4 ms·

Unfortunately there are also plenty of bar owners who are voting for carbon filament incandescents with their wallets. They are even less efficient than tungste

by carlob 13y ago

Unfortunately there are also plenty of bar owners who are voting for carbon filament incandescents with their wallets. They are even less efficient than tungsten, they last less and the glass gets black from soot, but they look oh so hipster.

melling 13y ago
I'm not saying that everyone has to lead the way, but that if enough people do then progress continues at a faster pace. 4k monitors will be commonplace in 3-8 years, for instance. The rate of early adoption will determine how fast companies invest in them.
- carlob 13y ago
  I wasn't being sarcastic, I for one think that incandescents should be banned (and I think they have been in several countries). The reason that has to happen sooner rather than later is not progress for progress' sake IMHO, but the environmental damage inefficient obsolete tech causes.
  - Dylan16807 13y ago
    Why should they be banned? Why should people not be allowed to waste electricity and glass? We don't have shortages of either, and by melling's argument doesn't dumping money into electrical generation encourage advances there, the same way that dumping money into LED leads to LED advances? Basically: If you want people to use less power, then increase the price or ration it. Don't ban an unrelated technology. If you want people to use less glass, haha are you kidding me, glass is made of dirt and easy to recycle. Is there any harm caused by incandescent bulbs specifically that I have somehow missed?
    - twistedpair 13y ago
      > glass is made of dirt Close. It's actually made from silica sand, soda ash and lime.
    - afreak 13y ago
      By your logic, we should have not banned CFCs in household goods but instead made them more expensive. The reason for why we want to have energy efficiencies is simply because we only have to produce so much more electricity to power everything else. We have not reached a point where nuclear, solar, or wind is cheaper by the MW than coal and as a result we'll continue to build those for the foreseeable future. Banning inefficient and obsolete light bulbs will prevent us from needing to burn more coal and other harmful fuels. If we didn't have this problem with electricity generation then banning something may become less desirable.
      - tedunangst 13y ago
        By your logic, we should have not banned CFCs in household goods but instead made them more expensive. Lots of people would agree with that or the point in general that financial penalties work better. Legislation should mandate results, not dictate methods.
        mjn 13y ago
        Are there any studies on how effective each method is? It seems fairly complex, depending on how good the methods being dictated are, how price-sensitive consumers are (and how well-informed about what costs/saves money), costs of switching, in some cases economies of scale, etc. The conventional wisdom here (Denmark) has been that a mixture of the two achieves best results: a high tax on energy to provide an across-the-board untargeted price incentive, plus specific targeted regulations aiming at cutting out the largest sources of inefficiency and encouraging economies of scale in more efficient technologies. So for example district heating is now mandatory if you're in an area where it's available (no furnaces in new construction), and this seems to have been quite effective in increasing its adoption, which in turn makes it easier to build efficient district-heating networks and cogenerating power plants, since there is a dense customer base.
        tedunangst 13y ago
        I don't know specifically. I do know that all of the "alternate fuel" tax credits are a giant scam. How does spraying kerosene on coal make it clean? No clue, but the government will pay you to do it if you say it's alternative.
- iSnow 13y ago
  For a lot of us, CFL is not progress but simply inferior to incandescent.
  - _delirium 13y ago
    In what way? I used to think that when I first tried them ~6 years ago, and switched back to incandescent. But I tried again ~2 years ago, and now I can't tell the difference between a name-brand CFL and an incandescent bulb. Visually appears to have the same color temperature, no flicker, instant-on brightness. I'm sure there are still low-quality off-brand CFLs that take time to get to full brightness, but it's been years since that was true of the good ones. The only cases where I don't see a CFL replacement yet are decorative clear lamps where the filament being visible is part of the aesthetic.
    - iSnow 13y ago
      * To me, they just look dark. A 60W-equiv rated CFL is never as bright as a 60W incandescent, more like 40W when new. * There are notable gaps in the spectrum causing color distortions. CFL light mostly features a greenish or violet shade and looks "hollow". Tungsten and halogen are way better, even after 20 years of CFL development. * Most, even the more expensive ones are not really instant-on. They reach their max brightness after some time * As I regularly switch off lights in rooms that are empty, they tend to fail rather fast.
      - tsotha 13y ago
        That last one is the killer for me. CFLs don't get anything like their rated lifespan unless you leave them on all the time. In my experience they burn out faster than incandescents.
maw 13y ago
Let's not say that the look "oh so hipster." Instead, let's say they look "oh so not in a bad dystopian movie."

