On the eve of Christmas 2007, quite a few
obituaries for incandescent light bulbs were penned. News was slow, time was short and Congress had just outlined a new energy plan that would essentially force these energy-wasting
bulbs out by 2012. Now, however, legions of scientists are racing the clock to develop new incandescents that will
still meet the upcoming guidelines, with a Deposition Sciences technology paving the way for a post-2012 model from Philips. Without drowning you in technobabble, let's just say that said tech has seen 50 percent efficiency gains in the lab, which is more than enough to please even the most outspoken tree hugger in Washington. In related news,
GE has issued two more
LED light bulbs: the 7-watt Energy Smart LED PAR20 and 10-watt LED PAR30. Both of 'em are aimed more at commercial customers than at actual homes, but you'll be hard pressed to find a better option for lighting up your makeshift basketball court.
Read - Incandescent bulbs stage comeback
Read - GE Energy Smart bulbs
posted Jul 8th 2009 at 9:51AM
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Adderz @ Jul 8th 2009 10:04AM
I miss incandescent. The hole in the ozone is totally worth the lovely warm yellow glow they gave. Im sick of this hospital white glow the energy savers give off urgh.
Im certainly missing the price too, 99c has now transformed into $6 a bulb. They last longer but dim over time which is totally not cool.
Ill tell my grandkids about the days we had incandescents....
Look_Around_You @ Jul 8th 2009 10:10AM
Stock up on them ASAP before il douche, and the CON-gress mandate them out of existence.
wjousts @ Jul 8th 2009 10:21AM
What do incandescents have to do with the hole in the ozone layer? Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about.
Izzy @ Jul 8th 2009 10:51AM
It's about energy consumption, not the ozone.
@Look_Around_You WTF are you talking about? Your fascist government passed the law over a year ago.
NHAnimator @ Jul 8th 2009 11:16AM
"let's just say that said tech has seen 50 percent efficiency gains in the lab, which is more than enough to please even the most outspoken tree hugger in Washington"
Uh, no. Nothing but sitting in the dark will please the Washington Treehugger.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jul 8th 2009 11:26AM
You're choosing the wrong CFLs. If you want the super-yellow light of incandescent, you can buy them at Home Depot, n:Vision makes their CFLs in 3 colors, one of which is at least as yellow as incandescent. And they last well and are cheap (not as cheap as incandescent though).
Loonie @ Jul 8th 2009 11:34AM
NHAnimator - Do you mean physically, or metaphorically?
elBravo @ Jul 8th 2009 11:36AM
@NHAnimator:
This would most definitely NOT please the Washington tree-huggers... Are you sitting in the dark in your house? constructed by materials of mass production? Or perhaps you are outside in the wilderness, where just your presence has the effect to affect the usual mating habits of those creatures around you, thus creating an unnatural man-made wilderness. Basic rule of thumb... Washington tree-huggers can never be pleased.
And yea, I used effect and affect in the same sentence. What, want to fight about it?
GeekPI @ Jul 8th 2009 1:22PM
I think it's funny the argument people make against CFL's and their 'look.' It's been proven beyond a doubt that in blind testing, "CFL haters" will always vote for the color rendition and quality of light of a CFL above a standard incandescent.
Don't believe me? Popular Mechanics did a fairly extensive study with 7 brands of CFL against a high quality incandescent, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the CFLs won by a mile, every time.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/home_journal/home_improvement/4215199.html
There are a number of legitimate reasons to criticize CFL's (warm up, extreme temp operation, dimming & vibration), however the visual quality of the modern CFL is not one of them.
keithwwalker @ Jul 8th 2009 3:19PM
Stanley Kubrick would of loved the cold sterile LED lights!
Bill @ Jul 8th 2009 3:50PM
HA-HA you believe in junk science!
craig @ Jul 8th 2009 5:12PM
"It's been proven beyond a doubt that in blind testing, "CFL haters" will always vote for the color rendition and quality of light of a CFL above a standard incandescent."
No it hasn't, not by a country mile.
The test you referenced is garbage testing from a garbage publication. Here's how they described their color testing...
