Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => Haley Center Basement => Topic started by: AUTailgatingRules on May 17, 2011, 12:32:23 PM
-
$50 Light bulbs. REALLY??????
LED bulbs hit 100 watts as federal ban looms
Email
Print
AP – In this product image provided by Osram Sylvania, an ULTRA High Performance Series omni-directional LED …
RELATED QUOTES
AYI 58.06 -0.34
SI 130.43 -1.37
^DJUSS 578.43 -4.76
By PETER SVENSSON, AP Technology Writer – Mon May 16, 6:05 pm ET
NEW YORK – Two leading makers of lighting products are showcasing LED bulbs that are bright enough to replace energy-guzzling 100-watt light bulbs set to disappear from stores in January.
Their demonstrations at the LightFair trade show in Philadelphia this week mean that brighter LED bulbs will likely go on sale next year, but after a government ban takes effect.
The new bulbs will also be expensive — about $50 each — so the development may not prevent consumers from hoarding traditional bulbs.
The technology in traditional "incandescent" bulbs is more than a century old. Such bulbs waste most of the electricity that feeds them, turning it into heat. The 100-watt bulb, in particular, produces so much heat that it's used in Hasbro's Easy-Bake Oven.
To encourage energy efficiency, Congress passed a law in 2007 mandating that bulbs producing 100 watts worth of light meet certain efficiency goals, starting in 2012. Conventional light bulbs don't meet those goals, so the law will prohibit making or importing them. The same rule will start apply to remaining bulbs 40 watts and above in 2014. Since January, California has already banned stores from restocking 100-watt incandescent bulbs.
Creating good alternatives to the light bulb has been more difficult than expected, especially for the very bright 100-watt bulbs. Part of the problem is that these new bulbs have to fit into lamps and ceiling fixtures designed for older technology.
Compact fluorescents are the most obvious replacement, but they have drawbacks. They contain a small amount of toxic mercury vapor, which is released if they break or are improperly thrown away. They last longer than traditional bulbs but not as long as LEDs. Brighter models are bulky and may not fit in existing fixtures.
Another new lighting technology, organic light-emitting diodes, or OLEDs, has had problems reaching mass production. OLEDs are glowing sheets or tiles, rather than pinprick light sources, as LEDs are. They're used as vibrant color screens for smartphones, particularly from Samsung Electronics Co.
But making OLEDs that are big, bright, cheap and long-lasting enough for use as light sources has proved difficult, in part because they use chemicals that are sensitive to oxygen and spoil unless sealed very carefully.
Acuity Brands Inc., an Atlanta-based maker of light fixtures, will be showing some OLED panels at the show. They will go on sale next year, but the price will likely make them technology showpieces rather than candidates for everyday lighting.
LEDs are efficient, durable and produced in great quantities, but they're still expensive. An LED bulb can contain a dozen light-emitting diodes, or tiny semiconductor chips, which cost about $1 each.
The big problem with LEDs is that although they don't produce as much heat as incandescent bulbs, the heat they do create shortens the lifespan and reduces the efficiency of the chips. Cramming a dozen chips together in a tight bulb-shaped package that fits in today's lamps and sockets makes the heat problem worse. The brighter the bulb, the bigger the problem is.
The most powerful pear-shaped LED bulbs in stores today — the kind that fits existing lamps — produce light equivalent to a 60-watt bulb, though there are more powerful ones for directional or flood lighting.
Osram Sylvania, a unit of Germany's Siemens AG, said it has overcome the heat problem and will be showing a pear-shaped 100-watt-equivalent LED bulb this week. It doesn't have a firm launch date, but it usually shows products about a year before they hit store shelves.
Lighting Sciences Group Corp., a Satellite Beach, Fla.-based company that specializes in LED lighting, will be showing several 100-watt-equivalent prototypes, including some that solve the problem of cooling the LEDs by using microscopic devices that move air over the chips, like miniature fans.
Before the 100-watters, there will be 75-watters on the shelves this year. Osram Sylvania will be selling them at Lowe's starting in July. Royal Philips Electronics NV, the world's biggest lighting maker, will have them in stores late this year for $40 to $45.
However, 60-watt bulbs are the big prize, since they're the most common. There are 425 million incandescent light bulbs in the 60-watt range in use in the U.S. today, said Zia Eftekhar, the head of Philips' North American lighting division. The energy savings that could be realized by replacing them with 10-watt LED bulbs is staggering.
To stimulate LED development, the federal government has instituted a $10 million "L Prize" for an energy-efficient replacement for the 60-watt bulb. Philips is so far the only entrant in testing, and Eftekhar expects the company to win it soon. But Lighting Sciences Group plans its own entry, which it will demonstrate at the trade show.
Philips has been selling a 60-watt-equivalent bulb at Home Depot since December that's quite similar to the one submitted to the contest. But it's slightly dimmer, consumes 2 watts too much power and costs $40, whereas the L Prize target is $22. Sylvania sells a similar LED bulb at Lowe's, also for $40.
However, LED prices are coming down quickly. The DoE expects a 60-watt equivalent LED bulb to cost $10 by 2015, putting them within striking range of the price of a compact fluorescent bulb.
Bob Karlicek, the director of the Smart Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., thinks that price is achievable.
But, he said, "it's not necessarily clear to people in the lighting industry that LED chips were ever meant to go into a bulb."
What's really needed, he said, is a new approach to lighting — new fixtures and lamps that spread out the LEDs, avoiding the heat problem.
Follow Yahoo! News on Twitter, become a fan on Facebook
-
I agree with your post except for your use of "unintended". Don't think this crap is not intended.
-
And now kerosene is hard to find and expensive. We can't even go back to the 19th century. We are hosed.
-
There's NOTHING "unintended" associated with this. These Leftist Goons in Washington know what they are doing. Rather than letting free market forces demand and drive these new technologies, they are forcing us to comply with their ideals. A far cry from our space program of the 60s and the technology booms that have occurred since. You can't legislate innovation, creativity and success; you can only enable it. Socialists refuse to accept this. You don't want those new compact florescents, because you'll need a hazmat suit, clean-up equipment and a containment facility to deal with broken bulbs. And, the LED and OLED alternatives will cost you 2-3 times as much as a florescent which already costs 15-20 times more than a standard incandescent. Meanwhile, many of them [read: Al Gore, et. al] are holding potentially lucrative holdings in companies that produce these alternative products. As some would say, "It's good to be king..."
-
There's NOTHING "unintended" associated with this. These Leftist Goons in Washington know what they are doing. Rather than letting free market forces demand and drive these new technologies, they are forcing us to comply with their ideals. A far cry from our space program of the 60s and the technology booms that have occurred since. You can't legislate innovation, creativity and success; you can only enable it. Socialists refuse to accept this. You don't want those new compact florescents, because you'll need a hazmat suit, clean-up equipment and a containment facility to deal with broken bulbs. And, the LED and OLED alternatives will cost you 2-3 times as much as a florescent which already costs 15-20 times more than a standard incandescent. Meanwhile, many of them [read: Al Gore, et. al] are holding potentially lucrative holdings in companies that produce these alternative products. As some would say, "It's good to be king..."
It's been going on since our country's founding. Don't like it? Make more money and be the fucker instead of the fuckee.
-
It's been going on since our country's founding. Don't like it? Make more money and be the effer instead of the effee.
Well sure to an extent, but it has really gotten bad since FDR. And more recently, it's worse than ever. Unfortunely, money isn't the answer. They already have a relatively successful fairness campaign against greed, success and wealth, so that won't work...
-
It's been going on since our country's founding. Don't like it? Make more money and be the fucker instead of the fuckee.
No...it really hasn't. Not to this level.
If you look at this closer, this is another case of the gov't forcing you to buy a product by creating only one option. Unless you don't want light.
-
A) It's a new technology, and as with any new technology, the price is initially going to be higher early on. I would imagine that these prices will decrease over time.
B) Standard light bulbs last for 700 hours. LED light bulbs last for 50,000 - 100,000 hours. This is the equivalent of 5-10 years, if the bulb were constantly on. Thus, it's going to last about 70 - 140 times longer than traditional bulbs. Even if you found traditional light bulbs at $1 a piece, you'd spend $70 - $140 replacing all of the incandescent light bulbs that could have been replaced by one $50 LED light bulb.
C) A 60 watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $20 a year in electricity if it's left on 8 hours a day. The LED replacement would cost $2 a year. Considering that the bulb will last for 5-10 years, you will have made up for the cost of the LED bulb in electricity savings within 3 years.
Now, I understand that the LED bulb probably doesn't cost anywhere near $50 to manufacture, but they obviously have some negotiating room when it comes to charging the consumer a higher price. The product will pay for itself in electricity savings long before it needs replacing, and it is actually cheaper to buy one of these bulbs which will last for 10 - 25 years than it is to buy incandescent bulbs over 10 - 25 years. They may be making a killing off of the markup, but the consumer is saving as well.
-
A) It's a new technology, and as with any new technology, the price is initially going to be higher early on. I would imagine that these prices will decrease over time.
Absolutely... They're just jumping the gun before market forces and production improvements had a chance to take affect. Forcing everyone to purchase the new lights is going to be painful for the next couple of years.
B) Standard light bulbs last for 700 hours. LED light bulbs last for 50,000 - 100,000 hours. This is the equivalent of 5-10 years, if the bulb were constantly on. Thus, it's going to last about 70 - 140 times longer than traditional bulbs. Even if you found traditional light bulbs at $1 a piece, you'd spend $70 - $140 replacing all of the incandescent light bulbs that could have been replaced by one $50 LED light bulb.
Again, that's probably the eventual goal, but market forces and product improvements need a chance to take affect. I doubt the initial versions will do anything like that. The average should still be a significant improvement over the incandescents, but we need to see it for ourselves.
C) A 60 watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $20 a year in electricity if it's left on 8 hours a day. The LED replacement would cost $2 a year. Considering that the bulb will last for 5-10 years, you will have made up for the cost of the LED bulb in electricity savings within 3 years.
Again, it sounds great, but that doesn't excuse or justify the government forcing new technology before it's ready. These LED replacements aren't even on the market yet, at least not in mass quantities. How do they expect people to accept this? And, are there any risks? Many of us have learned about some of the risks and issues associated with the CFLs. These LEDs sound great, but do they cycle? Do they cause headaches? What haven't they told us?
Now, I understand that the LED bulb probably doesn't cost anywhere near $50 to manufacture, but they obviously have some negotiating room when it comes to charging the consumer a higher price. The product will pay for itself in electricity savings long before it needs replacing, and it is actually cheaper to buy one of these bulbs which will last for 10 - 25 years than it is to buy incandescent bulbs over 10 - 25 years. They may be making a killing off of the markup, but the consumer is saving as well.
So, now that you've justified it for yourself, what do you think about the government forcing you into these new technologies before they're tried and proven? I'm sure they had great benefits for using asbestos once upon a time too, and lead had tremendous benefits that we have lost to apocalypse politics...
-
A) It's a new technology, and as with any new technology, the price is initially going to be higher early on. I would imagine that these prices will decrease over time.
B) Standard light bulbs last for 700 hours. LED light bulbs last for 50,000 - 100,000 hours. This is the equivalent of 5-10 years, if the bulb were constantly on. Thus, it's going to last about 70 - 140 times longer than traditional bulbs. Even if you found traditional light bulbs at $1 a piece, you'd spend $70 - $140 replacing all of the incandescent light bulbs that could have been replaced by one $50 LED light bulb.
