Contrary to rumor, the incandescent lightbulb is not going away—at least not right away. New U.S. regulations, starting January 1, cap energy consumption of a roughly 1,600-lumen bulb (equivalent to a standard 100-watt incandescent bulb) at 72 watts—which means the workhorse of home lighting will have to become about 30 percent more efficient overnight. The law will expand in the next two years to cover 75-, 60- and 40-watt bulbs. There is room for improvement: incandescent bulbs currently waste 90 percent of their energy as heat. Halogen incandescents provide a more efficient, if pricier, alternative and will give compact fluorescents a run for their money. A light-emitting-diode replacement for 100-watt bulbs is expected to reach market this year; dimmer LEDs are already available. Consumers will be able to check federally mandated labels that give performance specs, similar to nutrition labels on food, but here we illuminate the essential facts.
Graphic by George Retseck and Jen Christiansen
Sources: U.S. Department of Energy and Efficacy calculations based on currently available bulbs (traditional, halogen and compact fluorescent); SWITCH LIGHTING (led)
See what we're tweeting about
67 Comments
Add CommentThis infographic fails to answer the bottom line question: which is cheaper? A straight up cost-per-hour comparison is nowhere to be seen. It would be particularly nice if the cost comparison could include both the cost of the bulb and the cost of the electricity consumed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe just bought some 45 watt equivalent bulbs for less than 10 dollars apiece. Also I have NEVER had a compact fluorescent bulb last 10,000 hours.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't have counters on them, but some I've used certainly seem to have lasted on that order. We use 100w-equivalent CFLs in our stairway light (large enclosed globe, real pain to get to in order to change). It gets maybe 4-7 hours use a day, and quite a few on/off cycles, as it's the stairway to our bedroom & offices. In the close to 10 years we've been here, I've changed it twice. Not 10K hours (though probably circa 7500ish), but it's enclosed, bulb-down, and gets many on/off cycles per day. If it were incandescent, I probably would have had to change it 10 times instead of 2. And it's saved around 1100 KWHrs, which is worth ~140-150 dollars
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have noticed lifetime depends noticeably on heat (especially in enclosed fixtures, bulb down) and on on/off cycle rate (lots of on/off cycles reduces lifetime).
Some brands (cheaper ones mostly) also are less likely to reach claimed lifetimes.
As I sit here writing this post the temp outside is 9F. The incandescent bulbs in my house are indeed radiating more heat than light – since this is winter both are welcomed forms of electromagnetic energy. There is NO “waste heat” from any source including those politically incorrect incandescent bulbs. Most of the population of the US resides at latitudes that due to seasonality require interior illumination and heating a good portion of the year. Sure, one can argue the relative merits of heat generated from electrical power versus heating with gas, oil, etc but regardless of how the heat is produced is does not go to waste. Here, on the Illinois/Wisconsin border the average outdoor temperature is lower than the indoor comfort level for roughly 8 months out of the year – especially at night. And in a happy coincidence the need for interior light strongly correlates with the need for interior heat – that means late June when there is ample natural light well into the evening hours there is much less need for interior illumination or heat – and of course, during the cold months the opposite is true. Don’t get me wrong - I am a big fan of all forms of illumination. I make a living in part by designing LED based replacements for T-8 fluorescent lamps. While these lamps are somewhat more efficient than standard fluorescents lamps their raison d’etre is long service life. It turns out that in large building the major cost for illumination is replacing the thousands or tens of thousands of 5,000 hour fluorescent tubes – any energy savings is “gravy”. However, unless you live in the tropics or have a house with a ridiculous number of fluorescent fixtures the good old incandescent is a better deal from an overall cost and environmental standpoint when compared with either LED or CFL technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsultofactus' argument "almost makes sense." He argues that because the heat is used, it doesn't matter whether we use incandescents or more efficient light sources. However, this argument overlooks a critical fact. Resistive heating, as in an incandescent bulb, is extremely inefficient. There are more efficient ways (heat pumps, for example) to generate heat from electricity. So you are better of using an efficient light bulb to generate light and an efficient heat source to generate heat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis not to mention the summer months when we still use lights but in most parts of the country also use air conditioners.
