Peak Oil News and Message Boards

ChumpusRex2 wrote:I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Lumens are already adjusted for retinal spectral sensitivity, for photopic (normal) vision. Thus lumens are a good measure of luminous output under most circumstances. By extension, the lumens/Watt is a useful measure of efficacy.

The value of scotopic luminous intensity, is only useful for very-low light intensity. Typically, illumination levels of 1 lux or less fall into scotopic vision (night vision) - this is roughly equal to the light intensity, outside at night at half-moon.

For such situations, e.g. low-power flash lights the scotopic luminous efficiacy is more useful.

However, this level of lighting is useless for a domestic setting - you have no color vision, nor central vision at this light intensity.

True enough.

However, for some specific applications LEDs are terrific.

For example, say for supplemental lighting for a greenhouse. It's quite easy to put together an array of LEDs that emit light in wavelengths that vegetables thrive on (PAR....400 to 700 nm). Tomatoes don't even see green, yellow and other wavelengths of light our human eyes do so why spend the energy on them?

Add that these arrays use only a small fraction of kwh's that coventional lighting systems do and emit far less wasted and dangerous heat, last dramatically longer and......well, they've got a niche.

Of course, if one buys these LED arrays retail they're "very" spendy. But for the many "can do" folks here at PO forums, they're hard to beat.

ChumpusRex2 wrote:

halcyon wrote:I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve.

Good correction. I should have stuck to "factor in scotopic" rather than talk about it separately.

However, in most industrialized office indoor & factory tasks CRI is of not so high importance as for example accuracy & readability. Here increased scotopic luminous power does save energy and help performance.

This would then result in mesopic vision with a lower energy input / usable luminous power (e.g. at least 14-20% in reading tasks).

For higher CRI color critical work LEDs or CFLs don't cut it anyway, one has to resort to good halogens or even more expensive (and less energy efficient) bulb types.

SolarDave wrote:These lighting panels seem to have reached the same lumens/watt as fluorescent - and are simple devices that have been engineered to be installed in standard locations. I just found them - I wonder how many other "small" companies have technologies like this we don't know about.

New Wave in Lighting Technology

Those are not the same lumens per watts as fluorescents. Those are 50 lumens per watt. A purpose made fluorsescent tube fixture is in the 80-100 lumen per watt range. A 40 watt compact fluorescent produces more lumens than those fixtures for the same energy and it costs $10 instead of $200.

smallpoxgirl wrote:

SolarDave wrote:These lighting panels seem to have reached the same lumens/watt as fluorescent - and are simple devices that have been engineered to be installed in standard locations. I just found them - I wonder how many other "small" companies have technologies like this we don't know about.

New Wave in Lighting Technology

Those are not the same lumens per watts as fluorescents.

Well............ not to argue, but:

Comparison

That's what I based my statement on. What makes you state otherwise?

smallpoxgirl wrote: Those are 50 lumens per watt. A purpose made fluorsescent tube fixture is in the 80-100 lumen per watt range.

Cost? Lifetime? Cost over lifetime?

smallpoxgirl wrote: A 40 watt compact fluorescent produces more lumens than those fixtures for the same energy and it costs $10 instead of $200.

But that's comparing a "bulb" to a "fixture." Not comparable.

I don't sell these or anything. I just think your statements are sounding a bit negative...

David

Australia has announced plans to ban incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy efficient fluorescent bulbs.
The environment minister said the move could cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tonnes by 2012.

"It's a little thing but it's a massive change," Malcolm Turnbull said.

The decision will make Australia the first country to ban the light bulbs, although the idea has also been proposed in the US state of California.

Fluorescent first

Mr Turnbull said that he hoped the rest of the world would follow Australia's lead in banning the traditional bulbs.

"If the whole world switches to these bulbs today, we would reduce our consumption of electricity by an amount equal to five times Australia's annual consumption of electricity," he said.

The incandescent light bulb, which wastes energy in heat dispersed while the light is switched on, is based on a design invented in the 19th century by engineers including Thomas Edison and Joseph Swan.

