Elizabeth Barrette (ysabetwordsmith) wrote,
Elizabeth Barrette
ysabetwordsmith

  • Mood:

Change the World Wednesdays: Energy Efficient Lights

Small Footprints has started a series called "Change the World Wednesdays." This week's challenge is energy efficient lights.

BASIC:
Earlier this week, President Obama announced a plan to make lighting our homes and businesses more energy efficient (you can read about it HERE). So, let's do our part: Replace at least one incandescent bulb in your home with either a CFL or LED bulb.

ADVANCED:
OR ... if you've already replaced the bulbs in your home with energy efficient varieties, write a post about CFLs and LEDs and then ... contact five (5) new blogs (blogs which you've never visited before) and invite them to join the challenge by visiting your site.


We've already replaced many of our lights, where possible, with compact fluorescent lights. I am pleased to report that these are more resistant to magical interference, which means the lightbulbs in my office now last for several months instead of blowing out every 2-3 weeks like the incandescent ones did. I think the only places we aren't using CFLs are where they won't fit; we've got some old chandeliers and some tube fluorescent fixtures. But the ones that used regular incandescents are now CFLs. When we went to the annual meeting picnic for our electric co-op, they gave out free CFLs along with other swag.

I did try one LED light. It is a dark-activated nightlight. It was affordable and Earth-friendly. Unfortunately, it does a very poor job of actually lighting the bathroom so that people can see to use it at night without turning on the overhead. The green power light on the front of the freezer gives off more light. So I will probably not experiment further with LED lights.

Here are some resources about CFLs for further exploration:

Energy Star parameters
FAQ page for CFLs
Energy Efficient Lighting (compares CFL & LED)
The Best Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (compares CFLs to incandescents)
CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury

I was going to contact 5 blogs, but my net connection is awful today, so I just did one:
WorldChanging
Tags: activism, environment
Subscribe

  • Winterfest in July Bingo Card 7-1-21

    Here is my card for the Winterfest in July Bingo fest. It runs from July 1-30. Celebrate all the holidays and traditions of winter! ( See all my…

  • Birdfeeding

    Today is sunny, muggy, and warm. I fed the birds. I've seen house finches and a squirrel. After lunch, we moved the rest of the walnut logs. Most…

  • Bingo

    I have made bingo down the B, G, and O columns of my 6-1-21 card for the Cottoncandy Bingo fest. I also have one extra fill. B1 (caretaking) --…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 8 comments
I am pleased to report that these are more resistant to magical interference, which means the lightbulbs in my office now last for several months instead of blowing out every 2-3 weeks like the incandescent ones did.

Y'know, that never occurred to me as an explanation for why "5 year" incandescent bulbs never last more than a month or so with me. Let alone regular incandescents - those, as you say, burn out every 2-3 weeks. It's worst in the kitchen, my sewing room, and our bedroom. :)
Magic and electromagnetism are very closely related forces -- close enough to affect each other. Magic is a very high-energy force that can burn through ordinary materials. That's why magical tools are usually made of high-grade materials such as hardwoods or silver: those stand up better. Electronics and other mechanical stuff tend to fare very poorly around magic.

So if you have a strong magical aura or do a lot of magic, nearby lightbulbs will burn out a lot faster than the label says they should. The stronger the magic, the worse the effect. Most people don't have enough magical spillover for the effect to be noticable beyond ordinary causes such as cheap lightbulbs. But people with strong magic can, as you just said, burn out bulbs in a few weeks. *sigh* Or less, if one loses one's temper.

I haven't figured out yet why CFLs last longer. It may simply be that they are designed to last longer. But it may also be that the construction or materials are more resistant to magical erosion.

I've blown out countless incandescent bulbs, including more than a few that actually shattered, before I learned not to touch them directly. I'm not sure if I've actually blown out a CFL, and I am sure that I've never made one explode.
Wonderful post ... and thank you for contacting another site!

I use CFLs ... they've come a long ways with new, softer lights and shapes to accommodate almost any fixture. I would, however, switch to LEDs in a heartbeat if they did a better job of lighting a home. Ah well ... maybe someday. In the meantime ... it's CFLs for me!

Small Footprints
I'm glad you like the post.

