posted
Icarus -- I, too, would like to see the full cost analysis including the manufacture of the light bulbs. I would also like to know exactly how much this would benefit society. That could definitely sway my opinion. I am, of course, working on the assumption that it could drastically reduce state energy consumption and minimize or end the blackouts.
Dagonee -- I think that would be a much better idea if it is practical to implement. The trouble is that I'm not sure the average person would understand when they had to turn the lights out unless the lights went out for them. I don't have a meter inside my house and I don't have any practical notion of how much my energy consumption costs.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Ya know, rather than making us accept inferior light, we could build more (nuclear) power plants... You know... rather than making our lives less pleasent by degrees.
It takes 10 years to build a nuclear power plant so that isn't a realistic short term solution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stormy, it's also a LOOOONG way to Wal-mart where I live. Not that I would shop there even if it wasn't. Which is probably why it's so far.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KQ: It's always so incredibly crowded at Wal*Mart. I can see why you wouldn't want to shop there.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well to start with, Icarus, your understanding of SeasonalAffectiveDisorder is wrong.
As well as a shorter period of light per day during the winter, the light spectrum is redder because the Sun is lower on the horizon and thus travels through more atmosphere to get to you. In summer, the spectrum is bluer because the Rayleigh scattering is lessened due to the shorter distance that sunlight has to travel through the atmosphere. SAD is treated by imitating summer lighting: ie increased exposure to light on the blue-end of the spectrum. Hence the use of tanning lamps in the original treatments.
A 14watt fluorescent bulb puts out the same amount of light as an 80watt incandescent bulb. That 66watts of extra energy wasted by the incandescent bulb is turned into heat energy, as photons in the infrared region with some transfered from the heated bulb itself to the air through conduction&convection. While you may be getting more red light from an incandescent, that is due to the choice that the manufacturer makes inregards to the coating used on the interior of the bulb.
The photons produced by the ionization itself within fluorescent bulbs produces a spectrum centered in the ultraviolet region. Which is converted into white light by the thin layer coating the interior of the glass. The ratio of red to blue within that white light is controlled by the coating that the manufacturer chooses to use.
posted
Sure. You are starting to see LightEmittingDiode lighting systems being sold as replacement for fluorescents. Significantly higher efficiency leading to reduction in electricity cost, especially because waste heat has to be paid for twice: once in producing that heat, and again to remove that extra heat to cool off the building.
LED lighting is still marginal on the financial bottom line: ie contemplatable mostly because they have an extremely long lifetime even compared to fluorescents, and large enterprises have to pay out moolah for worker time to replace burned out bulbs.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Yes, although the costs would be accordingly high to account for the decrease in repeat business. This is likely a large part of why CFLs are so expensive.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I actually use the "government approved" light bulbs because I'm cheap. But they're not as good as a regular incandescent bulb. They don't give out as much light and it's not as.... clear? pretty? nice?... It's not as good of a light.
There are rooms where I want incandescent bulbs. Like in the bathroom where I put on makeup. That's not a place for 2nd rate light. I'm unattractive enough without not being able to see as I put on my face.
Okay, I'm late to the party. But there's been some discussion of light quality between incandescent and fluorescent light, and this is something that can be (and has been) quantified.
Light quality has two metrics*: color temperature and color rendering index (CRI). Start with color temperature -- this ranges (in this example) from about 2000 degrees** (warm light) up to about 8000 degrees (cool light). Warm light has more red tones, and cool light has more blue tones. If you look at the spectral density graphs for incandescent bulbs (2700K) and fluorescent (4100K), they're pretty much the inverse of one another. In other words, incandescent makes a white shirt look orange-ish, and an CF makes it look blue-ish (though without looking at the same shirt under two different lights side by side you won't be able to tell -- it'll just look white).
Every light source has a unique spectral density graph. The benchmark, of course, is sunlight. Sunlight has a color temp of 6000K and a CRI of 100 (obviously). Some of the other common lighting sources (besides the two being discussed here) are high pressure sodium (these are the lights everyone knows as the yellow parking lot lights), and metal halide (the really bright white stadium lights).
