There wasn't a lot to like about incandescent light bulbs and lead-acid batteries. Do their replacements live up to the hype? Yes and No.
I was put in charge of the lighting in the art gallery. We have an old track lighting system that is about 30-40 years old and no longer in production. It is an un-grounded track and the world has moved on to a three-wired track since then, to the extent that anyone uses track lighting anymore (it was trendy in the 1980s and 1990s). So new heads are no longer available, except on closeout, and the track is NLA. We have well over 100 heads and bulbs to deal with here.
We converted from blistering hot halogens to LEDs and that caused a lot of controversy as well as a steep learning curve. Early on, some artists objected, as their impression of LED lighting was the cold, almost blue light of early LED bulbs. They thought it would look like "cool white" CFL's - which indeed, some confused the two. We had to try several different "Kelvin" bulbs before settling on the "warm white" 2700-3000 K bulbs.
Compounding the problem was that each "head" had a 12V DC power supply and sometimes the bulbs would not "turn on" because they drew too little current. Someone suggested soldering a resistor across the leads to create a parasitic current. This is getting too complicated!
Confounding this is the age of the units - transformers burning out, sockets wearing out, and locking taps snapping off. So maybe it is time - eventually - to upgrade to a more current (no pun intended) system that uses the standard 110V grounded track. But with over 100 heads, that will get expensive and time-consuming.
So what I am going to do is replace the smaller tracks in the upper floors first and use the leftover heads to keep the main gallery supplied with spares for a few years more. Maybe the lighting company will donate some leftover heads - I asked, and they are thinking about it.
The weird thing about LEDs is, well, a few things. They were promised to last for years - decades even - and it appears that some may. Traditional incandescent bulbs burned out with regularity and were a pain in the ass to replace. Florescent bulb were not much better - they went dim over time and then started to flicker and sometimes the "ballasts" or "starters" would go bad. Hey, they're full of mercury, too! What's not to like?
When I worked for GM, we had a team of two guys who replaced florescent bulbs in the factory - 22 acres under one roof. They started in one corner of the factory and replaced bulbs, whether they were "good" or not and then worked their way across the place over a year or so until they were done and then started over again. Sort of like how they paint the Golden Gate Bridge - continuously. You can see it is a big expense and how LEDs can save industry a lot of money.
Speaking of burned-out bulbs, I mentioned before how frustrating it was growing up as my parents would put the burned-out bulbs back in the package and back on the shelf in our laundry room. I never understood this odd bulb hoarding until I was reading about the old Edison DC system (which my parents had in their first apartment, post-war) where users could bring back burned-out bulbs for free replacement. No wonder the DC system failed! They took a reliable revenue stream and gave it away for free!
Nevertheless, the threaded base on a standard light bulb - even an LED bulb - is called an "Edison Thread" or"Edison Screw" and is sometimes denoted as, for example, "E27" where "E" stands for "Edison" and 27 is the diameter in millimeters. Talk about backward compatibility! That's over 100 years!
Incandescent bulbs have a filament across the main leads, which would appear to be a dead short, because it is. When you first turn on an incandescent bulb, it has almost zero resistance and the inrush current is pretty steep. But as the filament heats up - in fractions of a second - the resistance increases and the current drops off quickly. As a result, 90% of the "wear" on an incandescent bulb occurs when you switch it on, which is why these "firehouse lights" from the 1900s which were never switched off, still burn today (albeit on a transformer at low voltage these days). If you want to burn out an incandescent bulb in a hurry, just turn it off and on rapidly for a few minutes. It is one reason why these bulbs often burn out when you turn them on.
LEDs either work or they don't - or as they get older do weird electronic things. For example, sometimes they flash on when you apply power, and then go out. Or they "flash" on and off. Or they don't turn on until after a minute or two after you've switched them on. They sort of give you warning they are about to go.
And about 10% of them fail fairly early on. The remaining 90% seem to last for years, although the calendar will tell us more about that in the future. The promise of 10-year bulbs, however, may be overstated.
Incandescent bulbs got hot as hell and in our kitchen or in the gallery, having a dozen incandescent bulbs or worse yet, halogens, can be like working under a heat lamp. LEDs are much cooler, but not cold, of course. I don't burn my hands on them (unlike incandescent bulbs or halogens) but they do get quite warm.
Another weird thing about them is, well, they seem to be voltage agnostic. I ordered a set for our camper and was flummoxed as to whether they were for 12V DC or AC or 24V or what. I called the manufacture's help line and they said "YES" when I asked which was the correct current for these bulbs. Perhaps this is not true for all LEDs - check the manufacturer's specs to be sure. It is interesting that many LED bulbs have heat sinks on them for some sort of internal power supply.
Are LEDs better? Sure are! No way am I going back to old-fashioned incandescent bulbs, even if I had the choice. Did they live up to all the hype? Of course not, nothing ever does. But they are a vast improvement over the past.
Lithium-Ion batteries are another case in point. No one "loves" a lead-acid battery - just the name is enough to turn you off. Lead causes brain damage and acid can burn your face. And yes, lead-acid batteries can explode when charging, as they give off hydrogen gas. All it takes is a spark, say, from a jumper cable, and BAM! - the damn thing explodes, splashing sulfuric acid in your face. That's why they recommend attaching the negative cable last, and not to the battery, but to a grounding point away from it.
