a simple ROI calculation would reveal that the operating costs for a $0.50 incandescent will greatly exceed its purchase cost by orders of magnitude (At $0.10 / kWH over 5000 hours it costs $30 to run a 60W incandescent). Also, last time I shopped fixtures, bare-bones T8's with electronic ballasts were fairly competitively priced relative to similar T12's ... the modest price difference being compensated by the increase in efficiency and longevity.

    I suspect that the real issue with incandescents is not cost, but rather personal preference ... which is fine, but I wish that people would just admit as much.

    Of course, I can't remember the last time I saw an Edison-socket incandescent used in a business - all the incandescents I've seen used in business are specialty types exempt from legislation.
    Last edited by idleprocess; 05-27-2012 at 11:32 PM.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  9. #69

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    yea, t12 are being phased out too, it is getting harder and harder to get those, i,m not even talking about ballast, that is even harder to find than bulbs, at my work we have to relapm 100000sqft of space, but no need to replace fixtures, ballast and sockets are all you need to swap to make t12 fixture work with t8 or t5 bulbs.
    but depending on electrician labor, parts cost it might be cheaper to buy\install entire new fixture, electrical companies will be happy to sell new fixtures, and make money on them and labor, think of energy needed to recycle those old fixtures.
    i personalty think it has nothing to do with saving energy, and everything to do with money. one hand washes the other.

  10. #70
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    I've found hints at some DoE fiat driving this, but it's downright baffling. I seem to recall that better 40W T12's hit around 80 lm/W while better T8's get as high as 100 lm/W - a lot of expense for not a lot of gain. As-is, the markets would have moved away from T12 as the fixtures wear out.

    Curious how my workplace is going to manage this transition with its thousands of triple T12 fixtures...

    EDIT: Found the DoE brief. They're calling for crazy efficiency standards...
    Last edited by idleprocess; 05-28-2012 at 10:08 PM.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  11. #71

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by idleprocess View Post
    I've found hints at some DoE fiat driving this, but it's downright baffling. I seem to recall that better 40W T12's hit around 80 lm/W while better T8's get as high as 100 lm/W - a lot of expense for not a lot of gain. As-is, the markets would have moved away from T12 as the fixtures wear out.

    Curious how my workplace is going to manage this transition with its thousands of triple T12 fixtures...

    EDIT: Found the DoE brief. They're calling for crazy efficiency standards...
    Don't worry. They'll probably pay for the upgrades by laying off some people. Oh wait...

  12. #72

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Nope, T-12s are not really being phased out. The DOE exempts lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater. So colors such as Cool White Deluxe, etc will continue to be available and also 90 CRI triphosphor lamps are coming out. The news about T-12s being phased out really is nothing more than conspiracy.

  13. #73
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by oldwesty4ever View Post
    Nope, T-12s are not really being phased out. The DOE exempts lamps with a CRI of 87 or greater. So colors such as Cool White Deluxe, etc will continue to be available and also 90 CRI triphosphor lamps are coming out. The news about T-12s being phased out really is nothing more than conspiracy.
    OK, I see where this is going. The DoE brief rattles off the first table specifying minimum standards of 89 and 88 lm/w for <4500K and >4500K 48" bi-pin tubes - respectively - on the basis of lamp category, color temperature, and minimum efficiency. It then lists current standards (as of March 2011) on the basis of lamp type, wattage, CRI, and minimum efficiency. The very last exception to "General Service Florescent Lamp" is a lamp with CRI >= 87.

    So the net effect of this will be the less-efficient low-CRI lamps are off the market while high-CRI lamps of pretty much any efficiency are still sold. Perhaps I'll buy a box of tubes for the T12 fixtures I've still got around that are destined to be installed in the attic and used perhaps 4-6 times a year.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  14. #74

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    I suspect that the real issue with incandescents is not cost, but rather personal preference
    +100.

    The real goofy thing in all of this is that residential lighting costs have little relative impact on domestic energy consumption or grid load. Certainly not even in the same ball park as air conditioning. Given over all population shifts to more southern and western states the entire incan thing has me scratching my head. As you previously pointed out, commercial entities already use tubes or halides. If you have a McMansion with 200 down lights and a 75watt incan in each one and live in Alabama you probably spend as much money cooling them as anything else.

