U.S. Incandescent ban – will it save the planet (and my economy)?

January 10, 2012 at 5:31 pm (U.S. ban)
Tags: , , , ,

Possibly not as much as you may have been led to believe. But decide for yourself with the official government data from my newly updated Energy Statistics post:

A. The residential sector (private households) total energy consumption is 12% of total delivered U.S. energy.

B. Of total delivered energy to the residential sector, 58% comes from various fuels (oil, kerosene, natural gas, renewable etc) and most  is used for space heating. The remaining 42% comes from electricity and is split as follows (my own pie chart, from two different EIA ingredients):

C. Lighting uses around 15% of household electricity and 6% of total household energy consumption.

D. If all household lamps were incandescent, the replacement bulb might save (depending on what type and quality of lamps one replaces them with, how often and how long they are used, how long they last etc) 25 -75% =  1.5 to 4.5% (optimistically) of total household energy consumption.

E. But not all household lamps are incandescent since many have already switched to CFL or LED, and already had about 5% linear fluorescent lamps. According to a July 2011 Energy Star report, CFLs accounted for nearly 28 percent of all residential light bulb sales. This leaves 67% standard incandescent. Of which not all are suitable for replacement (e.g. in bathrooms, hallways, in small or antique luminaires or luminaires designed specifically for halogen or LED etc). So, say 50% left that could be switched = 0.75 to 2.25% potential savings savings of average total home energy use (could be more or less in any individual household).

This is not a lot, is it? True that every little bit counts, and any little bit that can be saved is for good of everyone. But at what cost?

I. The first cost is light quality.

• CFLs have a Color Rendering Index of 82-85. This means you get a duller light and won’t be able to see colours as well. A simple trading of quality for quantity, just like in the office. If you don’t mind that in your home, that’s fine then.

• LED quality can vary widely between manufacturers. LED lamps have CRI of 75-92. They often reflect more of the spectrum, but the light color can still be off and it will lack the vibrancy of incandescent light.

• Halogen Energy Savers will save less (25-30%) but give top quality light with perfect color rendering capacity, as it is also a form of incandescent light.

II. The second trade-off is health & safety.

• CFLs contain small amounts of highly toxic mercury vapor and should never be used around children, pets or pregnant women, in case they break. There are silicon-covered bulbs on the market that don’t shatter as easily, but most don’t have that protection. All CLFs must be recycled safely and never thrown in the trash. Some CFLs also emit some UV-radiation at close range. May not be enough to pose much of a risk to a healthy person unless used very close for prolonged periods of time, but persons with UV-sensitive conditions may have adverse reactions.

• LEDs have been shown not to be quite as green and non-toxic as assumed either, but probably safer than CFLs.

•  Incandescent lamps, including halogen, contain no toxins and pose no known health risks.

So, why go after the tiny portion that is used for lightings pecifically, while we keep using more and more other electrical gadgets? A chart from the EIA page Share of energy used by appliances and consumer electronics increases in U.S. homes shows how the electronics pie slice has grown to almost twice its size since the 1970s:

Isn’t it interesting also that the total household energy use has hardly changed since 1978 (!) while the proportions of how that energy is spent has changed dramatically? This seems to me pretty solid proof of the often-scoffed-at Jevons paradox and may pose more risks when switching to energy saving lighting.

1. The first is that one may feels one has done so much for the environment that not much more needs to be done. This impression is enhanced by the fact that the switch may make a big change in a room’s apperance (and not always to the better) and by the fact that CFLs have been promoted by everyone, from gazillions of bloggers and journalists to state presidents as the one thing that will make a difference. (And they in turn have been targets of two decades of multi-million dollar lobbying to make them belive that.)

2. The second is that since one belives one is saving so much on the lights, one can leave them on for a bit longer. An article comment illustrates this sentiment well:

“My dad switched to CFLs, but now he just leaves the lights on all the time because he says ‘they use so little power, I can’t be bothered to turn them off’.”

3. Many CFLs are also supposed to be turned on for 15 minutes to 3 hours at a time in order not to shorten their life dramatically.

But if you still want to save a little, and if you opt for the least less energy saving but non-toxic, top quality halogen lamp, you can easily save the remaining 1.5% by turning the heating or cooling down a degree or two, taking shorter showers, skipping coffee & toast, using dimmers and turning lights off when you leave the room and still have a green conscience.

2 Comments

Q&A about the U.S. Incandescent ban

January 8, 2012 at 2:36 pm (INCANDESCENT BAN, U.S. ban)
Tags: , , ,

Q: Is it a ban or not?

A: Yes and no. It is not a ban per se (such as in EU and other countries) but a raising of the efficacy standards to a level which normal incandescent lamps cannot reach. The end result is still the same, as far as the original Edison bulb is concerned.

Q: What lamps are affected? 

A: In this first stage of the gradual ‘phase-out’, starting January 1st, 2012: incandescent bulbs of 100 watts or more.

New edit: After debating whether 75 watts are also prohibited or not – which they officially are not until next year – Freedom Light Bulb discovered that the regulation is even more bizarre than we first thought:

US Regulation Absurdity: Dim 100W bulbs allowed, Bright 100W bulbs banned!