Here is your cost per 20,000 hours (20kh) at 10 cents per kW (relative off-peak cost in my area):
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLED = (20kh x 20W / (1000W/kW) x $0.10/kWh) + $45(20kh/20kh) = $40+45 = $85
TI = (20kh x 100W / (1000W/kW) x $0.10/kWh) + $0.37(20kh/.750kh) = $200+9.87 = $209.87
HI = (20kh x 77W / (1000W/kW) x $0.10/kWh) + $1.59(20kh/1kh) = $154+31.8 = $185.8
CFL = (20kh x 23W / (1000W/kW) x $0.10/kWh) + $2.23(20kh/10kh) = $46+4.46 = $50.46
I for one have just installed an LED light in my kitchen, it is a 12.5W (60W equivalent) on a dimmable switch and i find it sufficiently bright for the activities performed in there and it only cost $30. They are quite a bit heavier than traditional incandescent lights but definitely not nearly as fragile. I feel that it is a good buy and I will definitely be purchasing more.
Enorton2's on the money! CFL's don't last 10,00 hours I've been using them since the 1980's many of them die young but a few go on forever. LED bulbs don't cost $45.00 each. I can get them in the UK for under £4.00 each and they are quoted at 25,000 hours but 50,000 hours seems more likely. They are a much much better bulb than a CFL less than I millisecond to reach full brightness, and a much cleaner light. But if you really want to save money stop using electricity for heating and insulate. The savings are phenomenal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI find that the interesting thing is that the cost per hour of useage (not including the electricity) increases in a reasonably linear fashion (especially if the cost for the LED is $30 rather than $45 per unit).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, when you add in the cost of energy it turns out (as you computed) that the CFL is the most cost effective option. I have installed CFL's in about 90% of the fixtures in my home with the exception of where I have dimmer switches installed (which I am in the process of removing). The CFL's provide more than adequate light and they work just fine with the motion sensor switches that I have installed in places that my family repeatedly fails to turn off (laundry, utility, storage building, garage, etc).
I might consider the LED but I have to get over the 70% premium (although if they are more rugged maybe that can make up for the number of CFL's that I have broken).
I converted my entire house over to CFL's as soon as they hit the market years ago. I just changed my first one this past week. Table lamp that is almost always on, I'm sure it went the 20k hrs or more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe money I've saved on the electric bill has more than made up for the higher purchase price many, many times.
I didn't do this to be "green", (I consider that a side effect), I did it to save money. I don't understand how any "real" conservative could be against saving money. (As evidenced by the recent conservative push in congress to prevent the ban of the wasteful and technologically obsolete incandescent.)
It just boggles the mind how topsy, turvy the world is nowadays.
It is indeed "waste" heat as there are more efficient ways to generate heat. The amount of money you’re spending on heating your house with 100 year old light bulbs could be in your pocket instead, or pay for a better furnace, or more insulation, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you drive a 100 year old Model T car to work every day just because it still did the job it was designed to do 100 years ago? Or would you want a bit comfortable and efficient way to get yourself to work every day?
I use gas for both heating and the clothes dryer and I have insulated the crap out of my house all of which are helpful. However, the problem is that in the summer in west Texas I am using a huge amount of electricity to cool from 105 degF outside to 80 degF inside.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI at least have the benefit of low relative humidity which allows me to increase the inside air temperature and still remain in the sweet spot of the comfort index. I have investigated home solar, wind and a natural gas generator (which are getting really reasonable in terms of cost) but no matter whether I am buying off the grid or generating my own electricity I am paying for a lot of energy.
The only remaining thing that I am planning is a radiant barrier in the attic. However, since I am not going to re-roof my home at this time the best that I can hope for is a 75% efficient barrier until such time as I have to put a new roof on and I can get the 97% efficient model. The radiant barrier (which is essentially aluminumu foil on the inside of the roof decking) is probably the single most important thing, after insulation, that you can put in your home to help with energy efficiency in terms of summer cooling bills.
For maximum energy efficiency a mix of incandescent, fluorescent, CFL and LED bulbs are needed. My latest calculations show that:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCFL and LED cost about the same for often used lighting. Commonly found LED's are sitting in the basement unused because their color rendition is horrible and fatiguing.
Incandescent is a better application for lights that are used only a few minutes a day (closet lights, inside garage lights, some basement lights). To change these to CFL's is not only expensive but because of the slow start-up time, the rest of the family will keep the light on causing higher energy uses than the incandescent.
My history with CFL's is mixed. I have had several fail within 100 hours but a majority are working successfully (none have been asked to operate to 10,000 hours yet).