C) A 60 watt incandescent bulb costs approximately $20 a year in electricity if it's left on 8 hours a day. The LED replacement would cost $2 a year. Considering that the bulb will last for 5-10 years, you will have made up for the cost of the LED bulb in electricity savings within 3 years.
Now, I understand that the LED bulb probably doesn't cost anywhere near $50 to manufacture, but they obviously have some negotiating room when it comes to charging the consumer a higher price. The product will pay for itself in electricity savings long before it needs replacing, and it is actually cheaper to buy one of these bulbs which will last for 10 - 25 years than it is to buy incandescent bulbs over 10 - 25 years. They may be making a killing off of the markup, but the consumer is saving as well.
How's about I just don't fucking like the new bulbs? Too bright, I don't like the light they emit, yadda yadda. The old ones lasted 5 years and were less than 1 dollar each. There were better ways to cut cost in the economy than light bulbs that were dirt cheap anyway. The point is the forcing of policy down the public's throat against it's will.
-
Again, that's probably the eventual goal, but market forces and product improvements need a chance to take affect. I doubt the initial versions will do anything like that. The average should still be a significant improvement over the incandescents, but we need to see it for ourselves.
They have 60 watt LED light bulbs which have been on the market for some time now. The article referenced the 100 watt bulbs, which are 1) less commonly used than 60 watt bulbs, and 2) the more expensive range of light bulbs, whether it's incandescent or LED. The 60 watt bulbs are currently $40, but based upon the existence of the $10 million L Prize, it looks like they should be around $25 before the complete replacement takes place.
At any rate, they've been tested in the same manner that incandescent bulbs are tested in order to gauge their lifespans. Regardless of how accurate the testing may when compared to real life scenarios, it's a standardized test that both bulbs would have to go through. If the test underestimates real life scenarios, then it's going to do so for both of them, but the measured ratio of lifespan between the two will be the same.
Again, it sounds great, but that doesn't excuse or justify the government forcing new technology before it's ready. These LED replacements aren't even on the market yet, at least not in mass quantities. How do they expect people to accept this? And, are there any risks? Many of us have learned about some of the risks and issues associated with the CFLs. These LEDs sound great, but do they cycle? Do they cause headaches? What haven't they told us?
Supposedly, the only known health hazard from LED lighting is due to our decisions to utilize lead in the manufacturing of the light. This, of course, is not unique to these light bulbs, but all LED lights, including those in our cars, in street lights, and in our TVs. I'm not an engineer, nor have I reviewed how these bulbs are built, but to my knowledge you're going to use the same or a similar method of lighting LEDs in whatever devices you use. I find it hard to believe that people would want to oppose an LED light bulb because of health risks, yet they readily furnish their homes and offices with LED televisions, LED monitors, and mobile devices with LED screens. This is, of course, in addition to LED flashlights, LED Christmas lights, LED candles, LED billboards, LED accent lights/architectural lighting, lighting for fiber optics, etc. If health is legitimately a concern, then you'd think people would have been questioning the use of LEDs years ago.
My response was mostly aimed at the price, as this appeared to be the initial complaint lodged when the thread was started. I understand that it could be frustrating that the government has mandated something like the type of light bulb that is to be used, but if your complaint with that mandate is solely linked to the price and nothing else, then that seems like a relatively ineffective argument against the mandate. The bulb actually saves the consumer money, so unless there are additional complaints/concerns (as raised by yourself and GH), then I wouldn't see a reason to adamantly oppose the law.
-
All it means is that I'm going to beat my son's ass when he knocks over the lamp, and breaks the $50 bulb.
-
They have 60 watt LED light bulbs which have been on the market for some time now. The article referenced the 100 watt bulbs, which are 1) less commonly used than 60 watt bulbs, and 2) the more expensive range of light bulbs, whether it's incandescent or LED. The 60 watt bulbs are currently $40, but based upon the existence of the $10 million L Prize, it looks like they should be around $25 before the complete replacement takes place.
At any rate, they've been tested in the same manner that incandescent bulbs are tested in order to gauge their lifespans. Regardless of how accurate the testing may when compared to real life scenarios, it's a standardized test that both bulbs would have to go through. If the test underestimates real life scenarios, then it's going to do so for both of them, but the measured ratio of lifespan between the two will be the same.
Supposedly, the only known health hazard from LED lighting is due to our decisions to utilize lead in the manufacturing of the light. This, of course, is not unique to these light bulbs, but all LED lights, including those in our cars, in street lights, and in our TVs. I'm not an engineer, nor have I reviewed how these bulbs are built, but to my knowledge you're going to use the same or a similar method of lighting LEDs in whatever devices you use. I find it hard to believe that people would want to oppose an LED light bulb because of health risks, yet they readily furnish their homes and offices with LED televisions, LED monitors, and mobile devices with LED screens. This is, of course, in addition to LED flashlights, LED Christmas lights, LED candles, LED billboards, LED accent lights/architectural lighting, lighting for fiber optics, etc. If health is legitimately a concern, then you'd think people would have been questioning the use of LEDs years ago.
My response was mostly aimed at the price, as this appeared to be the initial complaint lodged when the thread was started. I understand that it could be frustrating that the government has mandated something like the type of light bulb that is to be used, but if your complaint with that mandate is solely linked to the price and nothing else, then that seems like a relatively ineffective argument against the mandate. The bulb actually saves the consumer money, so unless there are additional complaints/concerns (as raised by yourself and GH), then I wouldn't see a reason to adamantly oppose the law.
No issue with them being available. The problem I have is a mandate. Which this essentially is. This 100 watt elimination from the market is part of a bigger phased process to only have one kind of bulb available. The govt has no place in this whatsoever. Supply and demand, free market policies are what should dictate what is out there. Its the natural order of how man has existed for 2000 years. And like I said, there are bigger fish to fry. Unless you are a hellbent environmentalist with an agenda (like the Obama-nation).
-
Here's the thing:
1. Vandy Vol likes the idea of a $50 LED bulb and should be able to buy them if a company can find a way to bring them to market.
2. I should be able to buy my cheap ass incandescent bulb if a company can continue to make, market, and sell them for a profit
The government has no business sticking their nose in the free market. I gaurantee you that if both options were allowed to compete in the free market that the incandescent would far outsell the LED, but the LED would also be much cheaper due to competition.
Oh and by the way, let's not forget about the job losses caused by this stupidity. The last USA based light bulb factory just shut down and fired all employees a few months ago.
-
Uncle Fester will never look the same again......
-
They have 60 watt LED light bulbs which have been on the market for some time now. The article referenced the 100 watt bulbs, which are 1) less commonly used than 60 watt bulbs, and 2) the more expensive range of light bulbs, whether it's incandescent or LED. The 60 watt bulbs are currently $40, but based upon the existence of the $10 million L Prize, it looks like they should be around $25 before the complete replacement takes place.
At any rate, they've been tested in the same manner that incandescent bulbs are tested in order to gauge their lifespans. Regardless of how accurate the testing may when compared to real life scenarios, it's a standardized test that both bulbs would have to go through. If the test underestimates real life scenarios, then it's going to do so for both of them, but the measured ratio of lifespan between the two will be the same.
Having just left Home Depot, I was able to confirm that they carry one brand of a non-directional 40 Watt version that sells for $30. I didn't see any 60 Watt versions, and the shelves were pretty full. I don't think it's a simple matter of them being out of stock right now.
Standardized testing was also used for CFLs which also held many of the same wondrous promises of these new LEDs. Since that time, I've purchased half a dozen of these magic light bulbs at $15 a piece... Two of them have since failed, one failing with an explosive arc emanating from the power supply shorting out the lamp in which it was used, almost causing a fire as sparks shot across the room onto the bed and carpet. I threw the rest of them away...
Supposedly, the only known health hazard from LED lighting is due to our decisions to utilize lead in the manufacturing of the light. This, of course, is not unique to these light bulbs, but all LED lights, including those in our cars, in street lights, and in our TVs. I'm not an engineer, nor have I reviewed how these bulbs are built, but to my knowledge you're going to use the same or a similar method of lighting LEDs in whatever devices you use. I find it hard to believe that people would want to oppose an LED light bulb because of health risks, yet they readily furnish their homes and offices with LED televisions, LED monitors, and mobile devices with LED screens. This is, of course, in addition to LED flashlights, LED Christmas lights, LED candles, LED billboards, LED accent lights/architectural lighting, lighting for fiber optics, etc. If health is legitimately a concern, then you'd think people would have been questioning the use of LEDs years ago.
Well, once upon a time, lead and asbestos were great products too. When mixed in paint, fuel and floor tiles where people didn't ingest them, they were harmless. Similarly, LEDs in our calculators, TVs, computer monitors and VCRs aren't much of a problem either. Come to think of it, the same could be said for florescent lights. I think that every business I know utilizes them, but have the risks ever really become common knowledge? I don't think so... Once you put these products into greater use in the home, we'll find out. At least, the government didn't mandate lead and asbestos based products...
My response was mostly aimed at the price, as this appeared to be the initial complaint lodged when the thread was started. I understand that it could be frustrating that the government has mandated something like the type of light bulb that is to be used, but if your complaint with that mandate is solely linked to the price and nothing else, then that seems like a relatively ineffective argument against the mandate. The bulb actually saves the consumer money, so unless there are additional complaints/concerns (as raised by yourself and GH), then I wouldn't see a reason to adamantly oppose the law.
I would say that the price is still a significant issue. You're arguing cost over time which is a bit different. Joe Sixpack may not have the future 3-5 years of cost savings in his pocket when his bedroom light burns out, and he needs a replacement.
-
No issue with them being available. The problem I have is a mandate. Which this essentially is. This 100 watt elimination from the market is part of a bigger phased process to only have one kind of bulb available. The govt has no place in this whatsoever. Supply and demand, free market policies are what should dictate what is out there. Its the natural order of how man has existed for 2000 years. And like I said, there are bigger fish to fry. Unless you are a hellbent environmentalist with an agenda (like the Obama-nation).
Well, they're not eliminating 100 watt bulbs entirely. California banned the 100 watt incandescent bulbs, but it's not a general ban on 100 watt bulbs. Granted, California stupidly created this ban before a 100 watt LED, was readily available, but I'm relatively certain that halogen alternatives are compliant with the government requirements. There are 90 watt halogen bulbs available to replace the 100 watt incandescent bulbs, and they're only a dollar or two more.
Now, I agree with the free market concept to a degree. I may like the look and cost of lead paint over non-lead paint, but ultimately it's been regulated due to health issues. This whole LED light bulb thing is obviously not regarding protecting the public's health, but is rather related to energy consumption.
Should the government step in and legislate something like this? I don't really know. Reducing our energy consumption is certainly a worthwhile goal, but a mandate is probably not the best way to go about it. Then again, without some form of "push" by the government, your average person is probably not going to bother with researching the lifespan on LED bulbs, the energy savings of these bulbs, and then decide to make the switch.
