CFL Lightbulbs, LEDs, Incandescents

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Hmmm. Like I've said before, perhaps it'd be a good idea if we spent less time on who is to blame and more time on figuring out if theres anything we can do about it before half of us are swimming in warm water and the other half aint happy.

There are some sh*t simple things we can do like install fluorescent lightbulbs, press the automakers to increase the CAFE and give some nicer subsidies for converting homes to solar. Its a start. Go from there. If its just the way its going to be and nothing we're going to do will help, at least we took a good shot at it.

Bear in mind this comes from a serious old school conservative.

 

[Cut-Throat]

what's to solve ? stop burning fossil fuels. you go first

I did, I voted for Gore in 2000.

 

[REWahoo]

I did, I voted for Gore in 2000.

Speaking of Al, here's a claim about another "inconvenient truth":

"The dirty secret about global warming is this: We have no solution. About 80 percent of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas), the main sources of man-made greenhouse gases. Energy use sustains economic growth, which—in all modern societies—buttresses political and social stability. Until we can replace fossil fuels or find practical ways to capture their emissions, governments will not sanction the deep energy cuts that would truly affect global warming.

Considering this reality, you should treat the pious exhortations to "do something" with skepticism, disbelief or contempt. These pronouncements are (take your pick) naive, self-interested, misinformed, stupid or dishonest. Politicians mainly want to be seen as reducing global warming. Companies want to polish their images and exploit markets created by new environmental regulations. As for editorialists and pundits, there's no explanation except superficiality or herd behavior."

 

[Cut-Throat]

Where you get that Whoo - Fox News

 

[REWahoo]

Where you get that Whoo - Fox News

If you click on the quote (the blue text) it will take you to that other bastion of right wing news, MSNBC/Newsweek.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

So is the consensus from that angle to do nothing and hope for the best?

Funny side thought...I'd imagine a lot of people figure that at a modest income level, the herd mentality says that theres no way they could squirrel away enough to retire in their 40's. Yet some manage it. Others hit 65 figuring theres nothing they can realistically do about retiring, so lets just get there and see what happens.

Theres a lot of smart small choices and actions. And not to open another can of worms, but some big ones like not spending a brazillion dollars on a war primarily over oil when the same expenditures could have done some impressive things. Maybe a handful of 500 acre solar farms here in the southwest?

I often point out that there are two kinds of people...the ones that make things happen and the ones that let things happen to them. I think we owe it to our kids and grandkids to make something happen.

 

[REWahoo]

So is the consensus from that angle to do nothing and hope for the best?

That's one option, but I didn't see it as the point of the article.

What I heard was the cost in economic terms to significantly reduce (stopping is out of the question) the projected impact of global warming is greater than society is currently willing to pay. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't take reasonable actions to reduce the impact of the path we are currently on.

"Any realistic response [to reverse global warming] would be costly, uncertain and no doubt unpopular."

"What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of carbon dioxide. Naturally, there's no guarantee that socially acceptable and cost-competitive technologies will result. But without them, global warming is more or less on automatic pilot. Only new technologies would enable countries—rich and poor—to reconcile the immediate imperative of economic growth with the potential hazards of climate change."


IOW, do something, but don't expect either miracles or a free lunch.

 

[windsurf]

Why throw up Red Herrings? - The World's scientists agree that it is a problem and it needs solving! I don't think we need anyone here to second guess them! :

Not second guessing. I think the answers to my questions lead to the conclusion that there is a problem that must be addressed and that it is going to shift some aspects of economies. The inertia (against change) is being inetensified by those who are most benefitting by the current technologies. Why are shills like Limbaugh and Hannity so outspoken against environmentalism generally and concensus climate science? Who are they speaking for? Where do they get their talking points.

 

[Cut-Throat]

Why are shills like Limbaugh and Hannity so outspoken against environmentalism generally and concensus climate science? Who are they speaking for? Where do they get their talking points.

They are speaking for right wing conservatives. They are the audience and these are the people they need to please to keep them viable.

These cons are the people that hate change of any kind. They like the status quo. In fact many of them would like to go back to 1957. Global warming is "Inconvienent for them" as it requires a lot of change. It's easier for them to deny it!

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Even more specific, conservatives back big business. The ones most affected by any reductions in green house gases would be the oil/energy businesses and the car business.

That until recently a former oil lobbyist was charged with redacting the science reports to remove anything concrete seems to be a pretty bright fast flashing red light on the dashboard....

 

[FinanceDude]

What about the fact that country like China gets a free pass on envorinmental issues, does not have to be in the Kyoto accord, and has 4 of the most polluted cities in the world?

I think the US pretty much has the toughest pollution standards in the world, and unless we can get the other nations to toughen theirs, the whole situation will not improve...............