I agree with Gogboggs for the most part. However the manufacturing of the "green" lamps takes more of an environmental toll that I feel we should pay. Manufacturers are running full steam to get product for marketing while not being investigated for environmental impact during the process. We need to get the impact information from all our "global" manufacturing partners and educate them to the true need for keeping it green on all levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Scuse me, but all the info is there. Do the math! For many, it's a matter of saving energy, not pinching pennies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI changed to CFLs a few years ago. I have not noticed any change in my energy bill. The reason is pretty obvious to me. The overall percentage of my energy bill that is due to lighting is quite small to begin with. I don't know the calculations but one hour of cooking on the stove is probably about a month's worth of lighting the kitchen.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a ton of lights as I have recessed lighting throughout my home (and even outside on the porches). The one big advantage to CFLs is their lifetime (changing bulbs in 12 foot high ceilings is a pain, and even worse with CFLs as the device I have has no fittings that fit a CFL.) But I am not getting 10,000 hours in all cases. In some cases the lights lasted only a few months (I use only name brands, usually GE). Then they degrade and instead of getting bright "white" light, I get a CFL that emits a light with a pinkish tint OR the brightness degrades (usually gradually). So I have to wonder, that 10,000 hour number, is that for "full illumination"? I have never noticed an incandescent bulb degrade. They either work or don't. Oh and incandescent bulbs are "instant" on. CLFs take more time (the cooler they are, the longer they take to work.)
The other issue with CFLs is that they are pretty useless outside when the temperature drops. The amount of time it takes a CFL to reach full lumen peak depends on the temperature. It can take minutes for an outside light to actually produce enough light to be useful. And when the temperature really drops, the outside lights can become nearly useless. But the kids have fun when its really cold ("Hey, you live in the pink light district.")
I think that at least part of the reason people don't see 10K hour lifetimes for their CFLs is statistical.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe 10K hour value is the 'mean lifetime', i.e., the average number of hours that a bulb will work before it burns out. This value does not imply that most bulbs will last 10K hours, it is just an average.
Can we at least expect that 50% of bulbs will last 10K hours or more? Unfortunately this is not true either. For lifetime values, the median is only about 69% of the mean. This means that only half of CFL's live longer than 6.9K hours on average (and half of them fail before reaching 6.9K hours).
The same idea also applies to reliability values for tools, appliances, etc.
CFLs are still getting a lot of bias to use them just as this article also does. More pseudo science is what we have. I am sure the data on paper is accurate, the problem is the observation of humans actually using these. At no point have I ever seen a 23 watt CFL or a similar wattage LED put out the equivalent light of a 100 watt incandescent or 77 Watt halogen bulb. My own personal observation as well as many many others that can be read about including people posting in this article have simply not seen this effect. I know for a fact a single 60 watt incandescent bulb in my bathroom fixture that can hold 4 lights, that 1 bulb is brighter than 4 23watt CFLs even though according to this article, those 4 CFLs should be brighter than one 60 watt incandescent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThen we get to the length of time CFLs last. Sorry author or whomever invented this data, maybe those 4 foot tubes in an office building get 10000 hours but the 2 dozen CFL I used all were dead within 6 months, where I have incandescent bulbs I have not replaced in 7 years. Office buildings tend to not turn off lights or only do it once a day, where residences tend to turn lights on and off a lot, which reduces the CFL life down to less than an incandescent bulb. I am sure the manufacturers of CFls love that, they can claim 10k hours of life, knowing in residential use it is worse than an incandescent, which means more money for them.
Probably the worst part of this CFL nonsense is the spread of a known toxin, mercury. It will never make sense as to why environmentalists will in effect statistically invent a problem like CO2 causing global warming, CO2 which is not a toxin and is in fact part of the biosphere but in the name of eradicating the evil CO2 molecule, they will propagate the spread of a known toxin to everywhere. Yeah right, your average person is going to call a hazmat team every time a CFL is broken or sure they will dispose of it "properly". Yeah, these same people I am sure have never thrown a smoke detector in the trash either.
So in the end, we have a bias to push CFLs for whatever reason using skewed data when in fact they are not bright, they dont last very long, they cost more and happily in 40 years every landfill will be a Superfund cleanup site because of all the mercury in them from the CFLs. I suppose the politicians want their money too.