If you want incandescent you can still buy 72 watt tungsten halogen Energy Savers and get as much light as from a 100 watt lamp (see my Halogen Energy Savers review). If you can find them. Amazon sells them, Home Depot only have reflector lamps, Lowe’s have more flodlight reflector models, but they can be hard to find in regular stores (ask for them).

Q: So now 75 and 100 watt bulbs can’t be produced or imported?

A: Yes and no. In the words of Kevan Shaw: ”The ban is still effectively in force in law however it cannot be enforced.”

Read the longer explanation of this confusing issue here: The American Ban Collapses

And here: After the Funding Amendment: Clear Explanation of American Light Bulb Regulations

Follow the progress state by state here: Progress Track of US Federal and State Ban Repeal Bills

NEMA:

The inability of DOE to enforce the standards would allow those who do not respect the rule of law to sell inefficient light bulbs in the U.S. without fear of enforcement, creating a competitive disadvantage for compliant manufacturers.

As standard incandescent lamps are no longer as profitable to make or sell, the risk of that happening is probably negligible. If you can find a higher watt bulb anywhere you’re still free to buy it, but people have been hoarding.

Leading manufacturers couldn’t wait to get rid of the bulb, so they started closing their North American bulb factories in 2009 and the last major U.S. bulb plant was closed in September 2010.

And just a few days ago IKEA proudly announced that they will not sell any incandescent lamps (spinning more-$$$-for-IKEA-from-new-$14-LEDs to sound like “IKEA-saving-the-planet”). More retailers may follow, regardless of how the dispute ends.

And California started the phase-out a year early.

So choices and availability for top quality incandescent light are shrinking, while choices for lower quality but somewhat more energy efficient CFL and LED lights have increased to a confusing profusion which can make finding the right lamp rather difficult.

Q: So, whose fault is this anyway? Who came up with the idea? Those pesky treehugging-commie Democrats, or the reactionary out-of-my-cold-dead-hands Republicans? 

A: Well, both. The original light bulb legislation was written by Fred Upton (R-MI) and Jane Harmon (D-CA) says CNS News.

“In 2007, Harman and Upton introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation–which became law as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act–that bans the famously inefficient 100-watt incandescent light bulb by 2012, phases out remaining inefficient light bulbs by 2014, and requires that light bulbs be at least three times as efficient as today’s 100-watt incandescent bulb by 2020,” explained a 2009 press release put out by the two House members.

The bill was passed under the Republican Bush administration and signed by president G.W. Bush in 2007. President Obama and the Democratic party have embraced it. However, Upton later changed his mind, as did many other Republicans (and many didn’t think it was a good idea in the first place). And now this issue has been turned into a symbolic item for both parties to fight each other over.

Hope that cleared it up. ;)

Leave a Comment

Car Headlights

December 3, 2009 at 12:27 am (Car headlights, LAMPS)
Tags: , , ,

Replacing the standard warm-white top quality halogen light, commonly used for headlights, with other light sources is in my opinion not a good idea. 

Since their introduction in early 1990′s, more and more cars have been equipped with discharge xenon arc lamps. They’re about twice as bright as halogen headlights or more, and are said to improve visibility for the driver. But what few seem to have considered is how irritating they can be for meeting traffic:

- They’re blueish (around 4100K), which creates more confusion and distraction in an otherwise even traffic stream. Lights from meeting cars are not supposed to attract your attention by sticking out. And blue light is not good for the eyes. 

- An especially irritating feature is that they flicker and quickly shift shade from blue-white to purple-white and back as the car drives past, instead of giving a calm, even light like halogen does. This can be very distracting for meeting traffic.

- They’re very bright and glaring. That’s not good for for road safety. Being blinded and distracted in crucial traffic situations is not exactly helpful.

The Swedish Road Administration say they keep getting complaints from other drivers but can’t do anything about it since these lamps tend to get approved by EU as car manufacturers apply. A condition for this approval is that they must be precisely adjusted so as to avoid glare for others, but this is obviously not always done, or is easily maladjusted again depending on packing weight etc.

- Getting a xenon-lit car driving behind can be even worse than briefly meeting one, especially if it’s a van or SUV where the headlights come up higher. Having the inside of one’s car lit up like a stadium does not make for safe driving. 

If you’re considering switching to xenon, please be mindful of other drivers and consider staying with traditional halogen if possible. If you the car is already equipped with xenon, please make sure lights are well adjusted at all times.

Also beware of Faux Xenon, e.g. Osram’s Cool Blue – “the designer lamp”- a product that shouldn’t exist. Putting a blue filter on a standard halogen bulb is about the stupidest thing you can do. These should definitely be banned, as they are both energy inefficient and dangerous!

Nowadays, headlights in general are also much brighter than they used to be - manufacturers constantly boast about how much more light their product will give you:

* Osram Silverstar “Thanks to their special technology SILVERSTAR lamps illuminate the road with an up to 50% brighter light in the crucial zone 50 to 75 m in front of the vehicle than a standard lamp”

…and in the crucial vision zone of meeting traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists.

