Green traffic lights hide the, er, green lights

posted at 5:20 pm on December 16, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

The effort to change the bulbs traffic lights from high-energy incandescents to low-power LEDs does make sense — in those areas of the country where snow is not a factor.  Unfortunately, just as with the decision of Seattle to stop using salt for clearing roads of snow, the decision to go green has created fatal traffic conditions for no good reason whatsoever.  At least one person has died from the use of LED traffic lights in snowstorms, as the LEDs are not hot enough to melt the snow when it covers them (via Instapundit):

Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don’t burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.

“I’ve never had to put up with this in the past,” said Duane Kassens, a driver from West Bend who got into a fender-bender recently because he couldn’t see the lights. “The police officer told me the new lights weren’t melting the snow. How is that safe?”

Many communities have switched to LED bulbs in their traffic lights because they use 90 percent less energy than the old incandescent variety, last far longer and save money. Their great advantage is also their drawback: They do not waste energy by producing heat. …

Illinois authorities said that during a storm in April, 34-year-old Lisa Richter could see she had a green light and began making a left turn. A driver coming from the opposite direction did not realize the stoplight was obscured by snow and plowed into Richter’s vehicle, killing her.

“Would the accident have occurred if the lights had been clear? I would be willing to bet not,” Oswego police Detective Rob Sherwood said.

The picture on the front page shows the traffic light in Oswego that caused the death of Lisa Richter earlier this year.  The snow made the traffic light useless.  No driver could possibly have spotted a red light, and even the green would have been difficult to discern at speed, especially during the daytime.  Oswego may just have well turned off its traffic lights and set up four-way stops at every intersection for all the good these systems do in snowstorms — when traffic lights are more necessary than ever.

I’m not opposed to the use of LED replacement technology in traffic lights.  Not only do they use a lot less energy, they likely will last much longer, leading to fewer replacements and less down time.  But clearly, politicians and bureaucrats are making big mistakes when they put environmental concerns ahead of safety, especially in areas where snow and ice are routinely issues.  Illinois and St. Paul, MN, two jurisdictions mentioned in this article, should know better than to use low-heat traffic lights, perhaps especially in St. Paul, where snow and ice are constant issues in the wintertime.

Let’s use our heads.  LED lights work well in warm-weather areas and should be pursued there.  Incandescents have to remain available to cold-weather areas like Illinois, Minnesota, and much of the northern areas of the country.  Salt has to go down on roads in order to ensure driver safety when ice and snow cover the asphalt.  Common sense would go a long way in applying environmental solutions.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Unfortunately, common sense and the “Green” movement took divergent paths a way back.

kingsjester on December 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Another case of incompetent bureaucrats applying a good solution to the wrong problems.

For most purposes, LED’s run circles around both incandescent AND CFL bulbs. But most is not the same as all.

Dark-Star on December 16, 2009 at 5:24 PM

Cost-benefit analysis. Something all too often ignored when the environment comes up for discussion.

Incidentally, Congress didn’t ban incandescent traffic lights when they banned virtually all incandescents (starting in 2014), did they?

kc8ukw on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

They just need to add a little solar powered heater to them.

bridgetown on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Living in teepees and grubbing for roots is beneficial while also saving the planet.

Bishop on December 16, 2009 at 5:26 PM

Law of unintended consequences.

lorien1973 on December 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM

Common sense would go a long way in applying environmental solutions.

There is no common sense in the climate cult. If there was, there would be no climate cult.

Enoxo on December 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM

I’m shocked Madison hasn’t done the same, given that their entire approach to winter road maintenance consists of “should we focus on making the main roads kind of clear, or work on all the streets and leave them barely touched?” Every damned winter, every street is an ice rink. The rest of the state? Cleared by the end of the day.

MadisonConservative on December 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM

I pointed this you last winter. This happend near work in IN on Rt 41 (pretty major road). Once I was safely back at work I ws laughing at the unintended consequences. IN had to have a guy in lift truck hand clean each light.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 5:29 PM

So Al Gore has now killed someone. Knew it was only a matter of time.