 

[laurence]

We are still the No. 1 polluter, and any mandates we create will have an effect globally. Often times, companies aren't going to build two factories, one for "U.S. compliant" widgets and one for the rest of the world. That's why changes in my state ( CA ) are worth it, even if you run the raw numbers and say " that reduction by Cali isn't going to be a significant change globally". Companies want entry to our market, will develop compliant technology, they have it now, why not keep producing it for other places. The startup costs are big, but once the widget stream is flowing it's not much of an ongoing cost. CA has a bill going through right now to ban incandecent bulbs and make everybody use compact florescents. Dollars to donuts you'll see increased supply and use of these in surrounding states who don't pass the law. I hear the change will be the equivalent of taking 400,000 cars off the road.

 

[ERD50]

We are still the No. 1 polluter ...

Interesting that we seem to be making some progress - we are 'less bad' than Europe?

http://tinyurl.com/38sdos

"I would point out that ... there is a carbon cap system in place in Europe, we are doing a better job of reducing emissions here," Snow said.

The White House said Snow was referring to figures from the International Energy Agency that from 2000 to 2004, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel combustion grew by 1.7 percent, while in the European Union such emissions grew by 5 percent.

I'm not sure about any of the numbers, but clearly we can do a better job at emitting CO2 and I think we might be surprised how little it costs. Some of the ideas *save* money.

It appears to me the govt is not prioritizng anything, just throwing money at pet projects. I think a real, top-down approach, that aimed at how to do the most with the least money could have some impact.

Does ethanol really make sense, for example? Seems like the best numbers I've seen show it to be somewhat positive - I'm not impressed. You could probably do better burning the corn in a coal plant (they do make corn burning home furnaces). That would require almost zero processing of the corn - isn't that more efficient than trying to make ethanol out of it (ferment, distill - requires heat) just so we can burn it in our cars? You could offset a petrol or NG plant with that power.

Heck, there are a million ideas, but it requires a plan, not pet projects.

We're doomed

-ERD50

 

[laurence]

I think you are right, we don't have a plan because we don't have leadership on this issue. When the administration sees conservation as nothing more than "personal virtue" all you get is pet projects.

Ethanol is a sop to mega-corps like ADM. It's a loser.

Just imagine what a significant change it would be if incandesent bulbs were banned nationwide. There are a lot of things that can be done now for a low per person cost. People need to be educated as to the real cost of our current way of doing things. Let's start with 3000 dead and billions spent in Iraq.

 

[ERD50]

Ethanol is a sop to mega-corps like ADM. It's a loser.

Yes, and the politicians like to use it to get votes from the rural communities. Price of corn is up.

Just imagine what a significant change it would be ...

Let's start with 3000 dead and billions spent in Iraq.

Just imagine what a significant change it would be if this wasn't always turned into a partisan issue

Neither party has done much of anything to bring about any significant change.

The newer CFLs are very good. I replace more of my home bulbs as they burn out, but I've got a lot on dimmers. I'm looking forward to the LEDs for home light. But, that is still a drop in the bucket compared to the real work that needs to be done. But, it is a start.

-ERD50

 

[rjk514]

If the warming trend is coming, I hope it gets to Wisconsin soon...
It will melt the ice and snow, and besides I know how to build a ARK..
Good luck on convincing our brothers in China and India and any other
overpopulated country to assist us in beating the warming problem..
Going to get up to 16 degrees tomorrow according to the weather guess'ers...time to break out the swim trunks 8)

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

We're all CFL's here as I got tired of feeling like my grandpa and walking around shutting off lights and loudly announcing "What are we? The electric company around here? And who has been messing with the thermostat? Hold on while I hike my pants up a little more so I can barely see over the waistband...and you kids get the hell off my lawn!"

Our hefty electric bill dropped $30, then largely bounced back up as I found that mind set changed to "hey, it costs almost nothing to run these new lights, so lets leave all of them on all of the time!".

So now i'm looking at these new LED lights that use 1/10th of what CFL's use.

The CFL's are becoming a no-brainer. Costco keeps selling different packages of them for about a buck a bulb with PG&E rebates ringing up automatically at the register.

 

[laurence]

Yes, and the politicians like to use it to get votes from the rural communities. Price of corn is up.

Just imagine what a significant change it would be if this wasn't always turned into a partisan issue

Neither party has done much of anything to bring about any significant change.

The newer CFLs are very good. I replace more of my home bulbs as they burn out, but I've got a lot on dimmers. I'm looking forward to the LEDs for home light. But, that is still a drop in the bucket compared to the real work that needs to be done. But, it is a start.

-ERD50

I didn't use the D or the R word!

So now i'm looking at these new LED lights that use 1/10th of what CFL's use.

Both of you mention these LED lights, I haven't heard of them, must do some investigating. Of course, DW will roll her eyes since it's only been a few months since we put in all CFLs....

 

[Nords]

Both of you mention these LED lights, I haven't heard of them, must do some investigating. Of course, DW will roll her eyes since it's only been a few months since we put in all CFLs....

You should be seeing them in just about every traffic light by now. And in the mid-90s PG&E was paying office buildings all over the county to replace their brightly-lit "EXIT" signs with LED equivalents.

I think the LED prices are now where CFLs were about five years ago. We're going to wait another 5-10 years before making the switch.

I like that CFLs hardly ever burn out. We have a drawer full of incandescent bulbs but I can't recall ever having to replace a CFL. Remember the old commercial where a kid tells the "How many does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke and another kid asks "Why would anyone need to change a lightbulb?!"?