The bulbs will be completely phased out by 2010 and replaced with the more fuel efficient compact fluorescent models which use around 20% of the electricity to produce the same amount of light.

BBC article

Bravo for AU.
We started switching many years ago but have now completely switched.

NEOPO wrote:Bravo for AU.
We started switching many years ago but have now completely switched.

"We" being your household, Neo?

Sorry Bas - yes - I actually have a loving wife and 3 loving children that I refer to as "we" yet if "we" have our way "we" will ultimately mean "a village"

Yeah - first "we the family" purchased a 3 pak and replaced the ones we used the most.
Then in 2005 PO and all that hit "we" so we then switched to flourescent 100%.

The prices of these bulbs is coming down slowly but surely.
I recall $12 a pop when they first arrived on the store shelves and now I think you can get a 3pak for the same price.
Some early "gouging" going on if ya ask me ......."Ah just say it is Economies of Scale".....

Anyways good going AU - something is better then nothing.
I have the funny feeling that the only way we are going to collectively "worm" our way out of this mess is one ugly inch at a time and yes that makes me an optomist

I try to comment on simple lightbulbs but NO!!!!!!
There is always something bigger connected at the hip to every subject.......... is there not?

If we are going to reduce CO2 then we must reduce particulates accordingly.
This worries me.

Why is Al and the gang silent on Global Dimming?
Is CO2 and how it effects climate enough for the sheeple in one sitting?
Will there be an act II?

NEOPO wrote:Why is Al and the gang silent on Global Dimming?
Is CO2 and how it effects climate enough for the sheeple in one sitting?
Will there be an act II?

well, maybe only the movie is silent about it (I'm sure Gore had to negotiate with producers etc what would be part of the movie)

Anyway, I mistakingly assumed that global dimming was common knowledge, as I saw that BBC documentarty a couple of years ago and it made some minor headlines in other news sources. Recently I found out that alot of people, also in this country aren't really aware of it though, it is a side issue to global warming though (however, global dimming has led to the grossly underestimating of global warming) Anyway, I think there isn't really a conspiracy apart from the exxon misinformation campaigns and really, it will take a string of big climate related disasters for the world to forge a political alliance to combat global warming/climate change effectively; until then we will only do the relatively easy, but that's better than nothing and we have to start somewhere, so I say:

Let's ban the bulb!

Yes - let us ban the bulb worldwide.

The "conspiracy" can be seen in the disinfo campaign sponsored by the energy companies/lobbyist and the politicians controlled by them, and the scientists hired by both AND yes I call that a conspiracy.
The fact that scientists/information has been suppressed as well as censored clearly establishes conspiracy does it not?

It becomes very worrisome for me when I start to thoroughly ponder why "they" have put so much into the disinfo - this may/could be seen as some indication as to the true size of the problem ...yes?

Huge problem requires tons of disinfo to even momentarily dismiss.
Its like a great magic trick where the elephant in the room suddenly dissappears and then reappears...tada

co2 = life!

No wait! what were we talking about
Ban the bulb!!! Ban the bulb!!! Ban the bulb!!!

You and I as well as most people here realize that we are perfectly fucking screwed....... don't you?

Well either I haven't been able to find them or they still need to build a few specialty type CF's before banning the IC's. My ceiling fan has a dimmer for the light. when I place a CF in it the bulb flashes on and off until I turn the dimmer all the way up. This is the only place in the house that I have an incandescant and hate the fact that I can't replace it.

this site is the hq of the "ban-the-bulb" campaing in the UK: http://www.banthebulb.co.uk/

they write:

A global switch to efficient lighting systems would trim the world's electricity bill by nearly one-tenth the International Energy Agency (IEA) says in a report, which it claims is the first global survey of lighting uses and costs. 19% of the worlds energy consumption is given over to lighting. Switching to energy efficient systems would slice this in half (Leading to a 10% saving)

To put this in context, in the UK and assuming we made no other changes, we are looking at the potential to mothball entire fossil fuelled power stations.