To me, it's somewhat analogous to recycling. Various local governments have tried to push the concept of recycling with commercials, publications, and some even instituted a government run recycling pick up (though very few). Despite the fact that, if the vast majority of consumers could find a way to recycle, prices of various products would reduce in price, and the need for landfills would decrease, yet people just choose not to recycle. "I don't want to separate my trash," "The facility is too far away," "I don't consume enough recyclable materials," and so on are the excuses we hear. At what point in time do you decide that the public is obviously not going to do it on their own, and that there is enough of an overall benefit for the government to spend time and money to somehow implement the program?
I will agree that the LED bulbs have not been given a chance on the market, and I do agree that this mandate has come far too early. Although the LED bulbs are currently being manufactured, and will obviously be more readily available once the mandate takes effect, the government should have waited to see what the LED bulbs did on the market.
-
Having just left Home Depot, I was able to confirm that they carry one brand of a non-directional 40 Watt version that sells for $30. I didn't see any 60 Watt versions, and the shelves were pretty full. I don't think it's a simple matter of them being out of stock right now.
Standardized testing was also used for CFLs which also held many of the same wondrous promises of these new LEDs. Since that time, I've purchased half a dozen of these magic light bulbs at $15 a piece... Two of them have since failed, one failing with an explosive arc emanating from the power supply shorting out the lamp in which it was used, almost causing a fire as sparks shot across the room onto the bed and carpet. I threw the rest of them away...
To my knowledge, CFL was created solely for the purpose of indoor lighting. I don't think that this particular technology was significantly used for several decades in screens and displays with successful results in the lifespan and reliability of the product. I think the durability of LED lighting has already been proven in other fields. Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if these bulbs are taking some drastic measures to change the way in which the basic concept of how illuminating an LED works, but I would assume that it can't be that different. You're utilizing a light source that has proven its durability in other fields, and you're plugging into a standard socket that has proven to be stable for incandescent bulbs. There's no major change in the electricity required or the type of socket utilized for the lighting as there was for CFL.
Well, once upon a time, lead and asbestos were great products too. When mixed in paint, fuel and floor tiles where people didn't ingest them, they were harmless. Similarly, LEDs in our calculators, TVs, computer monitors and VCRs aren't much of a problem either. Come to think of it, the same could be said for florescent lights. I think that every business I know utilizes them, but have the risks ever really become common knowledge? I don't think so... Once you put these products into greater use in the home, we'll find out. At least, the government didn't mandate lead and asbestos based products...
An LED is just a small diode. A Russian scientist took note that the diodes would light up when current was being passed through them. This was in the 1920s. As a result, we began using smaller diodes as sources of light, but the diode itself has been utilized in electronics since it was invented in the early 1900's. Regardless of the fact that LEDs have been in our DVDs and VCRs as light displays for decades, they've been in all electronic equipment for much longer than that. If there was a health issue related to diodes, I would assume that it would have been brought to the public attention by now. And even if it wasn't revealed simply because of an oversight by the FDA and various researchers, then I'm not really sure why consumers are completely happy with their diode-laden computers, cell phones, televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles, MP3 players, etc., but would have a fear of health hazards from a diode source of lighting.
I would say that the price is still a significant issue. You're arguing cost over time which is a bit different. Joe Sixpack may not have the future 3-5 years of cost savings in his pocket when his bedroom light burns out, and he needs a replacement.
True, but it's worth mentioning that the ban doesn't mandate that only LEDs be used. I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the halogen bulbs still meet the standards that the government has set. A 60 watt incandescent bulb will run you $1.49, and the halogen 50 watt bulb will run you $4.99. The halogen bulb lasts twice as long as the incandescent bulb, so Joe Sixpack is essentially spending $2.01 more for one halogen bulb ($4.99) that will replace two incandescent bulbs over time ($2.98).
-
To my knowledge, CFL was created solely for the purpose of indoor lighting. I don't think that this particular technology was significantly used for several decades in screens and displays with successful results in the lifespan and reliability of the product. I think the durability of LED lighting has already been proven in other fields. Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if these bulbs are taking some drastic measures to change the way in which the basic concept of how illuminating an LED works, but I would assume that it can't be that different. You're utilizing a light source that has proven its durability in other fields, and you're plugging into a standard socket that has proven to be stable for incandescent bulbs. There's no major change in the electricity required or the type of socket utilized for the lighting as there was for CFL.
Well actually, CFLs are essentially the same as the florescent lights that have been used in most office buildings and shopping malls for decades. In fact, they're probably more similar to each other than the similarities between the LEDs on your alarm clock and the LEDs in these futuristic non-directional lights.
An LED is just a small diode. A Russian scientist took note that the diodes would light up when current was being passed through them. This was in the 1920s. As a result, we began using smaller diodes as sources of light, but the diode itself has been utilized in electronics since it was invented in the early 1900's. Regardless of the fact that LEDs have been in our DVDs and VCRs as light displays for decades, they've been in all electronic equipment for much longer than that. If there was a health issue related to diodes, I would assume that it would have been brought to the public attention by now. And even if it wasn't revealed simply because of an oversight by the FDA and various researchers, then I'm not really sure why consumers are completely happy with their diode-laden computers, cell phones, televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles, MP3 players, etc., but would have a fear of health hazards from a diode source of lighting.
Different purpose... Different levels of exposure... Different style, design and intensity... The solder used in most circuit boards alongside these LEDS also has a high degree of lead, but with exposure being limited, it's of no issue to most consumers. Just as with florescent lights... Most of us were unaware of the risks associated with them because we didn't directly deal with them. There was a maintenance man who took care of them after hours, and we never really got any closer to them than a few feet.
Personally, I'm relatively certain that these LEDs are safe, but we still don't know enough about them. The government is effectively forcing them down our throats before the technology is proven and perfected.
True, but it's worth mentioning that the ban doesn't mandate that only LEDs be used. I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the halogen bulbs still meet the standards that the government has set. A 60 watt incandescent bulb will run you $1.49, and the halogen 50 watt bulb will run you $4.99. The halogen bulb lasts twice as long as the incandescent bulb, so Joe Sixpack is essentially spending $2.01 more for one halogen bulb ($4.99) that will replace two incandescent bulbs over time ($2.98).
It's still a hardship on Joe Sixpack. I normally get my incandescent replacements for less than $1 a piece... the benefits of buying in bulk from TheCostcos. Having to spend 2-3 times more for a replacement to satisfy some gubme't bureaucrat's green fetish is unreasonable.
-
Well actually, CFLs are essentially the same as the florescent lights that have been used in most office buildings and shopping malls for decades. In fact, they're probably more similar to each other than the similarities between the LEDs on your alarm clock and the LEDs in these futuristic non-directional lights.
Different purpose... Different levels of exposure... Different style, design and intensity... The solder used in most circuit boards alongside these LEDS also has a high degree of lead, but with exposure being limited, it's of no issue to most consumers. Just as with florescent lights... Most of us were unaware of the risks associated with them because we didn't directly deal with them. There was a maintenance man who took care of them after hours, and we never really got any closer to them than a few feet.
Personally, I'm relatively certain that these LEDs are safe, but we still don't know enough about them. The government is effectively forcing them down our throats before the technology is proven and perfected.
It's still a hardship on Joe Sixpack. I normally get my incandescent replacements for less than $1 a piece... the benefits of buying in bulk from TheCostcos. Having to spend 2-3 times more for a replacement to satisfy some gubme't bureaucrat's green fetish is unreasonable.
This takes into account the thinking that the government actually cares about it's people and recognizes that it gets it power from the people and not the other way around.
We all know our government forgot this factoid decades ago.
-
To my knowledge, CFL was created solely for the purpose of indoor lighting. I don't think that this particular technology was significantly used for several decades in screens and displays with successful results in the lifespan and reliability of the product. I think the durability of LED lighting has already been proven in other fields. Again, I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if these bulbs are taking some drastic measures to change the way in which the basic concept of how illuminating an LED works, but I would assume that it can't be that different. You're utilizing a light source that has proven its durability in other fields, and you're plugging into a standard socket that has proven to be stable for incandescent bulbs. There's no major change in the electricity required or the type of socket utilized for the lighting as there was for CFL.
An LED is just a small diode. A Russian scientist took note that the diodes would light up when current was being passed through them. This was in the 1920s. As a result, we began using smaller diodes as sources of light, but the diode itself has been utilized in electronics since it was invented in the early 1900's. Regardless of the fact that LEDs have been in our DVDs and VCRs as light displays for decades, they've been in all electronic equipment for much longer than that. If there was a health issue related to diodes, I would assume that it would have been brought to the public attention by now. And even if it wasn't revealed simply because of an oversight by the FDA and various researchers, then I'm not really sure why consumers are completely happy with their diode-laden computers, cell phones, televisions, DVD players, gaming consoles, MP3 players, etc., but would have a fear of health hazards from a diode source of lighting.
True, but it's worth mentioning that the ban doesn't mandate that only LEDs be used. I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) that the halogen bulbs still meet the standards that the government has set. A 60 watt incandescent bulb will run you $1.49, and the halogen 50 watt bulb will run you $4.99. The halogen bulb lasts twice as long as the incandescent bulb, so Joe Sixpack is essentially spending $2.01 more for one halogen bulb ($4.99) that will replace two incandescent bulbs over time ($2.98).
We're talking in dollars over the span of years, in both cost of buying and the electricity they use. Do you know how much energy a standard 40 watt light bulb uses? Yes, more than an LED but still not much in the grand scheme. There were just better ways to look for energy savings. The long term goal is to phase the standard bulbs we have all known out and have everything "green" whether we like it or not.
-
Well actually, CFLs are essentially the same as the florescent lights that have been used in most office buildings and shopping malls for decades. In fact, they're probably more similar to each other than the similarities between the LEDs on your alarm clock and the LEDs in these futuristic non-directional lights.
CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) is fluorescent lighting. And they are far from being similar to an incandescent bulb or an LED bulb. They require magnetic or electric ballasts, a resonant converter to stabilize the current, and, of course, mercury and gases.
With light emitting diodes, you have a semiconductor, which operates outside of a vacuum (unlike incandescent bulbs) and without mercury vapor and other gases (unlike CFLs). Electrons within the semiconductor emit light when current is passed through in one direction. This is how LEDs operate, and based upon what I'm finding online, this is how the LED lamps work. There is no futuristic departure from the manner in which current LEDs in other devices operate.
Different purpose... Different levels of exposure... Different style, design and intensity... The solder used in most circuit boards alongside these LEDS also has a high degree of lead, but with exposure being limited, it's of no issue to most consumers. Just as with florescent lights... Most of us were unaware of the risks associated with them because we didn't directly deal with them. There was a maintenance man who took care of them after hours, and we never really got any closer to them than a few feet.
Different purpose, yes, but same technical design that is used for other purposes. Different level of exposure? If you're referring to the fact that these are bulbs that will be handled directly instead of indirectly as with electronic devices, not really. The diodes themselves are encased in the bulb, just as diodes are encased in devices. Sure, the bulb could break easier than a device, but there aren't any gases inside the LED. It's a solid state device, so breaking an LED doesn't result in a hazard of any sort. Unless you're allergic to the metal used for the semiconductor or something.
As far as the solder used in the product, that's not specific to LEDs. Incandescent bulbs also contain lead in the solder. This is simply a manufacturing decision. Most non-lead solders do not respond well to heat; several motherboard companies found this out years ago when the connections on the board started cracking. Is using lead solder right or wrong? That's an entirely different argument, but the fact is that it's present in current lighting technology, and even in other electronic devices; this isn't something new that LED lamps are introducing, nor is it something unique that the LED lamps require to operate.
It's still a hardship on Joe Sixpack. I normally get my incandescent replacements for less than $1 a piece... the benefits of buying in bulk from TheCostcos. Having to spend 2-3 times more for a replacement to satisfy some gubme't bureaucrat's green fetish is unreasonable.
I understand this from a theoretical point of view, but looking at it realistically, Joe Sixpack has bigger problems than a light bulb if he can't afford an extra $2. If he's in that kind of dire straits, then he probably can't even afford the incandescent light bulb to begin with.
-
We're talking in dollars over the span of years, in both cost of buying and the electricity they use. Do you know how much energy a standard 40 watt light bulb uses? Yes, more than an LED but still not much in the grand scheme. There were just better ways to look for energy savings. The long term goal is to phase the standard bulbs we have all known out and have everything "green" whether we like it or not.
One LED bulb used for 8 hours a day will save you $18 annually when compared to using an incandescent bulb for that length of time. That's not a huge amount of savings, but then again that's one bulb in one home. If the average house has 10 - 20 bulbs, then the switch to LED bulbs would result in annual savings of $180 - $360. Again, nothing to write home to grandma about, but also not something that I would call insignificant.
In the grand scheme of things, which would take into consideration the number of homes across the nation, the savings are pretty significant. The Department of Energy estimates that replacing regular light bulbs with LEDs could save 190 terawatt-hours annually—the equivalent of lighting over 95 million homes. At today’s energy prices, that would equate to approximately $15 billion in energy savings.
Could we have saved a lot more by looking at refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioning units, etc., and determining how to reduce their electricity consumption? Possibly, but due to the complexity of these devices, it would likely take more time and money to do that. And $15 billion, while probably smaller than what could have been saved with other technological advances in efficiency, is still nothing to scoff at.
Additionally, the incandescent bulb is a dinosaur. I mean, we're operating on the same design that Thomas Edison got to work in 1879. 80% of the energy that it consumes ends up being turned into heat, and only 20% into light. It's about time that someone got on the ball with creating a more energy efficient solution to lighting.
-
Additionally, the incandescent bulb is a dinosaur. I mean, we're operating on the same design that Thomas Edison got to work in 1879. 80% of the energy that it consumes ends up being turned into heat, and only 20% into light. It's about time that someone got on the ball with creating a more energy efficient solution to lighting.
If a company in the free enterprise system could find a way to mass produce, market, and make a profit off of an alternative to the incandescent, it would have been done years ago. You reckon there might be a reason for that? Just because it is old does not mean it does not still work.
-
If a company in the free enterprise system could find a way to mass produce, market, and make a profit off of an alternative to the incandescent, it would have been done years ago. You reckon there might be a reason for that? Just because it is old does not mean it does not still work.
Well, there's not anything saying that the LED lamps can not be manufactured at that level. Diodes of magnitude smaller are processed by the thousands for use in most screens now adays. Most LED computer monitors have a few hundred LEDs, while less popular edge lit monitors have a few dozen along the edges. Surely these lamps, which only have one dozen LEDs in them, can be manufactured just as quickly and cost efficiently.
The problem is that companies don't want to buy new equipment to produce a new product. For most of the pieces of equipment used to produce incandescent bulbs, you can't simply alter them so that they now make LED lamps. And they view it as a gamble to spend money on making a new product that may not catch on with the general public.
In my opinion, this is the reason for the hesitancy to make the product; it's not really a matter of not being able to produce them with financial efficiency and mass production capabilities. If machines can mass manufacture a computer motherboard with all of its minute complexities, and if it can be done to the point that it's profitable, then surely someone can design machines to make an LED light bulb.
-
CFL (compact fluorescent lamp) is fluorescent lighting. And they are far from being similar to an incandescent bulb or an LED bulb. They require magnetic or electric ballasts, a resonant converter to stabilize the current, and, of course, mercury and gases.
With light emitting diodes, you have a semiconductor, which operates outside of a vacuum (unlike incandescent bulbs) and without mercury vapor and other gases (unlike CFLs). Electrons within the semiconductor emit light when current is passed through in one direction. This is how LEDs operate, and based upon what I'm finding online, this is how the LED lamps work. There is no futuristic departure from the manner in which current LEDs in other devices operate.
You're ridiculous sometimes... I don't need the wiki-lesson, and you're completely missing my point. More to come...
Different purpose, yes, but same technical design that is used for other purposes. Different level of exposure? If you're referring to the fact that these are bulbs that will be handled directly instead of indirectly as with electronic devices, not really. The diodes themselves are encased in the bulb, just as diodes are encased in devices. Sure, the bulb could break easier than a device, but there aren't any gases inside the LED. It's a solid state device, so breaking an LED doesn't result in a hazard of any sort. Unless you're allergic to the metal used for the semiconductor or something.
Wow... You've totally convinced me! Well, no you haven't... You don't know what you're talking about. We still don't know enough about these devices in mass use for the purpose of generating light. Nobody knows. We don't know if they're suseptable to power surges or brown outs. We don't know how they typically fail. When I used them many years ago, they emitted fumes when they failed. And, as mentioned previously, lead and asbestos were great products too, back in the day. The government has no right pushing us into a technology before it's ready. Period.
As far as the solder used in the product, that's not specific to LEDs. Incandescent bulbs also contain lead in the solder. This is simply a manufacturing decision. Most non-lead solders do not respond well to heat; several motherboard companies found this out years ago when the connections on the board started cracking. Is using lead solder right or wrong? That's an entirely different argument, but the fact is that it's present in current lighting technology, and even in other electronic devices; this isn't something new that LED lamps are introducing, nor is it something unique that the LED lamps require to operate.
You've totally missed that one. My lead solder example was merely used to show how risks may exist when exposure is increased. The fact that LEDs already exist in electronics has little to do with the exposure we'll have when we start using them as light sources.
I understand this from a theoretical point of view, but looking at it realistically, Joe Sixpack has bigger problems than a light bulb if he can't afford an extra $2. If he's in that kind of dire straits, then he probably can't even afford the incandescent light bulb to begin with.
Well, with Barry's economy, unemployment and tax increases, Joe Sixpack doesn't really need to be kicked when he's down. There's nothing theoretical about it. It's reality. And while it may not necessarily cut into his mortgage or rent payment, it will be cutting into that remainder that he typically reserves for other items like beer, movies, the bolling alley, broads, etc... Again, something the government needs to stay the hell out of...
-
In my opinion, this is the reason for the hesitancy to make the product; it's not really a matter of not being able to produce them with financial efficiency and mass production capabilities. If machines can mass manufacture a computer motherboard with all of its minute complexities, and if it can be done to the point that it's profitable, then surely someone can design machines to make an LED light bulb.
Of course, when you consider economies of scale, the picture doesn't look very good for the company. If the life of these new devices is as long as you seem to be claiming, consumers won't be purchasing them as often. The company might be killing itself by creating a product that's as good as you claim. With the government effectively forcing everyone to change over, it could be a boom for them for the first few years, but it could prove to be a loss over the longer stretch. Just a consideration...
-
You're ridiculous sometimes... I don't need the wiki-lesson, and you're completely missing my point. More to come...
I'm not trying to be an ass. Just pointing out that "CFL" is not "similar" to fluorescent lighting that has been found in offices and stores; it is fluorescent lighting. And the mechanics of fluorescent lighting is far more different than incandescent lighting, much more so than the difference between LED lamps and incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulbs don't use gas, they use a filament, and LED lamps don't use gas, they use a semiconductor.
Wow... You've totally convinced me! Well, no you haven't... You don't know what you're talking about. We still don't know enough about these devices in mass use for the purpose of generating light.
Diodes produce light regardless of whether that is the purpose of using the diode or not. That's the reason that diodes have been used for illumination purposes. We didn't alter the diode to produce light; that's just what a diode does when current is passed through it. If the diode in an LED lamp is dangerous or otherwise faulty in some way, then the diodes in electronic devices are dangerous/faulty in the same manner.
It's kind of like saying that gasoline engines produce carbon dioxide while they're powering a vehicle, but we don't know enough about them to determine whether they'd be acceptable for producing carbon dioxide. Well, producing carbon dioxide is a result of powering the vehicle. Whether or not you use the engine for the sole purpose of producing carbon dioxide is irrelevant; it's going to do it. If there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of powering the vehicle, then there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of producing carbon dioxide.
Nobody knows. We don't know if they're suseptable to power surges or brown outs. We don't know how they typically fail. When I used them many years ago, they emitted fumes when they failed. And, as mentioned previously, lead and asbestos were great products too, back in the day. The government has no right pushing us into a technology before it's ready. Period.
It's doubtful that they're more susceptible to power surges than incandescent bulbs, which rely upon an ultra thin filament that can burn out merely from turning on the light switch. Certainly not impossible, but not likely in comparison to the frailty of incandescent bulbs. And, as mentioned before, diodes are found in all sorts of electronics, so if they were exceptionally susceptible to power surges, pretty much every electronic device in your house would be inoperable after a power surge.
You've totally missed that one. My lead solder example was merely used to show how risks may exist when exposure is increased. The fact that LEDs already exist in electronics has little to do with the exposure we'll have when we start using them as light sources.
I don't think I'm understanding what you mean when you say that exposure is increased. Incandescent bulbs have lead. LED bulbs have lead. You replace an incandescent bulb with an LED bulb, and you still have a bulb with lead. There isn't an increase in exposure. The lead itself is not a required substance that makes the LED work; it's just the choice of solder that the manufacturer chose. Either bulb could be made with non-lead solder. So I'm not sure how exposure is increased when both contain lead.
Now, I think that the mandate was A) too early, as the LED market is just not robust enough yet, and B) not necessary yet because LED bulbs were not given a chance on the market before moving for drastic government intervention. Given those two concessions, I just don't buy the safety and reliability concerns when the technology in question has been successfully and heavily used throughout virtually all electronic devices for almost a century.
-
Of course, when you consider economies of scale, the picture doesn't look very good for the company. If the life of these new devices is as long as you seem to be claiming, consumers won't be purchasing them as often. The company might be killing itself by creating a product that's as good as you claim. With the government effectively forcing everyone to change over, it could be a boom for them for the first few years, but it could prove to be a loss over the longer stretch. Just a consideration...
Which is why they can (and do) charge higher prices. Essentially, all they'd have to do is jack up the price enough so that the consumer is still paying slightly less for one LED bulb over 10 years than they would for multiple incandescent bulbs over 10 years. The consumer wins because they are saving money in regard to the purchase price of bulbs, in addition to the savings in electricity consumption, in addition to whatever "green" tax credit they can claim.
Now, because the company has to price the bulbs at a slightly lower price than what it would have cost to replace the incandescent bulbs, yes, they are likely getting a lower profit margin, but that would likely be offset by tax credits and other forms of government compensation for selling the energy efficient product.
I understand the economical implications that such a product would have for light bulb industries, but I think that the effect can be minimized. Plus, my point wasn't really geared toward the economical side, but rather the feasibility of producing the product on a massive and cost effective level.
-
I'm not trying to be an ass. Just pointing out that "CFL" is not "similar" to fluorescent lighting that has been found in offices and stores; it is fluorescent lighting. And the mechanics of fluorescent lighting is far more different than incandescent lighting, much more so than the difference between LED lamps and incandescent bulbs. Incandescent bulbs don't use gas, they use a filament, and LED lamps don't use gas, they use a semiconductor.
