On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 00:20:49 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 21:44:49 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 04:50:53 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:40:32 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 22:06:06 -0400, J. Clarke
wrote:

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:41:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 10:23:12 PM UTC-5, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:24:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 9:35:43 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
whit3rd writes:
On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 2:13:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
I just use 4 foot fluorescent lights in my shop area. I have 37 of the two bulb 4 foot fixtures in the basement. Once in a great while the fluorescent bulbs die. But its rare. And the bulbs cost $1 each or something like that.

Yep, fluorescent is still a winner on parts/availability/maturity, and was never far
behind LED in power consumption.
I would argue that a 50% reduction in power consumption between fluorescent and
LED does indicate that fluorescent is "far behind LED in power consumption".

Well.... Yes and No. My electric bill last month was $36.55. I think it averages about that year round. Higher in the winter months and lower in the summer months due to lighting mainly. A 50% reduction would mean $18 per month for me. Yearly that would be $216. A nice amount. You could buy a new battery drill maybe. For me the main lights I use are the bathroom, kitchen (old light style), and living room (LED bulbs). Unfortunately the basement shop with the fluorescent wasteful lights are not used all that much each month. So they add $1 to the total bill. Or less. LED would save me 50 cents a month at most. It would take decades and decades to pay for LED in the basement. But if I replaced my kitchen and bathroom light bulbs with LED for $20-30-40, I could pay for them in three months or so. Savings, or reduction in power in this case, is important in the right circumstances. And unimportant in other places. The person who started this thread said he ran his new
LED light in the storage room a total of 5 hours in one year. Paying more than double the cost of the cheapo unit (his words) to save 50% power consumption might not make much sense if you only save 10 cents of power each year. Spend money or use technology where it matters. Not where its foolish to do so.


In most cases half of that bill would still be there if you never
turned the lights on. The "meter fee" or "service fee" is usually at
least $15 , so a 50$ power savings would only save you about $9.00

In a shop that is used every day, or an office, the savings add up
REALLY FAST.


I wholeheartedly agree with that. If you USE the lights a lot and have a LOT of lights running all the time, then it definitely makes sense to pay the money up front and get the most efficient lights that use the least electricity. Its kind of like gas and diesel trucks. If you are running the truck hundreds of thousands of miles a year, then pay more for a diesel motor and get the extra mileage efficiency. Of course with trucks the extra power/torque of diesel matters too, not just the better mileage. But assuming your gas and diesel engines are equal in torque, then pay extra up front for the diesel if you are driving it nonstop. But if you only drive it every third Sunday in the summer to church and home, then paying extra for the more efficient diesel engine does not make sense.

Be careful with the "extra mileage". Depending on where you are
diesel can be a good deal more expensive than gas.
The difference in mileage will almost ALWAYS be more than the
difference in price because the price is "loosely" based on price per
therm, and deisel is more energy dense than gasoline. (one part of the
reason a diesel is more efficient)

No, the price is based on the amount of tax the government wants to
charge.

The deisel is also more efficient in how it uses each "therm" because
it runs at a much higher compression ratio and it does not have
"throttling losses" or "pumping losses" of a typical gasoline engine.

That said, the premium you pay for a diesel over a gas engine takes
hundreds or thousands of miles of fuel savings to recover.

If you operate in a locality where government puts enough tax on it
you never recover.
No place in North America comes close to that condition. No place
outside North America that I am aware of either, as in MOST of the
world diesel is lower cost than gasoline (and lower taxed as well)

You do know that in some localities there is a 25% surtax on diesel,
do you not?
And if the turbo diesel gives 26% better economy you are still
(marginally) ahead - and just the therm density is, I believe. 15%
better by volume. AVERAGE deisel eficiency is about 25% better than
average gasoline, historically.

For a high mileage fleet operator deisel wins hands down - while for
the low mileage urban commuter it makes no sense at all.