<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No more 100W bulbs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.artefactoblog.com/2009/08/30/no-more-100w-bulbs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.artefactoblog.com/2009/08/30/no-more-100w-bulbs/</link>
	<description>A PLACE WHERE TO START - By Adrian  Palacios</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Jan 2010 20:45:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Arc</title>
		<link>http://www.artefactoblog.com/2009/08/30/no-more-100w-bulbs/comment-page-1/#comment-55</link>
		<dc:creator>Arc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:54:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artefactoblog.com/?p=445#comment-55</guid>
		<description>Old and inefficient, yet easy to produce and recycle. By no means I&#039;m saying incandescent light bulbs are &quot;better&quot; than the fluorescent lamp. In actuality 90% of the energy consumed by the ILB is emited has heat. The fluorescent lamp requires highly toxic metals to operate, and the construction of rather complex electronics that leave an extensive CO2 print. The fluorescent lamp lasts 10 to 20 times longer, yes, but its efficiency caps at 22% (only 12% more efficient than ILB). My point is this: we shouldn&#039;t feel too comfortable with the fluorescent lamp: there is plenty of room to improve in it.
Perhaps we should be looking a little more at ultra-bright LED technology.

In any case, great post Adrian :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Old and inefficient, yet easy to produce and recycle. By no means I&#8217;m saying incandescent light bulbs are &#8220;better&#8221; than the fluorescent lamp. In actuality 90% of the energy consumed by the ILB is emited has heat. The fluorescent lamp requires highly toxic metals to operate, and the construction of rather complex electronics that leave an extensive CO2 print. The fluorescent lamp lasts 10 to 20 times longer, yes, but its efficiency caps at 22% (only 12% more efficient than ILB). My point is this: we shouldn&#8217;t feel too comfortable with the fluorescent lamp: there is plenty of room to improve in it.<br />
Perhaps we should be looking a little more at ultra-bright LED technology.</p>
<p>In any case, great post Adrian :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doris</title>
		<link>http://www.artefactoblog.com/2009/08/30/no-more-100w-bulbs/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>Doris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:41:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.artefactoblog.com/?p=445#comment-54</guid>
		<description>En algo que vamos adelante de la UE, ya aqui no se venden bombillos incandescentes y no creo ni que son más tenues, ni que den migrañas...solo es un pataleo de la industria que produce esos viejos e ineficientes productos.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>En algo que vamos adelante de la UE, ya aqui no se venden bombillos incandescentes y no creo ni que son más tenues, ni que den migrañas&#8230;solo es un pataleo de la industria que produce esos viejos e ineficientes productos.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

