Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Since this seems to be a fairly hot topic here I thought I'd give it
another little shove. (And I hope Don Klipstein responds, as he seems to
be one of the most knowledgeable folks here in this field.)

So it's one of the burning questions of our age: are CFLs really that
much more efficient than incandescents? Should we go whole-hog over to
what Homer Simpson calls the "twirly" light bulbs to save ourselves (by
cutting carbon emissions, etc.)?

Plus now we have a new contender, LEDs, to throw into the mix.

If I were Ayatollah of the world, here's what I think I'd do. I would
want good answers to all these questions, based on good science and not
just speculation, "common sense" or other less reliable ways of arriving
at a conclusion.

I would order a Grand Study of the problem. This study would not just
look at the efficiencies of various bulb types in isolation: it would
attempt a holistic approach, where every aspect of creating and using
light bulbs is considered, not just the simple matter of CFLs using less
electricity to emit the equivalent amount of light:

Seems to me there are the following aspects to consider:

1. Production costs:
o Energy consumed by producing each type of bulb
o Materials required by each type, and energy consumed by obtaining them
o Environmental consequences of producing each type
o Monetary cost to consumer of each type

2. Usage costs:
o Comparative energy consumption of each type per unit of light
o Comparative heat produced by each type
o Longevity of each type
o Comparative cost of each type, based on energy consumption and lifespan

3. Disposal costs:
o Actual physical disposal (recycling, landfilling) costs
o Environmental consequences of disposing of each type

I think these "top-level" categories should cover most of the important
questions that should be answered in order to set light-bulb usage policies.

One of the most important things to consider, I think, is the fact that
CFLs contain fairly complex electronics, requiring construction at the
front end and disposal at the back end. How much energy does this all
consume? (That little matter of mercury in CFLs also demands investigation.)

It's important to look at something like this holistically so that we
don't end up embracing a policy that, to use an analogy, yields a barrel
of oil while requiring two barrels of oil to produce it.

================================================== ==========

Side note on LEDs: I ran across an article someone had posted a link to
in another newsgroup that's interesting, talking about how LEDs aren't
ready for "prime time" as lighting devices because of a potential energy
inefficiency due to the phenomenon known as "droop":

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/semicon...ds-dark-secret


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:52:28 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Since this seems to be a fairly hot topic here I thought I'd give it
another little shove. (And I hope Don Klipstein responds, as he seems to
be one of the most knowledgeable folks here in this field.)

So it's one of the burning questions of our age: are CFLs really that
much more efficient than incandescents? Should we go whole-hog over to
what Homer Simpson calls the "twirly" light bulbs to save ourselves (by
cutting carbon emissions, etc.)?

Plus now we have a new contender, LEDs, to throw into the mix.

If I were Ayatollah of the world, here's what I think I'd do. I would
want good answers to all these questions, based on good science and not
just speculation, "common sense" or other less reliable ways of arriving
at a conclusion.


If you were Ayatollah of the world you wouldn't care about science. The
history of Islam is one of repression of science, among other things.

I would order a Grand Study of the problem. This study would not just
look at the efficiencies of various bulb types in isolation: it would
attempt a holistic approach, where every aspect of creating and using
light bulbs is considered, not just the simple matter of CFLs using less
electricity to emit the equivalent amount of light:

Seems to me there are the following aspects to consider:

1. Production costs:
o Energy consumed by producing each type of bulb
o Materials required by each type, and energy consumed by obtaining them
o Environmental consequences of producing each type
o Monetary cost to consumer of each type

2. Usage costs:
o Comparative energy consumption of each type per unit of light
o Comparative heat produced by each type
o Longevity of each type
o Comparative cost of each type, based on energy consumption and lifespan

3. Disposal costs:
o Actual physical disposal (recycling, landfilling) costs
o Environmental consequences of disposing of each type

I think these "top-level" categories should cover most of the important
questions that should be answered in order to set light-bulb usage policies.