You forgot to include the time value of money or interest. A dollar today is worth a lot less than a dollar five years from now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOur govt is pushing us to go to cfl and eliminate incandescents. The current administration is in bed with GE who mfg its lights in China cheap, and with high mercury content. Even tho we are to dispose of spent cfl's as hazardous waste, 99% of us throw them in the trash. Most businesses also throw their tubes in the dumpster. This mercury goes to the water table, streams, rivers, ultimately - ocean. We have better techology, Maint. ENG. here in the US makes all their lights with almost no mercury. Why doesn't our gov't support THAT? Because we have bad govt, but as usual, good solutions are available.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI supported the change when it was first proposed but the technology has not really lived up to the promise. When CFL's first came out, I got a box from my local utility company and sent them right back. Although they were supposedly equal to a 100 watt bulb, they failed to equal a 40-watt incandescent in a direct comparison, plus they had a ghastly green tint. I now have a lot of CFL's in my house, but CFL's are still too heavy and bulky for many settings where incandescents were used. Color balance has improved but has a way to go. "White" LED's have a harsh blue tone. I'd love to use them for outdoor Christmas lights, but not as long as the color is so hideous.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe graphic is an interesting beginning. And yes there are environmental concerns about how new bulbs are made and of what. But there has long been an inevitability to the demise of the incandescent as used for almost a century. (Ironically these bulbs have been less robust in recent years as cheaper manufacture and reduction in materials, particularly in the size of that little button on the screw base, have led to earlier failure.) And the multiplicity of lighting alternative technologies was already growing long before the phaseout legislation. (For example, those short little glass/quartz tubes that give a lot of light, but can't be handled, and fit in two-pin slide in brackets.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe country will surely weather this transition regarding the commonest lighting. But consumers would be greatly served - and the transition made smoother - were there a simple resource to help end consumers find what they need for the great variety of specific purposes that old design incandescents have adequately served. For example, I've got a fully enclosed fixture (a glass globe in the shape of an incandescent bulb!) on a simple dimmer switch. I am having a hard time finding an alternative 100-watt equivalent bulb which can handle the heat, much less the dimmer.
How about Scientific American doing a story about the role of easily obtainable information in consumers adjusting to this technological shift and others in the past?
I believe that incandescent light bulbs are a good thing - perhaps they could be made more efficient, but they DO give off heat and in the winter time and that can save energy, actually.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn areas where citizens use oil or propane for heat during the winter, it could help reduce the amount of fossil fuel used. Every little bit counts and it adds up.
I believe that citizens should be trained to use the appropriate light bulbs depending on the season.
Higher heat bulbs (incandescent) in the winter, and low heat bulbs in the summer.
I actually use light bulbs to heat the bathroom. I leave the light on 24 hours a day during the winter with the door closed, the rest of the house is kept about 10 degrees cooler (I am most comfortable at 65 degrees F, but do like the bathroom to be at least 72 degrees F.) Winter is the season for lower demand as per the electric grid and so this is not such a draw on the electric infrastructure as it would be in the summer.
We have more control over our domestic electric infrastructure than we do for fossil fuels. I think we should concentrate on how best to use all available energy.
It makes sense to make practical use of the 'heat' from incandescent light during the winter ... but it makes NO sense to be forced to cool an area that is heated by incandescent lights during the summer.
So, a compromise would seem most rational to me:
Low heat output bulbs in the summer.
Regular old incandescent bulbs in the winter.
I do think it would balance itself out -- if all citizens would simply make it a habit to use the bulb appropriate to the season.
Years ago I change most of the incandescents in my house to CFL, and I still have a number--a decreasing number--of them in operation. The lifetime of some of the bulbs was only a few months. Others have not yet failed. Check the internet to discover why this was the case, more prevalent a few years ago but still present. In my house we have had four more serious CFL failures. In three of the cases the light output of the bulb became erratic, soon followed by nasty odors and toasty brown spots on the plastic housing the electronic circuitry. In one of these cases the "plastic" housing developed a hole. The fourth case was more serious. The plastic toasted and it got hot enough to fracture the CFL glass and send it crashing to the floor. I unfortunately was near enough to inhale some of what was released from the bulb. Having done that I cleaned up the shards without summing a hazmat team. There is interesting material on the internet on estimates of landfill mercury contamination from these bulbs. I would not be surprised to see something like the Meadowlands mercury contamination sometime in the future. I know you should--and I do--dispose of the bulbs at a qualified recycler, but you can be sure that most users simply toss the dead in the trash and they end up at landfills.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat bothers me the most, however, is that my eyes are very sensitive to the light from the CFLs if viewed without some careful shading. It's like having suffered over-exposure to UV at the beach, and regular flourescents without covers bother me in the same fashion if I read in their light. Check this out on the internet too. Apparently around 25% of individulas have light sensitivity issues and the leading type is sensitivity to flourescents. I like the bulbs from a energy savings point of view, but they do have some nasty charateristics that don't seem to have been taken into consideration as incandscents are taken off the market. I am looking forward to the day when LED illumination becomes economically feasible and the high intensity degradation problem, which results in dimming with time, is solved.
