To Build a Better Light Bulb
By Jeff Feldman
At his Glenmont Estate in West Orange, N.J., Thomas Edison must be rolling in his grave. As part of the Energy Independence and Security Act passed by Congress in December 2007, the incandescent light bulb — the very one Edison reputedly discovered 10,000 ways NOT to make before he finally got it right — will be phased out of use in the United States beginning 2012. The United States is actually a bit behind the curve on implementing this type of mandate for improved energy efficiency in lighting. Similar bans are in effect in other countries. Cuba and Venezuela both banned incandescents in 2005, and Australia and the European Union began phase-outs this year.
If you’ve ever touched an incandescent bulb that has been burning for even the briefest of time, you’ve gained a firsthand knowledge of their inefficiency — they’re hot! Only 5 to 10 percent of the energy these bulbs consume is actually converted to light. The rest is expressed as heat. In its design, an incandescent light bulb is not all that different from an electric cooktop burner. Force an electric current through a coil —or a filament in the light bulb’s case — and resistance to that current’s flow generates a little glow and a lot of heat. This is not an energy efficient lighting design, but for nearly 100 years since Edison’s day, it was simply the best we had.
The Energy Act requires that all general-purpose bulbs producing 310 to 2,600 lumens of light (think standard 40- to 150-watt bulbs) be 30 percent more energy efficient than current incandescent bulbs. These standards will be phased in starting with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012, and closing out with 40-watt bulbs by January 2014. but don’t start hoarding incandescent light bulbs. Good energy efficient alternatives already exist.
Compact Fluourescent Light Bulbs or CFLs have been around for over 20 years. Early CFL’s were clunky, with their light quality limited to the most ghastly of glows, but the technology has come a long way in two decades. Today you could easily replace every bulb in your house with a CFL and hardly notice a difference in light quality or bulb performance. The noticeable difference comes with your electric bill — CFLs require only one quarter of the energy to produce the amount of light as incandescents.
Beyond CFLs, LEDs are often touted as the light bulb of the future. Short for Light Emitting Diode, LEDs are widely used in car taillights, traffic signals, and other commercial applications. You probably have an LED flashlight at home and may know the bright intensity of the light it produces while consuming very little power. LEDs for residential use are available but still quite expensive, and currently can meet only limited home lighting needs. But the technology improves daily, and a reasonably priced, high lumen-per-watt LED is the Holy Grail of lighting.
To spur the quest for this Holy Grail, the U.S. Department of Energy has launched a competition to build a better light bulb. The L Prize, as it is known, targets the 60-watt incandescent, a bulb carrying 50 percent of the market share for light bulbs. Ten million dollars in prize money and lucrative federal contracting await the winner who produces a bulb with the same light output and color quality as a standard 60 watt incandescent, but that uses just 10 watts of electricity to do so. The new bulb must also last 25 times longer than a standard bulb, be inexpensive for consumers, be versatile in its use and be at least 75 percent produced in the United States.
Surely, old Thomas Edison is writhing in his grave. But not in order to haunt those who seek to oust his precious incandescent bulbs. No. Have no doubt that the inventive Wizard of Menlo Park would want in on the race to build a better light bulb.
Jeff Feldman runs GreenPath Consulting, a green building consulting firm. Jeff and his wife, Kristin Alexander, live in a strawbale home in Berkeley County. You can reach Jeff at GreenPathConsulting@gmail.com.
Five Easy steps to Eco-Friendly Eating
1. Eat Organic
Organic foods are grown without the use of chemicals. The benefits start when farm workers escape exposure to toxins. Also, soils are not contaminated with chemicals like arsenic, and there is no chemical runoff into waterways.
2. Buy Local
One of the most basic eco-friendly eating practices is to buy local and skip the gas-guzzling transportation. To sign up for an email newsletter that promotes Jefferson County’s farm markets and farm stands, Kellie Bowles at Kellie@jcda.net.
3. Buy Fair Trade Foods
Fair trade foods come from farms where workers are paid living wages and work under fair conditions. You not only support fair wages but support green farming practices, too.
4. Eat less meat
Meat is the most energy-intensive, labor-intensive, land-intensive, and water-intensive food on the planet.
