Energy-efficient light bulbs should focus on being efficient producers of light « Blog

Energy-efficient light bulbs should focus on being efficient producers of light « Blog » Rants

· posted by: Lev [ view all "Blog" items by Lev ]

» posted on 13:08 - 24 September 2009 | posted by Lev

» last modified on 13:11 - 24 September 2009 | last modified by Lev

They suck!

There, I said it.

Energy efficient light bulbs... everyone has heard the term, and probably most of us even have switched from our old energy wasting light bulbs to the newer "environmentally aware" cousins. Well, all of us have probably heard about just how "efficient" they are, while all of us have probably also wondered how true it can be when we see the obvious noticeable difference with our own eyes.

And if you're anything like me (distrusting everyone and everything around you), you may even begin to wonder if this is all some scam against every consumer worldwide, simply to hawk a new product at, and justify, and in fact encourage it, by stating it's good for the environment.

Yeah, I know, less energy being wasted is good for the environment, but you know what's even more effective than energy-bulbs? No bulbs at all!

If you understand the irony in that statement, then I think you are getting onto my point now...

You see, the term "efficiency" does not automatically assume something has been sacrificed. In fact, one could argue this isn't efficiency at all; just a sacrifice. For something to be "efficient" it needs to do all of (or in the sense here: both of) the various aspects surprisingly well. But "energy bulbs" don't.

Granted they consume significantly less energy; they also produce significantly less light.

Thus, one could argue nothing efficient is even going on. You're simply getting much less because you're putting less in. That's not efficiency; it's just a sacrifice.

I'm sure every single person who has used energy bulbs has thought to themselves one of the following:

1) wow, that took a little longer than I thought to turn on
2) doesn't that seem dimmer to you
3) how long does it take to reach its full effect

I performed an interesting test today to see if the claimed wattage effect of these energy bulbs was in fact what was claimed. From my testing, I've learned that energy bulbs simply do NOT produce anywhere near the same level of light as non-energy efficient bulbs do.

For my test I used one of those gadgets that tells you a plant's moisture level in the soil, it's PH level - and what's relevant here - the amount of light it receives. You could probably do this same experiment with various other gadgets and tools - it just needs a photon-detector, with a meter to understand what it finds.

In this experiment I used three different light bulbs:

- 60 Watt old-school bulb (day white / active)
- 60 Watt old-school bulb (relaxing / yellow)
- 11 Watt (claimed 60 Watt effect) energy efficient bulb

There was an incredible difference between the amount of light detected from the energy bulb and the non-energy bulbs. As I held the meter about 6 inches from the light bulb, the meter indicator would go as far to the right as it possibly could - when using the non-energy efficient bulbs. Actually, I was expecting a bit of a difference between the white light and the yellow light, but both of these bulbs produced nearly identical results.

The new, energy efficient bulb, yielded completely different results. For one, I made sure to leave the lamp on for a good minute before measuring (as we all know, energy bulbs can take a long time before they even reach their maximum effect). After a bit over a minute, I started measuring, and I was blown away, because it was like comparing an apple to an orange. When holding the light detector basically one inch from the light bulb, the meter's indicator was only 1/5 - 2/5 to the right, whereas with the old school bulbs it was as far to the right as the meter would allow.

So here's where I tie this whole stupid rant together... You can't expect people who have been accustomed to something for generations and generations, just to make a quick trade-in, for something which does not work as well. It's understandable for governments and social institutions to encourage and in fact, disallow the use of older technologies when newer ones are present that have all the angles addressed. Our current generation of energy efficient light bulbs are still nowhere near that point. They really seem like more of a trade-off than anything, which is not what they are portrayed to be. We are all told that they are just as effective, but I think anyone of us who have ever spent a good deal of time around these lights know that's a damn lie. If we are to fully make the transition from energy wasters to energy savers, then we need to focus on the how well it works, and not just the energy usage.

The light produced by energy bulbs is NOT equal to, or even in the same range of light produced by energy wasters. I love the environment, and I don't want us all to damn our future by using ineffective and obsolete technologies, but before we are to move forward with a technology, we need to ensure that we are not sacrificing something we had before that technology came along (namely: decent light). So please, let's not kid ourselves. We can do this if we really want to cut back on our energy consumption, but for the love of it all, can this nonsense that they are just as effective please cease now?

I've got high hopes for LEDs. After tinkering with them for a while, I suspect they may actually be far more efficient (because they consume little energy *AND* produce vibrant light ).

"Energy bulbs" only do one of those, and for that reason I can't call them efficient.