To my experience it was only the early CFL's that exhibited poor reliability. And those failures were in the supporting electronics, not in the gas tube. The specified 10,000 hour life span applies only if appropriate quality control and design is used in the manufacture. The CFL technology promises 10K hours, but as in any case, crappy quality can trump the specs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm generally unhappy with my CFL's, which are about 1/3 of my lights. I hate their color temp. Just nit the same as incsndescent. I really like the bright full spectrum white light of GE reveal bulbs and most CFL's just don't play that. The ones that do, don't offer instant start and cold temp ability. Plus, I hate the way they look, so I won't use them in any nice fixtures with an exposed bulb. The nicer looking ones packaged to look like fancy bulbs, do not even come close to the light intensity equivalences they claim. Plus most CFL's are not "instant on" especially below 70 degrees F. The ones I have in the basement take about a minute to come to full brightness so I have to keep an incandescent in the one socket close to where I need to see "right away" and still its like fumbling in the dark. I do use them (plus regular fluorescents) in my kitchen for the lights I leave on all night. To me the best solution to wasted lighting energy is very simple. Just don't leave lights on all the time, esp. in unoccupied spaces, something far too many other seem not too much capable of. And if the light is always on, then use the energy wise alternatives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI's add the way so few have switched over to rechargeable batteries. I use them for nearly everything, not just my fancy modern electronics. But go into a store and you see huge displays of huge multipacks of alkaline batteries and then you have to search the electronics section for rechargeables. Someday we need to put the big rechargeable displays right out front. Dollar for doallr, the cost savings alone of using rechargebles for nearly everything is 10 fold larger than what you can gain with CFL's or LED's. Using them in just one device can save hundreds of dollars over the lifetime of that devices use. Crazy that we still have standard batteries for anything other than emergency radio or flashlight use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI've had mixed results with CFL life spans. Some do fail very early, some seem to last forever. Some seem to just fade away. And some just die all of a sudden without warning.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy Halogen experience is similar. Coughed up the extra cash for a few over the years and, being so pricey for one bulb, it hurts so much more when they fail, especially when you accidently bump the lamp.
I have yet to try an LED bulb. I hate my LED flashlights with their super UV shifted "white light." To me, white is not blue, so traditional white LED's are worse than even older Bluish Fluorescents. I assume the LED light bulbs mix some other color LED's in with them to broaden the spectrum and solve that problem. But until I try one, I will never know.
Given that CFL contain mercury and given the time I spend waiting for them to reach full illumination I'm willing to pay a bit more for an LED light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hate all the soft white, warm white shades. I my self and most people I know prefer a cooler shade. I prefer 5000k lamps, but will buy a 4100k or 6500 k depending on use. Will not buy a 2700 or 3000k. They look like bug lights. I can get by using an even lower wattage using them. The whiter light seems brighter. But it may still be the same lumens.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd their price on LEDs is way off, as well as the hours.
CFL's work fine, and last a long time. I doubt the 10,000 hrs claim as I've had to replace most of my 1st batch. Saved a lot on $electricty, though.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'll try LED's when they are cost competitive with CFL's, as I'm not even remotely spaded by the 20,ooh hrs claim. I stopped buying expensive 5 year bulbs years go.
Anyone who says, "trust me", don't.
I bought a package of CFL's and placed them my chandelier.they worked well but one slot was opened.I received an offer from my electric company for free CFL.I took it home and put it in.Then I turned on the light,and the new bulb blew and then all the rest went.Pop pop pop they went.I had an electrician go over my wiring and found nothing wrong.It was an expensive lesson,nothing is free.Won't be taking anynore CFL's free.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy are only screw in light bulbs being considered? Couldn't LEDs maybe be 3D printed on ceiling and wall tiles? With modern sensors, we should be able to turn each on and off by pointing an arm and finger.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't need to light a whole room to read a book, and TV and computers make their own light.
The cost of the lightbulb should include the cost to the environment (total life cost).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe mercury in the CFL's is a HUGE cost, especially in countries where recycling is poor.
Looking forward to a proper study on this matter....