New CFLs with more variety are really helping the market, I think.

I'd be happy to consider LED lights if they did an adequate job of lighting. A light that doesn't produce enough light isn't much use, though.

Anonymous

July 2 2009, 18:41:43 UTC 12 years ago

Elizabeth,

It's certainly right to consider different types of lighting...but should people be forced to do it?

I agree with your view on LEDs, weak light, and use a few fluorescents.
Still, the old bulbs are useful too....

Americans choose to buy the ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10.
Banning what Americans want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!


All lighting devices have different advantages and give out different types of light.
That's why they exist for people to choose.
The ordinary simple light bulb responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is
easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.


For some that is a reason for banning it: Why keep simple old technology?
Because if modern lights were better, people would buy more of them instead.
Consumers don't avoid products only because they are expensive - or no other expensive products would be sold.
Nor do they keep buying cheap but poor products.

There are - for example- well known batteries and washing up liquids that are expensive but sell well because they "last longer"
- as they show in their advertising.
Fluorescent light manufacturers and distributors are very happy to let governments promote their case,
and happy that they ban the lights that people are buying, so the fluorescent (and/or LED) light manufacturers can win market share
- why should they bother making better products and advertise them?
They can clean up the market and charge what they like when those cheap competing rivals keeping down prices are gone.

Is this the New America?
You can buy any car, as long as it is an Obama car?
You can buy any light bulb, as long as it is an Obama light bulb?

Put it this way:
New LED lamps are on the way.
If they are good, people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy tham - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).

"Look at all the energy we save",
says President Obama.
Since when does America need to save on electricity?
There is no energy shortage, there are plenty of energy sources, and Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation.
Consumers pay for any power stations, just as they do for factories and shops generally.
Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money - but why force them to do it?
As explained on the website linked below, money/energy savings from a ban are not that great anyway.


"Look at all the emission savings",
says President Obama.
Do his light bulbs give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
In Washington state practically all electricity is emission-free, around half of it is in states like New York and California.
Why should emission-free households there be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Such households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced through the planned use of coal/gas processing
technology or energy substitution.
Again, emission savings are not as great as supposed anyway:

Why Light bulb bans are wrong (list of reasons with references)
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x (http://www.ceolas.net/#li1x)

About why all efficiency regulation is wrong,
and how they affect performance, construction, appearance, price and savings on buildings, dishwashers, cars, light bulbs etc
http://ceolas.net/#cc2x (http://ceolas.net/#cc2x)
>>It's certainly right to consider different types of lighting...but should people be forced to do it?<<

No. I don't believe in forcing people to do things. It wastes energy and makes enemies.

>>For some that is a reason for banning it: Why keep simple old technology?
Because if modern lights were better, people would buy more of them instead.<<

That's not wholly true. Other reasons for not buying modern lights, even if they are better, include:
They're often more expensive up-front than incandescents; not everyone can afford that.
They're not available everywhere yet; you can't buy what you can't find.
Not everyone even knows about them, or has tried them; new things take time to spread, even if they are wonderful.

>>Nor do they keep buying cheap but poor products.<<

That's why I don't plan to buy another LED nightlight.

>>Since when does America need to save on electricity?<<

0_o Since the ways we have of making it are mostly harmful to the environment, and since it is expensive to buy anyhow. Saving electricity is a very a good idea, and always has been.

>>About why all efficiency regulation is wrong,<<

We have just lost several major auto makers because they refused to make cars as effcient as customers wanted. Maybe if the government had set higher efficiency into the regulations, those businesses would not be going bankrupt, because more people would be buying their cars instead of more efficient foreign ones.
LED lights have the potential to be much more efficient than CFL. But you need entirely different lighting concepts, like walls that glow (and can be dimmed) instead of noticeable lamps.

I'm using a LED chain in my bathroom, originally meant for a huge Xmas tree. It uses only 2W and is bright enough so you don't have to turn of the big 20W fluorescent light above the mirror unless you want to shave or do your makeup or something like that.
I think you have a point about different concepts. I'm not sure I'd care for a glowing wall, but a glowing ceiling might work. Direct substitution of LED in place of incandescent does not seem optimal, but other uses that take advantage of LED strengths might do better.