Gregor on December 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Let’s use our heads… Common sense would go a long way in applying environmental solutions.

Oh Ed, you’ve lived in Minny long enough to know that using our heads and common sense are alien concepts. You may as well pine away for the DFL to cut taxes.

Face it bro, we live in a sorry state, not just with the weather.

Bruno Strozek on December 16, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Adding a heater element is going to add cost, but it is either that or go back to incandescent.

pedestrian on December 16, 2009 at 5:31 PM

Incandescents have to remain available to cold-weather areas like Illinois, Minnesota, and much of the northern areas of the country.

Were right there beside you in Wisconsin… S.F. East,( Madison) please pay attention.

WhoU4 on December 16, 2009 at 5:32 PM

They just need to add a little solar powered heater to them.

bridgetown on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

Or a windmill for those the cloudy windy blizzards.

You’ll never see the Greenies though attacked for deaths their movement has caused.

PackerBronco on December 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Adding a heater element is going to add cost, but it is either that or go back to incandescent.

pedestrian on December 16, 2009 at 5:31 PM

But a heating element would just be an inefficient resistor to produce heat. Now you have two things to replace.

Are traffic light Incandescents banned starting in 2012?

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM

Now they have to hire more people to go out and clean the snow from the energy efficient lights. Green jobs!

Mark1971 on December 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM

Just chalk it up to the ‘law of unintended consequences’. However, now that cities KNOW about the cold LED problem, they’d better get some solutions in order before some lawyer decides to retire early.

GarandFan on December 16, 2009 at 5:35 PM

So Al Gore has now killed someone. Knew it was only a matter of time.

Gregor on December 16, 2009 at 5:30 PM

Come off it. That is simply not true. All he did was reduce the carbon footprint of humans by one human. Is that not a Nobel achievement?

RagTag on December 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM

LED lights use less energy and, as a side benefit, they kill people. And, of course, people are the main cause of all of the earth’s environmental problems, so the fewer of them, the better.**

It’s a win-win situation!!
/environmentalist wacko off

**This is supposed to be satire.

Bobbertsan on December 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM

Incandescent heating does have its uses.

DJ Rick on December 16, 2009 at 5:36 PM

So what am I supposed to do with my lava lamp when I can no longer find a replacement incandescent bulb?

Mark1971 on December 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM

You see the decision to switch to LEDs was correct but premature. As per AlGore in 5-7 years it will be so hot that there will be no more snow so the LEDs will work just fine.

RobD on December 16, 2009 at 5:41 PM

while you may be right about the lights being a dumb idea up North Ed… we already have traffic laws that demand certain procedures when the light is broken or gone… it’s call stop and yield to the right. there is no excuse for an accident just because the light is obscured or gone altogether.

Kaptain Amerika on December 16, 2009 at 5:43 PM

Actually, it is worse than that. LED traffic lights in warm parts of the country are not nearly as safe as regular ones.

This is because, generally, the LED versions are difficult to see from any other angle except straight on.

So if the road curves just before the light, guess what? You can’t see it.

Or what about those lights suspended from power lines – and high winds?

Not to mention the fact that they are difficult to see at any distance, even during the night, if there is a lot of other light “noise” in the foreground and background.

Over all, I’d say they aint safe. Period.

Natrium on December 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Liberalism at work. Liberalism always results in death and misery.

darwin on December 16, 2009 at 5:45 PM

Here in San Antonio, we don’t get much ice and we rarely ever get snow (though we had some flurries a few weeks ago!). But when we do, all hell breaks loose.

Last year, TexDot switched to a new, more environmentally friendly, salt-less road de-icer. We had a small ice storm last Winter and TexDot used the new de-icer. The ice wasn’t as bad as expected, but the roads had already been sprayed. The stuff made the roads slicker than the ice would have, causing dozens of accidents.