A company out of New York is selling 1,600 lumen (100W)LED lamps now on Ebay. I paid $14 incl. shipping and it lasted about 1 minute before burning (literally) up. They are sending me a replacement free of charge. They are "corn ear" shaped so don't suffer from the normal LED restrictions as they emit light at all angles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe objection that a "real" conservative (whatever that means, or a libertarian) might have is to the imposition of the advantages of this technology by government fiat rather than personal choice. If it is, overall, better for the consumer (and personally I think it may be), then it should be able to succeed in the market without being required by law.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I find to be rather irritating is that the blurb won't tell one if the energy efficient light bulbs are dimmable. I have a lot of ceiling fans in my home with four lamps in each one, which can be dimmed with the old tungsten filament type. LED types are also dimmable, apparently, but why not say so! Are any CFL lamps capabile of being dimmed?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCan anyone comment on the problems of disposing of various types of light-bulbs when they [1] wear out [2] break. Mercury poisoning, etc., are sometimes mentioned. I'm not interested in COST of disposal (unless it is a major factor) but in inconvenience, danger, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following table compares four types of cost per hour basis at $0.22 per kilowatt hour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCompact fluorescent wins hands down
Type Cost per hour
Incadescent $0.023
Halogen $0.019
Compact $0.005
LED $0.007
If LED prices continue to fall they should replace compact fluorescent which may be a desirable in view of the mercury content of these globes.
Incandescants have more 380 um light, good for healing. (see how fast a boil dries out)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK I meant 680um (or is it 660um?) anyway, its red that heals. Eventually I intend to get a red LED array, meanwhile, an incandescant light heals... try it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe different among these bulbs are the amount of required watts of electricity and the life span of the bulb and the coast per the bulb in market.Now a days the most popular electricity bulb is the Flora cents. Any way Pd bulbs are not found in open market. Sri Lankan are thinking about the saving of the coast of electricity as the billing will be come to the amount of used Wattes per month. As florescent is less figure it is coming popular in Sri Lanka.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI apologize for barging in - I comprehend that you were directing your reply to Consultofactus, but ...... you BET I would drive a 100-year-old Model T to work every day - if I could get my hands on one! I'll take an automobile that has no electronic parts over a new one that does, any day of the week! Case in point; in a sense: I drive a 28-year-old Mercedes Diesel tipping 300,000 miles that has NEVER let me down; and I wouldn't trade her for the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGetting back on topic - I'm in Consultofactus' corner regarding incandescent bulbs. I'm not certain how the author came to the conclusion that incandescent bulbs waste 90% of their energy as heat - it can hardly be considered "waste" if one gains benefit from the warmth it is emanating. As well, I think all of you misinterpret the point - the incandescent bulb is not intentionally being used as the primary source of heat - the default byproduct of heat is wisely being utilized to provide warmth. Where I reside, the Powers That Be prohibit the use of fireplaces during the winter - so any heat that an incandescent bulb might happen to give off is not wasted on me!
The sentence that really caught my attention, though, in this article was this one:"The law will expand in the next two years to cover 75,60,& 40-watt bulbs."
"The law will expand ..." ??! So,now the government thinks they have the right to tell us what kind of light bulbs we can and can not use in our homes? I'd use candles for illumination,but that's not permitted
either,if it's one of their designated "Spare The Air" days. And,there are more of those than not.
I don't know about the rest of you folks, but when it's gotten to the point where the government is telling us what kind of light bulbs we can and can not use, and whether or not we can light a fire in our fireplaces to keep warm,there's something really wrong with that picture. Where does it end? Here's the concept: it doesn't!
You can bet your bottom dollar that they're behind the ownership of the company that manufactures which ever bulb they decide we are going to be "allowed" to use. Because you see, it's not about energy efficiency - it's about the Almighty Buck; as usual ... the one that's going in their pockets. At our expense. And by golly, if the only way they can think of to get it from us this month is to run roughshod over us by taking complete control of another industry - in this case, the light bulb industry - well, they're gonna do it.
The article didn't include the scale "ugly" to "intolerably offensive". The light from all these lamps being forced upon us is just plain hideous. Each in its own abominable way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn CFL's being dimmable... I've had some experience in that and found that (for the ones being sold here near Denver) they dim but not as much or as continuously as incandescent. In fact, we use a lot of dimmers for variable light as needed and this is a big issue for us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, as a general comment, the "green folks" are constantly talking about "full cost" when they are comparing energy sources - as well we should - but seem to skip the analysis of full CFL costs when it comes to the mercury. I honestly don't know what going to CFL's will 'cost' in totallity. Are we going to make Super Fund sites of all of our landfills?
