apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

NOT green.

This is a classic example of mass hysteria - and mass marketing campaigns - ignoring other technology.

Just as socialism by design can not function properly, cramming these bulbs down everyone's throats is destined to fail as well because it ignores the realities of the market.

It's basic economic theory.

Nanotechnology is already making "conventional" tungsten incandescent bulbs almost twice as effecient, and that's with the first prototype. Just think what a couple more years of research will do.

Let the market work. Energey effecient bulbs can easily be mass produced more cheaply than un-dimmable CFLs and they aren't classified as toxic. Unlike CFLs.

LEDs are great because they don't burn out. I have some but they're way expensive.

I'm looking forward to what modern science can bring us that brings prices down to reality.

Ultimately CFLs will go the way oif the dinosaur.

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=3385

By the way, that survey is biased. I would have voted but I don't plan on buying lots of LEDs any time soon. You need a third choice - "none of the above". LOL

"LEDs are great because they don't burn out. I have some but they're way expensive."

I think you just illustrated why CFL's, like hybrid cars, are the solution for "now" while LED and other alternative solutions are designed, refined and cost-cut. People aren't going to wait 2-3 years for LEDs to replace their current light bulbs.

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing solution, and depending upon the market for environmentally sound solutions is the very reason we got into many of the energy-wasteful situations we're experiencing now (especially here in Southern California). The problem with an economic based market driven solution is it aims for low cost solutions in the immediate sense, and people will continue to produce/use the lowest cost solution even in the face of superior technology or environmental hazards. LEDs still have a way to go, even though I myself use some for exterior lighting, and quite happily. In the meantime, people can switch out half their bulbs for CFLs, including the dimming CFL bulbs I have installed in our apartment.

"Just think what a couple more years of research will do...Let the market work."

I think you hit the nail on the head, there, TypicalGuy. But unfortunately, your conclusions have become distorted by, of all things, ignoring basic economic theory, technology and, quite frankly, cramming "other bulbs" down people's throats.

The fact is, CFLs are the most energy efficient bulbs on the market for the price that the majority of Americans, Brits, Aussies, Danes, Swedes, [etc.] are willing to pay. Like all things, that comes at a [limited] cost: mercury content. LEDs, while brilliantly efficient, cost too much to make and purchase. Over time, as the technology becomes less expensive they, like CFLs before them, will become less expensive and more widely used.

On the other hand, nano-tech incandescents, in their best guise (and that is a guise which is currently unavailable to the consumer) is a MERE "twice as efficient", a feat which pales in comparison to the 20w CFLs in my home that give off as much light as my previously owned 70w bulbs--that's 3.5x as efficient as a current-market incandescent.

Of course, "ultimately CFLs will go the way of the dinosaur" and I will applaud the arrival of that inevitable date. But for the time being, I will reduce my carbon footprint as much as possible with the resources I have at my disposal by replacing every incandescent with a CFL (rather than replacing only a few with LEDs). Hopefully that will let manufacturers know that [standard] incandescents just do not sell in this pro-green marketplace of ours. And if nano-tech provides the next big thing at a marketable price I will be happy to switch over once again.

So pass the CFLs, baby.

scott - you can have all the CFLs you can stomach.

What I object to and was talking about (should have been clearer) was the idiotic laws being enacted on the left coast and elsewhere either requiring CFLs or banning incandescent.

That's what I meant by let the market work.

If you like paying 10x the cost of an incandescent to make yourself feel better, that's fine.

Many of us don't and resent being forced a steady diet of the glories of CFL.

I wish the whole thing would just die.

How about a survey that says "do you care one iota what kind of bulbs your neighbors use"?

I think the vast majority of Americans would say "no".

Just re-read that post - sorry if it was argumentative. Didn't mean it that way. I respect differing opinions of course. We're all right. :->

I'm going to assume then, that you also have quibbles with bans on leaded paint and gas, high-sulfur diesel, ecoli-infested food, ineffective drugs, low-tensile strength steel, and [incandescent] lightbulbs that don't comply with modern electrical loads. By-all-means, complain about restrictions then.

Truth is, it would cost the vast majority of Americans far less to do without these restrictions, and for many it would matter very little (they wouldn't get lead poisoning, ecoli, suffer strange drug-induced deaths, be crushed in a traumatic building collapse or blow up their favorite designer lamp). But the fact is, the best solution RIGHT NOW (spot on, gregory) is to discourage high-energy bulbs from being used. If, and when, incandescents become as effective as CFLs (or LEDs or OLEDs or whatever) then that law should be reversed.

I'll agree with you that CFL-mandated laws are just plain idiotic. It's quite bluntly, anti-free market. But I don't think that incandescent restrictions are. Maybe the wording's wrong, though. They should probably read as a measure of efficiency rather than an out-right ban on a particular type. I'll gladly grant you that.

(The thing is, though, the same guys making the incandescents are also making the CFLs and LEDs so it's no skin off their back. They just need an economic reason to stop producing low-efficiency bulbs, no matter the type.)