No acid spills, no having to add water - two big pluses. And the Lithium-Ion type weighs less than half that of the lead (which is heavy!) acid battery. Even the kind in my golf cart (Which is technically a "LIFe-PO4" battery) is less than half the weight of its acid brethren. Of course, it has less lead than the old school, but has its own share of toxic metals to deal with at disposal time. And while they might not explode, they can catch fire and, by generating their own oxygen, can be impossible to extinguish until they basically burn themselves out. What's not to like about that?
In terms of electric cars, they have boosted energy density by a factor of four at least. The old GM EV-1 with its lead-acid batteries was really a non-starter (no pun intended). But with Lithium-Ion, well, cars like Tesla (and others) are at least somewhat practical.
However, as advanced as this new battery tech is, it still is a long, long way off from the energy density of internal combustion engines. The new "Cybertruck" (named, apparently, from a competition of middle-school students) is claimed to have a 150-200 mile range in real life. This is far less than the advertised range and the "gold standard" of at least 300 miles that most electric car makes strive for. And they are heavy, too! The electric "Hummer" from GM is said to weigh in at a hefty 9,000 lbs, making it unsuitable for real off-road travel, particularly in muddy terrain (and think about fording streams with enough electricity underfoot to literally kill you!).
The range of the "Cybertruck" is embarrassing, really. I met a Canadian fellow who was towing a travel trailer with his Model X, and he claimed to be getting 150 miles on a charge. I guess it depends a lot on how you drive. But all that being said, the King Ranch has a 38-gallon fuel tank and gets 22 MPG without the trailer attached, giving it theoretical range of over 800 miles before refueling (which can be done in ten minutes).
Speaking of refueling, I was at a campground the other day and they had a sign saying, "recharging electric vehicles from campsite hookup is prohibited!" Many campsites today have 50A, 220V plugs and can recharge an electric vehicle pretty quickly. But it does use a lot of electricity and campground owners have to pay for that. It also could overload the system if a dozen people were using max current all at once. I have had Tesla owners tell me that they will check into a campground and pay the nightly rate, just to charge their car - if no other locations are available. They go have a picnic, enjoy the park, and come back to a charged car.
At least they are paying. Others plug into outlets in public garages to get "free" electricity and some vigilantes go around unplugging their cars. On our island they put free 110V charging stations for electric vehicles (mostly for golf carts) but I notice these have been largely removed - and commercial charging stations installed nearby. I said it before - the Tesla may go the way of Packard or Kaiser-Frazer, but the charging infrastructure might end up being the moneymaker for Tesla - and their only legacy. No doubt Musk is kicking himself for not renaming the company "Musk" or "X" as the infrastructure may be around for 100 years - like the Edison Thread. Too late, now!
But getting back to topic, the Lithium-Ion battery is a huge improvement over lead-acid, but won't replace it entirely. Apparently the 12V Lithium batteries are suitable for trolling motors or RVs (we plan on getting one for the camper down the road) but don't have the large surge current necessary to run a starter motor. Even for trolling motors, the manufacturer recommends that the battery have at least twice the current capacity as the max load from the trolling motor. So lead-acid, or at least its relatives (AGM, etc.) will soldier on in the automotive starter battery world.
So has Lithium-Ion lived up to the hype? Like with LED lights, yes and no. Yes, they have the energy density to make laptops and cell phones workable (as opposed to Nickle metal hydride batteries). And yea, they work well for home solar installations, RVs, boats (house electric), and golf carts. They have made electric cars more practical for many if not most applications. Most cars are used for short trips under 30 miles - but once a year, most folks drive on long trips for vacations, etc. Whether they make economic sense remains to be seen. Right now, they seem to be marketed more toward upper-end luxury buyers. There does not seem to be any incentive to offer an "entry level" electric car under 30 grand or even around 20. It seems the costs are such that 50-100 grand is the target audience, at least for the time being.
As for the weight and range issues, I am not sure that "more research" will ever solve those. I noted before in a posting on the air-powered car that the laws of physics mean that no amount of "research" will ever fix the problems of energy density and efficiency in using compressed air as an energy storage media. In fact, it is interesting that Lithium-Ion is replacing compressed air in the tool world - no more dragging heavy hoses around the repair bay, when a relatively lightweight battery-powered impact wrench does the job better and cheaper (and quieter, too!).
More research and development might increase the range and reduce the weight of Lithium-Ion batteries. But I suspect it will still take longer to charge them than to fill a tank with 38 gallons of E85. And I suspect the range and weight - and cost - factors will never be quite equivalent.
All that being said, this technology isn't going to go away, even as some folks would like to smother the baby in the crib (that baby is all grown up now and strong enough to smother back!). The market, however, is seeing a bit of an EV recession as numerous makers (Volvo, Ford, GM, Toyota, KIA, BMW, etc.) jump into the EV market, creating more product than demand can satisfy. Everyone who wanted an electric car apparently has already bought one, and many more who want one, but live in an apartment or condo or townhouse, can't own one because there is no place to plug it in at home - which to me, at least, is a non-starter.
We may see a price war and in fact are already seeing one as Tesla has slashed prices again and again too keep up with competition. This of course, cuts into Tesla's famous profitability which is what attracted other makers to the business to begin with. As profits decline, the P/E ratio will climb, and the stock price - already hugely over-inflated - will decline as well. Tesla may go the way of Packard, in terms of selling cars, but may go the way of Packard Electric in terms of making money from licensing its Patented plugs.
We'll just have to wait and see.