God bless the bureaucrats…

catmman on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM

If they were paid for by private industry, the heating elements would have thermostats that come on at 32F. But instead there will be union rules that require someone to go out on a ladder to flip a switch.

pedestrian on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Fortunately Seattle wised up and is using salt this year. They figured out that putting sea salt in the Pacific Ocean wasn’t really that much of a danger.

JamesB on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Methinks the decision makers on this particular boondoggle were sure that global warming would keep the lights clear.

GnuBreed on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Why not have traffic lights that can be switched between LED and incandescent depending on weather conditions? I.E. Two light bulbs in each green/yellow/red casing for a total of 6 bulbs. Or possibly install some kind of warming system in the traffic light that can be used during icy and snowy conditions–similar to what many side view mirrors in cars have. That way you still save a ton each year on energy consumption for at least 6 months out of the year, and then save some during the winter months, using the extra energy only when ICE/snow becomes a problem. Of course, the question would then become whether developing/installing such technology would end up costing more money in the long run than simply leaving in the incandescent light bulbs.

Conservative in NOVA on December 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM

The stuff made the roads slicker than the ice would have, causing dozens of accidents.

catmman on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

No one said liberals were smart … evil yes, smart no.

darwin on December 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Ed, you completely missed the point. Don’t ban the bulb, just ban the vehicles;)

Laura in Maryland on December 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM

LOL. Common sense? Thats a good one Ed!

JusDreamin on December 16, 2009 at 5:51 PM

But instead there will be union rules that require someone to go out on a ladder to flip a switch.

pedestrian on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

Brotherhood of Traffic Light Thermostat Controllers Local 101.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 5:52 PM

Fortunately Seattle wised up and is using salt this year. They figured out that putting sea salt in the Pacific Ocean wasn’t really that much of a danger.

JamesB on December 16, 2009 at 5:47 PM

That was another liberal classic.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM

Liberals kill again…

Theworldisnotenough on December 16, 2009 at 6:00 PM

Common sense would go a long way in applying environmental solutions.”

Like at least as far as the next stop light anyways. Common sense is the antithesis of the elitist-progressive agenda. Or, too common if you like.

No, we commoners need to have the enlightened progressives’ dictate draconian eco-fascism upon us in their un-common wisdom of what is best for us.

Up on HA’s Headlines board right now is a must read read story,

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-city-in-the-u-s/

…that illustrates exactly where the Progressive Caucus of the DNC are taking us, it isn’t a pretty picture. If we cannot reverse the course these nit-wits have set out for us, this will be our common fate!

Archimedes on December 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM

We I work, we use them for rail signals. We actually got a batch of a couple hundred reds that burned out after a few weeks of use. Maintainers hate them.

We also have resistance heaters in every one of the signal heads that use LEDs, they are designed to come on at about 36 deg F.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on December 16, 2009 at 6:01 PM

Law of unintended snow job consequences.

lorien1973 on December 16, 2009 at 5:27 PM

chickasaw42 on December 16, 2009 at 6:02 PM

Just more jobs created/saved by the One! Time to get all those folks out of work in manufacturing jobs cleaning snow off LED traffic lights! Of course, they must be union jobs! Where would we be without our betters to tell us what to buy, and what to do? They will not be satisfied until we are all freezing in a dark cave, saving mother earth.

djtnt on December 16, 2009 at 6:03 PM

Green jobs for lawyers who can now sue the other drivers, manufacturers and cities who install these green lights. Ain’t the nanny state grand.

Kissmygrits on December 16, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Ed, you completely missed the point. Don’t ban the bulb, just ban the vehicles;)

Laura in Maryland on December 16, 2009 at 5:49 PM

Absolutely. We should be riding bicycles or in pedi-cabs driven by illegals.

Collisions would not be as injurious, the greenhouse gasses would be significantly reduced, the public would be in better shape, and we could shut down those greedy refineries and oil companies.

