Posted on 01/11/2016 10:43:32 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
They would have to undo all the bans on incandescent bulbs. Liberals heads will explode.
What is the downside?
It is electric resistance heat.
Generally not the most cost-effective source of heat, unless you've got the juice to burn.
Better is an efficient light source (such as this new MIT invention) plus a cheap source of warmth, such as coal or nuclear or anything else that annoys liberals.
Whale oil. ;-)
Very unlikely to be the cheapest. You've got to acquire it, and convert it into light, while beating the cost of competing sources. Good luck with that!
Plus, whales are neat critters!
I just mentioned whale oil because it’s something that makes liberals heads explode. No need for this in the modern age. If some nation likes whale meat, well that’s another thing.
I remember when LEDs were new, red, and VERY dim.
It’s amazing that now they are headlight strength :-)
DC to visible light was a miracle... without a HOT filament anyways :-)
Good going. Five years ago we finally found that same LED bulb. We replaced fifty gallery lights in our museum. Cost was about $1,500. Our light bill dropped by $300 a month and the air conditioner wasn’t running all the time. That 2700k lumens is almost the same as the halogen. And now after five years not one has failed. Paid for themselves in six months. We bought TCP brand.
That was about conventional technologies; this appears to be something akin to the halogen lamp but better and, like halogens, wouldn’t fall within that ban.
The ban was not necessary; people were already becoming aware of energy costs and if they wanted to use Edison base compatible fluorescents they could be readily had before the ban and they had been improving. I had been doing it back when the only thing along those lines was a big clunky Circline adaptor that fit in some lamps and fixtures. They lit the room up great, did not generate nearly as much heat, and had a decent life and a reasonable lamp replacement cost.
We bought TONS of the GOOD bulbs and probably won’t run out of ‘em. :-)
*************************************************************
We did too. More incandescent bulbs than my wife and I will use in our life times. Our kids will inherit whatever is left over.
I’ve tried others and they strain my eyes while reading and give me headaches.
“And they pushed the lie that CFLs last ten times as long.”
In certain circumstances, CFLs do last many, many times the life of an incandescent. But, homeowners rarely use their lights in a way to take advantage of this. Lighting left on 24/7 will see CFLs last and last, while incandescents will burn out every 4 to 6 weeks.
But, short cycling will kill CFLs very quickly (such as a closet light or bathroom light).
If you have a light you turn on once a day, max, and leave on for at least 6 hours, you will see great savings in CFLs, otherwise incandescents work better.
LEDs should be even better, but my experience with many 100s of installed bulbs is only with CFLs vs incandescents, though I have gone to LEDs in my own home, hoping they are a mature product.
Ban? What ban? Doesn’t everybody have a real lot of light bulbs stored up?
Another part is psychological, some would say. That little bit of warmth from the real light bulb seems to help me stay focused and alert when I'm reading.
I don't think this is all in my mind. I can tell when the light is "wrong" when I'm somewhere away from home and trying to read.
Sounds very neat. Thanks for posting.
My understanding is that the failure mechanism isn’t the bulb/gas part. It is the electronic driver that contains the ballast (or equivalent of the NRD function of a ballast).
These electronic parts generate some heat and they are packed tightly in the base of most CFLs and you can see discoloration of the surrounding material (usually some kind of plastic) which eventually leads them to fail.
The older CFLs with separate base and bulb were better about handling heat. Even so, I am getting 30,000 hrs life from the few CFLs I still have. Hrs would likely be higher if I never turned them off.
I would like to know which politician made the most money for getting CFL passed and to learn which one made the most from fouling up toilet flush and a host of other regulations that screwed the consumer, I’m sure there was more than one who made money but someone made the most, for each regulation.
It would take someone with the ability to follow the political money, which seems to be a lost art.
I only use high output CFLs in my basement where I spend most of my time. They take a long time to come up to full output but operate okay when they get going and save more than incandescents. But their longevity is not that good - a lot of them failed within the first three years.
Elsewhere, I use high quality LEDs and have no problem with the spectrum of light I find comparable to incandescents. I have one LED high output over the sink that’s been there 13 years - much longer than a PAR incandescent would have lasted.
I switched my main kitchen light from CFL to LED several years ago. It is a Phillips, and puts out a nice warm light. It cost $47 (ouch), but I really wanted to try it. It comes up to full brightness more slowly than the CFL it replaced. I read there is a current limiter in the circuit to cut down on voltage spikes during warm up in order to increase life of the driver circuit. Not sure, but it is a long wait for full brightness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.