Diodes produce light regardless of whether that is the purpose of using the diode or not. That's the reason that diodes have been used for illumination purposes. We didn't alter the diode to produce light; that's just what a diode does when current is passed through it. If the diode in an LED lamp is dangerous or otherwise faulty in some way, then the diodes in electronic devices are dangerous/faulty in the same manner.
It's kind of like saying that gasoline engines produce carbon dioxide while they're powering a vehicle, but we don't know enough about them to determine whether they'd be acceptable for producing carbon dioxide. Well, producing carbon dioxide is a result of powering the vehicle. Whether or not you use the engine for the sole purpose of producing carbon dioxide is irrelevant; it's going to do it. If there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of powering the vehicle, then there's not a hazard, health risk, or reliability concern with running the engine for the purpose of producing carbon dioxide.
You really don't know what you're talking about here. You're only comparing the wiki-basics for this discussion. The CFLs and LEDs have been modified in several ways from their original mass-use designs of which we haven't even reviewed. And, gasoline engines don't really produce much carbon dioxide at all, but your example does illustrate how you're over-simplifying the discussion, at least for those of us with a deeper understanding of the technologies.
It's doubtful that they're more susceptible to power surges than incandescent bulbs, which rely upon an ultra thin filament that can burn out merely from turning on the light switch. Certainly not impossible, but not likely in comparison to the frailty of incandescent bulbs. And, as mentioned before, diodes are found in all sorts of electronics, so if they were exceptionally susceptible to power surges, pretty much every electronic device in your house would be inoperable after a power surge.
Here's a secret... They are very suseptable to power surges, probably not as much as incandescent bulbs, but they can fail relatively easily. We just don't know how that will play out with these newer products once they're in mass use. And with the cost being substantially higher than incandescent bulbs, I'm not going to blindly follow the herd.
I don't think I'm understanding what you mean when you say that exposure is increased. Incandescent bulbs have lead. LED bulbs have lead. You replace an incandescent bulb with an LED bulb, and you still have a bulb with lead. There isn't an increase in exposure. The lead itself is not a required substance that makes the LED work; it's just the choice of solder that the manufacturer chose. Either bulb could be made with non-lead solder. So I'm not sure how exposure is increased when both contain lead.
Lead was only used for illustrative purposes. Lead is safe when mixed with products that will never be ingested, but once exposure risks were identified after decades of mass use, it fell under some fairly tight regulations.
Florescent lights are relatively safe when used as ceiling lights and only handled by maintenance personnel, but once we expanded their use into the home, effectively increasing everyone's exposure levels, risks and other issues began surfacing. They have yet to be pulled from the marketplace, but the list of issues are significant.
Now, we're going to use LEDs as light sources. In electronics, they have been as harmless as lead was in paint... or as asbestos was in flooring... or as an internal combustion engine was under the hood of your car, but now, we're going to expand their use... Do you get it now?
Don't get me wrong. I'm secretly a fan of the new technology, but I don't trust the government here. Let the free market decide if the product is viable. I'll jump in after all of the bugs, kinks and poop is figured out.
The same is true of the first plasma televisions. When those early models first came out, they cost around $15k and spent as much as half their life in various repair shops. After 5 years, the technology improved and the prices dropped to around $5k. Today, you can pick up a new plasma with superior technology for less than $1,000. LCDs followed a similar progression. The government has no right phucking around here.
Now, I think that the mandate was A) too early, as the LED market is just not robust enough yet, and B) not necessary yet because LED bulbs were not given a chance on the market before moving for drastic government intervention. Given those two concessions, I just don't buy the safety and reliability concerns when the technology in question has been successfully and heavily used throughout virtually all electronic devices for almost a century.
I think the mandate is unnecessary and ill-conceived, and I don't think you have enough knowledge or experience to refute any safety or reliability concerns. No offense intended...
-
One LED bulb used for 8 hours a day will save you $18 annually when compared to using an incandescent bulb for that length of time. That's not a huge amount of savings, but then again that's one bulb in one home. If the average house has 10 - 20 bulbs, then the switch to LED bulbs would result in annual savings of $180 - $360. Again, nothing to write home to grandma about, but also not something that I would call insignificant.
In the grand scheme of things, which would take into consideration the number of homes across the nation, the savings are pretty significant. The Department of Energy estimates that replacing regular light bulbs with LEDs could save 190 terawatt-hours annually—the equivalent of lighting over 95 million homes. At today’s energy prices, that would equate to approximately $15 billion in energy savings.
Could we have saved a lot more by looking at refrigerators, dishwashers, washers and dryers, air conditioning units, etc., and determining how to reduce their electricity consumption? Possibly, but due to the complexity of these devices, it would likely take more time and money to do that. And $15 billion, while probably smaller than what could have been saved with other technological advances in efficiency, is still nothing to scoff at.
Additionally, the incandescent bulb is a dinosaur. I mean, we're operating on the same design that Thomas Edison got to work in 1879. 80% of the energy that it consumes ends up being turned into heat, and only 20% into light. It's about time that someone got on the ball with creating a more energy efficient solution to lighting.
Again, I think we agree more than you might think. I have no issues with LED. I have issues with the gubment telling me which I have the option of buying all due to this administration's "green" agenda. The free market would have all of them as an option and let each consumer buy whats best for him/her.
-
I haven't got involved in this thread, but if I may.
Hooray for coming up with something that will use less energy, that isn't harmful (that we know of) and is cheaper over the long run.
Booo gov't forcing you to buy something. Let the market dictate when it be a standard.
That is all, carry on.
-
I haven't got involved in this thread, but if I may.
Hooray for coming up with something that will use less energy, that isn't harmful (that we know of) and is cheaper over the long run.
Booo gov't forcing you to buy something. Let the market dictate when it be a standard.
That is all, carry on.
/thread.
-
You really don't know what you're talking about here. You're only comparing the wiki-basics for this discussion. The CFLs and LEDs have been modified in several ways from their original mass-use designs of which we haven't even reviewed. And, gasoline engines don't really produce much carbon dioxide at all, but your example does illustrate how you're over-simplifying the discussion, at least for those of us with a deeper understanding of the technologies.
Here's a secret... They are very suseptable to power surges, probably not as much as incandescent bulbs, but they can fail relatively easily. We just don't know how that will play out with these newer products once they're in mass use. And with the cost being substantially higher than incandescent bulbs, I'm not going to blindly follow the herd.
Then, as someone who has a deeper understanding of the technologies, I'd like to know what it is that they have changed on a diode in order to utilize it for lighting purposes. So far, the only thing I've gathered from your posts is that we don't know enough about the technology, but now you're stating that you have an understanding of the technology, so I'd honestly like to know for my edification what the change in the operation of the diode is for lighting purposes.
Now, we're going to use LEDs as light sources. In electronics, they have been as harmless as lead was in paint... or as asbestos was in flooring... or as an internal combustion engine was under the hood of your car, but now, we're going to expand their use... Do you get it now?
Sure, I understand the basic premise that LEDs are going to be introduced in greater numbers, but there are a couple of things to note. First, there are thousands of more LEDs in televisions, monitors, phones, MP3 players, etc. The introduction of LED bulbs with 12 LEDs per bulb is not going to increase our exposure that much. Yes, we will be exposed to the light itself moreso than previously, but I don't know of any risks associated with LED light. With the number of people who sit in front of computer screens daily, one would think that such an issue would have been brought up prior to the introduction of LED bulbs.
Second, aside from the light, there could be chemicals or materials within the LED that may be hazardous, but so far the only example you've given is lead. I understand that it was for illustrative purposes, but the illustration doesn't show an increase in exposure given the fact that current bulbs also contain lead. Unless, of course, the LED bulbs contain more lead, but that hasn't been mentioned yet.
Don't get me wrong. I'm secretly a fan of the new technology, but I don't trust the government here. Let the free market decide if the product is viable. I'll jump in after all of the bugs, kinks and poop is figured out.
I can agree that the mandate was far too early. At some point in time, however, if the public is unwilling to transition to the new technology simply out of habit or ignorance of the product, then the government may need to intervene in some sort of way. I don't think that a mandate should be the first option that the government should try, but if it can be shown that the outdated technology has a significant burden or drain on the government and our resources, and that significant benefits can be realized by the use of this technology, then there definitely needs to be a push for the technology...once it's established and reasonably easy to use it to replace the previous technology. Somewhat like the emissions requirements for vehicles.
-
Then, as someone who has a deeper understanding of the technologies, I'd like to know what it is that they have changed on a diode in order to utilize it for lighting purposes. So far, the only thing I've gathered from your posts is that we don't know enough about the technology, but now you're stating that you have an understanding of the technology, so I'd honestly like to know for my edification what the change in the operation of the diode is for lighting purposes.
OK... Well, I'm not going to post a multi-page wiki-rant, but let's start with this. The most common diodes are Zener, primarily used for regulating current flow, and LEDs, usually infrared, visible and ultraviolet. Not all diodes produce light. Many are painted black or encased in a black resin. Focusing more on LEDs, they're usually encased in a translucent epoxy. Traditional uses have been in the displays on electronics and remote controls, but more recently, we've seen their use in LCD TVs and computer monitors to provide more intense colors and images. LEDs use a variety of semiconductor material to produce different colors. Some are coated in phosphorus to enhance color. Intensity is controlled by voltage, "gap" and the type and amount of semiconductor material. Some LEDs contain arsenic. Some LEDs contain other toxic chemical compounds in their epoxy resin casing.
While the core technology of CFLs are essentially the same as florescent lighting, the key difference is the integrated ballast that is included with the CFL. One thing to note, mercury is still used and still leaches through glass and metal over time. This obviously introduces a hazard to the home user now that they have been introduced to the home user as a replacement for incandescent lighting.
Sure, I understand the basic premise that LEDs are going to be introduced in greater numbers, but there are a couple of things to note. First, there are thousands of more LEDs in televisions, monitors, phones, MP3 players, etc. The introduction of LED bulbs with 12 LEDs per bulb is not going to increase our exposure that much. Yes, we will be exposed to the light itself moreso than previously, but I don't know of any risks associated with LED light. With the number of people who sit in front of computer screens daily, one would think that such an issue would have been brought up prior to the introduction of LED bulbs.
We don't know, and you're just speculating. Your assumption above is that all LEDs are created equal. You brought up the internal combustion engine in a prior post. Under your assumption above, the engine from a Dodge Viper is the same as that used in a Weed Whacker. Both use gasoline and oil to create rotational energy, so they're the same... Not quite. There's a difference in size, consumption, power output and exhaust. Similar is true of LEDs. The higher intensity LEDs are designed with a different purpose than those used in your clock radio, home stereo or LCD/LED monitor. We're speculating that the light produced will fall within a spectrum that is similar to incandescent lighting, but we thought the same of CFLs too. We later found that the spectrum is slightly different and can cause headaches and other issues. Working 8 hours a day in front of a computer, people frequently complain about LCD monitors causing eye stress and headaches. We don't know if this same issue will continue or even be worse with LED lighting. Again, we just don't know.
Second, aside from the light, there could be chemicals or materials within the LED that may be hazardous, but so far the only example you've given is lead. I understand that it was for illustrative purposes, but the illustration doesn't show an increase in exposure given the fact that current bulbs also contain lead. Unless, of course, the LED bulbs contain more lead, but that hasn't been mentioned yet.
