Lowly fluorescent bulbs outdo Kyoto, Solar, Wind

So, all that noise about how implementing the Kyoto Protocol would bankrupt us all, and all we had to do was change the light bulbs?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 29 2006, 03:43 PM) [snapback]311248[/snapback]</div>

Yes... but a lot of people don't like the 'different' lighting quality. Priorities you know!

 

It's hilarious the kind of spin the OP put in his post... if one is adding solar panels to a home, the first step before anything else to improve the energy efficiency of the home.

 

Spin... as in using the fact of the energy consumption reductions (of the bulbs) as a way of trying to mock the Kyoto protocol. Hilarious... because logically what one is supposed to do when switching to solar power (for example) is to improve energy efficiency... such as using the CFLB's.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Sep 3 2006, 07:05 PM) [snapback]313653[/snapback]</div>

Post edited. Reread. His attitude on Kyoto is mocking (read b/w the lines).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 3 2006, 06:09 PM) [snapback]313654[/snapback]</div>

I didn't read it as mocking Kyoto. I just thought he was making a valid point about the large impact we can make by using CFLs. I don't see anything anti-Kyoto in it, or between.

 

Guess I owe TimBikes an apology. Anyways, went around changing light bulbs today... can't wait for the day I can get solar.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mirza @ Sep 4 2006, 09:29 PM) [snapback]314316[/snapback]</div>

Me too!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 28 2006, 08:53 PM) [snapback]310959[/snapback]</div>

Not according to the manufacturer's of the solid state dimmers like Lutron:

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Sep 4 2006, 09:09 PM) [snapback]314337[/snapback]</div>

"back in the day" though the dimming was achieved by increased resistance.

Mizra, look into solar thermal for water heating. Espeically if you have electric water heating, you'll save a lotta kWh. And with a 30% fed tax credit it's amazingly inexpensive.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(TimBikes @ Aug 29 2006, 08:35 AM) [snapback]311127[/snapback]</div>

This is only useful if you actually need the dimming capability - a 100W bulb running at 50W output will only produce about 2/3 of the light of a 50W lamp running at full brightness os it is less efficient if you are always using it at low output.

Also I am not sure what is meant by "older type dimmer". All residential dimmers for the last 30-40 years have been virtually 100% efficient and have controlled the light power by phase control - I don't believe modern ones are any different although some may use devices other than SCRs or Triacs.

The old dimmers for stage lighting are a diffferent matter - they did use rheostats or even salt baths to drop the voltage to the lamps. They did get very hot.

kevin

 

Almost all modern dimmers use triac phase-chopping to do their thing,
which is very efficient in terms of additional energy dissipation
at the dimming device [i.e. almost none]. That "electrician" is
spouting nonsense.
.
There are some CFLs designed to be compatible with triac dimmers, but
they don't really track the levels very well. Some integraged
fluorescent lighting systems have their own dimming built in, using
a dedicated control, and they do a little better but not nearly as
smooth and wide-range as with incandescents. And for some applications,
such as theatrical lighting, you really need that smooth 0 - 100%
control. Newer types of lights do use what amounts to a HID system
with mechanical dimmers, but the lamp is usually running at full
blast behind the dimming system so it doesn't really save anything.
.
I've got mostly CFLs at this point but a lot of the ones constructed
offshore in bulk have some *serious* durability problems. The
electronics inside are designed and built like complete crap. The
ones from "commercial electric" are particularly popular and
particularly bad. They're all from China sweatshops anyways, and
it shows. They *could* be better, and probably *could* even emit
a better spectrum with a little more work on the gas mix, but they've
already hit the wal-mart level of commitment to quality and are
thus unlikely to be improved.
.
_H*

 

I wish I could do this and keep the 3 big blue spruces that shade my roof's southern exposure for about 90% of the day.

OTOH, those trees probably save me plenty in cooling costs.

 

We switched eight years ago (at $17 each!). Today we're amazed that they are selling for $1.50.

The early CF were yellow colored, slow to start, and slow to achieve full brightness. Today's CF even more efficient, are quick to start and produce much whiter light.

Waiting for our original CF collection to die so we can enjoy the benefits of the new and improved.

 

Also available are 3-way Compact Fluorescent, Dimmable Compact Fluorescent, and Daylight Spectrum Compact Fluorescent bulbs. I know, I have all three.

The dimmable in the ceiling in the living room for watching tv.
The 3-way in the lamp next to the reading chair.
The daylight spectrum in the home office along with a regular CFL for a good color balance.

They are sold individually, not in bulk packs. They are more expensive, but for their particular applications, they were necessary. They can be found at most hardware stores.

21 of 24 of our light sockets have CFL lights . . . even the porch light, which is protected inside a glass globe, and has a photo eye to turn on and off. Since our weather in Sacramento is never very cold, it is always able to reach max brightness during the winter months. The last three holdout bulbs are bathroom vanity lights which will be replaced with the upcoming remodel.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hobbit @ Sep 4 2006, 08:48 PM) [snapback]314358[/snapback]</div>

I was planning to do a thread on the subject mentioned in this link . . . but this thread works.

Definitely worth a read!
http://www.fastcompany.com/subscr/108/open_lightbulbs.html

just some snippets . . .
What that means is that if every one of 110 million American households bought just one ice-cream-cone bulb, took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

Teaming up with General Electric, which owns about 60% of the residential lightbulb market in the United States, Wal-Mart wants to single-handedly double U.S. sales for CFLs in a year, and it wants demand to surge forward after that.

In the next 12 months, starting with a major push this month, Wal-Mart wants to sell every one of its regular customers--100 million in all--one swirl bulb. In the process, Wal-Mart wants to change energy consumption in the United States, and energy consciousness, too. It also aims to change its own reputation, to use swirls to make clear how seriously Wal-Mart takes its new positioning as an environmental activist.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ichabod @ Sep 4 2006, 10:12 PM) [snapback]314374[/snapback]</div>

Could you remote the panels? There's no law that says the have to be on your roof.

Sufferin' Prius Envy, that article made my day! For once, I wish Walmart the best of luck. Glad to see GE involved too. They've been doing a lot of good things lately.