* Philips X-treme Power “Philips X-treme Power bulbs deliver up to an astounding 80% more light than standard halogens”

…right into the unsuspecting eye of everyone but the driver.

If the European Commission ever wanted to do anything truly useful, why not ban xenon lights as a safety hazard, faux xenon as a waste and hazard both, and set firm limits to how bright headlights can be?

Update 1: Now LED lamps have been introduced for car headlights. Very bright white light that at least doesn’t flicker and shift like xenon light, but it is still chillingly cool-white and quite glaring. For some reason, many SUVs are equipped with LEDs – which is an extra bad idea since the light is even more glaring coming from that hight.

However, using red and amber LED lamps as stop- and signal lights in the back of the car is a great idea! Producing coloured light while using practically no energy, is what diodes do best. 

Update 2: SCENIHR, the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks, in its amended report 2011, page 72, actually mentions glare from meeting traffic as a real hazard for night drivers:

“Glare from bright head lights may induce accident”

http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_033.pdf 

4 Comments

Energy Star wants more CFL subsidies

September 30, 2009 at 2:13 pm (CFL subsidies)
Tags: ,

According to the article As C.F.L. Sales Fall, More Incentives Urged Energy Star products manager Richard Karney wants continued funding for CFL programs.

I find this rather stunning. Why should taxpayers and utility customers subsidise an arbitrarily chosen product with numerous quality problems and safety issues that customers don’t like, to give it an unfair market advantage over other products that customers prefer due to their safety, reliability, versatility and higher quality?

If a product is so unpopular and poorly designed that you have to give it away, isn’t that an indicator that it’s time to get back to the drawing board and focus on the mercury-free alternatives, making incandescent Halogen Energy Savers even more efficient, and LEDs brighter, cheaper, more incandescent-like and colour stable?

The N.Y. Times article also mentions its previous article about Halogen Energy Savers, Incandescent Bulbs Return to the Cutting Edge which says that in the U.S. these are sold exclusively at Home Depot (can’t find any in their online catalogue) and Amazon.com (obviously quite a bit pricier than here in Sweden where they’ve been freely available for a year). Isn’t this late introduction, high price and very restricted availability rather strange, considering the fact that you can buy cheap CFLs at the nearest gas station or supermarket? Does the lighting industry not want us to buy these new and improved halogen lamps which give the same top quality light as standard incandescent lamps but saving 20-50% energy?

What is it with CFLs that make them get all the special treatment, even though many are not more effective than the best halogen energy savers, contain mercury and have a long list of quality- and other problems?

5 Comments

Lamp Guide

September 23, 2009 at 3:22 am (Halogen, Incandescent, Lamp guide, LED)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that the market is being flooded with such a confusing profusion of different lamps to replace the incandescent bulb, it is more difficult than ever to find the right lamp for the right place.

Swedish national TV consumer program Plus last week tried to sort it out with the help of Kalle Hashmi at the Swedish Energy Agency, STEM. [1] My translation of his unusually informed and balanced recommendations:

* In closed luminaires it is not advisable to use CFLs as they get too hot which shortens their life. Where you have very short burning time, such as in a closet or the bathroom, the lamp life will shorten significantly if you turn it on and off a lot. In such a situation you could preferably choose a halogen lamp.

* If temperatures are too low [= outdoors in northern winters] the [CFL] lamp does not perform at its best. The lamp is made to function best in 25 degrees [C]. In such a situation we think the best option is to use an induction lamp. Very expensive but on the other hand it lasts 100 000 hours.

* When you get older, 60+, you need more light to be able to see, and our ability to distinguish colours and contrasts diminishes. Then we need to choose a light that solves all three problems.

* When it comes to contrast, for example, it is usually limited to reading text, black on white. Then you need to choose a CFL with higher effect, e.g. 15W and you can use a correlated colour temperature around 4000K, but only for reading.

* When in a situation where colour rendition is very important, where you need to match colours, then it is very important to use a mains voltage halogen lamp because it has much better colour rendering capacity. It can be a situation like cooking, where all colours seem matte to the eyes. So what an elderly person perceives as ‘brown’ may actually be burnt. With halogen you see better.

* CFLs are not the answer to all our prayers. When it comes to colour rendering they are not as good, and they also contain mercury. LEDs will be the dominating technique, but it’s better to replace low voltage spotlights with LED spotlights than replacing standard bulbs for general lighting.

My comments: Good advice all of it, except for the recommendation to use cool-white CFL for reading. Some research suggests that contrast decreases rather than increases with higher correlated colour temperature (blueness) and that certain blue wavelenghts may harm rather than help in cases of macular degeneration. [2] The small traces of UV which some naked CFL tubes emit may at close range may also worsen cataracts and skin conditions. [3] If you sit closer than 30 cm for more than an hour per day, the the British Health Procection Agency recommend that you use a covered CFL with an extra outer bulb. [4] I would instead recommend frosted incandescent or halogen for reading, as clear bulbs tend to give disturbing light patterns on the page and most LEDs are either too dim or too directional. Unfortunately, thanks to the European Commission, that’s no longer an option.