Because it's green, we ignore the fact that thousands more birds are killed each year by wind turbines than oil spills. That massive solar farms will change the ecology of places, perhaps endangering species. We ignore the cost of mercury being put into our environment. I guess we all are biased one way or another but wish we could have honest scientific discussions on full costs so we can make good decisions.
Amen on the issue of light quality (color) - at least so far...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAmen on the issue of light quality (color) - at least so far...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen governments decide that just giving information to the people to help them make better choices is not enough and begin to force behaviors (for our own good of course), the term 'totalitarian' comes to mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisf u r reading this artikl, 1 wood assume u ken doo da math yersef. No?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe heat one gets out of a lightbulb is nowhere near as efficient in heat production as other (reasonable) heat-producers (those intended to provide heat economically)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisone could likely heat one's entire home using nothing but 100w light bulbs - and the power company shareholders would love you to do that - how else are they going to afford to buy those fancy LED's
incancesdents are really just two accidents in one; making heat inefficiently, making light inefficiently - emblematic for how some spend their life, perhaps?
may i suggest the use of pitch torches for future home heating and lighting needs- after all, it's been shown us white people are part Neanderthal - so why not go all the way?
Hey huntercutting (first comment) do the math, the data is all there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRegarding color and light, you have choices among CFL from yellow "warm" light to white "cold" light.
I had some CFL for garden lighting that lasted more than three year. ¿the trick? they are connected to light sensitive switch and they stay on all night long.
Turning them on and off constantly diminishes their life span.
I am deeply shocked to see Sci Am touting CFL bulbs that over their lifetime consume twice as much coal as equally bright incandescents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy has talk radio failed to point out that ten thousand hours of life at 23 watts amounts to 23O KWH, which given America's largely coal fired electricity, equals the weight in coal of a small Fox TV presenter.
Multiplied by the 40 light sockets of an average American household this amounts almost to Rush Limbaugh's weight in coal, while the 100 watt incandescent in contrast consumes only 75 KWH, a 67% CO2 saving compared to the coal burned by a single coal guzzling CFL. Let us not forget that those who refuse to do arithmetic are doomed to end up giving more congressional testimony than John McCarthy.
Over a period of months I've replaced 24 65 watt incandescent R30 bulbs with 15 watt LEDs (at $30 each, not $40). CFLs were not an option; the color spectrum is lousy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne problem that seems to have little notice is the RF interference potential. At one point I had to return 8 Sylvania R30's. Immediately after installing these both of our iPhones repeatedly dropped calls after 10-15 seconds. Lights off, no problem; lights on, approx. 15-20 dropped calls. As experts have noted, the LED itself is probably not the problem. Rather it is likely the power supply is creating an intermediate frequency that the phone is sensitive to. Neither AT&T or Apple acknowledged being aware of a problem, and Sylvania only offered to evaluate the bulbs (already returned to the store.)
OK. I understand that the inc. bulb is inefficient at turning electric current into light - lots of heat generated. But you state that it is also an inefficient source of heat. Is that because it also generates light? Or is it that electricity is a poor choice for heating. 1. If it is the former, then I don't agree with your argument because you get both heat & light and can't judge just on 1 function alone for total efficiency. 2. If it is the latter, I agree as electricity is usually more expensive than gas (& maybe oil?). If gas is not available, however, see point 1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm had an article not long ago about; "The Dimming of America"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was about CFL's.
The elephant in the room is LIGHT. CFL don't give that much.
Probably the worst article by Scientific American I've read. I was expecting so much more information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the police state denies us incandescents, I think some Colombian smugglers will have a new venture!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeriously, though, I’d pay $2 for a bulb but NEVER $45, no matter how long it lasted. You might break it before it wore out.
Like most other readers, artists and naturalists, we tend to pick our bulbs because we like the light. I haven’t seen any other than incandescent that make me feel as cozy.
Some years ago, there was a study which implicated direct (not reflected) light from halogens in cancer.
Does anyone know if this has been resolved?
I think an important issue is missing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is the qualitiy of the light emmited from the various lamps?
How near is the emitted light Spectum to the Sun and so to your eyes?
One problem with CFL lightbulbs is not mentioned. They do not fit in all fixtures. I use them where I can, and though they rarely last as long as advertised, and sometimes don't work at all, I think they are probably cost effective. The light is adequate and the newer ones have decent color. It takes a few moments for them to warm up in my largely unheated building, but I can live with that. I am an environmentalist and would prefer to use less energy, but I am also not wealthy -- cost matters too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem is that the fat base and longer than normal shape of most CFL lightbulbs simply won't fit into some of my fixtures. Changing out fixtures is a much greater expense and hassle than replacing incandescent bulbs frequently. So in those fixtures, I still use incandescent bulbs. I am sure I am not the only person with fixtures that are simply not big enough for CFLs. I hope in the future, CFLs with smaller bases and shorter lengths (but still adequate brightness) will be developed and sold.
