[Evildave]

waldojim, on 15 July 2011 - 07:21 AM, said:

more often than not, genetically engineered plant life is sterile.

Tell it to the soybean farmers who got raped. Because when the corporation launches the lawsuit, they generally get an 'injunction' that puts the farm out of business. It works quite a lot like the RIAA and others. You lean on them until they either cave and pay the extortion, or are utterly destroyed.

[waldojim]

smax013, on 15 July 2011 - 01:40 PM, said:

On the plus side, they last FOREVER. I use CFLs for my three front outside lights. I tend to leave them on all the time (even in the day time) because I am lazy (yes, that kind of defeats the energy efficient effect of using a CFL) and they will still last more than half the year.

That right there is what kills me. No offense, but 6 months is not forever.I have had long life incandescent bulbs that lasted YEARS outside running 24/7. I even had EARLY CFL bulbs last YEARS in 24/7 operation. Then out of nowhere they quality dropped fast. when my 2-3 year bulbs died, I replaced them, and found myself doing so every few months. I even tried LED to find that what used to be 50,000 hour lights are now 5,000 hour lights. Heck, I even had a $12 LED light pop the moment in turned it on. Lasted about 3 seconds.

Quality used to mean something... something more than a catch phrase to squeeze money from my wallet.

[Evildave]

Wind in its 'infancy'? I beg to differ.

Out here in the Coachella Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass, where there are LOTS of gigantic wind turbines with blades as large as airliner wings, spinning along generating power every day. An 'experimental' technology does not get such permanent and massive investment. These things are MONSTERS. They're generating HUNDREDS of megawatts every day (and most nights). They don't MASS PRODUCE 'experiments' like this. Especially gigantic ones.

And solar is pushing GRID PARITY right now. For deploying, maintaining, etc. And the price is still falling rapidly, with no bottom in sight. Every week, another factory announces it's producing solar panels, or materials to make solar panels. Hardly an 'experiment'. Another gigantic solar project is being announced all the time, too. Experimental? You may as well claim light bulbs are 'experimental'.

And the COST of destroying mountains and polluting wide regions to get coal, or fracturing underground shale to get gas (and now petroleum), contaminating surrounding ground water is never calculated into your fossil fuel costs. Nor is the dumping of all of those billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere to the point we've changed the pH of the OCEANS, nor the more immediate problems of air pollution ruining the health of humans. How much will it 'cost' us when the oceans stop absorbing CO2 and the atmosphere starts changing, very suddenly?

This post has been edited by Evildave: 15 July 2011 - 02:49 PM

[Evildave]

A 9 watt CF lamp turns out a LOT of light. Every bit comparable to the 60 watt incandescent bulb it replaces. I can't believe you've ever even seen a CF lamp (and realized it), if you claim they don't make as much VERY usable light as an incandescent lamp. I suggest you pay closer attention to the inset spotlights and whatnot of commercial businesses that have those lights on 24/7. You'll notice a distinctive spiral pattern behind that diffusing lens. A hundred 9 or 11 watt bulbs versus a hundred 60 or 100 watt bulbs adds up quick. 11KW/H a night versus 100KW/H a night, times 365 is a big difference on the power bill.

And if you look higher, at the ones on the poles, they aren't incandescent, either. They're either sodium arc (the ghastly orange colored ones) or high intensity discharge (HID) lamps (the super-bright white ones).

Incandescent technology is dinosaur technology. You may as well tell us how much 'better' a five year old PC clone server that eats 300 watts, and needs forced air cooling is, compared to a new 'appliance' that eats 40 watts to do the same job with an ARM CPU.

As for leaving a CFL on 24 hours a day, consider 9 watts x 24 versus 60 watts x 10 (though it would probably be 60 x 24, if the only reason it's on is 'laziness'). There is still a substantial net savings. For some reason, I've only replaced two CFLs in the last five years. One I broke (NBD), and one was defective from the factory (3-way that only worked two ways, and didn't last long). It could simply be that ONE bulb in ONE CFL lights up most of my open plan house all by its self.

As for 'full light' output, get real. The slowest ones I have, in my kitchen (spotlight style) put out more than enough light to be useful... INSTANTLY. In a minute or so, they're at full power and VERY bright, and VERY white. I kind of like not having them INSTANT-ON at RETINA-SCOURING brightness. It gives my eyes a chance to adjust.

