Incandescent lamps

[living sounds]

An interesting aspect are the spectre of different light sources. CFL are the worst, with massive peaks in a few places, while incadescents are the most even. LEDs are somewhere in the middle, and there are ways to get a more even spectrum:

https://www.led-professional.com/re...ent-pigmented-glazes-by-light-spectrum-glazes

 

[living sounds]

Analog Packrat seems to have responded on my behalf and I will try not to repeat the points he picked up.

However, as you have also said it is indeed not the whole story, as that is a very light weight and pleasingly written report. There are good entry level information and I actually have saved it, but it does not go nowhere deep enough. Particularly end of life cycle. How much energy is used in incinerating the waste? I am not talking about only the fuel for the furnaces here but the peripheral support to incineration. Sifting, sorting, vehicles, offices, staff, maintenance and so on.

A big however, the report claims;

' The life cycle assessment proves that LED lamps are amongst the most environmentally friendly lighting products '.

Really? We shall see that.

Just to state again that I am not questioning the energy efficiency here. I am not that stupid. I am merely trying to discuss whether the amount of energy we save is worth the amount of waste generated. Otherwise, I certainly save from my energy costs and somebody else also makes money from it. But are we really saving the planet?

I'll continue with my example. If I had time I would put it into spread sheet with graphs and fancy language, and pretend that I know something but I won't. So, here is something in layman's terms.

The tungsten filament bulb on the left is 40W and the LED bulb on the right gives equal light but rated at 5W. So, as I mentioned before it is supposed to have consumed 8 times less energy. This is what the label says on the packaging and not necessarily the truth. On the other hand the Osram report gives a rating of 8W for the same light output. So more like 5 times the energy saving. But it really does not matter. I'd like to concentrate on the number and type of materials used in each bulb type, hence the use of natural resources, and end of life cycle. Also to mention that this is a quick comparison. So, allow a bit of give and take on the figures quoted.

View attachment 112644

The materials used for the tungsten filament bulb are;

1. Glass (bulb)
2. Tungsten (filament)
3. Molbydemium (support wires)
4. Copper (connecting lead wires-nckel plated)
5. Brass or aluminium (screw base)

The materials used in LED bulb are;

1. LED x 32
The type of materials used in LED are below.
Indium gallium nitride
Aluminium gallium indium phosphide
Aluminium gallium arsenide
Gallium phosphide

2. Flexible PCB for the LED cluster
3. PCB for the driver circuitry
4. TH resistor x 1
5. SMD resistor x 3
6. Electrolytic capacitor x 1
7. Driver transistor x 1
8. Bridge Rectifier
9. Copper wires
10. Plastic body
11. Clear plastic housing/lens

Now, let me direct your attention to page 11 of the report.
For the end of life cycle it assumes disposal in domestic waste hence incineration. This of course would not only be like entrusting the cat with the meat, but also to conveniently absolve the company from any responsibility.. I have not heard of any local authority, at least here in Scotland, that incinerates electronic waste. Crushed at best and dumped in landfills.

So, in the case of tungsten filament bulb, we extracted five, 100% perfectly recyclable materials from the earth. But in the case of LED bulb we extracted, all of that sh*t then incinerated the eff out of it.

????????????????????????????????

Let me get it right.

Are you still telling me that the LED lamps are amongst the most environmentally friendly lighting products?

Not only the whole natural resources went up in smoke, but what happened to the ashes? Worse, in my case we incinerated a cluster of perfectly working 32 LEDs as only the electronics failed. Isn't that a waste? I know the LED technology is advancing and will get even better. But the question still remains. Is the saving we make from energy production worth sending natural resources up in smoke?

I do not expect my case to fit into others'. But from this portion of the earth that's my point.

Landfills, toxins etc. are bad, but pale in comparison to climate change. So energy efficiency (= less CO2) overrules all other concerns. So much so, that now even environmentalists increasingly favour nuclear power.

The downside of cheap and low energy LED lighting is, of course, that people compensate for it by using a lot more light. And leave it on more.

 

[scott2000]

Landfills, toxins etc. are bad, but pale in comparison to climate change

Didn't someone here point out the methane emissions from landfills? Or are we just talking led contributions?
Sounds like something Monsanto would say..."yeah but"....

 

[AnalogPackrat]

An interesting aspect are the spectre of different light sources. CFL are the worst, with massive peaks in a few places, while incadescents are the most even. LEDs are somewhere in the middle, and there are ways to get a more even spectrum:

https://www.led-professional.com/re...ent-pigmented-glazes-by-light-spectrum-glazes

Doesn't everyone know this stuff? TAANSTAFL. Black body radiation is smooth and inefficient. Narrow band emission can be very efficient, but bad lighting for humans (if you've ever been in the photolithography bay in a semiconductor fab you've experienced it). Pumping a phosphor with a narrow band emitter is a compromise. And if you think about it, all of these non black body sources are only "optimized" for human color vision (matched to the wavelengths our cones can detect).

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Landfills, toxins etc. are bad, but pale in comparison to climate change.

Says who?

So energy efficiency (= less CO2) overrules all other concerns.

Says who?

So much so, that now even environmentalists increasingly favour nuclear power.

Maybe if they hadn't been so ignorant and short-sighted for the past 40-50 years we'd have had abundant nuclear power through that time. How much carbon would that have offset? I don't kowtow to demands of people who have proven themselves to be wrong and short-sighted.