Replacing spotlights with LED is a better idea as LEDs are already directional by nature and perform better as reflector lights than as omnidirectional light trapped in a bulb – if you don’t mind the slightly lower light quality and paler colours which can be seen clearly in this comparison between ‘warm-white’ & ‘daylight’ LED and incandescent downlights [5]:


More tips:

* For those who prefer a daylight-simulating light despite the lower contrast, white LEDs are naturally cool-white and need no special phosphor mix like CFLs, or neodymium filter like incandescents, to achieve a daylight look. Daylight lamps usually look best in the daytime. At night the cold light can look and feel more unnatural when contrasted against the dark as we humans are traditionally used to fire light at night (though cultural and individual preferences may vary).

* Where warm-white incandescent type light with perfect colour rendering is needed, there exists no replacement other than halogen. No CFL or LED has that special sunny feel and warm glow which makes colours come alive. The next best thing after halogen would probably be metal halide HID reflector lamps, but they’re usually too bright to be used at home and require special luminaires.

* In traditional environments with antique furniture and art, CFLs and LEDs tend to look particularly out of place, whereas they may look acceptable with more contemporary designs, even if a bit dull. 

* When it comes to mood lighting of your dinner table, cosy corner or favorite restaurant CFL and LED have zero romance factor whereas the warm light of halogen or incandescent spots on dimmers will complement candle light and create an attractive, romantic and relaxing atmosphere. In rooms where you’re mostly sitting down and relaxing (like the living room), use many low-watt (7, 15 or 25 watt if incandescent) lamps placed low around the room, e.g. on walls, tables or in windows, rather than one bright ceiling light. Can be complemented with floor reading lamps and ceiling floodlights to be turned on when needed. Avoid up-lighters. 

* Around children, I’d use only warm-white LED lamps (which are cool to the touch) or incandescent lamps in enclosed & shaded luminaires. CFLs contain mercury and can break and should therefore never be used around children or pets. Clear halogen lamps can get too hot, bright and glaring. One exception is IKEAs Snöig series of desk-, wall- and floor luminaires where the halogen lamp is well protected from curious fingers and eyes.

* For night-lights, I would use LED. Even if you only save 6 watts per lamp, they’re usually on all night, every night, and come in different colours. 

* Coloured lights, e.g. holiday lights, car and traffic signal lights, stage lighting etc. can be replaced by LED. LEDs come already coloured and are often ideal due to their smallness, low energy use and lack of excess heat. Paying for premium quality incandescent light only to filter out most of through a colored glass is truly a waste! 

More photo comparisons between different lamp types can be found here:
Snarkish Forum
Newest Lightbulb Tech Combines Advantages of Incandescent, Fluorescent, and LED
LED Tints

TreeHugger CFL guide:
Be Careful When You Shop For Compact Fluorescents

Lighting design tips:
GE Lighting Style
Philips Lighting for the Home
Philips Lighting Design tool

References:
1. Plus, SVT, 17 sep 2009 http://svtplay.se/t/102796/plus
2. Artificial Lighting and the Blue Light Hazard
3. SCENIHR: Light Sensitivity
4. HPA – Emissions from compact fluorescent lights
5. Picture from Breakthrough Design Cuts Cost of LED Light Bulbs by 40 Percent

10 Comments

The Bush-Obama Energy Bill

July 9, 2009 at 12:03 pm (INCANDESCENT BAN, U.S. ban)
Tags: , ,

Just a few words about the “new” U.S. Energy Bill (The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) [1, 2, 3] and how it affects incandescent lamps.

Oddly enough, Americans seem to have made this into a party politics issue and mutual mud-slinging contest, when it was actually initiated under president Bush and only finalised and somewhat amended by the Obama administration.

But nevermind, let’s see if we can sort out what the new lighting rules are:

1. It appears that the original idea was to regulate all types of fluorescent and incandescent lighting at the same time. But doing so too hastily might cause major problems and expenses for businesses – which use the majority of the linear flourescent tubes and reflector lamps produced. Thus regulating the latter two lamp types requires very careful consideration and in-depth analysis first, which takes time (several more years, according to DOE). [4]

2. Incandescent general service lighting is easier to regulate and causes problems mainly for private persons, so the part pertaining to GLS lamps was lifted out of the lighting section in the original bill to be rushed through congress straight away.

Ironic side-note: What a coincidence that this happens to be the same popular light bulb which is so unprofitable to manufacturers that they literally can’t wait to get it off the market! Only a scant few weeks after the “new and improved” Energy Bill, GE announces the closing down of U.S. and Canadian light bulb factories – despite the new GLS standards not taking effect until 2012 [5, 6,] and apparently lobbied for efficiency standards rather than an outright ban (so as to still have the opportunity of selling more profitable high-efficiency incandescent bulbs, assumably made in China). [7]

But there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the new standards actually are – and small wonder if you look at how the rule is written. [8] (Why not just state required lumen per watt for each wattage class, as is done for the other lamp types?) Luckily for us, EnergyStar attempts to sort it out, in plain English [9]:

“The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (the “Energy Bill”), signed by the President on December 18, 2007 requires all light bulbs use 30% less energy than today’s incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014.