And the CFLs come in different colors. Get the lower 'color temperature' (below 3000K) rating for more 'yellow' that is INDISTINGUISHABLE from an incandescent light's output.
http://en.wikipedia....luorescent_lamp

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 15 July 2011 - 02:49 PM, said:

A 9 watt CF lamp turns out a LOT of light. Every bit comparable to the 60 watt incandescent bulb it replaces. I can't believe you've ever even seen a CF lamp (and realized it), if you claim they don't make as much VERY usable light as an incandescent lamp. I suggest you pay closer attention to the inset spotlights and whatnot of commercial businesses that have those lights on 24/7. You'll notice a distinctive spiral pattern behind that diffusing lens. A hundred 9 or 11 watt bulbs versus a hundred 60 or 100 watt bulbs adds up quick. 11KW/H a night versus 100KW/H a night, times 365 is a big difference on the power bill.

quantity of light, and quality of light are two very different things. Many people do not do well with prolonged exposure to 'cool' lighting.

Quote

And if you look higher, at the ones on the poles, they aren't incandescent, either. They're either sodium arc (the ghastly orange colored ones) or high intensity discharge (HID) lamps (the super-bright white ones).

HID is also an incandescent style light, NOT florescent. While the less useful Sodium-Vapor lights are more closely related to fluorescent and suffer many of the same drawbacks. Businesses also have to real need to care about how people react long term to the lighting. People aren't there that long.

Quote

Incandescent technology is dinosaur technology. You may as well tell us how much 'better' a five year old PC clone server that eats 300 watts, and needs forced air cooling is, compared to a new 'appliance' that eats 40 watts to do the same job with an ARM CPU.

Everything depends on usage. If my primary concern is cheap lighting that will last a year (or two) in my living room, where I read, then incandescent is for me. If I want a light for the kitchen that I should never have to touch, then Florescent SHOULD work out in there - that light is rarely used. Trying to save money on the electric bill? Turn off the lights once in a while.

Proper CPU in a server VS ARM... I hope you are kidding, because that is an obvious win for the Desktop/workstation/server CPU.

Quote

As for leaving a CFL on 24 hours a day, consider 9 watts x 24 versus 60 watts x 10 (though it would probably be 60 x 24, if the only reason it's on is 'laziness'). There is still a substantial net savings. For some reason, I've only replaced two CFLs in the last five years. One I broke (NBD), and one was defective from the factory (3-way that only worked two ways, and didn't last long). It could simply be that ONE bulb in ONE CFL lights up most of my open plan house all by its self.

Until you consider that they both last about the same amount of time, that CFL was $8 and that standard bulb was 4 for $1. No, you don't save a dime.

Quote

As for 'full light' output, get real. The slowest ones I have, in my kitchen (spotlight style) put out more than enough light to be useful... INSTANTLY. In a minute or so, they're at full power and VERY bright, and VERY white. I kind of like not having them INSTANT-ON at RETINA-SCOURING brightness. It gives my eyes a chance to adjust.

And the CFLs come in different colors. Get the lower 'color temperature' (below 3000K) rating for more 'yellow' that is INDISTINGUISHABLE from an incandescent light's output.
http://en.wikipedia....luorescent_lamp

We did get real. Some of us actually changed over an entire home to CFL (wasting hundreds of dollars in the process) just to switch back a few years later after coming to the realization we weren't saving anything and were getting tired of the crap light output.

Also, just because you claim you cannot distinguish between a real bulb and an alternative, doesn't mean others can't.

One question for you though. My last home also had several dimmers in place. Ever find a CFL that did well with a dimmer?

[waldojim]

I love this... from the wiki page you linked off to:

Quote

CFLs radiate a different light spectrum from that of incandescent lamps. Improved phosphor formulations have improved the perceived colour of the light emitted by CFLs such that some sources rate the best "soft white" CFLs as subjectively similar in colour to standard incandescent lamps.[3]

In other words, no they are not the same. No they are not indistinguishable. No they are not direct replacements.

More wonderful quoting goodness:

Quote

While the purchase price of an integrated CFL is typically 3 to 10 times greater than that of an equivalent incandescent lamp, the extended lifetime and lower energy use will more than compensate for the higher initial cost.[25] A U.S. article stated "A household that invested $90 in changing 30 fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity.

How many people here actually had one of these last 5 years? Better yet, how many of you found these lights for $3 each? I know ALL of mine ranged from $4-6 each (more for the 2 three way bulbs that lasted about 6 weeks each).
I know NONE of my CFL lights lasted more than 2 years, and that was when they were built well. The current crop barely make it a year in my home.

Quote

The cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) is one of the newest forms of CFL. CCFLs use electrodes without a filament. The voltage of CCFLs is about 5 times higher than CFLs, and the current is about 10 times lower. CCFLs have a diameter of about 3 millimeters. CCFLs were initially used for document scanners and also for back-lighting LCD displays, but they are now also manufactured for use as lamps. The efficacy (lumens per watt) is about half that of CFLs. Their advantages are that they are instant-on, like incandescents, they are compatible with timers, photocells, and dimmers, and they have a long life of approximately 50,000 hours. CCFLs are a convenient transition technology for those who are not comfortable with the short lag time associated with the initial lighting of CFLs. They are also an effective and efficient replacement for lighting that is turned on and off frequently with little extended use (for example, in a bathroom or closet).

Those right there, if sold correctly, are a much better solution than CFL.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 15 July 2011 - 03:47 PM

[coastie65]

Evildave, on 15 July 2011 - 02:45 PM, said:

And the COST of destroying mountains and polluting wide regions to get coal, or fracturing underground shale to get gas (and now petroleum), contaminating surrounding ground water is never calculated into your fossil fuel costs. Nor is the dumping of all of those billions of tons of carbon into the atmosphere to the point we've changed the pH of the OCEANS, nor the more immediate problems of air pollution ruining the health of humans. How much will it 'cost' us when the oceans stop absorbing CO2 and the atmosphere starts changing, very suddenly?

Well, I think there is one thing we can agree on. I have never been a fan of strip mining, nor the practice of shaving off mountain tops. The bigger problem is not the Oceans absorbing CO2, but the slash and burn practices in South America and Africa for clearing land. Those forests are the "Lungs" of the earth, but they take in Co2 and expell Oxygen ( Biology 101 ). Deforestation is the bigger problem. Although trees are considered "Renewable", it takes years to grow a tree. I can tell you this, the last thing you want to see is a large amount of Co2 in the water as it would kill of the Marine life. We have that problem now in parts of the Chesapeake Bay for various reasons and they are referred to as dead areas. Most of it is due to the stuff that finds its way into the Bay and it is a huge water shed that needs to be addressed covering the states of Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York ( maybe more ). Oceans do release Co2 into the atmosphere though, and thus warming it. There has been global warming in the past and long before fossil fuels ( the fossils were still roaming the earth ). I linked to a very good article in an earlier post on that. Anyway, as someone on a limited fixed income, I can't afford those high dollar bulbs.

[Evildave]

Actually, the ocean does the heavy lifting in the CO2 department.

As for the 'differences' in incandescent versus CF, I think another way of describing it will help:

"These infernal electrical light bulb contraptions of Edison's making will never amount to anything! The unnatural and ghastly glow of the electrical light can not compare to a gas light! Besides, everyone has cheap, reliable GAS lighting already. What are we supposed to do? Install electricity into every home? Why, there aren't even any electrical dynamos for a thousand miles, besides the one they are demonstrating there at the World's Fair!"

Note: 'natural gas' had not been discovered. Town gas was produced by boiling coal under pressure (with more coal). Carbon monoxide poisoning was very common, as the gas contained a LOT of it, along with free hydrogen molecules.

[Evildave]

The difference between algae and phytoplankton versus trees, is that more of the Earth is covered by plankton bearing ocean, and the plankton and algae exists three dimensionally throughout several meters of water, while plant life on land gets a few very thin layers of energy absorption through their leaves. And not all dry land is productive. In fact, that's the problem. The trees need water, light and CO2 to make O2. Deserts don't contribute much, nor do glaciated surfaces, or rock-covered areas. Above all, not everywhere gets rain all the time. So land plants spend a lot of time 'idle', compared to algae that is already wet, already in light, and already soaked in CO2 to the point that we're actually KILLING them.

Trees contribute, but the amount they contribute is small compared to algae. Something on the order of 80% sea versus 20% land plants. BTW, ocean pollution and climate change is apparently killing off algae, too.