As mentioned above, some LEDs do contain arsenic, but I don't think there's any real chemical risk with these LEDs. Of course, the plastic casing could be made of PCB with a higher content of lead, but I think you have to chew on them before they become a risk. But again, we just don't know right now.
I can agree that the mandate was far too early. At some point in time, however, if the public is unwilling to transition to the new technology simply out of habit or ignorance of the product, then the government may need to intervene in some sort of way. I don't think that a mandate should be the first option that the government should try, but if it can be shown that the outdated technology has a significant burden or drain on the government and our resources, and that significant benefits can be realized by the use of this technology, then there definitely needs to be a push for the technology...once it's established and reasonably easy to use it to replace the previous technology. Somewhat like the emissions requirements for vehicles.
Do you really think that the use of incandescent lighting could ever be a significant burden or drain on the government? Really??? By the time it actually puts a significant drain on our resources, energy prices would have already driven us to more economical forms of lighting among other things, and the free market would have found a reasonable solution. Maybe even LEDs... As for emission requirements for vehicles, that's another load of scat altogether. I don't entirely disagree with standards, but the government goons behind them don't have the slightest understanding about the adverse impacts to auto prices and fuel efficiency.
-
OK... Well, I'm not going to post a multi-page wiki-rant, but let's start with this. The most common diodes are Zener, primarily used for regulating current flow, and LEDs, usually infrared, visible and ultraviolet. Not all diodes produce light. Many are painted black or encased in a black resin. Focusing more on LEDs, they're usually encased in a translucent epoxy. Traditional uses have been in the displays on electronics and remote controls, but more recently, we've seen their use in LCD TVs and computer monitors to provide more intense colors and images. LEDs use a variety of semiconductor material to produce different colors. Some are coated in phosphorus to enhance color. Intensity is controlled by voltage, "gap" and the type and amount of semiconductor material. Some LEDs contain arsenic. Some LEDs contain other toxic chemical compounds in their epoxy resin casing.
This is merely a point of semantics, but all diodes do produce light. The fact that we can't see the light is, as you said, due to the opaque casing (or, in some instances, not visible to us because it's infrared light), but the diode is still producing light during its normal operation.
As far as the chemicals you've mentioned, studies have shown that phosphorus is present in most LEDs currently in use for "other" purposes than indoor lighting, and arsenic is present at much higher levels in red light/laser diodes, such as those used in CD and DVD players. So, again, it doesn't appear that LED bulbs for indoor lighting are significantly different from the thousands of LEDs contained in other devices, at least not in their usage of chemicals.
Of course, the studies that have shown the existence of these chemicals in current LEDs also indicated that there is no immediate health hazard upon the breaking of the bulb. Rather, they were only able to produce somewhat hazardous results by simulating acid rain in landfill conditions to produce a “worst case scenario.†Additionally, they did so with colored LED bulbs included in the test, which are known to have higher arsenic levels than LEDs which emit white light or other colors of light.
This corresponds with what I've said so far: Current LEDs and these "new" LED light bulbs are not as drastically different as was initially claimed. Chemicals used in the production of these items have been present in electronics for decades. Does this mean that no other studies should be done on them? No, but why would we give the stamp of approval to LEDs with arsenic in DVD players, but not LED light bulbs? Why say that it's okay to use arsenic in wood preservation products and rat poison, and phosphor in pesticides and industrial waste, but not LED light bulbs? I don't understand why someone would be completely happy with their arsenic-laden DVD player, and would see no reason to ban the sale/use of these DVD players until further studies are done, but adamantly oppose the sale of an item with the same chemicals until further studies are done.
We don't know, and you're just speculating. Your assumption above is that all LEDs are created equal.
It's not that they are created equal; it's that they are more similar than they are dissimilar. Arsenic has been found in these new LED light bulbs. Okay, well, arsenic is also in LEDs not used for indoor lighting purposes, including higher levels of arsenic in LEDs that are in vehicle taillights and DVD players. Phosphor has been found in these new LED light bulbs. Well, phosphor is also contained in virtually all other LEDs.
If there's a hazard present due to the inclusion of these chemicals, then we need to rethink all LEDs, not just those that are being introduced to the market. My point is that we shouldn't act as if these chemicals are just now being introduced to the market and exposed to humans due to the invention of a "new" type of LED; these chemicals have been used in a variety of products for quite some time, including in some products in which our exposure is much greater.
We're speculating that the light produced will fall within a spectrum that is similar to incandescent lighting, but we thought the same of CFLs too. We later found that the spectrum is slightly different and can cause headaches and other issues. Working 8 hours a day in front of a computer, people frequently complain about LCD monitors causing eye stress and headaches. We don't know if this same issue will continue or even be worse with LED lighting. Again, we just don't know.
A) Those people with headaches are pussies, B) we have devices that can detect and record spectra, so I'm not sure why we'd have to guess where in the spectrum LED light would fall.
By the way, LCD monitors don't use LED as a source of backlighting. Well, they can, but if they are advertised as an "LCD monitor," then they use a fluorescent backlight. An LCD monitor that has LED backlighting will be advertised as an "LED monitor" or "LCD-LED monitor." Given the fact that LCD-LED monitors are still not that popular (but are more popular for televisions), and given the fact that the initial LCD monitors up until the last few years were backlit by fluorescent lights, I would assume that these headaches are due to fluorescent lighting, not LED lighting.
Do you really think that the use of incandescent lighting could ever be a significant burden or drain on the government? Really???
I'd call $15 billion wasted annually a financial burden, especially considering that the incandescent bulbs that we are powering are using 80% of their energy consumption on producing heat, not light.
-
Damn it. Are you guys still talking about light bulbs?
-
Damn it. Are you guys still talking about light bulbs?
That depends...are you still cleaning taints for a quarter?
-
i agree with jarhead...child abuse in the chinook house will dramatically rise...or their college fund account will be depleted. then my children will live their adult life using food stamps, wear jorts and yell...roll tahd.
-
That depends...are you still cleaning taints for a quarter?
BWAAAHAHAHA.....wait...what does that even mean?
-
BWAAAHAHAHA.....wait...what does that even mean?
Ask your son. He's probably seen it on teh yew toobs.
-
Ask your son. He's probably seen it on teh yew toobs.
He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.
-
He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.
Bet he can still tell you about the starfish cleaning.
-
He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.
unless he marries to someone "like his mom"... then it's the mid-40's.
-
He is banned from teh tewbz until he's 27.
Such an asshole...trying to keep all of the fun for yourself...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj6vXnEE_eQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj6vXnEE_eQ)
-
unless he marries to someone "like his mom"... then it's the mid-40's.
Zing!
-
This is merely a point of semant...
OK... I give up. All diodes are the same... All LEDs are diodes... Therefore, all LEDs are the same regardless of their semiconductor material, "gap", voltage, current, casing material, physical dimensions, light spectrum, other design specifications and flavor... That makes sense to a third grader, but it's hardly true. And, it's not even close to a semantic argument when you're considering real-world applications.
A) Those people with headaches are pussies, B) we have devices that can detect and record spectra, so I'm not sure why we'd have to guess where in the spectrum LED light would fall.
I figured you'd already have the information to refute this concern. You seem to be such an expert on everything else.
By the way, LCD monitors don't use LED as a source of backlighting. Well, they can, but if they are advertised as an "LCD monitor," then they use a fluorescent backlight. An LCD monitor that has LED backlighting will be advertised as an "LED monitor" or "LCD-LED monitor." Given the fact that LCD-LED monitors are still not that popular (but are more popular for televisions), and given the fact that the initial LCD monitors up until the last few years were backlit by fluorescent lights, I would assume that these headaches are due to fluorescent lighting, not LED lighting.
My bad... I didn't realize that I had to spell everything out for you. While early LCD televisions and desktop monitors may have used fluorescent lights, notebook computers have been using LEDs since the 90s. The displays on these notebook computers have been known to cause fatigue, eyestrain and headaches among other things. So, PHUCK EM! Let's get the government to pass some more bullschit green legislation so we can flood the market with overpriced technology that has not had a chance to be proven in the real world. That'll show 'em! And, we'll make millions!!!
I'd call $15 billion wasted annually a financial burden, especially considering that the incandescent bulbs that we are powering are using 80% of their energy consumption on producing heat, not light.
I'd call $15B a farfetched pile of horse squeeze, especially since the government has been shifting to alternative sources of lighting for the past couple of decades. Even if it were true, when the government plans to spend $2.5T this year, that $15B expense becomes an insignificant drop in the bucket at less than 1% of the total spend. And, don't get me started on our government's pathetic energy policy that has really created this mess in the first phukin' place...
-
I'd call $15 billion wasted annually a financial burden, especially considering that the incandescent bulbs that we are powering are using 80% of their energy consumption on producing heat, not light.
I would call spending 900 billion dollars TWICE with nothing to show a much bigger waste of taxpayer money.
-
OK... I give up. All diodes are the same... All LEDs are diodes... Therefore, all LEDs are the same regardless of their semiconductor material, "gap", voltage, current, casing material, physical dimensions, light spectrum, other design specifications and flavor... That makes sense to a third grader, but it's hardly true. And, it's not even close to a semantic argument when you're considering real-world applications.
The semantics argument was in regard to your statement that not all diodes produce light. My point was that, yes, they all produce light, it's just that the light is not seen either because A) the diode is encased in an opaque substance that prevents us from seeing the light, or B) the light is infrared. I was merely pointing out that all diodes do produce light. Not being able to see the light doesn't mean it is not produced. My reference to semantics had nothing to do with the variations between diodes.
All of these variations that you list don't ultimately change the basic manner in which a diode works and the manner in which it emits light. If it did, then not all diodes would produce light, as different diodes would operate in extremely different manners. The variations that you point out are relatively minute alterations that change the color of the light, change the manner in which current is regulated, change the intensity of the light, etc. However, these aren't vast differences that introduce entirely new health hazards that we've never dealt with before.
My main point is that the makeup of the LED is essentially the same whether it's used for a monitor or a light bulb. The size may be different, and the semiconductor material may be different, but when you start talking about these "dangerous" chemicals that are present in "new" LED light bulbs, they're the same chemicals that are in the "old" LEDs. So, unless you're claiming that a larger "gap" in the LED is a health hazard, or that the new semiconductor material is a health hazard, I don't see where these minor variations are of any health concern.
Again, I am asking you to point out these potential hazardous differences to me. I'm not claiming to know everything, but when you first use lead as an illustration, it's not convincing; incandescent bulbs contain lead. When you then point to arsenic and phosphor as examples of potentially new health hazards with these LED light bulbs, it's not convincing; virtually every LED currently in use contains phosphor, and many LEDs currently in use contain higher levels of arsenic. If there is a new health concern related to these LED bulbs, then it hasn't been pointed out yet. That's all I'm asking for.
My bad... I didn't realize that I had to spell everything out for you. While early LCD televisions and desktop monitors may have used fluorescent lights, notebook computers have been using LEDs since the 90s.