"To gather objective data, we used a Konica Minolta CL-200 chroma meter to measure color temperature and brightness ... Our subjective data came from a double-blind test with three PM staffers and Jesse Smith, a lighting expert from Parsons The New School for Design, in Manhattan. We put our participants in a color-neutral room and asked them to examine colorful objects, faces and reading material, then rate the bulbs’ performance."
The color meter they used is incapable of measuring CRI. Without knowing CRI, color temperature measurements cannot be compared. No objective color rendering measurements were performed and incandescent lighting, as a group, is substantially superior to fluorescent in CRI. It's objectively measurable; no double-blind testing is needed.
As for your claim that "CFL haters" will always choose CFL lighting, that's preposterous. The test used only 4 testers with precious little to characterize their qualifications or preferences. Your claim is as close to a lie as it can be.
I am a CFL hater and that's because I understand color rendering, not just pretend to. Even ignoring that huge difference, CFLs are incompatible with many light switches. I'd rather have true quality of light and a device that doesn't destroy my dimmer and blink incessantly when it should be off. For the pennies it costs, it's a no-brainer.
Alex @ Jul 8th 2009 10:08AM
I'll switch over once they stop making them look like jet engines.
Loonie @ Jul 8th 2009 11:10AM
Seriously? I want them to look MORE like jet engines. Jet engines are cool.
Jamus @ Jul 8th 2009 10:12AM
$129 in CyberGuys catalog for a 60wt-equivalent LED bulb for household use. Crazy. I wonder how long I would have to use that bulb to break even on energy costs? I would like to try some out, but the price point for ALL LED bulbs I have seen is just waaaaaay too high.
On a similar note, it was decided our building would "Go Green!" and switch to a new type of lighting. It was not researched well at all. They are still fluorescent tube lights, but they emit a hideous pink tint. To counteract it, workers were bringing in lamps from home which just made the energy costs go up higher than if they had left the old style fluorescents in place. I am about ready to go back to whale oil lanterns at this point...
sid @ Jul 8th 2009 10:14AM
Anyone find a CFL or LED lightbulb that doesn't make everything look green or purple? Once they figure that out i might consider switching from incandescents.
Xenoterranos @ Jul 8th 2009 10:24AM
Yeah, look for CFL's that say "warm", and try to stay away from daylight bulbs (around 4500K instead of 6500K) You'll have to find a K number (color "temperature") that you like the best. I've got a 100 watt equivalent (6500K - Cool daylight) over a 9 gallon fish tank that's roughly equal in color and intensity to the sun. Makes the plants grow something fierce.
Phillips makes some good bulbs, but they can be pricey. I experimented with high output LED's but couldn't scale up to any meaningful light output without exponential cost increases. The cost comes from the need for voltage regulators and ac-dc power converters, not to mention the need for heat dissipation. (Heat will murder an LED faster than anything).
Adderz @ Jul 8th 2009 10:32AM
You should be a lightbulb salesman.
Kevin @ Jul 8th 2009 10:37AM
I love "daylight" or "full spectrum" CFLs. They are even better than daylight incandescents, in my opinion. It looks like a window is open.
kjb434 @ Jul 8th 2009 10:50AM
Just give me what works - Incandescent Light Bulbs!
I can afford the energy costs, so let me use it. The planet is not going anywhere.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jul 8th 2009 11:29AM
read my post above. Look at the n:Visions at Home Depot. They have 3 colors, I'd recommend getting the two warmest colors (lowest color temperature), skip the daylight one, it's the bluest. Then try them out, see if you like either of them.
They have good color temperature but color rendition is still not as good as incandescent, so you may not be able to use them in bathrooms, etc.
The warmest n:Vision will definitely not appear green to you, you might think it's too orange in fact.
NHAnimator @ Jul 8th 2009 12:58PM
"I've got a 100 watt equivalent (6500K - Cool daylight) over a 9 gallon fish tank that's roughly equal in color and intensity to the sun. Makes the plants grow something fierce."
If it's roughly equal in intensity to the sun, I would expect it would do more to the plants than make them grow. I'm thinking char.