Okay, so color temperature is one way to discuss the light quality. The other, more important way, is the CRI. This is a percent that represents how accurately the light source displays all the colors in a visual spectrum. A really good light source will have a CRI in the low 90s. Your typical high pressure sodium light will have a CRI of 22 (the common anecdote here is that under this lighting you can't distinguish between blood and oil). Typical 4' fluorescents (think: WalMart) have a CRI in the mid-60s (put one of these in your closet and you'll find you grabbed one black sock and one blue sock, thinking they were the same color). Most consumer level CFL's have a CRI in the mid-80s (which is pretty good). Incandescent bulbs have a CRI of 100. They do an exceptional job of rendering subtle color differences. This doesn't change the fact that everything you view under a warm light is slightly orange-tinted -- that's why they evaluate the CRI and color temp separately.
So, CFL are actually more similar to sunlight in temperature, but a lot of people dislike them for home use. I think this is partially because of their (relatively) poor CRI, but mainly because everyone's used to the warmth you get from incandescent lights. Fluorescents can be hard on the eyes, and they've been linked to migraines and eye fatigue.
Whereas incandescent lights are much cheaper, provide a warmer light source with a better CRI, but are fantastically inefficient.
I personally use CFL wherever they fit. Because fluorescent lights require a ballast they don't always fit in a standard A19 socket. I've had good luck with the lightlife, and I like the energy savings.
*The third metric of lighting design, and the most commonly talked about one, is footcandle level. This refers strictly to the light intensity; not the quality. As an aside, the higher the quality of the light, the lower the intensity needs to be.
**Color temp is measured in degrees K, and is essentially measured by comparing the hue of the filament to the hue of a metal rod heated to that temperature. This is estimated for all other light sources, which don't have filaments. So the terms 'warm' and 'cool' refer to the spectral density and not the actual temperatures.
quote:I am, of course, working on the assumption that it could drastically reduce state energy consumption and minimize or end the blackouts.
Lighting accounts for roughly 10 - 30% of all electricity usage (depending on the area of the country and the time of year, among other things). So don't assume cutting the lighting bill will reduce blackouts. You can have on every light in your house and probably not draw as much current as your computer and television do.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Well to start with, Icarus, your understanding of SeasonalAffectiveDisorder is wrong.
I have no idea how you could make such an evaluation, given that I didn't make any statement here about SAD. I stated that exclusively fluorescent lighting produced in me symptoms similar to those described by SAD sufferers. I also alluded to educational research indicating that students learn better when there is an incandescent light source in the room.
Next you'll tell Dagonee he doesn't understand the causes of headaches . . .
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't necessarily have a problem with the bell, assuming the monetary savings are real. I see flourescent bulbs on Amazon for $3 a bulb (you might want to check it out riv, if you're spending any more than that).
If there really are health concerns, like migraines/eyestrain and such, then I think it's a stupid bill. Maybe they could just limit it to commercial venues (office buildings)?
The savings look real though. We use a mix of flourescent and incandescent in my house. I find that the CFL bulbs really do last something like 10 times longer (not always) than incandescent bulbs. If your average incandescent bulb is $.30, then the price itself is a wash, if you measure it out over the life of the bulb.
Then the savings comes in the form of a lower energy bill. Appx. 20% of your home energy costs are from lighting, and CFL bulbs can cut wattage from 75watts down to 13watts whill still producing the same brightness. That's about 83% less energy being used to light your home, which lowers your actual electric bill by 16.6% on a monthly basis, and better yet, it's just plain less energy being used. That's real money. Of course that all depends on whether or not the estimates for how long these things should last are real. But for everyone here saying that if something is cheaper people will buy it, well, people can be stupid, and just not KNOW that something better for them is available.
For economic reasons, I say it's a great bill. For health reasons, if that's true across the board, then forcing someone to put up with the side effects is a horrible stupid idea, instead they should try to make them more available to consumers who might want them, and work on spreading the word of their benefits.
I think the savings are real though, which confuses me Pix. You were just complaining in the global climate change thread that you need to be sold on technological advances to solve the energy crunch, which you were especially decrying in California. This is another piece to solving that puzzle.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: Where in the other thread did I say we should pass laws requiring every day people to change the way they do things?