Laptops have not been using LED backlighting since the 1990s. Sony has used LED backlights in some of its higher-end slim VAIO notebooks since 2005. Fujitsu introduced notebooks with LED backlights in 2006. In 2007, Asus, Dell, and Apple introduced LED backlights into some of their notebook models. As of 2008, Lenovo has also announced LED-backlit notebooks, and other companies like HP will also be marketing LED-backlit notebooks in the near future. This is a relatively new manufacturing concept for laptops that didn't even begin to occur until the mid-to-late 2000's.
I'd call $15B a farfetched pile of horse squeeze, especially since the government has been shifting to alternative sources of lighting for the past couple of decades. Even if it were true, when the government plans to spend $2.5T this year, that $15B expense becomes an insignificant drop in the bucket at less than 1% of the total spend. And, don't get me started on our government's pathetic energy policy that has really created this mess in the first phukin' place...
First, it's $15 billion annually, not just a one-time savings. Second, it's rather poor financial planning to scoff at $15 billion simply because we spend way more than that annually. Third, the total for budget cuts which were proposed for 2010 was $17 billion, so yes, when considered alongside our total proposed budget cuts for one year, it is pretty significant.
The truth is that budget planning is going to inevitably require cutting 1% of spending here, 5% of spending there, etc. It's not as if we're going to be able to realistically cut trillions of dollars in spending from just one spending source. I never said that this particular savings should be the only way that we reduce spending. However, it's something that's certainly worth looking into.
-
I would call spending 900 billion dollars TWICE with nothing to show a much bigger waste of taxpayer money.
Of course...and there's nothing preventing us from dealing with that waste as well. When we manage the nation's budget, we cut from various sources. More often that not, there are a lot of sources from which we can only cut a few billion dollars (or, in most instances, are only willing to cut a few billion dollars).
My only point is that cutting $15 billion in wasteful energy spending is a step in the right direction. No, it's not a panacea for our $14 trillion debt, but you're never going to be able to save $14 trillion by making one alteration in one aspect of our budget. It's an accumulation of savings and budget cuts that will make a significant effect, so we might as well save everywhere we can.
-
The semantics argument was in regard... blah blah blah blah...
Seriously... If you're not open to a reasonable discussion, I'm not going to waste my time. I'm all about learning from one another, but this is pointless.
My main point is that the makeup of the LED is essentially the same whether it's used for a monitor or a light bulb. The size may be different, and the semiconductor material may be different, but when you start talking about these "dangerous" chemicals that are present in "new" LED light bulbs, they're the same chemicals that are in the "old" LEDs. So, unless you're claiming that a larger "gap" in the LED is a health hazard, or that the new semiconductor material is a health hazard, I don't see where these minor variations are of any health concern.
These minor variations don't matter about as much as all nuclear reactors are the same too... Right? (Well, maybe in your mind...) If the simplistic example of two internal combustion engines didn't help you understand, further discussion is pointless.
Again, I am asking you to point out these potential hazardous differences to me. I'm not claiming to know everything, but when you first use lead as an illustration, it's not convincing; incandescent bulbs contain lead. When you then point to arsenic and phosphor as examples of potentially new health hazards with these LED light bulbs, it's not convincing; virtually every LED currently in use contains phosphor, and many LEDs currently in use contain higher levels of arsenic. If there is a new health concern related to these LED bulbs, then it hasn't been pointed out yet. That's all I'm asking for.
Again, you're being ridiculous. Do you really think they had a good handle on the potential hazards of lead and asbestos when they passed all of their product testing? All along, my point has been that we don't know enough about the viability or safety of this technology in mass use for the purpose of lighting until the market passes judgement. The product brochures, websites, wiki-searches and other marketing literature will claim anything you want to hear as long as you're willing to believe it. Somehow, I'm supposed to conjure up some smoking gun for you... Well, until the product is proven on the market, I just can't do that. I can only point to the logical differences and hope that you're intelligent enough to see the potential risks.
Laptops have not been using LED backlighting since the 1990s.
Fair enough Wiki-Wizard... You should really consider posting a bibliography and footnote your quotes in the future. I'm on my eighth notebook computer since the mid-90s, and the last three contain LED technology as backlighting. Of the seven LCD televisions and computer monitors in my home, all purchased over the last 5-7 years, three utilize LED backlighting. This technology is not as fresh as your original statement suggested, and the market seems to have taken well to it without overbearing government goons.
First, it's $15 billion annually, not just a one-time savings.
Your first point follows the demented logic of a crooked politician. "By cutting the rate of growth, we're saving billions over ten years..." Besides that, I just don't believe that they're legitimately wasting $15B per year on incandescent lighting. You never posted a source for that ridiculous claim, and I'm not sure the government is even capable of coming up with that estimate on their own.
Second, it's rather poor financial planning to scoff at $15 billion simply because we spend way more than that annually.
But, it does provide a relative measure for which to focus your overall efforts. If the same energy could be focused on social spending, you could save 5-10 times that amount every year simply be improving the organizational efficiencies of the various departments. So, your parental advice is really quite petty and naive.
Third, the total for budget cuts which were proposed for 2010 was $17 billion, so yes, when considered alongside our total proposed budget cuts for one year, it is pretty significant.
Wait a minute... During the last round of negotiations, they said that they saved $34B. Who is right?
The truth is that budget planning is going to inevitably require cutting 1% of spending here, 5% of spending there, etc. It's not as if we're going to be able to realistically cut trillions of dollars in spending from just one spending source. I never said that this particular savings should be the only way that we reduce spending. However, it's something that's certainly worth looking into.
Sure... If you don't mind stepping over piles of dollars to chase pennies and nickles... I guess... Of course, you have to spend 3-5 times that amount as the initial investment to save that much every year. I certainly hope it pays for itself at some point...
-
These minor variations don't matter about as much as all nuclear reactors are the same too... Right? (Well, maybe in your mind...) If the simplistic example of two internal combustion engines didn't help you understand, further discussion is pointless.
You say that the LED bulbs pose health hazards that have not yet been identified. I counter that these new LEDs are not very different from LEDs and diodes already used in electronics. After ineffectively using lead as an illustration, you bring up arsenic and phosphor. I point out that these are already used in LEDs, and thus there still has been no illustration of a significant change in the production of these "new" LEDs that show there is a health hazard. So then you point to gaps, semi-conductors, etc., none of which you state have a specific health risk.
Again, all I'm trying to understand here is what is the big change in LED bulbs that has supposedly not been studied and may pose a health risk of some sort. Thus far, you've either A) pointed to aspects of LED bulbs that are present in virtually all LEDs, or B) have pointed to minute changes but have not given any indication as to how those changes are potentially hazardous.
Again, you're being ridiculous. Do you really think they had a good handle on the potential hazards of lead and asbestos when they passed all of their product testing? All along, my point has been that we don't know enough about the viability or safety of this technology in mass use for the purpose of lighting until the market passes judgement.
And my point is that why should we be overly wary of a product that contains arsenic, for example, when hundreds of other existing products contain arsenic as well? If arsenic wasn't extensively studied enough to the point that it was definitively deemed safe for mass production in various products, why are we suddenly concerned about arsenic because of a light bulb? Again, I'm not seeing any indications that LED bulbs expose us to new health risks that aren't already abundant in the market.
Fair enough Wiki-Wizard... You should really consider posting a bibliography and footnote your quotes in the future. I'm on my eighth notebook computer since the mid-90s, and the last three contain LED technology as backlighting.
PC Magazine (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2188553,00.asp) calls LED backlit laptops the "future of laptop screens" in 2007. It refers to fluorescent lighting as the "conventional" method of backlighting prior to this point. In 2007, CNET reported (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9671130-1.html) that Apple and HP were releasing their first models of LED backlit laptops. The article also stated that the first laptop with LED backlighting of which they were aware was the Sony VAIO VGN-TXN15P/W, which was first produced in 2006 (this is based upon CNET's review of the product (http://reviews.cnet.com/laptops/sony-vaio-txn15p-w/4505-3121_7-32103794.html) being dated November 17, 2006, and Sony's support website not having an initial update on the product prior to 2006 (http://esupport.sony.com/US/perl/model-news.pl?mdl=VGNTXN15PW)). MacWorld.com (http://www.macworld.com/article/57740/2007/05/ledbacklight.html) confirms that Apple never had an LED backlit laptop until 2007. Last but not least, a CNET article quotes a Lead Analyst for Business Displays (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13554_3-9748301-33.html) for PC Magazine who has been studying computer monitors for 20 years; in 2007, he indicated that the usage of LED backlit screens was relatively new.
This technology is not as fresh as your original statement suggested, and the market seems to have taken well to it without overbearing government goons.
I never said that the technology itself was fresh; I stated that LED backlighting was not used in laptops until the mid-to-late 2000's. LED backlighting was obviously used in GPS systems, music players, cell phones, televisions, and other devices prior to laptop screens.
Besides that, I just don't believe that they're legitimately wasting $15B per year on incandescent lighting. You never posted a source for that ridiculous claim, and I'm not sure the government is even capable of coming up with that estimate on their own.
Well, the government did come up with that estimate (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/backgrounder_energy-savings-forecast.pdf).
But, it does provide a relative measure for which to focus your overall efforts. If the same energy could be focused on social spending, you could save 5-10 times that amount every year simply be improving the organizational efficiencies of the various departments. So, your parental advice is really quite petty and naive.
Sure, but the government doesn't focus on one thing a year. I see no reason why resources can't also be focused on social spending. Afterall, that's why there are different government agencies with different responsibilities, and a Congress that isn't limited on the number of cuts, bills, etc. that it can legislate in one year.
Wait a minute... During the last round of negotiations, they said that they saved $34B. Who is right?
They may have actually saved that amount after the 2010 financial report was finalized, but my statement was that the proposed cuts for 2010 was initially only $17 billion. Thus, if the government plans to cut $17 billion and believes that such a cut is beneficial and/or necessary, then a $15 billion cut in energy spending is pretty significant. This is especially the case when you look at the fact that the $17 billion was spread over a variety of types of cuts, whereas this estimated $15 billion is in energy savings alone.
-
Vandy Vol loves teh wikis!
-
You say that the LED bulbs pose health hazards that have not yet been identified. I counter that these new LEDs are not very different from LEDs and diodes already used in electronics. After ineffectively using lead as an illustration, you bring up arsenic and phosphor. I point out that these are already used in LEDs, and thus there still has been no illustration of a significant change in the production of these "new" LEDs that show there is a health hazard. So then you point to gaps, semi-conductors, etc., none of which you state have a specific health risk.
Again, all I'm trying to understand here is what is the big change in LED bulbs that has supposedly not been studied and may pose a health risk of some sort. Thus far, you've either A) pointed to aspects of LED bulbs that are present in virtually all LEDs, or B) have pointed to minute changes but have not given any indication as to how those changes are potentially hazardous.
Seriously... If you lack reason, there's nothing for us to discuss. I threw out the points where the differences exist. If you are unable to see the potential risks, I really have nothing more for you. You're essentially saying that a canoe is the same as an ocean liner, when we know that isn't true.
And my point is that why should we be overly wary of a product that contains arsenic, for example, when hundreds of other existing products contain arsenic as well? If arsenic wasn't extensively studied enough to the point that it was definitively deemed safe for mass production in various products, why are we suddenly concerned about arsenic because of a light bulb? Again, I'm not seeing any indications that LED bulbs expose us to new health risks that aren't already abundant in the market.
Then, follow the herd, line up for your government cheese and enjoy the cool-aide... I've got nothing else for you.