For further research I'd highly recommend watching Candice Olson's "Divine Design" on HGTV. What were we talking about again?

 

[laurence]

You should be seeing them in just about every traffic light by now. And in the mid-90s PG&E was paying office buildings all over the county to replace their brightly-lit "EXIT" signs with LED equivalents.

I think the LED prices are now where CFLs were about five years ago. We're going to wait another 5-10 years before making the switch.

I like that CFLs hardly ever burn out. We have a drawer full of incandescent bulbs but I can't recall ever having to replace a CFL. Remember the old commercial where a kid tells the "How many does it take to change a lightbulb?" joke and another kid asks "Why would anyone need to change a lightbulb?!"?

For further research I'd highly recommend watching Candice Olson's "Divine Design" on HGTV. What were we talking about again?

The traffic lights are universal now, I just didn't see them for home use. Looking around on the web I find the price point to be a little high right now. But yes, when/if these CFL's burn out, I'll replace them with LED, where appropriate.

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Right now they look like hell. Imagine a regular light bulb coated with glue and then dipped in lite-brite pegs.

But the light is less stark than cfls and they're 1/10th the electric usage of a cfl. And while a fluorescent requires about the equivalent of 30 seconds of run time to 'start' (in other words, dont turn it off if you're going to be turning it back on within 30 seconds), the led is nearly zero for start up draw.

 

[ERD50]

But the light is less stark than cfls and they're 1/10th the electric usage of a cfl.

Where you getting that number from? The best I've seen puts LEDS at just slightly better than a CFL.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/ssl/PDFs/energyEfficiency_oct25_06.pdf

CREE has some new higher eff LEDS, but I don't know the cost, and you do need to consider the driver eff. They run about 80 lumens per watt.

http://www.cree.com/products/xlamp.asp

LEDS are a real winner in traffic lights. To make high reliability incandescent lights that can handle temperature extremes, you end up with a thick filament and that equals low eff. Then, filter out most of the white light to get just the red or green light (yellow is only on a few % of the time), and your eff gets slashed again. LEDS produce red and green w/o filters, work over all the temperatures, so are much more eff in these applications. Same with flashlights.

-ERD50

 

[farmerEd]

Another liberal source telling us there is really is global warming:

Big Oil behemoth Exxon Mobil Corp. has dropped any pretense of questioning whether global warming is real. Now the company is seeking to position itself as an active player in efforts to lower greenhouse gases.

"The appropriate debate isn't on whether climate is changing, but rather should be on what we should be doing about it," Kenneth Cohen, Exxon's vice president of public affairs, told reporters on a conference call Thursday.

The call came less than a week after an international panel of hundreds of scientists said new research showed global warming was "unequivocal" and that human activity was primarily responsible for the most significant factor in temperature change — greenhouse gases.

"Climate is changing. It's a serious issue. The evidence is there," Cohen said on the call, which was arranged in part to allow Exxon to state its position on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's report.

When pressed, Cohen said "there is no question that human activity is the source of carbon dioxide emissions," and emphasized that Exxon is working with various policy groups and universities to find ways to produce energy while lowering greenhouse gases.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/4539329.html

 

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Where you getting that number from? The best I've seen puts LEDS at just slightly better than a CFL.

Mythbusters...they displayed this chart while comparing light bulb steady state electricity usage:

* Incandescent 90 Wh
* Compact Fluorescent (CFL): 10 Wh
* Halogen: 70 Wh
* Metal halide 60 Wh
* LED: 1 Wh
* Fluorescent: 10 Wh

One other tidbit from their 'testing':

"They tested one final element of this myth: frequently turning lights on and off decreases their life span, thus leading to greater costs. Grant setup a timer and relay to turn the bulbs on and off repeatedly every 2 minutes. After six weeks, only the LED bulb was still working. Based on this test, they extrapolated that it would take five years of ordinary usage to cause the bulbs to burn out."

 

[ERD50]

Mythbusters...they displayed this chart while comparing light bulb steady state electricity usage:

* Incandescent 90 Wh
* Compact Fluorescent (CFL): 10 Wh
* Halogen: 70 Wh
* Metal halide 60 Wh
* LED: 1 Wh
* Fluorescent: 10 Wh

One other tidbit from their 'testing':

"They tested one final element of this myth: frequently turning lights on and off decreases their life span, thus leading to greater costs. Grant setup a timer and relay to turn the bulbs on and off repeatedly every 2 minutes. After six weeks, only the LED bulb was still working. Based on this test, they extrapolated that it would take five years of ordinary usage to cause the bulbs to burn out."

http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_69_22000_foot_fall_lig.html

Looks like that data was for turn on/off analysis. They measured start-up current vs steady state to determine if it made sense to turn a light off when you leave the room. It does not appear that they made any attempt to match the lumens of each type of light source. So it shows consumption of a source, but w/o the light output (lumens) it says nothing about efficiency.

I still want LEDS - no glass to break, no mercury, but I don't expect them to be much more eff than a CFL.

-ERD50