“The phase-out will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014. By 2020, a Tier 2 would become effective which requires all bulbs to be at least 70% more efficient (effectively equal to today’s CFLs). It’s not entirely correct to say “CFLs will be required” or “incandescents will be phased out” because the standards set by the bill are technology neutral, and by 2012, a next generation of incandescent bulbs could satisfy the 30% increased efficiency.

“There are many types of incandescent bulbs that are exempt from this law: any kind of specialty light (ie. bulb in refrigerator), reflector bulbs, 3-way bulbs, candelabras, globes, shatter resistant, vibration service, rough service, colored bulbs (i.e. “party bulbs”), bug lights, plant lights.

“The law applies to the sale of bulbs, not the use of existing stock of bulbs.”

That sounds straightforward enough, but look what the rule actually says:

Note the unusual max wattages. It so happens that the only lamps which exist in such wattages (29, 43, 53, 72W) are the new incandescent halogen energy savers.

Which indicates that standard incandescent GLS bulbs are already counted out of the equation from the start (no doubt so that manufacturers can sell their halogen replacements at extortion rates to all those who hate CFL and LED light).

But the quirky thing is that the minimum lumen requirements for each wattage class are set just above what the best energy saving mains voltage halogen replacement lamps can produce today… hmmmmm… Checking manufacturer cataloges for actual lumen output, it seems that they don’t quite save the claimed 30% but more like around 20%. So much for “truth in advertising”… WASP Diving Knife

Seems they have done the same thing as with the CFL: replace e.g. a 60W incandescent (which gives 700-800+ lumen) with a 12W CFL, or in this case a 43W halogen, which both give only 630 lm! If you only count the wattage, 60W -30% is 42W, yes, but then it needs to give as many lumens as a 60W bulb too, otherwise it’s just one more case of consumer fraud.

“Oh, it’s such a small difference, the customer will never notice.” (I’ve actually heard manufacturer representatives use that exact phrase when I’ve asked about the light deprication in CFLs.)

So, have lamp manufacturers shot themselves in the foot by claiming their halogen energy savers save 30%, as government experts seem to have taken their word for it and set lumen requirements at that exact level..?

Back to decoding the confusing table:

* 2012 the standard incandescent lamps are out (unless some manufacturer is able to make them more energy efficient – and profitable..).

All you can use is up to max 72W halogen energy saver (which is meant to equal a 100W standard incandescent GLS lamp) – if they can improve it to the full 30% efficacy by then.

* 2013 the 72W halogen goes. Max permitted is an (improved) 53W halogen (= ’75W GLS’).

* 2014 the 53W halogen goes. Max permitted is an (improved) 43W halogen (= ’60W GLS’).

* 2015 the 43W halogen goes. Max permitted is an (improved) 29W halogen (= ’40W GLS’).

What will all those elderly and vision impaired do, who may need bright light of the highest quality (= incandescent light) in order to see?

EnergyStar claiming that the phase-out “will start with the 100W incandescent bulb and end with the 40W” is thus not correct, if one is to follow what the table mandates. Oh dear, if not even EnergyStar can interpret the table correctly, who can one trust? (Although EnergyStar also forwards the PR truth-stretching about CFLs “saving 75% energy” and “lasting 10 years” etc. – despite government & consumer tests + growing customer complaints giving a very different picture – so I guess they’re not exactly an infallible source of information.)

Update 3 Aug: Something is definitely not right here… The only existing incandescent halogen lamp on the market which should pass the new requirements is the expensive and hard-to-find Philips Master Classic IR halogen with integrated transformer which saves 42-45% (if you look at lumen/watt) not 50% as advertised, compared with a standard incandescent. But only the 20W seems to qualify, the 30W misses the max 29W category by 1W and the max 43W category by 130 lumen, despite being the most efficient incandescent-type lamp on the market, and with a life-span of 3000 hours!

And by the way, 72% Don’t Want Feds Changing Their Light Bulbs, but I guess legislators care more about keeping the lighting industry happy than about how their voters feel. Because it sure isn’t going to save the planet, quite the opposite (see my posts about mercury).

Next up for slaugher are reflector lamps (both in Europe and the U.S.).

1. Original Energy Bill, 2007 [point 321 about lighting)
2. Energy Bill, 2009 amended version **snooze-warning on both**
3. Obama Administration Launches New Energy Efficiency Efforts (DOE summary)
4. Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps
 5. GE to close Canadian lightbulb factory
6. GE looks to close Niles glass factory and end production of incandescent bulbs
7. How GE’s green lobbying is killing U.S. factory jobs
8. General Service Incandescent Lamp Provisions Contained in EISA 2007
 9. Will CFLs be required by 2012?

Thanks to Peter at http://www.ceolas.net/#li01x for most of the links.

Update 6 January, 2012: The first step of the phase-out of standard incandescent 100 Watt bulbs (unless 30% more effective) was meant to take effect last week, but it seems to have gotten delayed. http://savethebulb.org/the-american-ban-collapses

5 Comments

Halogen Energy Saver Reviews

June 9, 2009 at 8:57 am (Halogen, Lamp reviews)
Tags:

Here are reviews of retrofit halogen energy savers. Brief descriptions + my personal, subjective impressions of how they look in my home environment. (Note: prices are converted from SEK to Euro, include 20% VAT and may vary between countries.)

