|
Post by jeffolie on Apr 9, 2010 11:09:06 GMT -6
goodbye incandescent bulbs ================================================= ....US federal lighting efficiency standards that start in 2012 and phase out incandescent bulbs altogether. In 2012, 100-watt incandescents can no longer be made, with 75-watt bulbs phasing out in 2013, and 60- and 40-watt bulbs disappearing in 2014. www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/09/new-ge-lightbulb-lasts-years/
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Apr 9, 2010 13:22:01 GMT -6
Better start stocking up on'em if want to keep using them.
Personally I don't like the florescent bulbs not to mention you have to dispose of them like toxic waste.
|
|
|
Post by kramer on Apr 9, 2010 17:34:09 GMT -6
As an electrical engineer, I think we should make the jump right to LED lights as these use about a quarter of the energy of a fluorescent while a fluorescent uses about a quarter of the energy of an incandescent bulb. That means LEDs use about 1/16 the power of an incandescent bulb.
What I don't like about this is the change being mandated by the government under the pretext of saving the world from global warming. The real reason they want us to conserve energy is so developing and third world countries can grow their economies with fossil fuels.
Kramer
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Apr 9, 2010 19:27:34 GMT -6
I'm with you regarding LEDs, Kramer, except for the cost. Even at $.30 per kwh, they are not cost effective vs. incandescent, let alone Cfl.
I don't think we use much oil for electricity anymore. Half comes from fugly coal, and much of the rest from NG, which we have plenty of.
Also, more mercury is released from the coal to make the electricity for an incandescent than is in a CFl bulb. GB
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Apr 9, 2010 23:59:46 GMT -6
Whatever savings come out of getting rid of incandescent bulbs is more than offset by the massive growth of personal electronic devices like IPOD's, Ipads, portable game players, that will triple in electrical consumption by 2030. 1,700 Terawatt Hours (TWh) according to IEA
Oh, yeah lets not forget the toxic batters and heavy metal laced screens that cannot be disposed in a city dump.
Ahh the wonders of technology. One step forward and two steps back.
|
|
|
Post by unlawflcombatnt on Apr 10, 2010 1:51:32 GMT -6
Whatever savings come out of getting rid of incandescent bulbs is more than offset by the massive growth of personal electronic devices like IPOD's, Ipads, portable game players, that will triple in electrical consumption by 2030. 1,700 Terawatt Hours (TWh) according to IEA Oh, yeah lets not forget the toxic batters and heavy metal laced screens that cannot be disposed in a city dump. Ahh the wonders of technology. One step forward and two steps back. Amen. Paul Krugman coined a phrase he applied to Bush policies--which also applies perfectly to the forced over-use of computer and electronic technology today: [/i]"[/ul] Computer technology is being shoved down our throats in Medicine where it has almost 0 new benefits. CT (computerized tomography) and MRI's were about the pinnacle of computer technology benefits for medicine. After that, it's been 0 steps forward, and 2 steps backwards. Computerized medical records are absolutely worthless for anyone who actually practices medicine. Moreover, they're counterproductive--they use up additional time and confer no additional benefit. Their only real benefit is for insurance companies and Medicare--who use them to quickly and effectively deny claims and payment for medical care. It now takes me at least 1 hour to finish with a patient, thanks to the computardization of medicine.
|
|
|
Post by waltc on Apr 10, 2010 11:06:53 GMT -6
Also, more mercury is released from the coal to make the electricity for an incandescent than is in a CFl bulb.
Apples to oranges. A CFI bulb requires 5.7 more energy to produce than a incandescent. There is only energy savings in this portion if the CFI bulb lasts at least 5000 hours. Something I never have seen with a CFI. Yes I know they are rated for 8k hours but that's clearly nonsense in the real world.
And in terms of natural resources used a CFI uses a lot more. Ever take one apart? you have a microcontroller and ballast among other components. All those also require energy, natural resources and produce lots of toxic byproducts.
So much for being green.
Then factor in the energy and costs for disposing and recycling of them. Something that probably doesn't happen much since most people think these are just another kind of light bulb.
Of course they are much more energy efficient than incandescent. That's never been in question. It's the costs associated with making high tech green that is.
|
|
|
Post by graybeard on Apr 10, 2010 20:59:41 GMT -6
"A CFI bulb requires 5.7 more energy to produce than a incandescent."
How much energy is that, Waltc? I replaced three 60W reflector incandescents with CFl bulbs recently, after calculating it would save $10 a month in electricity. After the first month, it's all savings for me.
They had green boxes of CFl bulbs for $1 in the aisle at the grocery in a promo recently. I bought one box of four, and should have bought lots more. They had gone by the next week. Now they run $5 and up.
GB
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Apr 16, 2010 3:49:30 GMT -6
Whatever savings come out of getting rid of incandescent bulbs is more than offset by the massive growth of personal electronic devices like IPOD's, Ipads, portable game players, that will triple in electrical consumption by 2030. 1,700 Terawatt Hours (TWh) according to IEA Oh, yeah lets not forget the toxic batters and heavy metal laced screens that cannot be disposed in a city dump. Ahh the wonders of technology. One step forward and two steps back. Amen. Paul Krugman coined a phrase he applied to Bush policies--which also applies perfectly to the forced over-use of computer and electronic technology today: [/i]"[/ul] Computer technology is being shoved down our throats in Medicine where it has almost 0 new benefits. CT (computerized tomography) and MRI's were about the pinnacle of computer technology benefits for medicine. After that, it's been 0 steps forward, and 2 steps backwards. Computerized medical records are absolutely worthless for anyone who actually practices medicine. Moreover, they're counterproductive--they use up additional time and confer no additional benefit. Their only real benefit is for insurance companies and Medicare--who use them to quickly and effectively deny claims and payment for medical care. It now takes me at least 1 hour to finish with a patient, thanks to the computardization of medicine. [/quote] You're a doctor? Specialist field?
|
|
|
Post by fredorbob on Apr 27, 2010 14:42:57 GMT -6
Anyways, great victory to the Green-Communists. I applaud their efforts to help destroy our economy.
|
|