One of the most important things to consider, I think, is the fact that
CFLs contain fairly complex electronics, requiring construction at the
front end and disposal at the back end. How much energy does this all
consume? (That little matter of mercury in CFLs also demands investigation.)

It's important to look at something like this holistically so that we
don't end up embracing a policy that, to use an analogy, yields a barrel
of oil while requiring two barrels of oil to produce it.

================================================== ==========

Side note on LEDs: I ran across an article someone had posted a link to
in another newsgroup that's interesting, talking about how LEDs aren't
ready for "prime time" as lighting devices because of a potential energy
inefficiency due to the phenomenon known as "droop":

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/semicon...ds-dark-secret


The rest of this to too rational for this world.
  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 514
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538


"Mike Dobony" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:52:28 -0700, David Nebenzahl wrote:

Since this seems to be a fairly hot topic here I thought I'd give it
another little shove.
So it's one of the burning questions of our age: are CFLs really that
much more efficient than incandescents? Should we go whole-hog over to
what Homer Simpson calls the "twirly" light bulbs to save ourselves (by
cutting carbon emissions, etc.)?


I don't care about efficiency. CFLs are MUCH cheaper in the long run. Mine
have all lasted at least 6 years instead of 6 months for incandescents. Also
cheaper because they provide the same brightness while using less
electricity. But the number one reason I love these bulbs is that they don't
throw off the ridiculous heat generated by incandescents. It's not a big
deal in the winter but for those of use without AC, CFLs can lower the room
temp by 5-10 degrees, at least in my experience.


  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/25/2009 3:30 PM Van Chocstraw spake thus:

If a 60 watt incandescent replacement CFL only takes 13 watts you bet
your ass I'm saving money with EVERY light in the place a CFL.
I don't care about production problems and I don't care about disposal
problems.


Well, you might not, but fortunately other smart people do care about
these things.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

Since this seems to be a fairly hot topic here I thought I'd give it
another little shove. (And I hope Don Klipstein responds, as he seems to
be one of the most knowledgeable folks here in this field.)

So it's one of the burning questions of our age: are CFLs really that
much more efficient than incandescents? Should we go whole-hog over to
what Homer Simpson calls the "twirly" light bulbs to save ourselves (by
cutting carbon emissions, etc.)?

Plus now we have a new contender, LEDs, to throw into the mix.

If I were Ayatollah of the world, here's what I think I'd do. I would
want good answers to all these questions, based on good science and not
just speculation, "common sense" or other less reliable ways of arriving
at a conclusion.

I would order a Grand Study of the problem. This study would not just
look at the efficiencies of various bulb types in isolation: it would
attempt a holistic approach, where every aspect of creating and using
light bulbs is considered, not just the simple matter of CFLs using less
electricity to emit the equivalent amount of light:

Seems to me there are the following aspects to consider:

1. Production costs:
o Energy consumed by producing each type of bulb
o Materials required by each type, and energy consumed by obtaining them
o Environmental consequences of producing each type
o Monetary cost to consumer of each type


Energy consumed for production and transportation: Thankfully, Osram
did a study, and found that to be 2% or less of the amount of energy
consumed by use during its rated life expectancy for all three types.
Osram makes incandescents, CFLs and LED "light bulbs".

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/6/8/4

http://www.osram-os.com/osram_os/EN/...ture_of_light/
Our_obligation/LED_life-cycle_assessment/More_Information/index.html

For the 8 watt CFL and the 8 watt LED "bulb" studied, 98-plus% of energy
consumption attributable to theior entire life cycles was energy usage to
produce light, and manufacturing, transportation and disposal account for
no more than 2%. What I see makes it appear that this is also true of the
40 watt incandescents studied.

With higher wattages, the percentage of energy used by the entire life
cycle being electricity consumed for producing light will probably be
slightly higher (more than 98%).

This study assumes 10,000 hour life for the CFL - which I consider
optimistic for real-world usage. If it lasts 2/3 of that, then 97% of
life cycle energy use is from electricity used to make light. If it lasts
half that (which I think average actual average life of CFLs now exceeds),
then 96% of life cycle energy use is from electricity consumed to produce
light.