It is my fondest hope that LED technology will rapidly eclipse CFLs, and solve two problems at the same time.

I'll agree with you that CFL-mandated laws are just plain idiotic.

OK, I'll bite - why are they "idiotic"? Lighting accounts for something like 20% of the electrical energy we use. Replacing incandescent bulbs with CFL's could slash that by something like half. In warm climates the savings would be even greater, since CFL's don't throw off nearly as much waste heat as incandescents - waste heat which air conditioning systems then have to remove.

Someday CFL's will likely be replaced by even more energy-efficient technology, like LED's. But at the moment they aren't really practical. CFL's are in contrast practical in most situations now, and customers can recoup the increasingly minimal investment in CFL's quite rapidly - within months in some cases.

I certainly don't see where it's anymore invasive than mandating seat belt use or regulating when and where alcohol can be sold.

It's idiotic for the same reason that airline regulation was idiotic.

For the same reason that the US owning GM is idiotic.

For the same reason that Britian's government ownership of coal mines was idiotic.

A FREE market is the best driver for innovation.

There is an old saying that "markets work, governments don't".

True then, true today.

Look this is not life or death. It's economics.

Need more power? Build more power stations.

Duh.

Oh yeah, the "free" market worked real well here in the US, didn't it? The banking system was systematically deregulated over the past 30 years, and in case you hadn't noticed, recently imploded. Consuming trillions of taxpayer dollars in the process (not to mention the losses to investors - well, at least those investors who didn't hold insider positions).

>For the same reason that the US owning
>GM is idiotic.

The German government (well, Lower Saxony to be precise) owns a big chunk of VW. They certainly seem to be in better shape than "free market" GM. The French government owns a chunk of Renault, again a company in much better shape than GM.

I think the most idiotic thing in the world is fundamentalism, which you seem to be suffering from in abundance. Economic fundamentalism is just as wacky as religious fundamentalism, and has exactly as much basis in reality - none.

I find nothing 'idiotic' behind conservation of resources. I personally think it stinks that LEDs aren't cheaper, but in the long run I think that will even out.

This reminds me of the eternal debate over whether something will 'pay for itself' when choosing a replacement. Some people say, 'That incandescent only costs me $4/year to run' but they don't take into account the 300 °F heat that has to be compensated for.

It's like people complaining that painting roofs white is 'a dumb idea' up North because they 'count on the black roof to keep [their] home warm.' In any well-designed/built home, you most certainly would not want that, and if you home is covered by WHITE snow half the winter, what does it matter?

It's a dumb argument for more reasons than that, e.sarver - heat rises. Especially in winter, when it's really cold outside, and often windy. So none of the limited heat a dark roof will collect in winter is gonna make it inside. For that you'd need a solar collector of some sort with a circulating fluid.

Whereas in the summer it's much sunnier, the roof will get much hotter, for more hours of the day, heating the attic and making the home substantially warmer. And where there are a lot of homes fairly close together all those dark hot surfaces also make the surrounding area that much warmer, especially when the air is still, which it tends to be more during the day in the summer. So a dark roof ends up costing not just you more money, but all the folks around you as well.

I think someone should do a study on whether the mercury in a CFL (which can be disposed of properly) is less/more than the amount of mercury put into the atmosphere by the electricity required (presumably from coal) for an incandescent bulb.

An interesting idea, Baxatax. Both numbers should be available, though you'd have to find a way to compare the two values.

Wattage x lifespan for both bulbs means that if a CFL lasts 8-15 times as long as a light bulb at 1/4 the energy consumption, then the CFL would use far more total wattage in its usable life.

CFL's 60-70% efficiency from W to VA means transmission loss is significant, making the plant work harder to power the CFL, with more mercury/watt, I'd assume.

Summary: don't break the CFL and dispose it properly. No harm done.

As one of the two users of the term "idiotic" I'll explain my side.

Mandating that households use a specific product (in this case, the Compact Fluorescent Lightbulb, no mater how many manufacturers it may be purchased from) reduces the amount of innovation that will occur in this sector. We've already established within the context of this posting that CFLs are not the only solution (and potentially not even the best solution). To mandate that CFLs be used we risk the chance that one day, a truly sufficient technology will emerge. This could be in LED, OLED or nano-filament. And that's why I expounded on my statement by saying that "I don't think that incandescent restrictions are [idiotic]". Meaning, simply, I have no problem with eliminating incandescents from the market that don't meet a strict standard of efficiency. I would even go so far as to describe that standard of efficiency in a way that eliminated, completely, the ability of current-tech incandescents from being marketable.

We don't mandate Volvos (or more accurately, specific car safety tech like active braking or rear-curtain airbags) in order that our cars are safe. Nor should we mandate CFLs so that our electric demands are limited. We do, however, require that Volvos (and GMs and Fords and Hondas) adhere to a set of safety guidelines that make it impossible to license a cardboard Bimmer.

This is how free-market and government work well together (perhaps the only example).