The downside of cheap and low energy LED lighting is, of course, that people compensate for it by using a lot more light. And leave it on more.

Wasteful people are wasteful regardless. I was raised to turn off lights when leaving an empty room. Still do it.

 

[sahib]

Landfills, toxins etc. are bad, but pale in comparison to climate change. So energy efficiency (= less CO2) overrules all other concerns. So much so, that now even environmentalists increasingly favour nuclear power.

Touché to scott2000

However, this is the type of bullsh*t that they have been ramming down your throats for a long time and you have been swallowing it.

So, sweep the sh*t under the carpet, and as long as the sky is blue we are all going to be ok. I do not know if you heard of a saying that, if you do not know who the sucker is around a poker table, it is you. Here, I make savings from LED lamp, somebody makes money out of it, the ones that drive this hype get to look as if they are doing something, and the sucker is the mother earth.

This saving the planet thing is no more than a meaningless warble. And the phrases like net zero, carbon foot print? I can't stand them. You (I do not mean you in person) are not saving the planet. All you are doing is less polluting the planet and delaying the deterioration. We are in modern microelectronics age and we will be polluting the earth more and more and having LED bulbs that last 25000 hours will not make any difference. After 25000 hours we will still be polluting the earth. You know it well but you do not want to admit it because it does not fit into your narrative.

I am sorry that this may offend some people here, and it is not something that they may have expected to hear from me, but I feel extremely strong about this issue. I am not some Johnny come lately. I have been doing my part to save the planet since I was a child. It started with my mother telling us not to waste. Not that we could as we never had things like plastic or metal toys. We had to make our own. When I started getting involved in electronics in mid '70s, I did not have the luxury of buying a reel of solder. So, I used the melt the solder off the boards into a container and re-use them. I used to strip components from surplus boards to build my own stock. In my dad's business we would not waste a single washer. All of which continue to this day and I am 62. I do my part but I don't fall for that hype.

Again, my point is not against LED lamps. They of course save energy. But they are not the solution that they try to make us believe.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Life is a simultaneous equation with many variables.

We can't optimize every one, we can only do the best that we can do.

JR

 

[living sounds]

Touché to scott2000

However, this is the type of bullsh*t that they have been ramming down your throats for a long time and you have been swallowing it.

So, sweep the sh*t under the carpet, and as long as the sky is blue we are all going to be ok. I do not know if you heard of a saying that, if you do not know who the sucker is around a poker table, it is you. Here, I make savings from LED lamp, somebody makes money out of it, the ones that drive this hype get to look as if they are doing something, and the sucker is the mother earth.

This saving the planet thing is no more than a meaningless warble. And the phrases like net zero, carbon foot print? I can't stand them. You (I do not mean you in person) are not saving the planet. All you are doing is less polluting the planet and delaying the deterioration. We are in modern microelectronics age and we will be polluting the earth more and more and having LED bulbs that last 25000 hours will not make any difference. After 25000 hours we will still be polluting the earth. You know it well but you do not want to admit it because it does not fit into your narrative.

I am sorry that this may offend some people here, and it is not something that they may have expected to hear from me, but I feel extremely strong about this issue. I am not some Johnny come lately. I have been doing my part to save the planet since I was a child. It started with my mother telling us not to waste. Not that we could as we never had things like plastic or metal toys. We had to make our own. When I started getting involved in electronics in mid '70s, I did not have the luxury of buying a reel of solder. So, I used the melt the solder off the boards into a container and re-use them. I used to strip components from surplus boards to build my own stock. In my dad's business we would not waste a single washer. All of which continue to this day and I am 62. I do my part but I don't fall for that hype.

Again, my point is not against LED lamps. They of course save energy. But they are not the solution that they try to make us believe.

Yes, it's a collective undertaking, burdening the individual/consumer with saving the plant demonstrably doesn't work.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Yes, it's a collective undertaking, burdening the individual/consumer with saving the plant demonstrably doesn't work.

Naked authoritarianism isn't known for positive outcomes. It isn't "collective" if it's top-down.

 

[living sounds]

Naked authoritarianism isn't known for positive outcomes. It isn't "collective" if it's top-down.

Well, obviously by a governement elected freely and fairly.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Yes, it's a collective undertaking, burdening the individual/consumer with saving the plant demonstrably doesn't work.

I try to save my "plants" by watering them every day.

Well, obviously by a governement elected freely and fairly.

A government elected "fairly"(?) by a well informed electorate.

Sadly both of those are challenged these days.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Well, obviously by a governement elected freely and fairly.

The unelected bureaucrats in the (far too numerous and large) permanent government agencies are the big problem. And tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Involuntary collectivism is a huge loser.

 

[sahib]

The unelected bureaucrats in the (far too numerous and large) permanent government agencies are the big problem. And tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. Involuntary collectivism is a huge loser.

Also known as the "quango".

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Also known as the "quango".

I had to look that up. Here in the US all such agencies fall under the executive branch reporting to POTUS. They can be held to account by the Legislature and reigned in by SCOTUS when Constitutionality of actions come into question. But their size and political power have grown to the point that many are practically operating without oversight from any elected office.

 

[sahib]

Sorry, I should have made it clearer.

No accountability here, and they tend not to step over each others' toes. Gravy train is another expression.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Sorry, I should have made it clearer.

No accountability here, and they tend not to step over each others' toes. Gravy train is another expression.

No problem. Learned a little something new. Here it's empire building and budget expansion. We don't need to be paying taxes for government intrusion into every corner of our lives.