How indoor LED lighting can improve your home safety ?

One of the less discussed advantages of indoor LED lighting is the significant reduction in fire hazard risk that can be achieved by replacing incandescent, fluorescent, halogen, and even CFL bulbs with LED lights. Because LED lights consume so much less electricity and produce so much less heat, they are significantly less likely to cause any type of fire.

The biggest fire hazard presented by lighting comes for common incandescent bulbs. Most incandescent bulbs lose 90% of the energy they draw in the form of heat. So a standard 60W halogen that produces bright light to fill most of a room gets very hot. This is easy to experience by putting your hand close to any light bulb in a lamp or fixture – just be sure not to touch it, as it could easily burn your skin and the temperature change can also cause the light bulb glass to shatter. This high ratio of heat to lumens created can easily lead to fires if lights are installed incorrectly, left touching any other materials, or recessed into the plaster of a wall without sufficient ventilation.

On the other hand, an indoor LED light consumes roughly one-tenth as much electricity for the same level of lumens, and all outdoor and indoor LED lighting produces very little heat, such that there is no inherent fire hazard, nor any risk of burning yourself if you touch an LED. This opens up a whole range of ways to employ LED lights for home or office use.

Low-profile LED lighting such as LED light strips and LED puck lights make it possible to light tight spots such as coves or under cabinets without the need to pay any attention to ventilation. LED lights are also a wise choice in wine cellars or other places where the object illuminated needs to be kept at a consistent temperature.

Indoor LED lighting is uniquely positioned as the safest way to light an indoor space and eliminate the risk of any harm coming from the lighting – just another reason why energy efficient LED home lighting makes sense.

SOURCE: elementalled

Light Bulb Battle Heats Up and We Should Care Because…?

Statistical evidence of widespread light bulb hoarding has yet to emerge, but the anecdotes make such colorful copy that you would think everyone in the U.S. is rushing out to buy those good old fashioned incandescent light bulbs before they disappear. Seriously, let’s give ourselves a little credit for having some good old fashioned common sense. At least one survey shows that a significant majority of Americans are already trying new energy efficient lighting in advance of the federally mandated incandescent bulb phase-out. There are a couple of obvious reasons – saving money and conserving energy – and there may also be some underlying currents at work, too.

Light Bulbs and Household Hazards

Part of the light bulb ruckus is over the small amounts of mercury used in the new high efficiency compact fluorescent light bulbs. Detergents, cleansers, insecticides, lawn products, paint thinner; bleach, prescription drugs, nail polish, hobby supplies and scores of other household products contain varying amounts of hazardous substances. Most Americans seem perfectly at ease with the idea that some household products contain hazardous substances. In fact, some people passionately cling to their favorite hazardous substance-containing products. http://cleantechnica.com

Light Bulbs and Lifestyle

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are just one energy efficient alternative. Light-emitting diode (LED) technology and halogen technology are others. LEDs in particular are opening up whole new avenues for amateur home decorators and do-it-yourself fans in creative lighting design. We Americans are known as home fixer-uppers, do-it-yourselfers and gadget lovers, which could be another reason why the survey showed such widespread interest. The idea of sticking a high efficiency light bulb in a socket and being reasonably assured that you will never have to change it until you move (the average American moves 11.7 times in a lifetime) is also probably very appealing to most people.

Light Bulbs and People

Speaking of people, what is this thing about people? The new phase-out does not apply to individuals. It applies to companies. It phases in new energy efficiency standards for light bulb manufacturers. U.S. manufacturers had to decide if it was worthwhile to invest in the R&D needed to produce more efficient incandescent bulbs that could be retailed at a reasonable price. None of them were interested. People who really, really care about incandescent light bulbs will find a way to get them for as long as somebody, somewhere, continues to make them. As for the rest of us, most people seem ready to move on.

SOURCES: solarlednews & cleantechnica

Do CFL lights suck? ‘Save the light bulb’ campaign has Ron Paul on board

It’s surprising to see people get worked up about light bulbs. But the country’s government-mandated shift to more energy-efficient lighting is raising the ire of conservatives.

Congressman Ron Paul, in some circles considered the “spiritual father of the Tea Party,” isn’t too happy with the U.S. mandate that light bulbs become 30 percent more efficient by 2012 to 2014, phasing in a set of standards that will arguably ban incandescent light bulbs in favor of more energy-efficient options like compact fluorescent bulbs (CFLs), halogen and LED lighting. Paul, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) along with 19 other Republican members of Congress, have proposed legislation to repeat the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, according to USA Today.

The legislation was signed into law in 2007 by President Bush.

“I don’t think CFLs are going to wind up saving that much energy and they’re certainly much more harmful to public health,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) in an interview with the WSJ’s Opinion Journal, referring to mercury inside CFLs and the higher price tags. “I don’t think the country wants Congress to tell them what kind of light bulb to use.”

Some have argued that the small amounts of mercury inside CFLs, if they break, do not pose health danger. The EPA has spoken in the past about the need to recycle CFLs to keep the mercury out of landfills; it has also argued that CFLs actually emit less mercury because they use less energy from coal-burning plants, which emit large amounts of mercury into the air.

If you wondered what Republican control of the House means for cleantech, then this is a good case to consider. The argument from politicians and certain constituents seems to be that they disagree with government limitation of their energy choices and argue that CFLs can cause health problems like headaches. There’s been similar types of antagonistic sentiment over smart meter rollouts and government support for research and implementation of renewables. If the “let me choose my own energy” side wins, though, it could slow down efforts to bring the country closer to President Obama’s goal of 80 percent renewable energy by 2035.

One political activist site, Freedom Action, released a statement calling the legislation an “outrageous ban” and “outrageous government limitation on consumer choice and intrusion into the home of every American.”

Not everyone knows about efficiency legislation that will effectively phase out incandescent light bulbs, although Ikea said in January it will no longer sell them.

A survey conducted by Harris Interactive this year found that 61 percent of Americans aren't aware of this legislation. A Wall Street Journal editorial from 2009 argued that CFLs aren't advanced enough to completely replace incandescents. LED makers have seen technological improvements and price drops over the past few years. Companies like Bridgelux say there’s increasing demand for LED solutions in retail settings, where lights are on for 16 to 24 hours and companies are looking for ways to trim their electricity bills and environmental footprint.

SOURCE: venturebeat , PICTURE: buildinggreen