Saturday, December 22, 2007

Light Bulbs

Congress is outlawing incandescent light bulbs over the next several years. Manufacturers assure that they will have alternatives. This is a "yes, but..." situation. I've been using compact fluorescents, halogen work lights, and LED flashlights for some time including LED Christmas light so I know the technologies fairly well. There are drawbacks to all of them. Here's a list:

Compact Fluorescents (CFLs):
  • Most of them give off an unpleasant blue-white light. I find them mainly suitable when used with a yellowish lamp shade to give it a more natural light.
  • They are not suitable for decorative lights.
  • They are larger. Many spaces designed for incandescents cannot take a CFL.
  • They cannot be used with a dimmer.
  • Sometimes they only last a few months making them much more expensive than incandescent bulbs.
  • They create toxic waste.
  • They don't give off as much light as promised. When I replace an incandescent with a CFL I almost always have to go up one level. I've seen some speculation that CFLs take a while to warm up and reach full strength. This could be an illusion caused by the eye adjusting. My guess is that the strength of CFLs is calculated based on the light the tubing gives off per inch of length. Since the tube is coiled, some of that light is lost.

Halogen bulbs:
  • They burn very hot making them a potential fire hazard.
  • They are sensitive to any sort of handling.
  • They are not suitable for decorative bulbs.

LEDs:
  • All of them give off an unpleasant bluish light.
  • LED light bulb replacements are clusters of individual LEDs. These are ugly and hard on the eye.
Incandescents (advantages):
  • Give off a pleasant, natural color light.
  • Make excellent decorative lights.
  • Easily fit into odd spaces (ex. refrigerators, garage door openers).
  • Cheap
  • Non-toxic waste.
Around 1990 Congress mandated that toilets use smaller tanks. The result was toilets that often need to be flushed twice for a net increase in water use. The object was not so much saving water as it was being seen to do something about a problem.

Starting this year the starting and ending dates for Daylight Savings Time were moved. No study was done to see if it would save energy nor will the legislation be changed if it turns out that no energy was saved or that more is used. Again it is more important to be seen doing something than to accomplish anything.

The light bulb legislation is the same thing. It will affect everyone in the country and, as people adjust, they will think to themselves, "Congress is doing something to save us from global warming."


The next question - will US automakers be put out of business by the new fuel economy standards?

No comments: