This is Progress.

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

This is Progress.

Post by Diogenes »

Not Fusion, but progress on the more efficient use of Energy.


Sylvania takes on 60-watt bulb with LED light

http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-20004 ... riesArea.1

Damon Hill
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Auburn, WA

Post by Damon Hill »

At around $40 a lamp, it's hard to see any benefit recovered from the investment. Prices will have to come down to CFL levels for me to begin to be interested.

And precisely how efficient are these LED lamps compared to incandescent and CFL?

Skipjack
Posts: 6104
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 2:29 pm

Post by Skipjack »

And precisely how efficient are these LED lamps compared to incandescent and CFL?
And precisely how much more energy does it take to produce them?

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

Damon Hill wrote:And precisely how efficient are these LED lamps compared to incandescent and CFL?
Five times more efficient - 12W versus 60W. But note this cationary tale
Skipjack wrote:
And precisely how efficient are these LED lamps compared to incandescent and CFL?
And precisely how much more energy does it take to produce them?
As long as the cost is less than 12 times, then costs are fairly comperable - excluding the time-cost-of-money.

For someone running off grid, these may provide significant cost savings in the sizing of solar arrays and batteries.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Damon Hill wrote:At around $40 a lamp, it's hard to see any benefit recovered from the investment. Prices will have to come down to CFL levels for me to begin to be interested.

And precisely how efficient are these LED lamps compared to incandescent and CFL?

I've been occasionally involved with LED Lens assemblies for Traffic Signal lights. When these were first being marketed, the initial cost was $400.00 per unit. (vs $1.00 for a traffic signal grade incandescent lamp) You could only get them in Red, as Amber and Green wasn't available at that time.

At $400.00 per unit, an LED lens assembly would never pay for itself. Fortunately, Liberal idiot cities who have no common sense whatsoever, using tax payer money, started ordering massive quantities of these things, and as a result of the laws of supply and demand, more companies got into the business to take advantage of these suckers, and through economies of scale, new technology, and competition, the prices for a Standard Red LED assembly (Made by General Electric e.g.) are now around $50.00, and as a result, they will recover their cost within 3-4 years (@ $0.10/KWH) and start saving money thereafter.


LEDs are also making serious headway in the area of Radio Tower/Water tower lighting systems. All OB-1 fixtures are now around $120.00 per, and the OB-2 fixtures are now being produced with LEDs as well, though those are still fairly new.

With Radio towers, the LEDs pay for themselves virtually the same day they are installed. When a high durability incandescent lamp may cost $1.00 and last 4 years, it will cost you at least $200.00 to hire someone to climb up the tower and replace it. Not to mention the possible fines from the FAA\FCC if you fail to maintain the tower lights properly, and God help you if an aircraft hits your tower due to an obstruction light failure.


I guess my long winded point is, yeah, the initial cost may make them not truly viable, but if past experience is any guide, the feel goodism from eco minded people buying them will ramp up the demand, and then the same factors that occurred in the Traffic Signal LED lens assemblies will also apply to the 60watt incandescent home use lamps.

The progress part is that they are finally available in the market, at a not too excessive price.

Damon Hill
Posts: 15
Joined: Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Auburn, WA

Post by Damon Hill »

I was a relatively early embracer of CFL technology in my home, and happier as the price came down and "daylight" CFLs became available. I figured on cutting power use by two-thirds, and it also helped in summer in some rooms by the reduction of radiated heat.

However...I wasn't quite as happy with their reliability, especially in enclosed fixtures where the heat quickly killed many of them. Getting a real return on investment seems marginal and there's plenty of room for better technology CFL--probably in electronic ballasts with non-electrolytic caps and other high-temp parts. Heat really does kill these things as with a lot of electronics. There must be hi-rel CFL product lines? (I can hardly speculate on the power factor in dozens of these units in my home, but I hope there's at least a nod to such correction.)

I hope LED lamps will be more robust. What I've seen of them so far appears to be rather directional, however. Good for spot lighting but not so good for general illumination.

Diogenes
Posts: 6958
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 3:33 pm

Post by Diogenes »

Damon Hill wrote:I was a relatively early embracer of CFL technology in my home, and happier as the price came down and "daylight" CFLs became available. I figured on cutting power use by two-thirds, and it also helped in summer in some rooms by the reduction of radiated heat.


However...I wasn't quite as happy with their reliability, especially in enclosed fixtures where the heat quickly killed many of them. Getting a real return on investment seems marginal and there's plenty of room for better technology CFL--probably in electronic ballasts with non-electrolytic caps and other high-temp parts. Heat really does kill these things as with a lot of electronics. There must be hi-rel CFL product lines? (I can hardly speculate on the power factor in dozens of these units in my home, but I hope there's at least a nod to such correction.)

I originally welcomed the Idea of Compact Florescent lamps, but my experience with them mirrors yours. They just didn't last very long. Besides that, It was eventually pointed out that the quantity of mercury contained in each one is sufficient to render whatever room it happens to break in, above what is considered a safe hazard level for mercury contamination.

In other words, they are a potential threat to the health of anyone in the room if they break.

That alone sealed it for me. I got rid of all of them, and I won't have one.


Damon Hill wrote: I hope LED lamps will be more robust. What I've seen of them so far appears to be rather directional, however. Good for spot lighting but not so good for general illumination.

More robust I do not doubt. Whether they produce a sufficiently diffuse light is really the only question. Even so, they have got to be an improvement on CFLs.

Scupperer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon May 05, 2008 3:31 pm
Location: Huntsville, AL
Contact:

Post by Scupperer »

Incandescents aren't dead:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/39362

I can't find a better article on it right now, though I've read that GE is currently industrializing the technique and expect to have them on the market before 2012. There's also a new coating for glass that's supposed to enhance the efficiency as well.

They won't be as efficient or long lived as CFL, but they'll be cheaper and efficient enough to meet the new minimum standards.

The LED's currently available in mass production (Sam's Club is where I've seen them) aren't indoor quality yet, imho, but I've replaced my outdoor lights with them.
Perrin Ehlinger

JLawson
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

Regarding CFLs and the mercury hazard -

I realize the thinking on that is based on a precautionary principle, but is there any actual evidence that busting a CFL without a hazmat team on hand is really dangerous, or is it a case of "Mercury! Deadly! Flee for your lives!" thinking?
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

BenTC
Posts: 410
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:54 am

Post by BenTC »

JLawson wrote:Regarding CFLs and the mercury hazard -

I realize the thinking on that is based on a precautionary principle, but is there any actual evidence that busting a CFL without a hazmat team on hand is really dangerous, or is it a case of "Mercury! Deadly! Flee for your lives!" thinking?
Its perhaps more a concern when they all eventually end up in landfill.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

Helius
Posts: 465
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:48 pm
Location: Syracuse, New York

Post by Helius »

JLawson wrote:Regarding CFLs and the mercury hazard -

I realize the thinking on that is based on a precautionary principle, but is there any actual evidence that busting a CFL without a hazmat team on hand is really dangerous, or is it a case of "Mercury! Deadly! Flee for your lives!" thinking?
Just don't put 'em in your burn barrel, or throw them in the lake. Land fill them. The "half life" of Mercury is a uh... Long time.

MSimon
Posts: 14332
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:37 pm
Location: Rockford, Illinois
Contact:

Post by MSimon »

I originally welcomed the Idea of Compact Florescent lamps, but my experience with them mirrors yours. They just didn't last very long.
I must be doing something wrong. I generally get 10,000 to 20,000 hours out of generic (Home Depot/Lowes) CFLs. Relatively continuous use though.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.

Giorgio
Posts: 2772
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: China, Italy

Post by Giorgio »

MSimon wrote:
I originally welcomed the Idea of Compact Florescent lamps, but my experience with them mirrors yours. They just didn't last very long.
I must be doing something wrong. I generally get 10,000 to 20,000 hours out of generic (Home Depot/Lowes) CFLs. Relatively continuous use though.
Nothing wrong, the point is exactly that you are making a continuous use.

Most of the CFLs suffer from frequent ON/OFF cycles, and manufacturers generally specify this on the packaging.

Nominal life for commercial CFL I usually purchase (OSRAM) is stated to be 10.000 standard Cycles (with 1 standard Cycle being 165 minutes ON / 15 Minutes OFF).
Until now my personal experience has bees of 6-7 years for the external CFLs that I normally turn on only once in the start of night and OFF in the start of day, and 3-4 years for the internal CFLs that are turned ON/OFF several time during the day.

Lately I have started to see improved models with nominal life of 500.000 Cycles, but their price is still too much high in respect to the standard CFL.

JLawson
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 6:31 pm
Location: Georgia
Contact:

Post by JLawson »

Helius wrote:
JLawson wrote:Regarding CFLs and the mercury hazard -

I realize the thinking on that is based on a precautionary principle, but is there any actual evidence that busting a CFL without a hazmat team on hand is really dangerous, or is it a case of "Mercury! Deadly! Flee for your lives!" thinking?
Just don't put 'em in your burn barrel, or throw them in the lake. Land fill them. The "half life" of Mercury is a uh... Long time.
Wait a sec - mercury's got a half-life?!? :shock: :D

I was thinking about feeding the used CFLs to snail darters and spotted owls, but I guess I'll pass on that...

There's a number of dentists in the local area advertising the removal of mercury amalgam fillings - wonder if they're registered as toxic waste dumps?

I like the idea of LED lighting, but the price sure isn't there yet, and there's little to no discernable difference in how much energy is saved. 100 watts worth for 15 watts might be enough to make me switch from incandescents to CFLs, since the cost is less that $5 a bulb at this point - but an extra 1 watt/hour savings isn't enough to get me to toss $40 out on an LED bulb, even if it's got a high coolness factor. (Which, at least for me, it does...)
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.

D Tibbets
Posts: 2775
Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 6:52 am

Post by D Tibbets »

Playing with some numbers-

Assumptions: Electricity cost= $0.1/ Kwh
Lifetime: incandescent light bulb = 1000 hr
CFL = 10,000 hr
LED = 100,000 hrs
Cost per bulb: incandesant $0.50
CFL $ 5
LED $50



Incandescent light bulb at 60 watts x 100 bulbs for 100,000 hrs. = $50 bulb cost + $600 electric cost (6,000 Kwh).

CFL at 15 watts x 10 bulbs for 100,000 hrs. = $50 bulb cost + $150 electricity cost (1500 Kwh).

LED at 5 watts X 1 bulb for 100,000 hrs*. = $50 bulb cost + $50 electricity cost (500 Kwh).

The numbers may vary, but in the long term the LEDs offer considerable savings. Confounding factors include electricity costs, conservation priorities, variation in duty cycles, ambient temperature (incandescent bulbs are more/less economical if you consider their positive contribution to heating a home in winter or their negative contribution to cooling a home in summer), other techicnical improvements in incandesent bulbs as mentioned earlier, and variation in the cost per bulb (if you wait two years the potential decrease in the cost of LEDs may outweigh the electrical cost of sticking with incandescent bulbs for two more years).

*Small flashight LEDs have been rated at 100,000 hrs. I don't know how the more powerful LEDS will compare, or the effect of many duty cycles.

Dan Tibbets
To error is human... and I'm very human.

Post Reply