Bill @ Jul 8th 2009 3:53PM
When the sun goes down, it's time for some luvin'. As a moderate Amishman, our lights are fusion powered and go off every day at around dusk.
Hackettman @ Jul 8th 2009 10:19AM
Ive been using these im my company for about 4 months and I have to say theyre useful. But theyre very much a spot and GE hasnt come up with a flood version. Also they get incredibly hot on the back end of that heatsink. Theres a big retrofit market out there and GE is somewhere in it. But there are FAR better competitors.
Nelson @ Jul 8th 2009 10:36AM
The problem is that to get more of a flood, you need to use some agressive diffusors. This cuts down on the efficiency, and increases heat (which cuts down on life).
You're better off looking at the LLF LED product (From Cree)
Of use the CFL fixtures from my company (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV5OZGfzTSc)
We can save you $10-$40 a year per fixture over LED -- Total ownership cost.
SuitCase @ Jul 8th 2009 11:09AM
Your language ("obituraries were penned") is way too similar to the nytimes article. I read this blog entry and immediately noticed the similarity to the article which I had read a few days ago. You should be more careful in case others have noticed.
shamowfski @ Jul 8th 2009 10:47AM
Yeah, I constantly find myself worrying about the aesthetic quality of my lightbulbs. Keeps me up at night even.
Randall Lind @ Jul 8th 2009 10:54AM
The reason I never brought LED lights is because it doesn't tell you if the oupuut is 60, 75 or 100 watts. It says uses 10 watts but not how bright it is.
Suijin @ Jul 8th 2009 12:55PM
You are looking for the unit called Lumens. Incandescents waste most of their watts (by most I mean 90-95%) on heat not actual visible light.
greatsunjester @ Jul 8th 2009 10:57AM
I tried a LED 'bulb' and it really was a poor light source. The LEDs are to focused to provide area light.
On the other hand, I have replaced all of the CFC bulbs in my kitchen track lighting with LED bulbs. The light is instant on, clean 'white' light and fantastic. With 6 cans on the track, I could be using 6x75 watt normal bulbs for 450 watts of usable light, 6x13 watts of CFC bulbs for 78 watts (360 watts equivilant... not) of poor quality light or my current 6x3 watt usage for perfectly usable and clean light.
For the right purpose, LED lights are great.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Jul 8th 2009 11:31AM
I'm glad to see there might still be incandescent bulbs after the mandate. It never was an attempt to get rid of incandescent, just an attempt to make lighting more efficient. If incandescent can meet the efficiency requirements, there's no reason it shouldn't stick around. Although personally I use mostly CFLs now.
Ed T @ Jul 8th 2009 11:34AM
LEDs need a power converter circuit to run off of the AC lines. This power converter is about 85% efficient (on a good day), so 15% of the input energy is immediately wasted as heat. The LEDs themselves are only 25% efficient, so another chunk of input energy gets converted to heat. That is why these "bulbs" have the huge aluminum heat sinks.
The most efficient lamp for converting electrical energy to light is a long-bulb fluorescent.
Xenoterranos @ Jul 8th 2009 12:38PM
You're mostly correct. LED's that can withstand wattages high enough to make them useful for general lighting create light at about 25% the efficiency of a flourescent, but at lower power, they can be even more efficient (Which, I'll admit, is a moot point). But that's not to say that they're "only 25% efficient at converting electricity to light".
Everything else was spot on. They do produce a lot of heat for their small size (another reason I tend to stick to CFL's for my fishtanks - CFL's don't require heatsinks and fans :)
StevenJ @ Jul 8th 2009 2:00PM
Don't worry - that's next on the list. The 12-24VDC standard will be replacing your numerous wasteful AC converters to save on energy losses. The need for AC will remain for a long time, but most track lighting and small appliances already run on DC with converters built into them. As for LED bulbs, they are just emerging onto the home market. CFL's have been around for a lot longer, and they are just hitting the mainstream as the prices have come down.
birder @ Jul 8th 2009 11:43AM
One thing that has been apparent for many years now is drastic environmental changes only come about from government mandated regulations being imposed on the corporations. It's amazing what gets invented/released to the public when they are forced. On the flip side, it's amazing what gets squashed when corporations pay off the legislators when don't feel like changing.
drgreenthumb1001 @ Jul 25th 2009 1:28PM
Whatever you say fascist. People who suck from the gvt teet disgust me. Hey, lunatic, maybe you should read a book about how politicized science has ruined countries and killed millions. Heres one, its called State of Fear, or try reading anything on Eugenics.