And polar bears will live and stop eating their young. And we could hold hands and sing folk songs. A perfect life, once again.

TXUS on December 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Of course, the question would then become whether developing/installing such technology would end up costing more money in the long run than simply leaving in the incandescent light bulbs.

Conservative in NOVA on December 16, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Answered your own question.

Theworldisnotenough on December 16, 2009 at 6:06 PM

The left never does anything for common sense reasons.

JeffB. on December 16, 2009 at 6:09 PM

Annnnd another thing, LED do not last longer! As most former eastern europeans already know. Engineers had to invent a way to make incandescents burn out, this was done to increase repeat customers and enhance profitability.

As a point of fact, Thomas Edison’s original light bulb still works to this very day.

Archimedes on December 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Common sense would go a long way in applying environmental solutions.

The two words lacking from environmentalist dictionary are

common sense

.

Is there a reliable study on the energy differentials on using CFL’s verses incandescent and heating homes in winter climates?

chemman on December 16, 2009 at 6:17 PM

Mark1971 on December 16, 2009 at 5:39 PM

Lay in a lifetime supply based on your past burn-out history.

chemman on December 16, 2009 at 6:23 PM

I was noticing that a couple days ago. We had a pretty good blow and the lights filled up.

Three days later they were about half visible from sublimation.

Jim708 on December 16, 2009 at 6:25 PM

This is because, generally, the LED versions are difficult to see from any other angle except straight on.

Natrium on December 16, 2009 at 5:44 PM

Not true. LED lights are omnidirectional. What makes the lights directional (as is also the case for incandescent lights) are the installation of polarizing filters or the removal of the fresnel lens on the front.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Only one person dead?

They were hoping for thousands.

notagool on December 16, 2009 at 6:47 PM

Ed – another problem. LEDs FADE – they don’t break the circuit like incandescent bulbs – so the computer won’t know there is a problem. So in about 6-8 years you will have traffic signals all over the nation where drivers may or may not be able to see if the light is on. Traffic deaths will skyrocket.

rock the casbah on December 16, 2009 at 6:53 PM

Annnnd another thing, LED do not last longer! As most former eastern europeans already know. Engineers had to invent a way to make incandescents burn out, this was done to increase repeat customers and enhance profitability.

As a point of fact, Thomas Edison’s original light bulb still works to this very day.

Archimedes on December 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM

You spend more money on electricity than you do on the bulb, so electrical efficiency is more important than the bulb cost. A hotter filament is more efficient and produces better light, but it burns out faster.

Modern incandescent bulbs are 30 times more efficient that Edison’s bulb.

pedestrian on December 16, 2009 at 7:00 PM

More true believers create (or saved) by the Church of Unintended Consequences.

Mojave Mark on December 16, 2009 at 7:01 PM

They’re really nice in the right situation. We just installed LEDs in our foyer chandelier and safety lights on the stairs. They are just the right amount of light for those areas and have a warm, yellowish glow. The ones on the stairs use 2.5 watts, replacing CFLs that used 16 watts.

We’re looking for brighter LEDs for the kitchen area. The CFLs work well, but aren’t as long-lasting as LEDs and LEDs use less energy. The less I have to pay Xcel, the better.

We’re also planning on changing to LEDs for Christmas lights, but they still don’t make all of the things we need, and it’s expensive. But it would sure be nice to run the entire house worth of light off on one outlet. You can connect 210 strings together with the commercial ones!

Common Sense on December 16, 2009 at 7:02 PM

What are a few dead motorists compared to a green Utopia, I ask you?

Kensington on December 16, 2009 at 7:02 PM

Also, they DO last longer. Our CFLS lasted 7-8 years, LEDs will be even better.

Common Sense on December 16, 2009 at 7:04 PM

As a point of fact, Thomas Edison’s original light bulb still works to this very day.

