Categories: Featured Articles » Sources of light
Number of views: 12142
Comments on the article: 10

Requiem for incandescent lamps

 


Requiem for incandescent lampsThe article considers the advantages and disadvantages of incandescent lamps and the problems that arise when replacing them with modern light sources.

So, the brainchild of the brilliant Thomas Edison leaves us. For almost a century, incandescent lamps reigned supreme in the field of artificial lighting. From super-miniature flashing lights to powerful floodlights.

Such were the possessions of this simple, reliable light source, which has not undergone major changes since the invention. But time passes, and the market is filled with various types of discharge lamps, knocking persistently on the door LED light sources.

Despite a century of improvement, it was not possible to overcome the main disadvantages of incandescent lamps: low efficiency (less than 4%) and short service life. Sophisticated attempts to increase efficiency led to the development of halogen lamps (tubular and small), but they could not qualitatively change the situation.

Outdoor lighting is now fully provided by mercury and sodium lamps. For studio lighting and stadium lighting metal halide or xenon ultrahigh pressure lamps.

Types of halogen lamps and their features

How are compact fluorescent lamps

How are LED lamps

LED diseases for children

The last bastion of incandescent lamps was the lighting of residential and office premises. But the rapid development of low-pressure fluorescent lamps, especially compact fluorescent lamps, has led to the crowding out of traditional sources from this niche of application. Despite the simplicity and cheapness, they began to be replaced by more expensive and unsafe lamps with a mercury discharge. At the legislative level, in many countries (America, European countries, Russia) the production and sale of lamps with a power of more than 100 watts was banned.

Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Energy Saving Lamps

The sentence on the old lamps was pronounced by economists. The efficiency, which is measured in the amount of light (lumen) per 1 Watt of supplied electric power, is for incandescent lamps of various types 12-20 lm / W. Mercury lamps of the DRL type - from 40 to 60; luminescent from 60 to 80; sodium DNT from 110 to 140. The service life of discharge lamps is from 10,000 hours to 60,000, which is 10-60 times longer than the operating time of incandescent lamps.

Economists, followed by officials, are now calculating how many billions of kW / h of electricity can be saved, how many Sayano-Shushensky hydroelectric power stations or atomic units do not need to be built. And everything seems to be correct, believable and profitable. But in technology, like life, nothing is given for nothing.

The massive use of light sources based on discharges in mercury has posed a serious problem for their disposal. Mercury itself is an extremely toxic metal. If the enterprises still have a centralized system for collecting and recycling lamps, then with widespread use in everyday life, failed lamps will fall into ordinary landfills (landfills) for garbage.

Can the use of energy-saving lamps cause an environmental disaster?

Even if conscious citizens try to hand over sources to specialized collection points, they must first be created. And then ... pay for the reception of the lamps an amount 2-3 times the cost of a new lamp. Therefore, tens of millions of lamps will fall into the bin. And then tons of mercury will poison water, air and plants.

In the future, the elimination of the consequences of environmental contamination will require financial costs that significantly exceed the expected savings. In a hurry to say goodbye to incandescent lamps, we must first provide the conditions for the safe use of modern light sources.

What do you think about this?

See also at bgv.electricianexp.com:

  • The use of energy-saving lamps can lead to environmental disaster ...
  • Advantages and disadvantages of energy-saving lamps
  • The ratio of the power of lamps of various types
  • Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Energy Saving Lamps
  • Incandescent lamp soft start device
    •

     
     
    Comments:

    # 1 wrote: | [quote]

     
     

    Despite the fact that now there are many new types of light sources - incandescent lamps I still like the most, and even though I fully recognize their inefficiency and technical imperfection in the form of a short juice service. I got used to just living in the light of incandescent lamps and everything else alternative is somehow not to my liking and very annoying.

     
    Comments:

    # 2 wrote: | [quote]

     
     

    Lord, I’m even ready to pay if only these energy-saving light bulbs are universally accepted.