I said we should use EEStor powered cars, but I didn't say "Let's pass a law requiring everyone to drive one." I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a resaonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: Where in the other thread did I say we should pass laws requiring every day people to change the way they do things?
I said we should use EEStor powered cars, but I didn't say "Let's pass a law requiring everyone to drive one." I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a resaonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
I see it the same way, there is no reason for the government to tell me what to buy. Products have to be more efficient and cheaper if they are going to make it, its stupid (though somebody could possibly provide examples demonstrating otherwise) to say its, "Better" but the government is going to have to make people buy it if its going to succeed.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there really are health concerns, like migraines/eyestrain and such, then I think it's a stupid bill. Maybe they could just limit it to commercial venues (office buildings)?
As I recall, the correlation between migraines and eyestrain was all recorded in an office setting.
I personally doubt you'd see any of the same correlations in home use, simply because you don't need a comparable amount of task lighting at home.
And there are already restrictions on the types of light you can use in new commercial or industrial construction. There's a national energy code that every new building has to meet, and one of the requirements is that the lighting for the building not exceed a certain number of watts/sq. ft. In addition to that, there's a minimum footcandle level that must be met, depending on the occupancy. Between these two requirements it's nearly impossible to design an office building and not use mainly fluorescent lighting.
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: Where in the other thread did I say we should pass laws requiring every day people to change the way they do things?
I said we should use EEStor powered cars, but I didn't say "Let's pass a law requiring everyone to drive one." I'm looking forward to them being on the market at a resaonable price so I can buy one OF MY OWN FREE WILL.
Just as I use the florescent bulbs, where appropriate, of my own free will.
I never said you supported any such legislation. And if you can, I'm still waiting to hear a response from you on my comments in that thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Absolutely.
For one thing, there are other reasons to replace bulbs than burn out - as has been mentioned, they do get broken occasionally. Also, there is always new construction and remodeling going on that is constantly producing need for brand new light bulbs that aren't simply replacements. Sure the cost might be higher, but I have no doubt they'd release them to the public, as quickly as possible.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: Oh but I don't have a right to an opinion on the other thread. I've been ordered to sit down and shut up. Please don't bring that thread to this one.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Lyr: Oh but I don't have a right to an opinion on the other thread. I've been ordered to sit down and shut up. Please don't bring that thread to this one.
I never told you to sit down or to shut up. I'm not bringing the argument here, I'd like you to either go back to the other thread and answer it there, or email me, whichever one is better for you. I asked an honest and perfectly valid question of you, which I'd like to see you reconcile with your arguments in that thread.
If you choose not to, fine I guess, I can't make you, but I'd really appreciate it. This will be the last I say about it in this thread.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Well, perhaps they wouldn't at that; a business model is a hard thing to shake. But if you, as a private inventor, invented an eternal bulb, and you thought the profit per bulb would make a factory a good investment even if you only sold X number of units over the next century, then certainly you would borrow money to build that factory, no? The whole point of non-monopoly capitalism is that you're not stuck with what General Electric does. Ask IBM how many computers they sell these days.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Here's a question that to me demonstrates a flaw in American style capitalism.
If General Electric created a bulb that never burned out, do you think they'd put it on the market?
Well, perhaps they wouldn't at that; a business model is a hard thing to shake. But if you, as a private inventor, invented an eternal bulb, and you thought the profit per bulb would make a factory a good investment even if you only sold X number of units over the next century, then certainly you would borrow money to build that factory, no? The whole point of non-monopoly capitalism is that you're not stuck with what General Electric does. Ask IBM how many computers they sell these days.
posted
I wonder (as a sometimes theatre tech) if changing the colour with a gel (colour filter) might make fluorescents easier on the eyes?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
As to the light issue, you can buy CFLs with the correct spectrum to fool your mind into believing its daytime. FLs are regularly used by companies with night shifts who want to make sure their employees are alert.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If this bill passes, so many people are going to sue California for vision and health problems related to the poor quality of light florescent bulbs produce.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm wondering how the bill is even worded. Is it illegal to BUY them in California or to USE them in California?