    I seem to recall that better 40W T12's hit around 80 lm/W while better T8's get as high as 100 lm/W
    Dept of Energy uses 79lm/W as a benchmark, which is typical of most commercial class fluorescent fixtures running silvered (not white) reflectors. I've seem some T5 based fixtures using very exotic reflectors claim 100 lm/W, but that's a tough mark to hit given tube stability and strikeback. Obviously if you wait for tubes to start flickering and dying you're not getting anywhere near 80 lm/W.

    Seen a lot of white papers that last year or so that claim that fluorescent tubes are made cheaper than the they should be, and if minor changes were made to the cathodes and anodes the lifespan of tubes could be tripled and efficacy could be increased. However, tube makers want product turnover, so cathode/anode materials are designed to fail and be as cheap as possible.

    79 lm/W is still a tough mark to hit for LED fixtures, and there are only a handfull of LED fixtures that break that barrier.

  15. #75

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    [QUOTE=blasterman;3953505]+100.

    "The real goofy thing in all of this is that residential lighting costs have little relative impact on domestic energy consumption or grid load. Certainly not even in the same ball park as air conditioning. Given over all population shifts to more southern and western states the entire incan thing has me scratching my head. As you previously pointed out, commercial entities already use tubes or halides. If you have a McMansion with 200 down lights and a 75watt incan in each one and live in Alabama you probably spend as much money cooling them as anything else."

    Here in Southern California most people told me they absolutely got no savings after fitting their whole houses with CFLs. The claimed energy savings for most households is exaggerated really. You will need to have large installations used a lot in order to see a difference in the bill.

    "Dept of Energy uses 79lm/W as a benchmark, which is typical of most commercial class fluorescent fixtures running silvered (not white) reflectors. I've seem some T5 based fixtures using very exotic reflectors claim 100 lm/W, but that's a tough mark to hit given tube stability and strikeback. Obviously if you wait for tubes to start flickering and dying you're not getting anywhere near 80 lm/W."

    "Seen a lot of white papers that last year or so that claim that fluorescent tubes are made cheaper than the they should be, and if minor changes were made to the cathodes and anodes the lifespan of tubes could be tripled and efficacy could be increased. However, tube makers want product turnover, so cathode/anode materials are designed to fail and be as cheap as possible."

    The same will happen with LEDs. They will be cheapened up as demand rises, as manufacturers wont want to lose money on long lived products.
    Last edited by oldwesty4ever; 05-30-2012 at 09:43 PM.

  16. #76
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by blasterman View Post
    The real goofy thing in all of this is that residential lighting costs have little relative impact on domestic energy consumption or grid load. Certainly not even in the same ball park as air conditioning. Given over all population shifts to more southern and western states the entire incan thing has me scratching my head.
    I vaguely remember reading somewhere that for all the ire that heavy air-conditioning use attracts, it uses appreciably less gross energy than home heating in colder climates ... which can only be done effectively by burning hydrocarbons.

    Dept of Energy uses 79lm/W as a benchmark, which is typical of most commercial class fluorescent fixtures running silvered (not white) reflectors. I've seem some T5 based fixtures using very exotic reflectors claim 100 lm/W, but that's a tough mark to hit given tube stability and strikeback. Obviously if you wait for tubes to start flickering and dying you're not getting anywhere near 80 lm/W.
    I was thinking ideal "bulb lumens" rather than "out the fixture lumens".

    Seen a lot of white papers that last year or so that claim that fluorescent tubes are made cheaper than the they should be, and if minor changes were made to the cathodes and anodes the lifespan of tubes could be tripled and efficacy could be increased. However, tube makers want product turnover, so cathode/anode materials are designed to fail and be as cheap as possible.
    So long as they hit their ~10k lifespans and do so as cheaply as possible, the buying public doesn't really seem to care.

    79 lm/W is still a tough mark to hit for LED fixtures, and there are only a handfull of LED fixtures that break that barrier.
    LED fixtures are designed conservatively with LED ruggedness in mind so they can hit their ~25k hours warranties, which means more "mature" chips with lower efficiencies than the latest uber-chip being crowed in the latest press release and also excludes the latest wunder-chip that DX is using in their latest 2000"lm" / 5"W" flashlight (scare-quotes added quite deliberately).

    Will be a while until LED fixtures are hitting 100 lm/W, but I see it happening in another year or so.