Where it would take 20 or so trees to keep one human alive, about SIX LITERS of brightly illuminated algae soup, with air circulated through it, will do the job just as well.
http://www.hellergre...erson-breathing
http://www.time.com/...,827762,00.html
http://ecology.com/f...ortantorganism/
http://cedb.asce.org...lay.cgi?7000907

[coastie65]

" . BTW, ocean pollution and climate change is apparently killing off algae, too. " Apparently you have missed the stories about Algae Bloom ( also known as Red Tides ) that is choking out the marine life and how they are looking for ways to combat it or prevent it. I have spent a great deal of time on or near the water and am an avid fisherman, so I pay close attention to that stuff. They have done a good job of cleaning up the river here and it is still a WIP. Started finding Sturgeon that they thought had long since disappeared from the river. Course we have our annual spring runs of Shad and Herring as well. You are correct in saying that Algae feeds Plankton, and plankton feeds other things and so on up the chain, but to simply state the positive and skip over the negative aspects is both one sided and deceptive. That is the problem today, they are pushing an agenda and you get one side of something, supporting their position, but not the whole picture, so the people are being misinformed and drawing conclusions from half truths.

Getting back to the topic, I have CFLs everywhere in the house except in the lamp my Mother uses. I will most likely go back to Incadescent though. I will not be told what kind of product I can use and to remove them ( Incadescent bulbs ) from the market and thus taking away that choice, will, in all likelyhood, be challenged in court at some point. In this country, you can't have the few dictating to the many and that is the it seems these days. I do recycle as that is a no brainer and it has been easy and FREE here. Just put the stuff out to be picked up ( no sorting required ).

[LiveBrianD]

So basically the incandescents give off a 6500K light, LEDs a 9300K light, and cfls something inbetween? (6500K is daylight) I don't notice very much difference and it doesn't bother me.

[nonseq]

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

So basically the incandescents give off a 6500K light, LEDs a 9300K light, and cfls something inbetween? (6500K is daylight) I don't notice very much difference and it doesn't bother me.

Brian I think your temps are wrong. incancesdents are 2700K and daylight is 5600K CFL are in between but color is not the only problem.

[LiveBrianD]

nonseq, on 16 July 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

So basically the incandescents give off a 6500K light, LEDs a 9300K light, and cfls something inbetween? (6500K is daylight) I don't notice very much difference and it doesn't bother me.

Brian I think your temps are wrong. incancesdents are 2700K and daylight is 5600K CFL are in between but color is not the only problem.

Because incandescents have an even "warm"er color than the sun does? Come to think of it, that seems about right.

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

So basically the incandescents give off a 6500K light, LEDs a 9300K light, and cfls something inbetween? (6500K is daylight) I don't notice very much difference and it doesn't bother me.

The don't bother me either as I can read by them, but my mother can't. The problem is, people trying to read with improper lighting are going to have problems down the road.

[LiveBrianD]

coastie65, on 16 July 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

So basically the incandescents give off a 6500K light, LEDs a 9300K light, and cfls something inbetween? (6500K is daylight) I don't notice very much difference and it doesn't bother me.

The don't bother me either as I can read by them, but my mother can't. The problem is, people trying to read with improper lighting are going to have problems down the road.

Why can't she? Is her eyesight poor?

[coastie65]

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

coastie65, on 16 July 2011 - 03:37 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 10:52 AM, said:

So basically the incandescents give off a 6500K light, LEDs a 9300K light, and cfls something inbetween? (6500K is daylight) I don't notice very much difference and it doesn't bother me.

The don't bother me either as I can read by them, but my mother can't. The problem is, people trying to read with improper lighting are going to have problems down the road.

Why can't she? Is her eyesight poor?

Yep. Incandescent bulbs are the only ones she can read by and those irresponsible, incompetent chuckleheads in Congress want to do away with incandescent bulbs. I'm telling you, if you bought a Member of Congress for what they were worth and sold them for what they thought they were worth, you could pay off the national debt with the profit.

This post has been edited by coastie65: 16 July 2011 - 04:35 PM

[Rommel]

http://editorial.aut..._1958&GT1=22006

[Evildave]

And they aren't 'banning' incandescent bulbs. Only requiring that they be more efficient. And they are already making more efficient incandescent bulbs that meet those requirements.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

As mentioned earlier, the CF lights ARE available (abundantly) in 3000K and lower color temperature, which puts them in the same range of output as the incandescent bulbs.


A photograph of various lamps illustrates the effect of colour temperature differences (left to right):

• Compact Fluorescent: General Electric, 13 W, 6,500 K
  
• Incandescent: Sylvania 60 W Extra Soft White
  
• Compact Fluorescent: Bright Effects, 15 W, 2,644 K
  
• Compact Fluorescent: Sylvania, 14 W, 3,000 K

This post has been edited by Evildave: 16 July 2011 - 10:55 PM