by carlob 13y ago

melling 13y ago

I'm not saying that everyone has to lead the way, but that if enough people do then progress continues at a faster pace. 4k monitors will be commonplace in 3-8 years, for instance. The rate of early adoption will determine how fast companies invest in them.

carlob 13y ago
I wasn't being sarcastic, I for one think that incandescents should be banned (and I think they have been in several countries). The reason that has to happen sooner rather than later is not progress for progress' sake IMHO, but the environmental damage inefficient obsolete tech causes.
- Dylan16807 13y ago
  Why should they be banned? Why should people not be allowed to waste electricity and glass? We don't have shortages of either, and by melling's argument doesn't dumping money into electrical generation encourage advances there, the same way that dumping money into LED leads to LED advances? Basically: If you want people to use less power, then increase the price or ration it. Don't ban an unrelated technology. If you want people to use less glass, haha are you kidding me, glass is made of dirt and easy to recycle. Is there any harm caused by incandescent bulbs specifically that I have somehow missed?
  - twistedpair 13y ago
    > glass is made of dirt Close. It's actually made from silica sand, soda ash and lime.
  - afreak 13y ago
    By your logic, we should have not banned CFCs in household goods but instead made them more expensive. The reason for why we want to have energy efficiencies is simply because we only have to produce so much more electricity to power everything else. We have not reached a point where nuclear, solar, or wind is cheaper by the MW than coal and as a result we'll continue to build those for the foreseeable future. Banning inefficient and obsolete light bulbs will prevent us from needing to burn more coal and other harmful fuels. If we didn't have this problem with electricity generation then banning something may become less desirable.
    - tedunangst 13y ago
      By your logic, we should have not banned CFCs in household goods but instead made them more expensive. Lots of people would agree with that or the point in general that financial penalties work better. Legislation should mandate results, not dictate methods.
      - mjn 13y ago
        Are there any studies on how effective each method is? It seems fairly complex, depending on how good the methods being dictated are, how price-sensitive consumers are (and how well-informed about what costs/saves money), costs of switching, in some cases economies of scale, etc. The conventional wisdom here (Denmark) has been that a mixture of the two achieves best results: a high tax on energy to provide an across-the-board untargeted price incentive, plus specific targeted regulations aiming at cutting out the largest sources of inefficiency and encouraging economies of scale in more efficient technologies. So for example district heating is now mandatory if you're in an area where it's available (no furnaces in new construction), and this seems to have been quite effective in increasing its adoption, which in turn makes it easier to build efficient district-heating networks and cogenerating power plants, since there is a dense customer base.
        tedunangst 13y ago
        I don't know specifically. I do know that all of the "alternate fuel" tax credits are a giant scam. How does spraying kerosene on coal make it clean? No clue, but the government will pay you to do it if you say it's alternative.
iSnow 13y ago
For a lot of us, CFL is not progress but simply inferior to incandescent.
- _delirium 13y ago
  In what way? I used to think that when I first tried them ~6 years ago, and switched back to incandescent. But I tried again ~2 years ago, and now I can't tell the difference between a name-brand CFL and an incandescent bulb. Visually appears to have the same color temperature, no flicker, instant-on brightness. I'm sure there are still low-quality off-brand CFLs that take time to get to full brightness, but it's been years since that was true of the good ones. The only cases where I don't see a CFL replacement yet are decorative clear lamps where the filament being visible is part of the aesthetic.
  - iSnow 13y ago
    * To me, they just look dark. A 60W-equiv rated CFL is never as bright as a 60W incandescent, more like 40W when new. * There are notable gaps in the spectrum causing color distortions. CFL light mostly features a greenish or violet shade and looks "hollow". Tungsten and halogen are way better, even after 20 years of CFL development. * Most, even the more expensive ones are not really instant-on. They reach their max brightness after some time * As I regularly switch off lights in rooms that are empty, they tend to fail rather fast.
    - tsotha 13y ago
      That last one is the killer for me. CFLs don't get anything like their rated lifespan unless you leave them on all the time. In my experience they burn out faster than incandescents.

maw 13y ago

Let's not say that the look "oh so hipster." Instead, let's say they look "oh so not in a bad dystopian movie."