All of which is rather pointless because the light quality os poor anyway.
Outside, in inaccessible places is about the only one
Efficient use of energy isn't important. Efficient production is, which is precisely why a nuclear program needs to be instituted rather than pissing around with silly lightbulbs.
Except that it doesn't. The issue is not use but generation.
It's very misleading. If I were buying these things other than for outside lights in a few cases, there would be a court action.
Doesn't matter. There's a billion more where they came from.
Both are important, but reduction in demand is ultimately more important.
That's cloud cuckoo land.
Economies are not going to be thrown into reverse just to suit some peripheral agenda.
Messing about with lightbulbs and suggesting a need to return to he dim world of candles is ridiculous. Next there'll be subsidies for sconces and goldfish bowls.
The whole thing is a combination of inappropriate marketing so that people feel that they are "doing their bit" and sack cloth and ashes.
In the meantime, the issues that actually matter such as generation of sufficient electricity to fuel growing economy become swamped by this nonsense.
Hear hear!
Did you see the report that the world is currently using 40% more resources than the Earth can sustainably deliver?
This means that in terms of energy, food and resource production we are spending capital, which means that it cannot be sustained.
With the world population likely to grow by another 50%, even if there is no improvement in average worldwide living standards (which you would measure by success in increased consumption), the demand is likely to exceed sustainable resources by 100% within the next 40 years or so. If 'growth' is the answer to the economic problems of the rest of the world (i.e. if we aspire for the world's poor to share in the world's economic success), the resource demand will approach 3 times the available resources.
As I said, both are important; but ultimately the reduction in demand is more important. We're already overspending, and we can't just hope for 'something' to come along to make our ever expanding way of life sustainable.
As main area lighting they are just about there but at quite some cost, multiple 5 mm LEDs in an MR16 is never that great.Better in saturated colours than white. The more recent high power LED based MR16s are considerably better.
Colour is great as long as you like cool white and dont like red meat :-) Warm white LEDs are becoming available but efficiency is not so good. Or as have done use white with added amber in strips under cupboards, warms up the light and got sick of duff T5 fittings and amber LED above kick plates saves kicking the cat when raiding fridge.
It doesn`t neccesarily mean dimming all the lighting all the time, use lighting appropriate to the task.
Ever wondered why supermarkets have no skylighting in their sheds, if you want to chase energy consumers its not what your buying its where your buying it
Similar discussion going on sci.engr.lighting regading LED for general lighting, advantage LED has is its easier to put the light where its needed, in things like a GU10 CFL trying to get the light out the front is a challenge. Thanks to Terry NcGowan for the link, US based so no halogen downlighters, but a GU10 has front face of 2" the 13 and 15 W CFLs in this demo had front face of 6" which whould make them more efficient:
Adam
Certainly usable, but fluorescents are a better option in most respects.
so true
I see variants of these every week. Most of them are unsubstantiated, broad brushed waffle.
If that's the case, the situation will be corrected naturally.
Who said anything about aspiration for the world's poor to share in the world's economic success? It hasn't happened in the past and it's unlikely to happen in the future either.
Human nature, and on a more basic level, animal behaviour doesn't work in that way - self preservation is always the driving force.
Western governments have aid programs to developing nations, charities come for our donations for Africa and everybody feels cosy because they "are doing their bit". On the governmental level, this is only happening to appear to be civilised or where there is a political, influential or economic prize to be had. The amounts involved are usually the tiniest drop in a bucket. In all cases, if times get hard, that kind of thing dries up.
In the meantime, look at China, doing some kind of a successful job of bootstrapping itself into world economy. How is it managing that? Simple. Setting its own rules and getting away with it (e.g. commissioning a new coal fired power station every week) but mainly because it has a ready and open market of people wanting to buy cheap goods.. Is that likely to change soon? I don't think so.
If that is the case, then there will be a long wait, because nobody is going to deliberately throw economic growth into reverse on a long term basis for it to happen.
Certainly tinkering around with light bulbs is the equivalent to putting 50p in the Christian Aid envelope at Christmas.
That, however, is what will happen. If resources become more scarce, as always they will become more expensive. Those with the ability to pay will buy them, those without won't. More efficient ways to produce and use resources will undoubtedly be found. As they become more expensive, it becomes viable to do so.
Other than some tinkering at the edges, that is the way that it will pan out.
No it doesnt, it means another pseudoscientist has sought to cash in on this daft notion that seems to have gained some popularity.
Not a chance in hell.
NT
How is quoting a mean life misleading? Or in this unusual case median life?
NT
Median life is quite clear as long as you understand basic statistics.
However, the manufacturers and sellers are not being honest.
For example, if you go to Megaman's main web site and look at a typical product it says "Lifetime: 15,000hr". There isn't even a little '*' pointer to a disclaimer that qualifies what 15000hrs means.
Then take a look at a selection of web suppliers of these bulbs and you will find that it says the same or perhaps something like "rated life", but without saying what that means. To the astute, that ought to be a flag that this does not appear to be what it says and that "rated life" has a meaning that is not a basic one of "this lamp will last a minimum of 15000 hours."
I believe that this 50% failure criterion has been industry practice for a while, including proper tungsten bulbs as well, although probably most people have ignored it because the cost of these is buttons anyway.
Now that we have a type of product with high initial cost with part of the justification being longer lifetime then either the basis for measurement and supply should be changed (e.g. manufacturer guarantees a minimum lifetime); or the basis should be spelled out more clearly.
I am sure that manufacturers are not going to want to reduce their lifetime figure down to perhaps 4000 hours for example or whatever other measurement point would give them an acceptable replacement rate under warranty, so at least they should have to quote their figures with the basis for measurement made completely clear.
The ones you can current buy in retail outlets are about the same efficiency as MR16 halogens, so it will be equivalent to a 1.2W halogen lamp, i.e. 16 of them would be equivalent to one 20W halogen lamp, which is the lowest power MR16 commonly available.
There are much higher efficiency LED lamps around, but currently at far too high prices for general purpose domestic lighting.
BTW, "insolation" is something very different to "insulation".
One thing that I thought off is the film showing the bulb testing has them all upright. Very few bulbs are used that way, most hang down. I recall that bulbs last, for whatever reason much longer upright. I think it was said they are designed to work that way, but this may be for tungsten, but even so the honest test would be of the bulbs the way most are used. So the testing, if that's true, is done on a false basis to start with!
The electronics would be getting a lot hotter with the bulbs upside down. What they need to show is a statistical plot of the full lifecycle testing results. There may be a hump of failures after a very short time, and any of these examples should be returned under warranty. Simon.
Oh dera, indeed.
How does that affect the equation?
So iff OG's calculations were correct, he's more than broken even, ie saved money.
Applies whatever type of bulb or how long they last. Can be combined with other shopping trips so negligible marginal cost.
Ditto.
Ditto.
Assuming he bothers. He's on top already, so no extra cost there.
MBQ
I have seen this claim repeatedly. What does it mean (ie what is the user experience)?
Thanks!
Kostas
HomeOwnersHub website 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.