Return of incandescent light bulbs as MIT makes them more efficient than LEDs

Telegraph ^ | January 11, 2016 | Sarah Knapton,

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Ever since the EU restricted sales of traditional incandescent light bulbs, homeowners have complained about the shortcomings of their energy-efficient replacements.

The clinical white beam of LEDs and frustrating time-delay of 'green' lighting has left many hankering after the instant, bright warm glow of traditional filament bulbs.

But now scientists in the US believe they have come up with a solution which could see a reprieve for incandescent bulbs.

Researchers at MIT have shown that by surrounding the filament with a special crystal structure in the glass they can bounce back the energy which is usually lost in heat, while still allowing the light through.

They refer to the technique as 'recycling light' because the energy which would usually escape into the air is redirected back to the filament where it can create new light.

"It recycles the energy that would otherwise be wasted," said Professor Marin Soljacic.

[cymbeline]

I’ve gotten a few LED bulbs and love them. I didn’t know how I’d like them until I gave them a try.

The quality and quantity of the light is great and they instantly come to full brightness.

Regarding the quality of the light, LED televisions use LEDs as the backlight so the light quality must be pretty good to render all of the colors.

Go to Wikipedia, “LED lighting” to read up on the properties of the light that is created.

[IncPen]

pling

[dila813]

Doesn’t matter, the government banned them and they are gone.

Just like low sulfur diesel wasn’t needed because of the new catalytic emission control designs, doesn’t matter.

[kidd]

MIT might be a little late to the game.

LED bulbs have really come down in price and have increased in quality. LED bulbs really make a lot of sense for places where a bulb is difficult to change. And I have found that flashlights are the ideal application for an LED bulb...batteries (which are relatively expensive) last many times longer, with brighter light, when they have an LED bulb.

CFL bulbs are garbage. They cost more than incandescent bulbs and they’re a hazard if they break. If they’re used in a place where the light is switched on and off more than once a day, they don’t last any longer than incandescent bulbs. And if you use a CFL in a cold location, they take 5-10 minutes to achieve full brightness.

[SisterK]

Yep, take away choices is the same as people control.
BTW the CFL bulbs are toxic to folks with lupus.

[Jimmy Valentine]

I never stopped using incandescent light bulbs. I just said to Congress FU.

[poconopundit]

...An incandescent used in a home that needs heat is 100% efficient already.

Interesting.  I never thought of it that way.  But you are right, the heat is not wasted.  The only question would be the cost per kilowatt compared to other ways of heating.

I use a wood pellet stove to heat my home in the Northeast.  But recently I've begun to wonder if I wouldn't save money using propane.

[Democratic-Republican]

Lighten up francis

:-)

[dfwgator]

“You just made The List.”

[zlala]

You may be interested in this. And not the least, because of post #45 ;-)

[philled]

Replaced all bulbs in a hotel a year ago. LED cost about six thousand dollars. Electricity bill decreased approximately five hundred dollars a month. Too bad it wasn’t done sooner...

[teeman8r]

thanks

[Utah Binger]

I find it interesting all the talk about incandescent and those damn liberals etc. Some things should given a bit more thought and investigation.

I posted favorable reports five years ago about LED and got slaughtered here. Looks like a few FReepers are still not doing their homework and especially not doing the math.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Fred should ban his incandescent niece, Kate. While she lights up a room she also heats it up.

[Democratic-Republican]

Looks like a few FReepers are still not doing their homework and especially not doing the math.

Hardly. Don't slip into the they-must-be-Luddites fallback. Folks are just pointing out that anyone who uses their head scientifically already knows the differences between various technologies. For example, an educated populace during cold periods would place "inefficient" heat shedding incandescents in sockets near where they habitate and where that color of light is useful and in hot months would defer to lights that shed little heat. Keep them out of high ceilings and recessed locations where the warmed air is useless, etc.

Look, these things are just tools. Smart people know when to use the right tool for the right job. Some of these tools bias towards Heat+Light, some mostly light, some mostly heat. It is the environmental circumstances which are NOT uniform, and this is the precise point you are hearing from us, and this is an actual scientific point of view, unlike the ban incandescents chorus of dumbass liberals. Some German manufacturers went to "heat-globe" nomenclature to describe the so-called less efficient incandescents and that is quite sensible. Products for all scenarios should be available because THAT is the sensible scenario.

As the guy above you describes replacing the lights in a hotel, that is a fine example of wasted heat in hotels I have seen. Big, high ceiling conference rooms with track lighting like your photo ( although you might want to be careful as some LEDs throw off more UV than you might want on paintings and other items that should never be kept in direct sunlight ), decorative lights draping trees, hot floodlights illuminating concrete fascades, stage lights that make you drip with sweat, lots of areas ripe for replacement for relatively cool LED implementations.

I watched the neon and incandescents in Las Vegas change over the years and that was a very smart move for them, but note that it didn't require any FedGov mandate. So much heat was wasted outside ( from the human point of view, certainly birds and bugs are less happy :-) and that means money too. On the other hand, in middle NY State ( and perhaps many other places ) when they willy-nilly replaced critical things like traffic lights they had to then turn around and add units containing heaters to melt the ice buildup in winter ( that is a mind bending example of peak stupid ).

What this all means is that no liberal should ever be allowed anything that requires scientific thinking, logic or common sense ( let's just say they should never be allowed near anything of consequence ), but we should never knee-jerk react to anything because it has a valid specific case of so-called efficiency. It is that word that leads to all the problems.

So back to where I jumped in ... now it is about 20° F and snowing outside 10 feet away from me beyond a single wall. I have a couple of 60 Watt incandescent bulbs in lamps, not high up, but around chest height which are throwing off enough heat to warm the air around them in about a 5' radius, where the human beings ( and cats ) just happen to be. Putting some cool bulbs in there will just repeat the above-mentioned experience with street lights by causing the nudging up of the thermostat which causes a chain reaction of consequences as the furnace blows hot air into wide swaths of the house that do not require it, not just here. Better off putting on a sweater like Jimmy Carter.

It's possible that some liberals are fully aware of these examples and are willing to screw over the logical scientific minority in favor of the sheeple majority. And that highlights yet another problem with this whole mess. Both LED's and incandescents can co-exist, can we agree on this? Liberals do not agree, and neither did the idjit Bush43.