Public opinion can make things change, we dont always need forced gvt coersion.
Take this whole Global Warming thing, most climatologists think its happening, but numerous other scientists around the globe, including one guy in the EPA who had his report squashed, and even now NASA is saying its not happening. So, before we have 100% for sure-edness, right now policy is being written bases solely on scientific consensus and not scienitific fact, we have a bill just passed called Cap and Trade that is being written by non-scientists with politicized agendas, passing on tax hikes and costs that will make us, the consumer pay even more.
I mean bulbs are expensive as hell now, thanks to Congress and politicized science.
Loonie @ Jul 9th 2009 12:30AM
Global warming is caused by fire pixies flapping their wings really hard, right drgreenthumb1001?
kam @ Jul 8th 2009 12:24PM
Don't call it a come back
They've been here for years...
socalsol @ Jul 8th 2009 1:30PM
Engadgeters play basketball?
Xepol @ Jul 8th 2009 2:26PM
From GE's site: "so it’s a perfect replacement if you can reduce your light levels"
Uh, is it me or does that read more like: "uses a lot less power, much like staggering around in the dark - except you give us money!"
I'm just saying....
LeeL @ Jul 8th 2009 2:33PM
I am definitely Interested in some LEDs but they need to start listing color temp like CFLs finally started doing. The blue light from most so called white LEDs is fine for a flaslight but way too harsh for home use. Cree/LLF has some nice warm lights but until the industry starts using real numbers I will not buy something I can't see first.
John Stracke @ Jul 8th 2009 3:11PM
"50 percent efficiency gains in the lab, which is more than enough to please even the most outspoken tree hugger in Washington" -- This statement makes no sense.
If you take a 60W bulb, and improve its efficiency by 50%, you're producing the same amount of light with 40W. (Yes, 40, not 30--efficiency is the inverse of the energy used.) But you can get the same amount of light with a 7W CFL. From a tree hugger's perspective, this is definitely not an improvement.
craig @ Jul 8th 2009 5:19PM
"From a tree hugger's perspective, this is definitely not an improvement."
Wow, for someone so pedantic with regards to percentages it's amazing how willfully incorrect you are with your own statements.
Samboini @ Jul 8th 2009 3:25PM
shamowfski, you'll find it is easier to get to sleep when you turn the lights off.
ecco6t9 @ Jul 8th 2009 7:20PM
CFL's are junk they burnout just fast as the real light bulbs, the few I've used went right into trash can after they died.
Why should I pay someone to "recycle" it when 99% of these companies just ship everything to 3rd world countries.
daryl_hauser56 @ Jul 8th 2009 9:00PM
pis on green peas!
daryl_hauser56 @ Jul 8th 2009 9:15PM
John, As an electrician,, We changed out the old silver ended T-12s for some green ended T-10s, guess what, the "enviromentally" (not miss spelled) friendly burnt out twice as fast! They also cost more.
daryl_hauser56 @ Jul 8th 2009 9:13PM
John, you also forgot to mention the large energy spike that is consumed if these cfls are turn off and on like normal light bulbs.
Loonie @ Jul 9th 2009 12:53AM
Daryl - They probably didn't mention it because most normal people leave their lights on for more than ten seconds, which is more than enough time to negate the spike of which you speak.
Patty @ Jul 9th 2009 12:24AM
I hope someone can explain this to me.. if CLF's are supposed to be better.. then why are these articles written?
1- To Little, To Late -
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080326103035.aspx
2. The dark side of energy efficient bulbs -
http://www.phillyfuture.org/node/5297/
3- Fluorescent Light Bulb Warning-
http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind1.htm