CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Page 3 of 6  

John Gilmer wrote:

I disagree.

The availability of inexpensive AEDs helps a great deal with that last issue.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote: ...

Only for the minute fractional portion of time the bulb is actually on which is, indeed, a quite small fraction--say 5 minutes would be extremely high value for a day. 5min/24hr-->0.35% --> your optimism gets down to where it's only something otoo 350 kW which wouldn't even be detectable in the overall grid.
Conservation is fine but some things are so minuscule as to be unworthy of fooling with or worrying over.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Still tho....
It seems like a great place to use an LED lamp!!
And easy to retrofit if such an LED lamp was available!
I told ya..... I cant help myself . Ha!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Aug 26, 8:55 pm, snipped-for-privacy@privacy.net wrote:

You know there is a chance, a very remote one perhaps, that inefficient incandescent bulbs used inside a fridge (a mere convenince any way) are a wasteful use of electricty? After all the heat from the bulb has to pumped out of the fridge interior to restore the temperature each time after the door has been opened and the light has operated for a few seconds. IF one watt per bulb could be saved some calculations show .................. Fridge opened say twice per hour for 12 hours per day = 24 openings. Average length of each door open = 15 seconds. Daily total door open and light on time = 24 x 15 seconds = 6 minutes. Use of bulb using one watt less power Kilowatt hours saved 1 x 6/60 (one tenth of one hour) divided by 1000 = 0.0001 kilowatt hours/day. Per year 365 x 0.0001 = 0.0365 kilowatt hours per year. If electricity costs 10 cents per kw.hr electrcity cost saved per year = 0.0365 x 0.1 = one third of one cent per year. Ah yes but we have to pump that much less heat out of the fridge, so halve the saving? And the light goes off, or so we are told, when the door closes? And every time the fridge door opens cold air spills out and some warmer air enters that has to be re-chilled. Hey! This seems to getting rather pointless? There MUST be other reductions in electrcity consumption that make more sense nation wide etc. and are more effective. For example I left the light on over the front door for over a hour longer this morning (just forgot about it!) that probably cost me (electrcity consumption) one half a cent; tut tut. I suppose I could install a light sensitive fixture and have it turn itself off. But that fixture would cost me around $15 to $20. And that can buy a lot of relatively clean hydro powered electrcity! And such fixtures do involve electronics that may or not be recycled safely when the fixture breaks down which it will inevitably do? And hydro power is pretty reliable; provided climate change doesn't bugger up water flows. Burning say coal doesn't make any sense at all. Big additional hydro development in Labrador Canada (if and when it gets off the ground, in a manner of speaking) that will be capable of providing clean power to New England states etc.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A fridge light is normally on for so little time that it does not make sense to spend a lot of money on a more energy-efficient replacement.
Meanwhile, I would not put CFLs in a fridge due to the cold, long warmup time, and the fact that most CFLs have starting-related wear and shorter operating life when on-time per start is so short.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I, Don Klipstein, need to correct my cost-per-1,000 hour figures for CFLs, since I erred in a way unfavorable to CFLs.
It turns out I don't always do math well when my stomach is empty and I smell dinner cooking.
The CFL cost figures below are correct if the CFLs last 1,000 hours instead of 4,500 hours. The correct figures if they last 4,500 hours are $3.50 per 1,000 hours less. The incandescent figures below are still correct.

I should have said $2.43 per 1,000 hours.

I should have said $2.98 per 1,000 hours.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

Brilliant, (blast, didn't mean a pun), but to thank you for the correction.
An aspect that I have not seen any maths for is the amount of mercury that has to be recovered/ disposed/lost through broken lamps compared to the amount of mercury that would be emitted into the atmosphere through combustion of coal for use of candescents.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<I don't think I need to repeat these>