The carbon dioxide emissions saved by such a switch would, the report concludes, dwarf cuts so far achieved by adopting wind, solar power & other renewables. the report also notes that although incandescent bulbs are the biggest efficiency offender, fluorescent tubes are the biggest consumer as they are extensively deployed in business premises who are basically just bad at turning them off. There is also a perception that fluorescent tubes are highly efficient however the reality is that the efficiency of fluorescents varies between 15% & 60%.

I'm not sure if there is a similar campaign in the US or other countries yet, good ideas travel fast though.

strider3700 wrote:Well either I haven't been able to find them or they still need to build a few specialty type CF's before banning the IC's. My ceiling fan has a dimmer for the light. when I place a CF in it the bulb flashes on and off until I turn the dimmer all the way up. This is the only place in the house that I have an incandescant and hate the fact that I can't replace it.

Good point; I wonder if they could make an LED bulb to perform such a task, I'm sure the industry would jump on that niche were it to open; the industry in Aus is probabably already jumping on that chance for innovation.

NEOPO wrote:Yes - let us ban the bulb worldwide.

The "conspiracy" can be seen in the disinfo campaign sponsored by the energy companies/lobbyist and the politicians controlled by them, and the scientists hired by both AND yes I call that a conspiracy.
The fact that scientists/information has been suppressed as well as censored clearly establishes conspiracy does it not?

Well, I agreed that the misinformation campaign was a conspiracy, and it's amazing how little attention it has been given in the mainstream media.

You and I as well as most people here realize that we are perfectly fucking screwed....... don't you?

Well, I'm an optimist amongst the PO crowd, but to the unknowing world outside I'm a big doomer. In the end though, there are so many variables in play that the future is by no means the foregone conclusion the more fatalistic doomers among us make it out to be.

strider3700 wrote:Well either I haven't been able to find them or they still need to build a few specialty type CF's before banning the IC's. My ceiling fan has a dimmer for the light. when I place a CF in it the bulb flashes on and off until I turn the dimmer all the way up. This is the only place in the house that I have an incandescant and hate the fact that I can't replace it.

There are some special CFL's for use on dimmers, for candelabra sockets, 3-way sockets, etc. My local hardware stores carry them as well as online sites like Amazon.

LED bulbs are still too expensive. Plus I don't like the color of the light.

An all out ban on incandescents is just impractical. We've replaced every bulb in our house with a CFL that can be replaced with one, but that still leaves the dimmable ceiling fan fixture, the oven, the refrigerator, and one out of four bulbs at each bathroom vanity because multiple CFLs flicker annoyingly without an incandescent to stabilize current. Plus the one heat lamp in the master bath that is on no more than an hour a day. That's 7 bulbs in total that will never be CFLs in our house. (The dimmable CFLs are still in need of some development IMO.)

California state government is planning a similar ban on tungsten light bulbs. People buy almost no CFL's, even though they are about $2.00 to $5.00 (with the PUC subsidy) compared with $0.50 to $1.00 for the tungsten and they will save the difference in price in electricity in short order. California needs electric energy savings, because we would have max'ed out the grid last summer if it was not for the massive number of transformer burnouts that kept about 300,000 customers offline. Replacing tungsten with CFL will help!

The newest LED's have now reached the efficiency of CFL's, but they cost WAY too much for large lighting systems. However, for a refrigerator, desk lamp, car headlight, etc. they will be useful soon enough. My job is to design electronics for these LED's.

Willie

PS
I have a house full of CFL's and PV solar too. I generate as much electricity as I use. I'm not particularly wasteful, but I'm not frugal either.

welcome to the board willie

CFs are great and yes there are some that can be dimmed. However according to my local solid waste management company one little realized fact about them is that because they contain a tiny amount of mercury they are technically hazardous waste and should not be disposed of in municipal trash. How many people do you think dispose of them properly?

I don't know what the rules are in Australia.

How, pray tell, does one dispose of mercury laden goods properly?