     
    Comments:

    # 3 wrote: Vadim | [quote]

     
     

    Dear authors! If you have already decided to bring to the masses the rational, the good, the eternal, then watch what you write. Filter the market, as they say today.

    I will give an example from this article: "The massive use of light sources based on a discharge in mercury, .."

    In mercury, there MAY NOT be a discharge; mercury is a conductor. The discharge occurs in the presence of mercury vapor - do you catch the difference?

     
    Comments:

    # 4 wrote: | [quote]

     
     

    Quote: Sentence to the old lamps was made by economists.
    Here is the problem that it’s not energy. The main problem is not mercury. The problem is that an incandescent lamp is an active energy, gas discharge: this is + reactive and not frail, with a cosine of fi 0.6 and harmonics. And they need to be compensated and filtered.(specialists will understand what I mean). While plush economists will not go into their own areas, so we will live.
    Plus, the stroboscope effect has not been canceled. How will we work with rotating parts of machine parts?
    The article was sculpted like an environmental economist.

     
    Comments:

    # 5 wrote: | [quote]

     
     

    The article, as it were, hints that incandescent lamps have begun to lose ground recently as light sources, especially after the 100-watt lamp ban. In fact, this is not so at all. Since the 70s, almost all public places, industry, street lighting, etc. have been converted to lighting by LB or DRL lamps, incandescent lamps remained there only in all kinds of utility rooms. Now, metal halide, DNaT and LED floodlights have been added to the LB and DRL. The main consumption of incandescent lamps now and then was at home. For more than 20 years, no new power plants have been built, and electricity consumption is growing. The article mentioned here is "How to build 10 Sayano-Shushensky hydroelectric power stations in Russia in six months ?!" it seems like some skillful propagandist wrote, I don’t care from those calculations, it starts with "... According to experts, 80% of the generated energy can be saved through energy-saving technologies .." and smoothly switched from energy-saving technologies to energy-saving light bulbs. As if ALL the generated electricity in the country is consumed by incandescent lamps.

     
    Comments:

    # 6 wrote: Plasmacut | [quote]

     
     

    I read that new ways have been developed to increase the efficiency of incandescent lamps. So one of them is laser incision of a filament, due to which the radiation surface increases, which ultimately increases its return. But the question is that the "sellers" need new names and links to new technologies. Rather, we need a reason to charge us a new price many times higher than the old one. That's why many products are not allowed on the market. Ilyich’s lamp was decided to be buried! The doctor said to the morgue, then to the morgue .....

     
    Comments:

    # 7 wrote: | [quote]

     
     

    The post-perestroika energy of Russia, existing only due to Western developments, simply creates the appearance of its maturity. Getting rid of incandescent lamps on the market is a common lobby when the manufacturer himself dictates laws.

     
    Comments:

    # 8 wrote: Alexander | [quote]

     
     

    Used, use and will continue to use incandescent lamps and sneezed on all energy savings, health is more expensive.

     
    Comments:

    # 9 wrote: MaksimovM | [quote]

     
     

    Alexandercompletely agree with you. Like it or not, but in everyday life, incandescent lamps are used more often than luminescent (housekeepers) or LED. First of all, this choice is justified by a much lower cost. As for saving electric energy, in modern conditions of power supply, that is, when the voltage in the network often fluctuates or goes beyond the nominal values, the so-called housekeepers burn out very quickly without having worked even a tenth of the declared period. If we analyze the amount of saved electric energy and the cost of acquiring housekeepers, we can conclude that there is no saving and it is more advisable to use ordinary incandescent lamps in everyday life.

     
    Comments:

    # 10 wrote: Ivan Krasnoyarov | [quote]

     
     

    Incandescent bulbs will not go anywhere, but they spit from LEDs - sooner or later they will be replaced back to DNs, and even to incandescent bulbs. But incandescent lamps are definitely better, yes. Here the reason is simple: LED die much faster than DNaT and DRL. Stop looking into the future continuously and live by them. Otherwise, you will lose what we have in the present, which we have received in the past.