There's no possible way they could police usage in the most populous state in America. Which leads me to believe they make it illegal to sell them there. I wonder if that includes making it illegal to buy them over the internet, which means places like ebay and Amazon would have to be mindful of the location of their sales.
The whole thing sounds like it would be rife with holes and that enforcement would be a real issue. And as always, the bulk of the burden would probably fall on the poor.
I think California's best bet to a near term solution to their energy woes is less silver bullet, and more an amalgam of solutions. I think they should create a massive fund, a billion dollars to start with, to loan to people to use for Green upgrades, be it solar heating, PVC panels, new windows (better insulation for heat trapping, double paned), Energy Star appliances, to help offset the price of a hybrid car, or even to buy a supply of flourescent lightbulbs. Then they need to spend some money to upgrade their energy infrastructure, but I think the program would be a win win for everyone. The loans will eventually be paid back, so it's an investment with guaranteed basic return. Property values will go up on any home that takes advantage of the loans, energy bills (including heating bills) will plummet across the state and will alleviate the 'crisis' part of their energy problem.
That kind of solution is fiscally responsible, even advantageous, and doesn't force anything on anyone, with the possible exception of a modest raise in taxes to pay for the start-up costs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
1.) Light Dimmers - you can't Dim florecent lights. I have a 150watt incandecent light in my living room in a lamp that has a dimmer. Most of the time, while I am watching TV, I have it on it's dimmest setting. On those few occassions when I'm reading a book, I turn the light up. But most of the time, the electrical consumption is very low.
Many many houses have Dimmers for mood lighting. You want enough light to see your way around, but you don't want it to be bright. There is no way to resolve this with Florecent lights.
2.) Closed Light Fixtures - only the most expensive Florecents are rated for closed or sealed light fixtures. In my previous house, my bathroom and kitchen lights where enclosed in glass globes, sealed from any air movement. Florecent lights blew out very quickly in these fixtures. They actually blew out FASTER that incandecent lights.
3.) Cold Weather - true not a real big problem in California, but I live in Minnesota, and to use florecents in a yard light or in your unheated garage, you need special expensive 'Cold Start' florecents.
I can see the government making a big push for florecent lights, but is this the best method? And further what is the penalty? Will I be fined if I have incandecent in my house? Will I be arrested if I am bringing incandecents across the boarder? Will they raid my house if they find I am ordering them on-line?
Now, presumably they are just banning the sale of incandecents, but is that really practical considering there are some applications where florecent simply doesn't work?
Perhaps each retailer could add $.25 to $.50 to the cost of each 4-pack of standard bulbs and use that money to reduce the cost of Florecents. That would encourage people to buy Florecents for every application in which they would work.
Now the government could place a 'Sin' tax on incandecent, but that doesn't do anything to solve the problem and only creates more revenue that the government can squander.
I think a market oriented approach would work much better. They could pass a law that requires businesses to add a penny (or half-penny or whatever) per watt to the cost of incandecent bulbs and to divert that money into the reduction of the cost of florecents. This would increase the cost of incandecent bulbs, but would not make common four-packs prohibitively expensive.
Cost is a huge factor. Poor people buy incandecent because they are short on cash-on-hand. They economize on everything, even though in the long run the cost is more. It's not about how much does it cost me over time, it's about how much cash do I have in my pocket right now.
Note that now you can by 'daylight' florecent bulbs for roughly the same price as ordinary florecents. They have a bluer light.
For the record, I use mostly florecent bulbs even though I am relatively poor.
posted
I don't have any citations readily available, but I thought that compact flourescent lightbulbs had to be specially disposed of to avoid contaminating landfills with the small amounts of mercury found in these bulbs. If the improper disposal of these bulbs is in fact detrimental to the environment, couldn't forcing the use of these contribute to the eventual poisoning of the water table?
edit: here's a link to info on mercury as it relates to CFLs (compact flourescents). Summary: even though improper disposal results in mercury contamination, this is still less mercury than would be released into the atmosphere from the production of power for conventional bulbs.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, this is very similar to the change in toilet tanks that was forced on us, as a nation, some time ago, in order to conserve water. And the mandatory placement of water regulators in shower nozzles. Both are stupid, because in both cases the lack of water makes it more likely you'll have to use it more wastefully. How many times have you had to flush more than twice after a big, erm, load? At least the shower nozzle thingies can be removed. When I shower with inadequate water pressure, it makes my shower take longer, wasting more water in the end, I'll wager. Getting shampoo out of long hair with no water pressure is fun. I've taken to opening up hotel nozzles when I travel and removing their regulators.
