On Apr 21, 5:42 pm, deke wrote:
On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 01:51:06 GMT, shepro wrote:
Could someone please explain pro's and cons of both Halogen and Florescent
lights.And which is prefered.
Thanks

You want to triple your electric cost, then go with halogen. Halogen
should be outlawed as the power use is destroying our planet.

You need to look into the new led lights. They use less power than
florescent.

That would be triple the cost of electricity used only for lighting;
right?
Well; maybe. but since some of us use electricity for heating and in
our area just about every month of the year requires some heating
especially during cool evenings and nights, the so called 'energy
saving' of low consumption lamps is, for us, maybe a bit of a myth. We
never need AC by the way.
As an example; once gain, we have six plain ordinary 40 watt el cheapo
bulbs (about 25 cents apiece) above our bathroom vanity. Bathroom is
quite small about 6 by 8 feet. The 40 watt bulbs are electrically
'inefficient'; most of their input is converted to heat. But as a
result the 500 watt baseboard bathroom heater hardly cuts in at all
even when the ceiling exhaust fan is running to get rid of moisture.
From an electrical equipment or wiring point of view our house
equipped with a typical 200 amp 115/230 service entrance would not be
any cheaper if we installed 'energy conserving' lamps, so no savings
there!
My electric utility tells me, IIRC, that 8% of a typical family's
electrical consumption, in our Canadian province is for lighting. So
if I reduced my lighting consumption to one third 1/3 x 8 = 2.6% I
would save about 5.4% or roughly 8 (maybe $10? )dollars per month? say
around $100 per year? But that, minus the extra heating electricity
and an annual cost based on the difference in purchase and replacement
costs of CFL/LED lamps or whatever lamps leaves me unconvinced.
probably more energy savings to be obtained from turning down/off the
thermostats in unused rooms and adding insulation and better caulking?
Finally is it just what lighting we are accustomed to or are the
'newer' forms of lighting really more objectionable to humans?
For example there are fluorescents, CFLs, LEDs, HIDs (High Intensity
for cars), 'Sodium' lamps, Mercury vapour etc. none of which seem to
be 'as good' as what this 70+ year old is accustomed to. Or is it just
me refusing to change?
One thing small (non CFLs that is) are good for is less breakable
inspection (auto etc.) lamps. Much safer lest the hot bulb and
filament shatter in the presence of gasoline/petrol fumes and can (and
have) started fatal fires.
PS. Inside house have one of those open top halogen lamps sans the
later version wire mesh for safety! Nothing else protects from the
tubular halogen bulb which gets VERY, VERY hot. We use it with extreme
caution away from anything that could hang down! And away from
vertical wall. Must get round to adding a wire screen but will still
locate and use it with caution.
Cheers.