Average CFL has 3.5-4 milligrams of mercury. If you take your dead ones to Home Depot or any recycling dropoff point recommended by www.lamprecycle.org, most of it gets recovered.
I saw one cite saying 24% of CFLs are properly disposed of. It is an EPA document giving numbers that I consider a bit optimistic for amount of mercury in CFLs and how much mercury emissions from coal they prevent:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/rcc/web-academy/2008/pdfs/LindaBarr.pdf
That one does list other recycling resources.
Meanwhile, suppose as a less favorable example replaceing a 60 watt incandescent with an 18 watt CFL that lasts 4500 hours. That saves 189 kilowatt-hours.
http://www.ecmag.com/index.cfm?fa=article&articleID 261
cites an EPA figure of .012 milligram of mercury emitted into the atmosphere by coal fired power plants per KWH of total USA electricity usage. At this rate, that 189 KWH saved means 2.3 milligrams less mercury pollution from coal-fired power plants - admittedly less than is in an average CFL or even 76% of that (for 24% recycling rate), but not by a whole lot.
Replacing 100 incandescents with CFLs should on average prevent emission of more mercury than the CFLs contain, and with 75 watt ones it is on average a close call. Replacing 60 watt incandescents should reduce net mercury introduction to the environment if the recycling rate improves from 24% or if national average life expectancy improves to 5300-6000 hours (likely soon).
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

You make an excellent point about equivalence. That is, if we have already accepted the amount of Mercury in the environment emitted from power plants, then there is no need for hand-wringing, or even a discussion, about the equivalent amount from CFLs.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Don Klipstein wrote:

snip
Thanks for those links. made interesting reading. In summary it would appear that upping the recycling rate and emission controls on coal fired power stations in 2018 will be the key to reducing Hg emissions.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
. Holistically yes. Include what happens to the wasted (or unecessary) electricity from non CFLs use. Here (Aug 25th) the temperature tonight is around 5 to 7 degrees Celsius (40 to 46 deg F); with a light frost warning for low lying areas! No wind. We have electric heating 95% produced by hydro power. However it has not been necessary to turn it on. The wasted heat from several incandescents, boiling the kettle a few times, operating the microwave briefly a couple of times and heat from a TV and a PC have been sufficient to keep the house sufficiently warm. So while a case can/should be made for the reduction in electricity consumption that does not have to be generated (especially by burning coal or other fossil fuel) and potential reduction in capital investment by electricity producers and distribution utilities electricity is not NECESSARILY conserved by mandating the use of non incandescent bulbs.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/25/2009 11:01 PM stan spake thus:

Thank you. That will be added as a criterion for the Grand Study. (Seriously: the amount by which indandescent lighting reduces the need for space heating.)
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If I were Ayatollah of the world, I'd tell people that you are free to choose whatever kind of light bulb you want.
I know this is a weird concept in today's environment.
Bob-tx
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/26/2009 4:13 AM Bob-tx spake thus:

>

Don't get me wrong; I'd be a benevolent Ayatollah, and wouldn't necessarily depend on government mandate to dictate what kinds of light bulbs folks buy. But I'd want to know into which basket we should put all our eggs. Figure out the odds so we don't bet on the wrong horse. [Insert clever metaphor here]
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Knowledge is power. If you KNOW which is the better bulb, there is the temptation to mandate its use (witness that exact fact). People should gather their eggs in whichever basket they choose, put them in their pockets, or wrap them in a handkerchief and carry them over their shoulder.
If *I* were the king of the world, I'd shoot anybody who says "we need to study this."
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/26/2009 11:37 AM HeyBub spake thus:

Well, that pretty much squares with a lot of the crap you post here.
At least you're consistent.
--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism

Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

Thanks. I enjoy irritating progressives.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I agree with Bub , we should shoot anybody that needs to "study" this. The facts have been here years. 20+ years ago I started my push to replace incandesants with T8, those incandesant "Electric Heaters" that put out visable light as an offshoot are a waste. Now just go down to your local hardware store today and buy some Cfls, it wont hurt you, it doesnt need anymore studying, its been done.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
David Nebenzahl wrote:

The unfettered marketplace will control the energy required to produce a CFL. The only common thing I can think of that costs more in energy to produce than it yields in value is Ethanol. Ethanol is a product of a government-fettered marketplace.
As far as Mercury in bulbs, remember, we've been disposing of florescent bulbs for a century without a peep of concern. But raising the issue and finding a solution to an unimportant concern does make a significant number of people feel better, so that's something.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:52:28 -0700, David Nebenzahl
..

    Acturally that is what is happening. The market place will, in time come to a decision. Right now it is too ealry to come to a decision, but we have millions of people working on it. In time they will decide.
    It is much the same as the early days of the automobile. They had gasoline, electric, steam etc. In time the gasoline engine became the winner. Today that we are relooking at the auto industry and maybe we will come up with a different answer this time, but as we may come up with a different answer back when the early light bulbs were competing with gas and oil lights.
    It gets corrupted from time to time, but in the end the market place usually comes up with the right answer to this kind of question.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.