5. Eat raw fruits and vegetables
Eating your fruits and veggies raw can provide health benefits and save energy that you would have used cooking.
Bon Appétit —Annie Brown
Print This Post
Do you consultant guys get paid for writing these CFL/LED PR articles, or do you truly believe what you write?
Yes CFLs have become smaller, come in a wider variety of useful shapes, don’t flicker, and the light colour may have improved in the best and most expensive CFLs. But they still have suboptimal colour rendering capacity (CRI 80-85), only a few extra expensive models can be dimmed and most are still sensitive to heat, cold and frequent switching, have poor power factor, take a while to reach full output and become markedly dimmer with age.
Their mediocre light may be acceptable in public buildings but not something I’d like to use at home, for two reasons:
1. Light quality. I for one CAN tell the difference between the golden-white sparkling fire-based full-spectrum incandescent light from incandescent (incl halogen lamps) and the dull chemical pink-white light from the synthetic copies, as easily as one can tell the difference between real silk and synthetic fibre, or between gold and brass. Similar but certainly not the same.
2. Mercury. I don’t understand how anyone can call a mercury-containing bulb “green” when it can easily be broken and contaminate your home, or will end up in a landfill polluting the ground if not recycled properly.
LEDs on the other hand, are mercury-free and don’t have many of the problems that CFLs do but cost an arm and a leg and the ones available for private use tend to give a cool, dim and dull light that’s good for nothing. With the current rapid development this will hopefully improve soon, but we’re not there yet so presently LED replacement is only a good idea for coloured Holiday rope lights and night lights.
Why did you neglect to mention the other energy saving option, the Halogen Energy Savers which last twice as long and use 25-45% less energy than the standard incandescent bulb? These are great replacements for those who still prefer incandescent light. Mercury-free, light up instantly and can be dimmed without problems. I think even Edison would approve of these.
The author responds . . .
Thanks, Halogenica, for your thoughts on my article about building a better lightbulb. No, I’m not paid to promote CFL or LED bulbs, and yes, I do truly believe (and live) what I write. Should I ask if your user name has anything to do with your promotion of Halogen bulbs?
To be honest, I’m not very familiar with halogen bulbs and will commit to looking into them. From the data you provided though, they don’t appear to be as energy efficient as either LED’s or CFL’s. However, if being surrounded by “golden-white sparkling fire-based full-spectrum incandescent light” is your strong preference (and, to be fair, I do know others who share this preference with you), that’s your choice to make and I’m glad you have a moderately more energy efficient option to exercise in that pursuit. The rest of us are perhaps less discerning when it comes to light quality, and I, for one, don’t really notice much of a difference when I have researched and selected the right CFL or LED bulb for the specific purpose it will fulfill in my home. For those of you seeking a wonderful resource where you can do all of the necessary research for selecting the best bulb for your specific purposes, visit http://www.1000bulbs.com. And no, I’m not a shareholder in this company.
Regarding CFL’s and mercury, this is a question that has raised some red flags for some folks, but a little information goes a long way to allaying these concerns. Yes, CFL’s contain trace amounts of mercury – 4 to 5 milligrams or about as much as would coat the tip of a ballpoint pen. Exposure to this amount of mercury in the case of a broken CFL bulb is something to take care with but not suffer alarm about. Helen Suh MacIntosh, a professor in environmental health at Harvard University, tells us why in an article to be found at http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/05/ask_treehugger_14.php. For the record, I’ve been using CFL’s for the past twenty years and have yet to break one. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen, so readers, please inform yourselves of what to do to safely manage a case in which one does break in your home. And please don’t forget that the amount of mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants generating the electricity to light our the not-so-efficient bulbs we choose to continue using creates far more mercury exposure for all of us than the bit found in CFL’s.
Thanks for your reply (I missed it until now, didn’t get an alert).
With lighting being a long-term special interest and previously part of my job as an interior designer, I’ve checked out the CFLs on the market, thank you, and though improved and reasonably incandescent-like for the not-so-picky and for public building corridors, none looked good enough that I’d like to use it in my home.
If you and others don’t mind the syntetic-looking light and the poorer colour rendering capacity, that’s all well and good (as long as you recycle your CFLs properly, which I assume from anyone writing a green article). But for those who still prefer incandescent light – which currently happens to be the majority (including most women) – I just want to inform that there is an incandescent alternative that passes minimum efficiency regulations both in the U.S. and the European Union.