This "supply side environmentalism" is silly.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:1.) Light Dimmers - you can't Dim florecent lights. I have a 150watt incandecent light in my living room in a lamp that has a dimmer. Most of the time, while I am watching TV, I have it on it's dimmest setting. On those few occassions when I'm reading a book, I turn the light up. But most of the time, the electrical consumption is very low.
Many many houses have Dimmers for mood lighting. You want enough light to see your way around, but you don't want it to be bright. There is no way to resolve this with Florecent lights.
This is only true for compact fluorescents. Standard fluorescent lights (with have the prefix 'T', for 'tube') can be dimmed, but require a special dimming ballast.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If there really are health concerns, like migraines/eyestrain and such, then I think it's a stupid bill. Maybe they could just limit it to commercial venues (office buildings)?
As I recall, the correlation between migraines and eyestrain was all recorded in an office setting.
I personally doubt you'd see any of the same correlations in home use, simply because you don't need a comparable amount of task lighting at home.
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: I have lupus, and it is true that some people with lupus have trouble tolerating fluorescent lighting, due to the UV output.
I don't have lupus, but I still have trouble tolerating fluorescent lighting. The flickering alone is enough to drive me batty, but really, it's the pain and eyestrain that does me in. And yeah, I'm talking about home use of compact fluorescents as well as fluorescents in office settings.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All right, the tech geek of the house (my husband) has come home and informed me that fluorescent lighting has improved dramatically in the very recent past. Apparently, the flickering is gone -- something about not having balaste anymore. (I don't really understand that part...all I got was they don't flicker anymore.)
Not that this has anything to do with my opinion of the law, but it does keep coming up. Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder. The flickering being gone - is that a recent thing? I heard that back when I was still in Canada, but I still saw the flickering.
I think what some people don't get - and this has nothing to do with your husband, Christine, or any other specific people - is that some of us really are so incredibly light sensitive that we can see flickering where it's non-detectable by pretty much anyone and everyone else.
And yeah, Icky, CRT monitors make me ill, too. I hate the flickering on those - it's so bad.
But I gotta be honest - LCD monitors give me problems, too. So I'm a freaq of nature. Ain't the first time. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apparently, there are ongoing improvements but the most recent have been in the last couple of years. Here is a full list of how they are better than they once were:
1. Due to higher demand, manufacturers have started offering more broad-spectrum lights...a warmer light about the same as an incandescent.
2. Ballists have gotten better, reducing the flickering...theoretically faster than the eye has to cope with. The typical CRT is 60 MHz whereas these new lights are 200-500 MHz
3. They are smaller and more efficient than ever...now the same size as an incandescent bulb and 4-6 times more energy efficient.
4. Average lifespan of incandescent bulb is 2 years, fluorescent is 15 years.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Last time I went to Costco, I picked up a pack of 4 energy-saving bulbs for $7, about the cheapest I've ever seen them.
These bulbs also produced a slightly yellow light rather than the harsh white light that I normally see, which I appreciate.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have one question, is the light emited by these compact floresent bubls basickly the same as regular floresantes? Cause if so I would have a problem with this law. In lots of cases floresent lights tend to give me a headache. Part of that comes from haveing been dignosied with Scotopic Sensitivity Syndrome which is affected by floresent lights. It doesn't affect me so thats all I have to say just wanted to put out one reason I think it might not be the best of ideas.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: While I'm sympathetic to the whole freedom of choice thing, I'm not really seeing a practical downside to the legislation.
I preferentially use compact fluorescents, and I still think this law is a dumb idea. And not just because of the inevitable lightbulb black market. (*snicker*) Encouraging people to use the compact fluorescents (maybe by subsiding them so they're not so bloody expensive) would be good. Forcing them?
Dumb.
The fluorescents give me terrible headaches. I had one in my bedroom for a bit until I realized that it was the source of my agony.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