I really hope the government does not make it impossible for me to buy incandescent bulbs until CFLs are available to fit into my fixtures. But I suppose I should buy a large reserve stock of incandescent bulbs just in case?
Note: The prices given in the story seem wrong to me. I can usually get incandescent bulbs at 4 for $1 ($0.25 each), and CFLs for 6 for $6 ($1 each). Of course I could pay more. I do not know about the others. Maybe prices vary in different areas? The cost of electricity also varies. Here it is just over $0.07 /Kh. (And because there is a minimum charge, and except in mid-Winter I use less than the minimum amount of electricity for which I am charged anyway, there is essentially no savings for me, for electricity, for using CFLs. I am sure this is also true for some other people. I will still use CFLs to benefit the environment, as long as they do not cost me more, and the much longer life does make them cost effective.)
I would like to see someone develop a cost comparison tool that allows individuals to enter their own specific conditions, rather than making assumptions which are usually inaccurate for any particular situation. The one-size-fits-all approach is not very useful.
as what it is, compared to what it does, it's inefficient - the same way you are inefficient - you could have answered your question yourself, no?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscience is not for the lazy
Incandescent spectrum is nice partly because it is what we are used to and partly, I think, because it is a true black-body source. My wife can't stand CFL because she sees the green output too intensely. (a photographer I met while buying bulbs told me that when using fluorescent lighting in photography he uses a special filter to minimize that green) CFLs are not good at matching black-body radiation no matter what the color temp.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLED spectrum is especially nice. We have 10 LED PAR30s with a color temp of 2700K and they are indistinguishable from incandescent. So for an outlay of $350 we probably will never have to replace any of these bulbs again and power consumption dropped from 650 watts to 140 watts.
Every hour of operation saves five cents of electricity, and every 750 hours saves about $40 in bulb replacement costs. So, assuming 750 hours of use per year means we save $75-80 per year. After 4-5 years we should start saving.
In the kitchen we have eight LED PAR30s with a color temp of 3000K and they are fabulous. Everything just sparkles and looks better. Color temps higher than that seem too blue, although 5000K actually mimics sunlight the best. For some subjective reason lightbulbs mimicking sunlight aren't pleasant.
Where can you buy a 1,600 lumen LED??
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhere did you buy the PAR 30 LED's
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJesup: what brand 100w eq CFL do you use in enclosed fixture? Does anyone know of an LED that can be used base-up in an enclosed fixture?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain, it would be nice if there were a site which listed, by use and type of fixture, brands that the manufacturers say can safely and efficiently be used in that setting. What we currently have is a slap-dash transition, with lots of general information but no central spot where harder practical information is collected. Sciam: is this incomplete and inadequate information inherent in such technological transitions?
If anyone knows such a site, lets post it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI second this comment. In fact, I think CFLs have been one of the most harmful ecological miss-steps in the last 30 years. I calculated that ONE bulb contains enough mercury that if broken in a room, would violate air standards. In fact, the governments own guidelines indicate that a broken CFL CANNOT LEGALLY be disposed of in the garbage. RIGHT! How many CFLs do YOU see getting recycled properly? I can't even get the store I bought the CFL from to take the burned out ones (typically in less than 2,000 hrs!). What a crock! And, what an expensive waste of hard-earned money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA cost comparison chart is missing, and, more importantly, a real-world evaluation of effective life span. My personal experience is that I have had ZERO CFLS last more than 3,000 hrs, and most have burned out in under 2,000 hrs. Add to that the incredible lunacy of putting mercury back into mass-consumable items with NO MANDATORY RECYCLING requirement (I took my burned out bulb back to the store for them to properly recycle it and both the cashier AND the store manager stared at me like I was insane. They had NO policy for handling returned bulbs. Guess where the mercury content in each bulb is going? Right back into the environment that we just spent 50 years trying to clean up from mercury! And, it is not a trivial amount per bulb. So, pardon the phrase, but un-screw CFL's! Quit buying them (and financing outsourcing and our China competitors), and help drive the price of LEDs down to where CFLs are now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI feel pleasure to read the content that you are posting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://solarpowerednightlight.com/smart-night-light-reviews.html">smart night light reviews</a>