* 28W Osram E27 clear A-lamp

Info: CRI 100 (= full colour rendering). Costs about twice as much than its incandescent equivalent, uses about 20% less energy (though advertised as 30% less) and lasts twice as long.

Impression: Looks exactly like the 40W incandescent equivalent it’s supposed to replace, though slightly brighter and with a rather glaring light point so best for luminaires with a shade.

* 28W Osram Spot R50 E14 reflector lamp

Info: CRI 100. Costs only slightly more than its incandescent equivalent, uses 20-30% less energy and lasts twice as long. 

Impression: Looks exactly like the 40W incandescent it’s supposed to replace. And when I say “exactly”, that means exactly and not “more or less similar”, since halogen is an incandescent light, only concentrated into a smaller inner bulb.

* 30W Philips Master Classic E27 frosted A-bulb with infra-red coating and integrated transformer

Info: A low-voltage retrofit lamp that can be used in a standard mains-voltage luminaire. CRI 100. Costs over 10 times as much (€13) due to the built-in electronics, but then it lasts 3000 hours, so divide that by 3 and then deduct the 50% electricity savings and it’s not so bad.

Impression: This one too gave a nice warm-white incandescent light that looked bright enough to replace a 60W bulb, as it promised. I could not tell it apart from a standard 60W frosted bulb.

Update Dec 2011: I’ve not used this one very much at all, just as a desk light on those few occasions when I’ve worked on something not on the computer. Yet one day a few weeks ago it just died. I have definitely not used it anything close to 3000 hours. And this is the only type of incandescent bulb that will be permitted in the future, if the European Commission doesn’t change its mind. (OK, one bulb does not make a proper consumer test, I could just have been unlucky.)

******************************************************

More lamp descriptions can be found on this site: http://lightbulbmarket.blogspot.com/

Leave a Comment

Summary – Lamp Type Pros & Cons

March 29, 2009 at 10:54 pm (CFL ANALYSIS)
Tags: , , ,

Comparison between different lamp types:

I. INCANDESCENT LAMPS

Models:
* Standard A-bulbs and T-bulbs
* Decorative (globe, flame, tinted etc)
* Reflector & PAR

Advantages:
+ Bright point light source
+ Good quality and performance
+ Natural golden-white light
+ Continuous spectrum
+ Highest colour rendering (CRI 100)
+ Lights up immediately
+ Can be used at both freezing and hot temperatures
+ Full compatibility with existing luminaires
+ Fully dimmable on any dimmer
+ Light gets warmer and more candle-like when dimmed
+ Highest Power Factor (1.0)
+ Contains no mercury (and no lead solder after 2006)
+ Easy to produce, use and recycle
+ Low purchase price

Disadvantages:
- More heat than light
- Short lifetime, 1000 hours (Long Life lamps 2500-7500 hrs, at reduction in output)
- Sensitive to voltage fluctuations
- Sensitive to vibrations (except Rough Service bulbs)

II. HALOGEN LAMPS

Models:
* Low voltage halogen minibulbs for spotlights
* Halogen minitubes for floodlights
* Halogen retrofit lamps with outer bulb and scew base
* Halogen retrofit reflector and PAR lamps
* Halogen retrofit Energy Saver bulbs & reflector lamps (new)
* Halogen retrofit bulbs with xenon gas filling (new)
* Halogen retrofit bulbs with IR coating and integrated transformers (new)

Advantages:
+ 10-50% more light than incandescent
+ Bright point light source
+ Good quality and performance
+ Continuous spectrum
+ Highest colour rendering (CRI 100)
+ Sunny white light
+ Fully dimmable on any dimmer
+ Gets warmer when dimmed
+ Full compatibility with existing luminaires
+ Light up immediately
+ Work as well in low as in high temperatures
+ Highest Power Factor (1.0)
+ Do not lose output with age
+ Contain no mercury or other toxic chemicals

Disadvantages:
- Low to medium low efficiency
- Risks due to high operating temperature
- Models with clear bulb or tube may be very glaring
- Medium short lifetime (2000 – 3000 hours, some reflector lamps up to 6000 h)

III. COMPACT FLUORESCENT LAMPS (CFLs)

Models:
* Tubes without integrated ballsts
* Retrofit tubes with integrated ballasts
* Retrofit spiral tubes
* Retrofit A-bulbs with outer envelope
* Retrofit globes & decorative with outer envelope
* Retrofit reflectorlamps

Advantages:
+ “Up to 80%” (in reality closer to 50%) more light than an incandescent
+ Long lifetime (6 000-15 000 hrs, with diminishing output)
+ Available with warm or cool light