I chose my blog nick because I think Halogen Energy Savers are overlooked as the highest quality and most problem-free alternative. I am not affiliated with any company and do not gain any profit from endorsing them. I’m just a truth-seeker appalled by all the attention the poorer quality lamps get and would not want to live in the nightmare of a cold and gloomy all fluorescent or LED future.
As for the mercury, it’s funny that so many CFL defenders mention that “ballpoint pen” thing, as if to make it seem insignificant. In itself it may be, but add millions upon millions of CFLs ending up in landfills because not everyone can be bothered taking them back (or are even aware that one should). In the well-off classes in well-off countries with good recycling routines I’m sure information might help to some extent, but then there are all the rest that may have more pressing matters to worry about than what to do with their burned-out CLFs. And as you probably know, it only takes a teaspoon of Hg to poison a medium-sized lake.
When it comes to breaking a CFL, mercury vapourises at room temperature (20 degrees Celcius) and this vapour should not be inhaled by children or pregnant women. 5 mg (an average, may be much less or much more) is still 5,000 micrograms. The “safe” level is only a few micrograms.
And the Maine DEP found that Hg is not as easy to get rid of as previously assumed, and that putting the debris in a plastic bag or plastic container is NOT enough to prevent further contamination.
And besides the risks to our own environments, Western CFL demand is now causing a health- and environmental disaster in China. Please educate yourself and read the links I’ve posted in this blog entry:
http://greenerlights.blogspot.com/2009/09/mercury-problem-even-worse-than.html
As for the coal-plant argument, that was created by the lighting industry lobby in early 1990s when coal use for electricity was much higher. It also assumes that CFLs are as effective as claimed – which is not the case, due to dull light, poor power factor and losing output with age – and that they last as long as claimed – which all depends on model, brand, where you use it, how often you turn it on-and-off etc.
Incandescent or halogen lamps do not in themselves emit any mercury and lighting is only 2-3% of total home energy use (which can easily be saved by other means). The most logical action to decrease mercury is to phase out coal for electricity production, or to clean missions, if that is at all possible. And to ban CFLs for private use now that there are better energy savers, such as halogen and LED.
Being green myself, I’m sad to say I think the whole green movement have been fooled and used right from when CLFs first hit the market. I’ve been watching in amazement as group after group just swallow the PR-arguments without ANYONE ever checking the figures and facts for themselves – which are fully available in manufacturers’ own catalogues!
You’ll find most of those facts and figures in the March archives on my blog, with references.
Is there every going to be a light bulb that’s worth the money that i spend on buying it?
That depends on whether you’re looking for quality or quantity, and where you intend to use them.
- If you value the quality of incandescent bulbs, I’d recommend Halogen Energy Savers. They last twice as long and give 25-45% more light. As they light up instantly, they’re the best alternative for bathrooms, hallways, closets etc. The reflector versions create a nice relaxing mood in your living room and all halogen lamps can be dimmed to make it even cosier (this also extends their life significantly).
- If you value quantity more than quality, wait for LEDs to become affordable enough and give enough output to actually light up a room. Right now the best investment is probably coloured Holiday decoration lights, using only around 1-2 watts per meter, and 1W night lights.
- Induction lamps as safety lights outdoors. Cost quite a bit but last practically forever and are not temperature sensitive like CFLs or heat wasting like incandescent lamps.
- If you want to use CFLs, it often pays better to invest in a top brand bulb. Cheap imports tend to give less light, lose more light as they age, have strange light colour, take longer to light up, contain more mercury, and may not last long enough to save anything at all.
Forgot to add: CFLs, LEDs and induction lights are most economical for lamps that are left on most of the day (or night).
Lamps that are only turned on for a few minutes at a time (e.g. bathrooms, closets, storage rooms etc) should not be CFL, as this reduces their life and their gradual light-up may not give you enough light until you’ve finished your business in that room.
Leave your response!
The Who?
What’s On (Event Calendar)
The Observer on Twitter
Categories
Archives
Poll
Sponsors
Topics
Recent Posts
Most Commented
Recent Comments