    Such unrealistic standards for floro of all things and the 87 CRI loophole is probably large enough for a steady stream of containerships to pass through.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  17. #77
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by oldwesty4ever View Post
    Here in Southern California most people told me they absolutely got no savings after fitting their whole houses with CFLs. The claimed energy savings for most households is exaggerated really. You will need to have large installations used a lot in order to see a difference in the bill.
    The savings are there - even with the sub-1.0 power factor of CFL's - just that the lighting load on most residences is a fraction of other major loads (like appliances and climate control) and the savings may be lost in usage fluctuations of the major loads.

    Savings will be more visible via things like replacing old appliances with more efficient ones or better insulation even if the theoretical ROI is about the same.
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  18. #78

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by oldwesty4ever View Post
    The news about T-12s being phased out really is nothing more than conspiracy.
    defiantly not conspiracy, but fact. anyone in construction\building maintenance business will tell you that.

  19. #79

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    So long as they hit their ~10k lifespans and do so as cheaply as possible, the buying public doesn't really seem to care.
    Hmmm, more like the buying public has been 'cowed' into accepting the lifespans relative to other fixtures I would guess. Re-lamping constitutes most of the cost in the commercial sector (biggest cost drive for LED street lights as well). I've seen long life T8 tubes advertised as high as 40k hours, and obviously the price is higher

    Not that I'm huge fan of fluorescent, but just that the technology hasn't been fully utilized. I work for a few places that have been using cheaper brand LED retrofits (much to my disagreement) and failure rates are running higher than CFL.

  20. #80
    Flashaholic* idleprocess's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    dfw.tx.us
    Posts
    4,425

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by blasterman View Post
    Re-lamping constitutes most of the cost in the commercial sector (biggest cost drive for LED street lights as well).
    Oh sure - electrical contractors probably charge a multiple of the tube cost to swap it ... but since it's a task that's often as not performed by a contractor who supplies whatever tubes he can source for the cheapest, there's a convenient bit of self-interest there that happens to coincide with the lamp manufacturers. Seeing the building management periodically herd electrical contractors around my workplace, it's pretty apparent that they're scraping the bottom of the barrel for their multiple-choice lamp selections.

    Funny, it would almost seem more cost-effective to have employees of the company do it after some mulling over of the options ... but that apply the harsh light of reality to the simplistic dogma of "contracting is always cheaper!"
    I apologize that this letter is so long; I did not have time to write a short letter

  21. #81
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Woodland, CA
    Posts
    9,967

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Moving this to the Cafe. This thread is more editorial/opionated than a discussion about fixed lighting per se.

    Bill

  22. #82
    Flashaholic cdrake261's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Columbus, IN
    Posts
    438

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by LuxLuthor View Post
    Gotta love American ingenuity.....heard about this listening to Rush today here who interviewed the owner and new advertiser of his show.

    Basically, the "heavy duty" long life bulbs (lasting 10,000 hrs) are in a separate category called "Rough Duty" that were not the "General Use" ones banned by the bogus green energy law. These were the only ones worth buying in the first place, since they last 7 years if you use them an average of 4 hours every day. I had stocked up on a boatload of the 20,000 life bulbs that were made in China.

    This guy (& his company-"NewCandescent") had to get a waiver from the DOE to manufacture these which he got, and is doing in the USA. I don't need any more bulbs, but I bought a dozen just to show my support.

    This made me very happy today.

    Edit: I saw the link to Rush requires you to be a subscriber, so for those unfortunate souls who are not members, there was also an article in the NY Post about this inventor and rescue of our beloved incandescent bulbs. His grandfather was friends with Edison. When GE stopped making their incan bulbs, and shifted to producing CFL's in China, Larry Birnbaum, founder and owner of Epic Light Bulbs, bought their equipment. Brilliant move....literally.
    What can you say, he's a bright guy!

  23. #83
    *Flashaholic* LuxLuthor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    10,285

    Default Re: New USA Company Making "Banned" Lightbulbs After Getting Waiver from DOE

    Quote Originally Posted by SemiMan View Post
    Lux, time for some education for you [clipped in the interest of brevity]
    You made some good points. I don't want to spend the time answering all of them since it won't make any difference to either of us anyway.

    I did want to post this interesting story that showed up on today's Drudge Report, given his stature. http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •