Jump to content
Product Design Forums

Treasurebox
Sign in to follow this  
Guest beth88

End Of The 100 Watt Incandescent Light Bulb. Your Views?

Recommended Posts

Guest beth88

As the ban on 100 watt and frosted incandescent light bulbs has come into effect in Europe, I was wondering what your views are on this, whether you see it as a positive or negative step forward.

 

I personally think that it is a good thing, i am all for pushing the use of L.E.D'S in the mass domestic and commercial markets, I understand that the ones you can buy off the shelf are quite costly and don't give off the same light values as CFL and incandescent, but their future possibilities are endless.

 

However I agree with many people that the use CFL's instead of incandescent may be just as harmful, because of the gases they contain and how they have to be disposed of correctly.

 

Are there any problems this ban and the future ban on all incancesdents will cause? I am curious to know peoples opinions on CFL and L.E.D lighting also.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AutomóvilVerde

I think it's about time they were banned. I just wish they'd do the same here in the US. Now a days the only reason people ever by incandescent bulbs that I know of, is for the warm light. But now there are CFL bulbs that cost a little bit more, but give off that same warm glow, and same goes for LED's.

 

Unfortunately most LED bulbs you get are completely pointless, they can barely provide any light. But, I have this one flashlight that my dad got from Singapore, it's a LED, but a very high quality one, and it is by far the brightest light I have ever seen. It is so bright to the point that you can not look directly into it. And if I remember correctly, he got it for $20 USD. even if a LED light bulb was around $15-$20, it's still more economical than an incandescent or CFL buld, because they last forever.

 

But I think the biggest challenge will be to change people's views on what LED's are capable of. Kinda like diesels in US, most people associate them with loud, dirty old cars. But there are all of these new diesels coming into the US from Europe (FINALLY!!!). Hopefully the same happens with LED's.

 

And quick question: OLED's, do they emit enough light to be used as a light, or just as a TV?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Buff

I'm currently working on some LED replacement for CFL and Incandesant designs.

 

A coulple of years back I worked on a design of a railwaymans torch, and some railway signals using LED.

 

Nowadays 100 lumens per watt is quite comon place and colour tempreture is close to 5200K --> 6500K to reproduce daylight color ballance, with often a spike towards the red, often unnoticed by the naked eye.

 

LED when driven a maximum have a dramatically shortened life, but running at 70 --> 80% they can last 50,000 hours easily.

 

the light output decay towards the end-of-life can be contolled by using a feedback, measuring the light output from a sample LED from the same batch by a photo diode turning up the current as light output falls (patented design owned by unipart rail)

 

Another method can be to estimate the decay and turn up the current acording to a timer. Another method would be to simply switch off or 'blink' the LED once light output falls to a pre determined level, to signal replacement requirement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bucyrus

If CFLs are better than incandescent bulbs, why do we need a ban on incandescents? We didn’t have to ban buggy whips to get people to stop using them. Lighting is a delicate and sensitive issue, especially if you use it for work. While I have not yet tried CFLs, I would like to have all options available even if I decide that I want to use CFLs.

 

Advocates of CFLs will swear that they are as good or better than incandescent bulbs in terms of light quality. But I have heard the same glowing reassurance about other products that were modified to meet environmental regulations, and found the claim that they were just as good to be false. I am referring to products such as paint, stain, and pressure treated lumber, for instance.

 

If we can ban certain types of light bulbs because they use more electricity than others, why don’t we ban the use of electricity beyond a certain usage level? Why don’t we limit the number of light bulbs that can be in a house? Why don’t we limit the size of houses?

 

Well the answer of course is that we simply have not gotten that far yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AutomóvilVerde
If CFLs are better than incandescent bulbs, why do we need a ban on incandescents? We didn’t have to ban buggy whips to get people to stop using them. Lighting is a delicate and sensitive issue, especially if you use it for work. While I have not yet tried CFLs, I would like to have all options available even if I decide that I want to use CFLs.

 

Advocates of CFLs will swear that they are as good or better than incandescent bulbs in terms of light quality. But I have heard the same glowing reassurance about other products that were modified to meet environmental regulations, and found the claim that they were just as good to be false. I am referring to products such as paint, stain, and pressure treated lumber, for instance.

 

If we can ban certain types of light bulbs because they use more electricity than others, why don’t we ban the use of electricity beyond a certain usage level? Why don’t we limit the number of light bulbs that can be in a house? Why don’t we limit the size of houses?

 

Well the answer of course is that we simply have not gotten that far yet.

You have a point that we should have a choice, but why would you want to use incandescent bulbs? they offer no advantage over CFLs. True that we didn't have to bad buggy whips, but they didn't contribute to global warming, which is a life threatening problem.

 

And I don't see the problem with regulating the electricity usage level, but do it by raising the taxes depending on how much you use, and they could do the same thing with light bulbs, and that way the governments get more money, which they always like, and it discourages people from buying incandescent bulbs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bucyrus

AutomóvilVerde,

 

You tell me that incandescent bulbs offer no advantages over CFLs. I do not know if that is true or not because I don’t use CFLs. But if it is true that CFLs perform better in every way, then people will naturally stop buying incandescents and switch to CFLs. You don’t need a ban to make them switch to CFLs if CFLs are truly better than incandescents. That is what I meant with my buggy whip analogy.

 

The fact that many people want to use a government ban to prevent others from using incandescents leads me to believe that CFLs do not perform better than incandescents in every way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AutomóvilVerde

Bucyrus

 

I think the only reason the government is banning them, is to move the process on faster from incandescents to CLFs. No matter how good something is, it always takes people a while to accept it then slowely adjust, this way this process is sped up.

 

Just wondering, how come you don't use CFLs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bucyrus
Bucyrus

 

I think the only reason the government is banning them, is to move the process on faster from incandescents to CLFs. No matter how good something is, it always takes people a while to accept it then slowely adjust, this way this process is sped up.

 

Just wondering, how come you don't use CFLs?

 

 

I have most of the house illuminated with full size fluorescents indirect lighting from behind valances. I have bought tubes and fixtures from a commercial lighting company, and the rep advises that there is no reason to change anything at this time, based on the cost and payback. That would include changes to smaller fluorescents, electronic ballasts, other types of incandescent, or CFLs. I use fluorescent tubes that are very close to daylight.

 

Generally, my reason for skepticism or hesitation is CFLs are being advanced as part of an agenda to force electric conservation on a per fixture basis, in the name of stopping climate change, as opposed to simply saving money for the consumer and/or offering a better product. Things that are market driven by something other than economics or quality of function, are often misrepresented in a way that covers up compromises in quality of function. So when people tell me that CFLs are better in every way, I tend to doubt that.

 

Indeed, I have heard of many people complaining about CFLs including the following:

 

1) Uncomfortable or aesthetically compromised light.

2) Less operating life than claimed.

3) Light quality poorer until warm-up.

4) Different levels of quality and price between brands that shifts over time.

 

As to the climate change issue itself, I am not convinced that manmade global warming is happening, let alone causing any actual problems. But let’s say that it is happening. The ones who are telling us that it is happening have quantified the problem, and by extension, defined the solution, which will require enormous sacrifice in our lifestyles. Yet, those same proponents of the problem are telling us that we can solve the problem by a lot of little painless green measures such as changing light bulbs, weather stripping, keeping our tires properly inflated, etc.

 

So there is a gigantic disconnect between the actual solution as defined by the proponents of the problem, and these little painless mostly symbolic green remedies. It strikes me as disingenuous to tell us that the problem is big and urgent for the purpose of spurring action, and telling us that the action will be easy in order to get people to buy into it.

 

The fact is that the easiest first baby step in the cure to climate change as it is defined by the proponents, in terms of reducing CO2 emissions, would be the complete elimination of air conditioning in homes, commercial buildings, and vehicles. That would be a starting point that would make some at least measurable difference. From there, it goes on to dramatic reductions in consumption of electricity, heating fuels, highway fuels, meat and dairy products, and commercial fertilizer.

 

Keep in mind that the proponents of the climate change crisis have given us only ten years to reverse the trend or else the trend will go into a runaway condition and become unstoppable, and shortly thereafter, it will destroy life on this planet. We are already 3-4 years into that ten-year prediction, so we have got an awful lot of CO2 production to eliminate in just a few years if we are to survive, according to the prediction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After testing various CFL's, LED's, Halogen and incandescent light bulbs (ILB) this last year I must say that the CFLs are getting better and better. But there is still some way to go before I see them fulfilling the same needs as the i"ILB". There are some issues with the color temperature which is generally cooler than "ILBs" and the color rendering index is lower, resulting in a poorer color rendering.

 

Further more many CFLs can't be dimmed in intensity as the "ILBs" - Those who can are more expensive.

In general CFL's are more expensive.

 

They are toxic when they are disposed of or breaks (If you break one in your living room you should open all windows and leave the room for at least an hour to get the toxic gasses out! Many CFLs uses mercury)

 

LED's aren't really an alternative to "ILBs" yet. They are still too expensive.

 

It's great that both CFLs and LED's use less power, which i guess is ultimately the goal of the ban (to reduce power usage) I just think the ban is maybe a year to early, if you were to replace the ILBs with a solution of the same quality.

 

But I guess we'll adopt quite easily. When you don't have a choice you're more likely to "choose" the eco-friendly solution ;)

 

/tbroen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just some pictures from some visual comparisons of different light bulbs so show my points.

Just in case: Glødepære means Incandescent Light & Elsparepære means Energy saving Light bulb (they're CFLs, halogenes and LEDs)

 

post-17257-1253221471.png

A 60W incandescent reference light bulb

 

post-17257-1253221532.png

Other Light Sources

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest beth88

Thanks for all your posts so far... it's really interesting reading what you all have to say, thanks for the pictures in the last post it really puts into perspective the differences between the various bulbs.

 

Im currently starting out on my research for the final year of my product design degree, which if you couldn't guess is to do with lighting. Im trying to take in as much as I can and process all the technical stuff, which takes a while (i could blame it on being a girl!). So again thanks for all your input so far.

 

Beth :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AutomóvilVerde

Bucyrus - I see where you are coming from, but the world has increased its average temperature by 1 to 2 degrees Celsius in the last 100 or so years, compared to earlier natural global warming that occurred over 100's of years. so global warming is happening, just look at Antarctica, I honestly don't see how someone can deny that it' happening when there's all this evidence.

As for the getting rid of a/c and what not, that could never happen, because some places it is a necessity, like here in Texas. There have been instances where people had no a/c and ended up dying from dehydration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bucyrus
Bucyrus - I see where you are coming from, but the world has increased its average temperature by 1 to 2 degrees Celsius in the last 100 or so years, compared to earlier natural global warming that occurred over 100's of years. so global warming is happening, just look at Antarctica, I honestly don't see how someone can deny that it' happening when there's all this evidence.

As for the getting rid of a/c and what not, that could never happen, because some places it is a necessity, like here in Texas. There have been instances where people had no a/c and ended up dying from dehydration.

 

There are natural warming and cooling cycles. We have been in a warming cycle for most of the last century. For the last ten years or so, we have been entering a cooling cycle. But the theory of the climate change crisis says that the warming is caused by activities of mankind, and if we do not dramatically reduce our CO2 emission in a very short time, the manmade warming cycle will spin out of control and become unstoppable. And this will lead quickly to many different kinds of catastrophic results such as rising oceans, crop failures, famine, petulance, wild fires, floods, blizzards, plagues, species extinction, etc., all of which will shortly end life on the planet. There are many reasons to doubt this even if you don’t work for an oil company.

 

There is no magic bullet cure for the problem if you accept that it is happening. The amount of CO2 that we will need to cut will take us at least half way back to a hunter-gatherer society. Meanwhile, China is in the process of building about 560 new coal fired power plants at the rate of one per week. And these are very dirty plants by modern standards. China and India refuse to accept their share of the world responsibility for the alleged manmade climate change, thus leaving a bigger burden for the rest of the world.

 

My point is that little painless measures such as changing light bulbs, buying local, using bamboo flooring, buying energy star appliances, caulking cracks, and keeping your tires inflated will hardly register on the scale of the sacrifice that will be required to remedy the manmade climate change problem as it is defined.

 

You say we can’t do without air conditioning. I only suggested that as the first step because it would be the easiest thing to do to fix the problem. But that is only the tip of the iceberg. We will have to make dramatic reductions in heating and driving, consumption of meat and dairy products, consumption of electricity, consumption of all goods and services, and population growth. There will be no living in a house that is heated warm enough to not need insulated clothing, no recreational driving, no vacations, no TV, and no non-business computer use. Light bulb types will not only be mandated, but also the maximum amount of lighting will be regulated, along with the regulation of the consumption of water, gas, electricity, fuel oil, and gasoline. The size of houses will be limited by law. All of this will be necessary and it will be enforced either by legal prohibition or by taxes and penalties for non-compliance.

 

Are you prepared to make this level of sacrifice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AutomóvilVerde

Yes, you're right that many of those scientists do tend to over exaggerate the causes of global warming, and I highly doubt we're all going to die from a Day After Tomorrow scenario. But I know that the Earth is warming at a rate higher than the normal rate compared to the other instances of global warming throughout the millenias.

 

Unfortunately for us countries like China and India are still building coal plants, and buying more and more cars as people become more wealthy. But countries like USA, England, and other "developed" countries can still do their part and reduce emissions.

 

Your idea of "what can one light bulb do?" is exactly what we need to change. When you have one guy that says that, and he tells a friend, and that friend tells another, and so on and so on, eventually there's a massive population of people who think like that, and emissions continue to rise. Now, say that one person talks about how he just changed light bulbs, bought cleaner appliances, and is buying local, and then his friends do the same and tell their friends, and soon enough there's a whole population of people who are consuming less. This means that we are saving all that wasted electricity and resources.

 

Unfortunately it never really works like that, and there's always going to be those few people that don't agree and keep wasting energy and resources. But that's human society, it's never perfect, but we can work to achieve a better and better society, where we don't waste horrendous amounts of fossil fuels, electricity, and natural resources.

 

As I was saying before, we will never be able to make such a big change so fast. But we can make small changes over time, and eventually they will lead to these big changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Bucyrus
Yes, you're right that many of those scientists do tend to over exaggerate the causes of global warming, and I highly doubt we're all going to die from a Day After Tomorrow scenario. But I know that the Earth is warming at a rate higher than the normal rate compared to the other instances of global warming throughout the millenias.

 

Unfortunately for us countries like China and India are still building coal plants, and buying more and more cars as people become more wealthy. But countries like USA, England, and other "developed" countries can still do their part and reduce emissions.

 

Your idea of "what can one light bulb do?" is exactly what we need to change. When you have one guy that says that, and he tells a friend, and that friend tells another, and so on and so on, eventually there's a massive population of people who think like that, and emissions continue to rise. Now, say that one person talks about how he just changed light bulbs, bought cleaner appliances, and is buying local, and then his friends do the same and tell their friends, and soon enough there's a whole population of people who are consuming less. This means that we are saving all that wasted electricity and resources.

 

Unfortunately it never really works like that, and there's always going to be those few people that don't agree and keep wasting energy and resources. But that's human society, it's never perfect, but we can work to achieve a better and better society, where we don't waste horrendous amounts of fossil fuels, electricity, and natural resources.

 

As I was saying before, we will never be able to make such a big change so fast. But we can make small changes over time, and eventually they will lead to these big changes.

 

You seem to believe that the manmade climate change issue is being at least partly exaggerated. I think so too, so I think we are only seeing different degrees of exaggeration. For you, when you strip away the exaggeration, you are still left with a problem that needs to be solved, but can be solved with small measures such as changing light bulbs. For me, when I strip away the exaggeration, I don’t see a problem.

 

So, I would hope that my attitude you describe as, “what can one light bulb do?” would indeed have the affect that you describe because I don’t want to be coerced into crummy lighting because of a phony crisis. Energy saving is fine with me, but let the market take care of it. Let people decide whether it is worth the investment and payback to buy higher efficiency products with less operating expense.

 

Who says that when I use electricity in my light bulb, it is wasted energy? I like the light and cost of my light bulbs. Why don’t you just turn your light bulbs off and stop wasting energy?

 

You may think that the proponents of manmade climate change are exaggerating the danger, and that complying with the simple solutions the offer will solve the problem in its unexaggerated state. But once this bandwagon gets rolling, more difficult solutions will be demanded, and they will become the law of the land. Outlawing light bulbs is just the tip of the iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.