Archimedes on December 16, 2009 at 6:14 PM

Edison’s original light bulb had a carbon element, was operated in a vacuum, and lasted about 40 hours. Edison’s final versions used a carbon filament derived from bamboo and could last about 1200 hours. Constrast that with a modern (not yet extinct) tungsten filament light bulb which puts out many more lumens per watt. Even as the so-called tungsten filament light bulb goes extinct, the even higher efficiency halogen light bulb (which also uses a tungsten filament) is replacing it in stores.

Edison also championed the use of DC current for power distribution, and the use of DC power somewhat lengthens the lifetime of incandescent lights (due to the lack of temperature fluctuation of the filament during the AC cycle).

As far as I know, Edison’s original light bulbs are no longer operational — but here’s an article on long-lived light bulbs; note that part of the story debunks a claim by the Edison museum that it had an original operable light bulb.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 7:10 PM

Of course, what the article didn’t happen to mention was that a representative of the City of West Bend, WI, was interviewed by the local media and said that it took several city employees a good part of two days to scrape the ice and snow off the LED stoplights, and the lights only save the city $100 per month. I’m betting that snow cleanup cost at least a year’s worth of savings, and it’s only December. THEN the guy goes on to say that some company has invented a heater that can be installed on the stoplights to melt the snow. Now THERE’S energy savings, I’m sure. The city is not going to get those, however, because they are too expensive. It seems to me that the “savings” realized by using LEDs in a cold climate does not offset the cost required to maintain them, and you cannot put a cost on someone’s life. These idiots that were greedy for state money and installed these lights obviously had their heads stuck in the snow!

twhfan on December 16, 2009 at 7:15 PM

Simple fix, install heaters in the traffic lights, or, err, maybe put the original bulbs back … Liberals never see it coming.

tarpon on December 16, 2009 at 7:16 PM

Soooooooooooooooooooooooo, in a nutshell…..

Morons are blowing through 4 ways and what not WITHOUT being able to see if the freakin’ light is green or red and they’re blaming it on the lights?

BallisticBob on December 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM

So more people have been killed by anti-global warming measures than by global warming.

Jim Treacher on December 16, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Recall last year Seattle refused to use salt to battle a huge winter storm (except in the mayor’s neighborhood.) Voters responded by defeating Mayor Greg Nickels (D)in his bid for re-election in part, because of similar “green” stupidity.

diogenes on December 16, 2009 at 8:02 PM

I heard about this on Rush Limbaugh the other day. He made note that this has stimulated jobs in that crews now had to be hired and sent out to scrape the ice off of the traffic lights.

multiuseless on December 16, 2009 at 8:16 PM

the environmentalist’s goal is to reduce the number of people ‘polluting’ the planet..their goddess gaia…

look at them banning DDT…millions have died because of that.

right4life on December 16, 2009 at 8:24 PM

Unfortunately, common sense and the “Green” movement took divergent paths a way back.

You’re too kind. Your statement hinges on the idea that the green movement initially had common sense. It didn’t. Need proof? Here are the best, brightest ideas to come out of the “green” movement:

Paint roofs white
Don’t eat tangerines
Use 3 squares of toilet paper
Forced abortion and mass sterilization
Cool LED lights in frigid climates

I would count the banning of DDT, too, but that’s cost millions of lives as well (the same lives they want to abort/contracept out of existence to “save the planet”), so it’s not a stupid idea, it’s evil.

englishqueen01 on December 16, 2009 at 9:03 PM

All you really need to do is eliminate the metal shade on the bottom half of each light so snow doesn’t accumulate.

Many automobiles are going with LEDs for brake lights and turn signals now, and those are perfectly visible without shades.

SicSemperTyrannus on December 16, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Morons are blowing through 4 ways and what not WITHOUT being able to see if the freakin’ light is green or red and they’re blaming it on the lights?