2. Usage costs:
o Comparative energy consumption of each type per unit of light


The best LED "light bulbs" on the market have luminous efficiency about
the same as that of decent quality CFLs. This is supposed to be 5 times
that of a 230V 40W incandescent or 4 times that of 60-100W 120V
incandescents, but my experience suggests that in practice it's more like
3.33 times as good as "standard" 120V incandescents.

Longer life incandescents fare worse, with ones rated to last 3500-5000
hours usually having at most 20% of the efficiency (I think more like 24%
in practice) of good CFLs and the best LED light bulbs.

CFLs and LEDs fade more over their lives than incandescents do. CFLs
have slightly lower scotopic/photopic ratio than incandescents do. This
is why I like to figure on a CFL producing effectively about 5/6 of its
rated light output. I would do the same with LEDs despite their higher
s/p ratio, since they fade over time and I have found many of their light
output claims optimistic to some extent or another so far.

o Comparative heat produced by each type


For a given amount of power consumption, heat production is the same.

For a given amount of rated light output, incandescents produce 4 times
as much heat as good CFLs and the best LED "bulbs". But only 2.5 times
more heat materializing in the fixture - a significant part of the
incandescent's heat is infrared, materializing in the room but not in the
fixture.

(For practical purposes, including my impressions of "real world
effective useful light output", I would like to say that on average
incandescents produce 3.33 times as much heat in the room and twice as
much heat in the fixture as good CFLs and the best LED bulbs of same
practically effective light output.)

o Longevity of each type


LEDs: In a good case, 100,000 hours for colored ones, 50,000 hours for
white ones to fade to 70% of original light output. Osram rates the 8
watt LED bulb in the above study to be useful for 25,000 hours. I have
seen one white LED nightlight lose about half its output in 4,000 hours.

CFLs: Better ones now are rated for 10,000 hours, if not overheated and
with average runtime of 3 hours per start. I still see some rated 7500
hours. My experience is averaging about 60-66% of rated life in typical
home use for ones rated 6000-7500 hours.

Incandescents: The more efficient ones are either rated to last
750-1000 hours, or are halogens rated to last 2000-3000 hours. There are
longer lasting ones with life expectancy anywhere from 1500 to 20,000
hours (130V traffic signal lamp used with 120V), but efficiency decreases
as life expectancy increases.

o Comparative cost of each type, based on energy consumption and lifespan


Using 11 cents per KWH:

60 watt "standard" 870 lumen incandescent lasting 1000 hours and costing
85 cents:
$7.45 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 1100 hour 800 lumen 3-for-$1 dollar store incandescent:
$8.55 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 750 hour 1190 lumen 85-cent one dimmed to 800 lumens (65 watts,
roughly 3000 hour life expectancy):
$7.43 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 750 hour 1190 lumen 85-cent one dimmed to 870 lumens (67 watts,
roughly 2200 hour life expectancy):
$7.75 per 1,000 hours

13 watt CFL, costing $4.50, if it lasts 4500 hours, 800 lumens on a good
day:
$5.93 per 1,000 hours

18 watt CFL, costing $4.50, if it lasts 4500 hours, 1100-1200 lumens
on a good day and usually exceeding 900 for practical purposes:
$6.48 per 1,000 hours

The savings of replacing incandescents with CFLs increases as wattage of
the incandescent being replaced increases.

I am unaware of any screw-in LED light bulbs that produce 800-900
lumens.

I am aware of an LED ceiling fixture that produces good or at least
fairly good color incandescentlike warm white light, rated to produce 650
lumens from 11 watts and to usefully last 50,000 hours (Cree Lighting
LR-6). That 650 lumens is about that achieved by 60 watt reflector bulbs
and 13-15 watt CFLs with reflectors in recessed ceiling fixtures.

I somewhat remember that it is likely to be improved in efficiency in
the near future - maybe to about 800-900 lumens with 11 or 12 watt power
consumption.

I do not know how much these cost and they require installation.