Disadvantages:
- No bright point lighting
- Most models still have unnatural colour
- Suboptimal colour rendering (CRI 82-85)
- Naked tubes often glaring
- Relatively long starting and warm up time
- Lower Power Factor (often around 0.5)
- Sensitive to heat; poor function in closed luminaires
- Many have poor performance in cool temperatures
- May be sensitive to moisture
- May be sensitive to rapid on-off switching
- Often not dimmable (those that are often expensive)
- Dimming makes the light cooler/greyer, not warmer
- Too large for some luminaires
- Do perform well in reflector luminaires
- Some require specific burning position
- Higher production, transportation and recycling costs
- Contain small amounts of mercury (2-5 mg)
- Bare tubes may emit a little UV

IV. LIGHT EMITTING DIODES (LEDs)

Models:
* Reflector lamps (diodes stuck in a reflector lamp)
* Retrofit standard bulbs (diodes stuck on a stick and placed in a bulb).
* Decorative (tube lights etc)

Advantages:
+ Good efficacy (high output per watt)
+ Extremely long life (unless overheated)
+ Light up instantly
+ Warm, cool or coloured light
+ Versatile due to very small size
+ Not sensitive to vibrations, power spikes or rapid cycling
+ Not sensitive to cold
+ Give off less heat than other lamps, can be touched
+ Simpler to produce and recycle than CFLs
+ Contain no mercury

Disadvantages:
- Most common as low-watt lamps*
- Give light only in one direction, in narrow beam
- More or less unnatural light colour*
- Unstable colour, warm-white LEDs shift over time
- Mediocre to good colour rendering*
- Sensitive to heat
- Lower Power Factor than incandescent*
- Expensive*

* Under improvement

References:
EU consultants’ Technical Briefing (italicised points)
Philips Lighting
OSRAM
Havells-Sylvania
GE Lighting
MEGAMAN
Aura Light

3 Comments

CFL Analysis – Light Quality

March 29, 2009 at 2:59 pm (CFL ANALYSIS, Incandescent, LED, Light quality)
Tags: , , , ,

When it comes to light quality, there exists no replacement for the incandescent lamp, other than mains voltage halogen in retrofit bulbs – most of which are also being phased out!

What is so unique about incandescent light then? * Unlike other light sources, incandescent and halogen lamps are tungsten black-body radiators, a version of fire-light which humanity has evolved with since fire was discovered. Like sunlight, incandescent light has the highest possible colour rendering (CRI 100), due to naturally continuous spectrum, and a warm-white, human-friendly light which radiates and makes colours come alive.

Update 25 june: Lighting designer Ed Cansino in a recent, highly informative interview:

“…if I were forced to choose the best lighting for residential overall, it would have to be incandescent. I feel that we as humans have had a deep connection to flame for many thousands of years. It’s almost like it’s in our DNA. It’s interesting that as time moves on, people are still drawn to sitting around the camp fire, a fireplace, even a barbecue. Think of a Yule log. It’s just that this particular quality of light is ingrained in us. You can even get a screen saver of log flames. Incandescents with their glowing filaments are a form of flame and are thus an extension of this inborn affinity that we have for fire.”

* When dimmed or used at lower wattages, the light colour gets proportionally warmer and more like candle light. Increase brightness and it gets whiter again. This is how a natural light source behaves.

* Incandescent light is the standard against which all other types of light is measured. This is why the lighting industry has put so much effort into trying to copy its light colour, colour rendering capacity and other qualities.

* CFLs are based on a completely different technology, and LEDs on yet another. Even if the industry can now mix phosphors to decently emulate incandescent light at a superficial level in some of the best brand models, FL/CFL or LED light is no more the same thing as incandescent light than a gold-coloured alloy can be called real gold, or synthetic microfiber real silk. Both have their respective uses, but in many cases a substitute just won’t do. CFL light is a composite light, an artificial replica of the real thing that just doesn’t feel the same and does not behave in the same way. When dimmed, for example, it just turns cooler and more grey and dull, not warmer.

See this interview with a pro-CFL professor explaining the quality problems with CFLs: Why Efficient Light Bulbs Fail to Thrive

Here are spectral distribution charts (from Osram) for different light sources, which illuminate the quality differences very clearly:

Incandescent light with continuous spectrum and full colour rendering (CRI 100).


Example of standard FL/CFL with uneven spectrum & limited colour rendering (CRI 82-85).

White LED, a smoother curve but peaking in the blue end of the spectrum instead of the red.

Ron Rosenbaum describes the difference more poetically:

“I’ve tried the new CFLs, and they are a genuine improvement—they don’t flicker perceptibly, or buzz, or make your skin look green. There is a difference, and I’d be in favor of replacing all current fluorescent bulbs with CFLs. But even CFLs glare and blare—they don’t have that inimitable incandescent glow. So don’t let them take lamplight away. Don’t let them ban beauty.

“Don’t get me wrong, this is not a plea for Ye Olde Times, for gaslight and quill pens. It’s just a plea not to take for granted the way we illuminate our world. Not all change is improvement. Why do I put such a premium on incandescence? For one thing, I am a bit romantic about it. A lamp fitted with an incandescent bulb and dim translucent shades casts a lovely, painterly glow on human faces, while the light of fluorescents recalls a meat locker.

“Why do you think there is such artistry to so many lampshades? They are the lingerie of light.