BallisticBob on December 16, 2009 at 7:31 PM

An intersection in which the lights have gone out becomes a 4-way stop if you can see 1) there’s an intersection there which should have lights, and 2) the lights have gone out. The deceased driver in the article Ed cited did not know that the lights were out for cross traffic (so #2 did not apply), and the person who hit her likely did not see that there were supposed to be stoplights at the intersection (so #1 likely did not apply either).

I’m sure the family of the deceased appreciates the irony of having their late loved one called a moron by a moron.

hicsuget on December 16, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Not true. LED lights are omnidirectional. What makes the lights directional (as is also the case for incandescent lights) are the installation of polarizing filters or the removal of the fresnel lens on the front.

unclesmrgol on December 16, 2009 at 6:42 PM

While technically speaking LEDs are omnidirectional the difference in index of refractions between the semiconductor substrate and open air cause nearly complete total internal reflection in anything other than round LEDs, and we have no idea how to make those in a sane, mass-producible way.

What we do to get the light out is they’re put in those matched epoxy domes, so the refraction change between the semiconductor, and its immediate surroundings isn’t nearly so steep, but we still end up with only around 30% of the photons getting out of the system, and because they’re coming from flat faces, they end up being fairly directional. Not laser directional, but still pretty directional, when compared to incandescents.

Harry Voyager

Voyager on December 16, 2009 at 11:40 PM

LED traffic lights have killed more Americans than nuclear power.

agmartin on December 16, 2009 at 11:55 PM

The people who brought you these “green” lights are the same people who brought you toilets you have to flush 8 times to get everything down.

borg on December 17, 2009 at 12:29 AM

All you really need to do is eliminate the metal shade on the bottom half of each light so snow doesn’t accumulate.

Many automobiles are going with LEDs for brake lights and turn signals now, and those are perfectly visible without shades.

SicSemperTyrannus on December 16, 2009 at 9:09 PM

Aw shoot! You beat me to it. ;)

liberty0 on December 17, 2009 at 12:52 AM

They just need to add a little solar powered heater to them.

bridgetown on December 16, 2009 at 5:25 PM

What he said, though I’d change it to grid power like the rest of the fixture (snowstorm = no sun), and put in a thermocouple to tell the thing when to activate the heater. The city fathers keep their “greener than thou” cred, and don’t have to face charges of negligent manslaughter re: their own constituents.

Blacksmith on December 17, 2009 at 1:10 AM

“green” stuff is fine in certain applications.

But, what kind of a #^%#@ is dumb enough to think that if green technologies were able to compete with the more energy-consumptive technologies we’ve been using, that they wouldn’t be in place already due simply to economy/market forces, and the realization that they do indeed work better?

If I could run my air conditioner off of solar or wind with very little initial outlay (solar panels, wiring, batteries, etc.), and save a ton of money, I would certainly be doing it…so would everybody else.

Instead, it would be expensive, I’d have to literally cover my roof with solar panels and have a bank of probably 20 deep cycle batteries.

Of course, the idea is that we simply do with out…I suppose so the poor Zimbabweans can somehow have more.

Dr. ZhivBlago on December 17, 2009 at 1:16 AM

All you really need to do is eliminate the metal shade on the bottom half of each light so snow doesn’t accumulate.

The bottom portion of the signal visor is generally already absent to prevent bird nests from being built there.

CDeb on December 17, 2009 at 7:58 AM

I’m surprised that people are quick to blame the LED bulbs on the woman’s death. Yes it’s unfortunate that they don’t melt the snow, but traffic signals are not omnipresent. There are always power outages, burnt-out bulbs and other debilitating acts to deal with. It is the responsibility of the driver to be able to appropriately handle those situations.

That said, I think a heating element would be an appropriate addition to LED bulbs. Certainly something could be drawn up that would melt snow and still leave some of the 90% energy they save.

wilkeson on December 17, 2009 at 8:17 AM

In some places in my home CFLs will not last a month, while their incandescent brothers will last nearly a year. That happens in the kitchen where the bulbs are exposed to the vagaries of what goes on in the atmoshpere there. Other replacements in floor lamps and bedside lamps, plus in bathrooms is telling that similar story, and I’ve given four different brands a try-out across all of them and incandescents last longer.