I never said that the technology itself was fresh; I stated that LED backlighting was not used in laptops until the mid-to-late 2000's. LED backlighting was obviously used in GPS systems, music players, cell phones, televisions, and other devices prior to laptop screens.
Sure...
Well, the government did come up with that estimate (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/backgrounder_energy-savings-forecast.pdf).
That's nice... That's a forecasted annual savings in the year 2030 using today's dollars. Estimates on top of assumptions on top of forecasts that will never hold true... right along with Social Security, Medicare and other crooked political schemes. How's that cheese?
Sure, but the government doesn't focus on one thing a year. I see no reason why resources can't also be focused on social spending. Afterall, that's why there are different government agencies with different responsibilities, and a Congress that isn't limited on the number of cuts, bills, etc. that it can legislate in one year.
Ummm... Naive logic at best... These same clowns still haven't passed a budget for this year, so let's distract them with more green technology garbage and make more promises and claims that will never hold true.
...then a $15 billion cut in energy spending is pretty significant. This is especially the case when you look at the fact that the $17 billion was spread over a variety of types of cuts, whereas this estimated $15 billion is in energy savings alone.
In 2030... :rofl:
By the way, that reference is also claiming that they would save $120B, in today's dollars, between 2010 and 2030. The details that they didn't share would have likely shown 2011 savings to be forecasted at less than $2B. That's good cheese! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
There is a good verbose joke in this thread somewhere.
-
I threw out the points where the differences exist.
Points
1. LED bulbs contain lead - So do current LEDs and incandescent bulbs. No new health hazard.
2. LED bulbs contain arsenic - So do current LEDs, especially colored LEDs. No new health hazard.
3. LED bulbs contain phosphor - So do current LEDs. No new health hazard.
4. Gap differences, semiconductor differences, etc. - No health hazard pointed out by you, just a recitation of differences.
Again, I just want to know what health hazards stem from these differences.
That's nice... That's a forecasted annual savings in the year 2030 using today's dollars. Estimates on top of assumptions on top of forecasts that will never hold true... right along with Social Security, Medicare and other crooked political schemes. How's that cheese?
Incandescent bulbs waste 80% of the energy consumption on producing heat, not light. LEDs only waste 20% of energy on heat, and they consume less electric current in producing the same intensity of light. Even if the estimate is off by 50%, $7.5 billion in savings is still significant when compared to the fact that the government has previously proposed only $17 billion in cuts overall for an annual budget.
Ummm... Naive logic at best... These same clowns still haven't passed a budget for this year, so let's distract them with more green technology garbage and make more promises and claims that will never hold true.
And that is probably due to the fact that they can't find enough budget cuts that they're willing to agree upon. This is simply another budget cut for them to consider, which may or may not expedite the passing of a budget. The incompetency of government officials doesn't directly speak to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of such an energy savings proposal.
By the way, that reference is also claiming that they would save $120B, in today's dollars, between 2010 and 2030. The details that they didn't share would have likely shown 2011 savings to be forecasted at less than $2B. That's good cheese! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Again, when the government is currently proposing budget cuts of only $17 billion a year, the average annual savings of $6 billion a year between 2010 and 2030 is nothing to scoff at. It would increase budget cuts by approximately 30%, based upon previously proposed cuts for 2010, and by 15%, based upon the figure you claimed they actually cut/saved in 2010.
The proposed budget cuts for 2010 made 121 cuts, and reduced spending by $17 billion. That means that, on average, each particular cut only reduced our spending by $140 million. Considering that this one energy savings budget cut would be 14 times larger than your average individual cut alone (based upon your random estimate of $2 billion saved in 2011), it appears to be pretty significant compared to what our government has been trying to do with their budget cuts.
And, once more, I am not stating that this is some sort of budget cut panacea. Obviously we have to make cuts in other areas as well.
-
Vandy Vol loves teh wikis!
Don't forget teh Googles.
-
Points
1. LED bulbs contain lead - So do current LEDs and incandescent bulbs. No new health hazard.
2. LED bulbs contain arsenic - So do current LEDs, especially colored LEDs. No new health hazard.
3. LED bulbs contain phosphor - So do current LEDs. No new health hazard.
4. Gap differences, semiconductor differences, etc. - No health hazard pointed out by you, just a recitation of differences.
Again, I just want to know what health hazards stem from these differences.
We don't know. These products have NOT had the opportunity to be proven in mass use applications for lighting. [Do I sound like a parrot yet?] We only know that these LEDs have similarities and differences to LEDs of other designs, styles and purpose.
Incandescent bulbs waste 80% of the energy consumption on producing heat, not light. LEDs only waste 20% of energy on heat, and they consume less electric current in producing the same intensity of light. Even if the estimate is off by 50%, $7.5 billion in savings is still significant when compared to the fact that the government has previously proposed only $17 billion in cuts overall for an annual budget.
The document that you finally posted in your last message proved that your $15B annual savings was actually a forecast for 2030. It went further to forecast the savings from 2010-2030 as only $120B. The analysis also failed to consider the initial investment and periodic maintenance/replacement of these new technologies. Like anything else from the government, it was grossly inadequate for any reasonable assessment or comparison.
And that is probably due to the fact that they can't find enough budget cuts that they're willing to agree upon. This is simply another budget cut for them to consider, which may or may not expedite the passing of a budget. The incompetency of government officials doesn't directly speak to the legitimacy (or lack thereof) of such an energy savings proposal.
So, let's stick it to Joe Sixpack and Suzie Homemaker. That makes a lot of sense!
Again, when the government is currently proposing budget cuts of only $17 billion a year, the average annual savings of $6 billion a year between 2010 and 2030 is nothing to scoff at. It would increase budget cuts by approximately 30%, based upon previously proposed cuts for 2010, and by 15%, based upon the figure you claimed they actually cut/saved in 2010.
Now, you're even playing the numbers like a crooked politician. Your $15B savings was over-inflated. Your average annual savings of $6B is even incorrect, particularly for the first several years. And finally, there's minimal accounting for the investment required to purchase these new technology lights as well as the periodic expenses for failure replacements and other activities. If you're not being intentionaly dishonest, you don't really understand how to adequately analyze this.
The proposed budget cuts for 2010 made 121 cuts, and reduced spending by $17 billion. That means that, on average, each particular cut only reduced our spending by $140 million. Considering that this one energy savings budget cut would be 14 times larger than your average individual cut alone (based upon your random estimate of $2 billion saved in 2011), it appears to be pretty significant compared to what our government has been trying to do with their budget cuts.
Of course, as I've suggested, the initial investment would likely exceed any cumulative savings for the first several years, and with these technologies not yet proven in the real-world, we don't know those costs.
And, once more, I am not stating that this is some sort of budget cut panacea. Obviously we have to make cuts in other areas as well.
This is really one of the last items that should even be considered, especially when you understand how it would affect the citizenry.
-
Turn out the liiiiiights the party's over.
-
Turn out the liiiiiights the party's over.
they say that all good things must end
Let's call it a night the party's over and tomorrow starts the same old thing again
-
We don't know. These products have NOT had the opportunity to be proven in mass use applications for lighting. [Do I sound like a parrot yet?] We only know that these LEDs have similarities and differences to LEDs of other designs, styles and purpose.
And that's fine. However, I don't see any need to halt productions and suspect that there are additional health risks associated with these bulbs simply because the gap size has increased, the solid metal used as a semiconductor has changed, etc. I'm fine with these products being further tested, but based upon the fact that A) testing has occurred, and health hazards seem to be minimal and on par with comparable products, and B) the design contains much of what other current LEDs contain, I don't see any reason to say that they're not ready for consumer purchases. At least, not without going back and also saying that other LEDs already on the market are not ready for consumer purchases.
The document that you finally posted in your last message proved that your $15B annual savings was actually a forecast for 2030.
Which is still an eventual $15 billion savings annually. I don't think I ever said anywhere that it would be an instant reduction of $15 billion in energy savings, only that the ultimate switch to more cost efficient bulbs would result in that amount of savings.
So, let's stick it to Joe Sixpack and Suzie Homemaker. That makes a lot of sense!
Joe Sixpack is a closet homosexual, and Suzie Homemaker is the town whore. Aside from that, I never said that the government should mandate anything. In fact, I said that this mandate was far too early, and probably not even necessary down the road. Government intervention may need to take place years down the road, but it likely should not have to be in the form of any mandate. My response was merely to your hyperbolic hypothetical that if the government had to pass legislation on this, that it would somehow prevent them from having the time to pass legislation on more beneficial issues.
Now, you're even playing the numbers like a crooked politician. Your $15B savings was over-inflated. Your average annual savings of $6B is even incorrect, particularly for the first several years. And finally, there's minimal accounting for the investment required to purchase these new technology lights as well as the periodic expenses for failure replacements and other activities. If you're not being intentionaly dishonest, you don't really understand how to adequately analyze this.
It's not my estimate, but regardless, what is the reason for the reduced savings in 2010 - 2030? My guess would be that they've taken into account the initial investments. I can't find a full report which details how they got the figures, but the consumption of electricity would decrease once the bulbs have been replaced. It's not as if an LED bulb will initially use the same amount of electricity as an incandescent bulb, and will only decrease it's consumption over the following 20 years; the energy consumption would be immediately reduced. Thus, the only logical conclusion I can make based upon the scant figures we're given is that the initially lower savings increase over time after the initial costs have been recuperated.
-
And that's fine. However, I don't see any need to halt productions and suspect that there are additional health risks associated with these bulbs simply because the gap size has increased, the solid metal used as a semiconductor has changed, etc. I'm fine with these products being further tested...
By all means, produce away... But, don't ask Big Brother to ban the most common products on the market of safe and proven technologies for some theoretical fantasy or misguided fetish with green technology.
Which is still an eventual $15 billion savings annually. I don't think I ever said anywhere that it would be an instant reduction of $15 billion in energy savings, only that the ultimate switch to more cost efficient bulbs would result in that amount of savings.
Your statements definitely implied that. And, this cumulative savings over several years is a common smoke-and-mirrors trick used by crooked politicians. The savings are virtually insignificant over any duration when compared to the total cumulative spend by the irresponsible thugs in DC.
Joe Sixpack is a closet homosexual, and Suzie Homemaker is the town whore. Aside from that, I never said that the government should mandate anything. In fact, I said that this mandate was far too early, and probably not even necessary down the road. Government intervention may need to take place years down the road, but it likely should not have to be in the form of any mandate. My response was merely to your hyperbolic hypothetical that if the government had to pass legislation on this, that it would somehow prevent them from having the time to pass legislation on more beneficial issues.
So, you and Joe have something in common, and Suzie sucks a mean nut. So, leave her alone! It's not that the government wouldn't have time to focus on anything else; it's more about this ridiculous mandate affecting everyone at a time when those funds and energies should be focused elsewhere.
It's not my estimate, but regardless, what is the reason for the reduced savings in 2010 - 2030? My guess would be that they've taken into account the initial investments...
Again, the run rate of these bulbs has not been proven on the open market. They can claim whatever they want with regard to life right now. I experienced nothing like the claims out of my trials of the CFLs and have some carpet and fixture damage on top of it. And, both products are marketed by the manufacturer.
-
vandy and gar must be burning candles...
-
vandy and gar must be burning candles...
Only scented...
(http://www.markpascua.com/wp-content/beer-scented-candle.jpg)