HydraLux-4 is First Liquid Cooled LED Lightbulb

[Regulas]

This would be a great alternative to compact florescent. We need to stop compact florescent because they all contain mercury and our water tables will be trashed in 50 years or so from them being thrown out. If the environmental whacos want to do something real, get on the mercury containing compact florescent band wagon.

 

[joseph85]

[citation][nom]NocturnalOne[/nom]The key thing is longevity. That was promised by CFLs but not delivered as far as I'm concerned. I'm always replacing the damn things. Not to mention you can't just throw 'em in the trash because of the mercury.These expensive bulbs are only useful for applications where they are on all the time. I mean 8 hours of run time per day? During the summer most of our bulbs are hardly on at all except a few hours at night. Daily usage is important as it moves out the break-even point.Not to mention that the break even point lies so far away that by the time you're half way there there's probably a cheaper alternative available. Sort of the same reason we shouldn't both building star ships now. They will be 10% of the way there when they get passed by a faster ship launched 40 years later[/citation]
No CFL bulb I've ever owned(for myself anyway) lasted less than at least 2& a half years. Buy from a better manufacture.

 

[Guest]

R u kidding me 34 dollars for a bulb that only save me a little money. And its not like I only need ONE. Cool idea but come on the price is crazy. Not to mention I have not had a CFL last anywhere near what they claim, and your not suppose to just throw them away, and don't even mention the environmental hazard a broken CFL presents. Regular light bulbs are clean safe and cheap. If its not broke why spend 34 or 7 dollars on some fancy ugly looking and ugly light casting device.

 

[scuba dave]

[citation][nom]annon[/nom]R u kidding me 34 dollars for a bulb that only save me a little money. And its not like I only need ONE. Cool idea but come on the price is crazy. Not to mention I have not had a CFL last anywhere near what they claim, and your not suppose to just throw them away, and don't even mention the environmental hazard a broken CFL presents. Regular light bulbs are clean safe and cheap. If its not broke why spend 34 or 7 dollars on some fancy ugly looking and ugly light casting device.[/citation]

Um.. Because, as the article clearly stated, it would save, after all expenses, $157 over it's "projected" lifetime. Per bulb. Thats less money out of your pocket, and less energy the plants have to make. And considering most of the energy they make never even reaches the end user anyway (due to "copper loss", transformers, etc) the end result the bulbs can have is many times larger than just what YOU see in your wallet. True, they are very expensive, and as such not everyone can/will jump on the wagon... but the positive effect that they CAN have can't be denied..

 

[Milleman]

Don't forget...

-The more elctricity you and all others save, the more the energy companies will charge for their electricty.

 

[webgrunt]

[citation][nom]joseph85[/nom]No CFL bulb I've ever owned(for myself anyway) lasted less than at least 2& a half years. Buy from a better manufacture.[/citation]

Are you saying 2 1/2 years of life from a fluorescent is better than the average life of incandescent bulbs? I have replaced maybe 15 to 20% of the incandescent bulbs in my house, and I moved in over eight years ago. For all the incandescent bulbs I replaced, I used fluorescent ones. I have had to replace most of those fluorescents, some of them twice. In my experience, incandescents last far longer than fluorescents.

 

[webgrunt]

[citation][nom]Milleman[/nom]Don't forget...-The more elctricity you and all others save, the more the energy companies will charge for their electricty.[/citation]
Not necessarily. Though the cost of maintenance for the distribution network doesn't decrease, the power plants that use fuel to produce electricity use less fuel when the demand goes down (or don't increase their use of fuel as fast when the demand doesn't rise as sharply) and that may offset a good deal of the reduction in income from reduced demand.