Overhead recessed lighting with protectors around the CFL bulb last over 8 years. But then the incandescents haven’t had to be swapped out in the same fixture type in the same room over that period, which is a replacement rate test I have going on down in the basement back room. So that is a wash.

An outside CFL bulb I put in nearly 6 years ago has lived longer than any of its incandescent counterparts, which lasted barely a year. But then that is a hardened, protected CFL with special dome around it for nasty weather. It is in a fixture that can only be covered if we get 8′ snow drifts, and if that happens I’m shipping the shoveled snow to Al Gore.

Thus my experience is telling me that the bare bulb CFLs are pretty much a dead loss save in fixtures not exposed to much internal environmental change and low usage rates.

Totally enclosed CFLs seem to have a longer life, but their up-front cost is much higher, and only for hard to reach lighting is that worth it (the outdoors fixture or recessed lighting).

I’m a tech person and love LEDs. Just not at their current pricing. CFLs are not battle tested, stress tested and otherwise made to handle the rigors that over a century of trail and error has gotten modern incandescents, and the things just can’t handle exposure to even mild inside environment changes without having that protective shell on them. And those cost more than bare bulb CFLs. Then the question of lifetime replacement cost comes into play… and the amount paid for a protected bulb is nearly equal to their incandescent replacements and minimal energy savings. Mind you Congress feels it has the wisdom to know exactly what I need in all conditions, at all times, for all purposes. There is a cost to over-riding consumer choice and this one will get you a larger mercury handling problem plus increased mercury in the environment due to CFL bulb breakage.

Thus the Green folks love mercury in the environment.

Good job!

ajacksonian on December 17, 2009 at 8:17 AM

Oh but I bet the traffic red light cameras can see just fine. Gotta keep that money coming in.

johnnyU on December 17, 2009 at 8:33 AM

The solution is to add a heater for those days when snow needs to be melted from the traffic lights. The rest of the time you get the energy savings.

The energy savings though is tiny compared to the labor savings. Incandescent bulbs have to be replaced before they can burn out, which usually means every year or so. LED’s should last for decades, or longer.

Replacing bulbs is usually done at night, when traffic is lowest, they have toput a cherry picker in the middle of the intersection, right where any drunk can hit it.

MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2009 at 9:05 AM

But a heating element would just be an inefficient resistor to produce heat. Now you have two things to replace.

WashJeff on December 16, 2009 at 5:34 PM

The heater would only need to run during and shortly after snow storms.
Heaters don’t wear out very quickly.

MarkTheGreat on December 17, 2009 at 9:08 AM

New snow removal equipment (plows etc.) also use LED lighting for their “hazard warning lights”. The city I live in just found out that these lights suffer a similar problem during snowstorms, rendering some equipment nearly invisible. They’re currently “looking into” solutions.

taznar on December 17, 2009 at 10:13 AM

Sending people up in cherry pickers is just an asinine way of clearing them. Super Soakers full of deicing fluid would be easier, faster, safer, and cheaper.

Slowburn on December 17, 2009 at 1:47 PM

Hey, Ed, don’t lament the LED lights. Go into business building nice thermostatic controlled heaters so you get the LED benefits in the summer and the heat needed for the winter. It’s a job opportunity.

(Alas, it creates twice as many things to break, which will expand the city maintenance department, much to the joy of politicians everywhere.)

{^_-}

herself on December 17, 2009 at 3:19 PM

Well the most obvious solution would be not to drive your car in a snow storm to begin with… the government should invest more in railroads and mandate an end to urban sprawl that will in itself decrease the need for long range transport.

JC Silverberg on December 17, 2009 at 6:02 PM