Changing light bulbs doesn't please everyone

Posted by jamie - 6 January 2009 at 5:10pm - 4 Comments

So we start to wave a fond farewell to the incandescent light - since its first demonstration in the 19th Century it has served us well, but the brutal march of progress has made it obsolete since the development of CFLs over 30 years ago. Even though the current depletion of 150W, 100W and 75W bulbs being reported in the press is only part of a voluntary agreement (no sensible efficiency standards here), there's a binding EU agreement (of sorts) on the way and the days of the filament bulb are numbered.

This rather quiet victory in the struggle for improved energy efficiency standards has not gone unnoticed by the more conservative sections of the media. The comments attached to the Daily Mail's story (they never fail to stir my blood) are, needless to say, fit to bursting over this intervention in the natural order of things. But is it any wonder when the paper itself explains that the phase-out is "part of a government campaign to force people into buying low-energy fluorescent bulbs".

Also complaining is Stuart Jeffries in the Guardian. I'm not quite sure what his gripe is, but it seems to be based on aesthetics: "...these pendulous pear-like fruits of the Industrial Revolution must die as ugly design extends its endless remit," he wails. Each to their own, I suppose, but artists have been using fluorescent lighting for years such as Dan Flavin and, more recently, Jason Bruges.

But never mind that. Have you seen the pretty pictures of the New Year's Eve ball in Times Square? It's stuffed full of LEDs which are even more efficient than the best CFLs currently on the market. They're a bit too expensive for mass consumption just now, but as the price comes down they'll become more common and who knows? Perhaps in years to come, the Mail will be moaning about the disappearance of our traditional CFLs.

Article tagged as: climate change, daily mail, energy, energy efficiency, light bulbs

Comments Commenting is now closed

I like having efficient light bulbs. I like how they save energy and I like how they save money.

But let's face the fact that I also require light sources that have continuous color spectrums. Incandescent lights qualify. Fluorescent lights never qualify. The result is that if I am viewing anything of color, such as artwork, there is no possible way to enjoy that color with any fluorescent bulb. It doesn't happen. Our eyes do our best to compensate, but the true original color cannot be represented.

I'm a color professional. I work with color every day, helping creative professionals make the best of computer technology. This is one niche in the world where fluorescent bulbs will never be welcome. No matter how you tweak them, fluorescent bulbs cannot represent a full color spectrum.

If you want to understand the problem, take a look at Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_spectrum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flourescent_light_bulb

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Rendering_Index

LED lights are promising relative to this problem. When they become affordable by average humans, we'll see if they can satisfactorily replace incandescent bulbs. Until then, I happily keep a stock of incandescent bulbs around for when I require them each day.

By derekcurrie - 7 January 2009 at 8:43pm

It's sad really.....
I have one eye which is original and is 59-ish years old with rest of me. My other eye had its cornea replaced a few years ago. So the light I see from the old one is yellower than the new one. Which eye are you designing for, Jamie?

By Bob Irving - 13 January 2009 at 1:44pm

I like having efficient light bulbs. I like how they save energy and I like how they save money. But let's face the fact that I also require light sources that have continuous color spectrums. Incandescent lights qualify. Fluorescent lights never qualify. The result is that if I am viewing anything of color, such as artwork, there is no possible way to enjoy that color with any fluorescent bulb. It doesn't happen. Our eyes do our best to compensate, but the true original color cannot be represented. I'm a color professional. I work with color every day, helping creative professionals make the best of computer technology. This is one niche in the world where fluorescent bulbs will never be welcome. No matter how you tweak them, fluorescent bulbs cannot represent a full color spectrum. If you want to understand the problem, take a look at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous_spectrum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flourescent_light_bulb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Rendering_Index LED lights are promising relative to this problem. When they become affordable by average humans, we'll see if they can satisfactorily replace incandescent bulbs. Until then, I happily keep a stock of incandescent bulbs around for when I require them each day.

By derekcurrie - 7 January 2009 at 8:43pm

It's sad really..... I have one eye which is original and is 59-ish years old with rest of me. My other eye had its cornea replaced a few years ago. So the light I see from the old one is yellower than the new one. Which eye are you designing for, Jamie?

By Bob Irving - 13 January 2009 at 1:44pm