“But the appeal of incandescence is not just a matter of romance. I suspect there are also answers to be found in the physics and linguistics of incandescence.

“I’d speculate that it has something to do with the different ways light is created by incandescents and fluorescents. Incandescent light is created by heat, by the way an electric current turns a thin metal filament (usually tungsten) red then white hot in a transparent or translucent globe filled with an inert gas that prevents the filament from burning up, allowing it to give off a steady glow. (That explains the warmth: The fact that incandescence emanates from heat creates warmth, distinguishes it from the cold creepiness of fluorescence.)

“Fluorescent light bulbs, on the other hand, are coated inside with chemical material that lights up as energy reaches the tubes. (It’s a bit more complicated than this, but that’s the general idea.) Fluorescents sometimes appear to flicker because alternating current brings that energy to the bulbs in pulses, rather than steadily. In incandescents, the hot filament stays hot—and therefore bright—despite alternations in current; it can’t cool fast enough to dim or flicker.

“The new CFLs pulse faster than their ancestors, so the flickering is less perceptible, but at some level, it’s still there. CFL manufacturers may be right that the new bulbs are an improvement, but there is still something discontinuous, digital, something chillingly one-and-zero about fluorescence, while incandescent lights offer the reassurance of continuity rather than an alternation of being and nothingness.”

Who wants to have a romantic dinner in the dull gloomy light of a CFL? Why do lighting designers of usually choose halogen, incandescent, high-pressure sodium or metal halide for shops, hotels, restaurants etc. when they want to create an attractive environment, and so rarely CFLs?

Most likely because they are well aware of the fact that even the best incandescent-mimicking warm-white CFLs give a dull, non-radiating light which makes colours look pale and dead due to lower colour rendering (CRI 82-85), spiky spectral distribution (lacking parts of the spectrum – check this out for yourself with the back of a CD and see the spectrum broken up into 3 blocks with all the wavelenghts inbetween more or less missing) and lack of radiance and glow.

And that’s not mentioning all those odd coloured ones which still dominate the lower end and some of the high end of the CFL market (according to recent consumer tests).

Lighting designer Gad Giladi, D.E.S.A., M.F.A. FPLDA, explains what happens when wavelenghts are missing:

“Not only are the quantities of light of CFL ‘equivalents’ not equal to those of the planned replaced incandescents but also the quality of the light greatly differs. This is due to the fact that the spectrum of the incandescent is a continuous one, i.e. has energy in all wavelengths of the visible electromagnetic spectrum while the spectrum of the CFLs, like all discharge lamps is a discontinuous one, i.e., depending on the composition of the phosphor coating of the tubes will present a lack of or a deficiency in energy at certain wavelengths of the visible spectrum.

“This characteristic is not immediately visible to the human eye until the emitted light falls on a surface or an object: the energy in each different wavelength corresponds to a colour perceived by the human visual system. If that colour does not exist in the light, its corresponding pigment in materials cannot be perceived by the eye; if the energy in a specific wavelength is deficient, the corresponding pigment in materials will be perceived as dead, washed-out and distorted. (…)

“That means that where colour perception is important, i.e. everywhere the human being lives and spends time, the replacement of incandescents by CFLs is going to inevitably create dull looking spaces, distort colours of architectural finishes (stone, marble, timber, paint, stucco etc.), of furnishings – curtains, carpets, upholstery, furniture finishes, artwork etc.), warp the colour of skin (people are continuously going to look bad/sick in their mirrors as well as in the eyes of their partners).

“Incandescent lamps are close to theoretical ‘point sources’ which allow for the design of precise optical systems around them to direct the light in an accurate manner. This permits the creation of accent lighting, a means to create visual interest and drama in spaces. CFLs are diffuse light sources and no engineering will truly make a diffuse light source into a ‘point-source’. Gone is accent lighting!”

Lighting designers against incandescent ban (for both light quality and environmental reasons):

IALD – International Association of Lighting Designers
IALD Statement

Jeff Miller, President-elect IALD, Director of Pivotal Lighting, statement

PLDA – Professional Lighting Designers’ Association
PLDA Statement

Kevan Shaw Lighting Design
Summary of points against the CFL

Michael Gehring, Principal of KGM Architectural Lighting
Gehring statement

Scott Yu, Principal, Chief Creative Officer of Vode Lighting
Yu statement

Summary:

There are both visible and measurable differences in quality between incandescent light and the light from even best CFLs and LEDs on the market.

Banning a top quality product in favour of a totally different and quality-wise inferior product is like banning wine with the argument that “wine-lovers can just as well drink cider: practically the same thing” because both are mildly alcoholic beverages with a superficial similarity.

FL/CFL light may have its use where lamps are left on all day and quantity matters more than quality, e.g. at work, in public building corridors etc, but not necessarily in retail, hospitality and domestic environments where consumers expect a more attractive and/or relaxing light.

Light is like air, food and water – it’s essential to our well-being, and quality matters!

Lighting is also one of the most powerful mood-enhancers, can markedly affect how environments are perceived, as well as both comfort, well-being and health.

For this reason, I’m sure many would be willing to pay a little extra for top quality light just to still have choice.

2 Comments

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.