3. Disposal costs:
o Actual physical disposal (recycling, landfilling) costs


I somewhat remember landfilling costing Philaelphia around $70/ton
around 1990 or earlier in the 1990's - could be more like $100/ton now.
Plus maybe a few dollars per ton to transport trash to the landfill.

If you take your dead CFLs with you to Home Depot next time you go
there, proper recycling does not cost you anything. I hope the actual
cost is included in the price Home Depot charges for their CFLs.

o Environmental consequences of disposing of each type


The main concern is that landfilled CFLs would release about 3.5-4
milligrams of mercury. On average, ones replacing 60 watt or higher
incandescents in the USA save the environment from at least that much by
reducing coal burning.

I think these "top-level" categories should cover most of the important
questions that should be answered in order to set light-bulb usage policies.

One of the most important things to consider, I think, is the fact that
CFLs contain fairly complex electronics, requiring construction at the
front end and disposal at the back end. How much energy does this all
consume? (That little matter of mercury in CFLs also demands investigation.)

It's important to look at something like this holistically so that we
don't end up embracing a policy that, to use an analogy, yields a barrel
of oil while requiring two barrels of oil to produce it.


I think I answered most of the questions here, though not all. If I see
a followup asking for more, I will try to get to it later this week.

- Don Klipstein )


  #6   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/25/2009 6:43 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

3. Disposal costs:
o Actual physical disposal (recycling, landfilling) costs


I somewhat remember landfilling costing Philaelphia around $70/ton
around 1990 or earlier in the 1990's - could be more like $100/ton now.
Plus maybe a few dollars per ton to transport trash to the landfill.

If you take your dead CFLs with you to Home Depot next time you go
there, proper recycling does not cost you anything. I hope the actual
cost is included in the price Home Depot charges for their CFLs.


Keep in mind that in this (hypothetical) "Grand Study" it's the total
costs to *everybody* that count, not just what it costs *me* as a
consumer. I know I can recycle my CFLs at a number of places (Home
Depot, Ikea, etc.) for free; what I'm after here is the actual cost of
transporting, storing, dismembering, sorting, and ultimately disposing
of the remains: recycling what can be recycled and landfilling the rest.
Including any energy expended in doing so.

I doubt if you or anyone else here has a figure for that, but it's a
real cost, one I think would be helpful to know. (I would be interested
in your educated guess.)


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #7   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/25/2009 6:43 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

3. Disposal costs:
o Actual physical disposal (recycling, landfilling) costs


I somewhat remember landfilling costing Philaelphia around $70/ton
around 1990 or earlier in the 1990's - could be more like $100/ton now.
Plus maybe a few dollars per ton to transport trash to the landfill.

If you take your dead CFLs with you to Home Depot next time you go
there, proper recycling does not cost you anything. I hope the actual
cost is included in the price Home Depot charges for their CFLs.


Keep in mind that in this (hypothetical) "Grand Study" it's the total
costs to *everybody* that count, not just what it costs *me* as a
consumer. I know I can recycle my CFLs at a number of places (Home
Depot, Ikea, etc.) for free; what I'm after here is the actual cost of
transporting, storing, dismembering, sorting, and ultimately disposing
of the remains: recycling what can be recycled and landfilling the rest.
Including any energy expended in doing so.

I doubt if you or anyone else here has a figure for that, but it's a
real cost, one I think would be helpful to know. (I would be interested
in your educated guess.)


The Osram study on energy consumption includes "end of life" - I would
think that would include disposal.

As for my cost figures - that was only direct consumer cost, though I
suspect and hope that Home Depot includes cost of their recycling of
brought-in dead CFLs in the cost of their new ones. If you accumulate
your dead ones until the next time you had to go to Home Depot anyway,
there should be extremely negligible cost and energy consumption of your
transportation.

- Don Klipstein )
  #8   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
mm mm is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,824
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:18:14 -0400, "h"
wrote:


I don't care about efficiency. CFLs are MUCH cheaper in the long run. Mine
have all lasted at least 6 years instead of 6 months for incandescents. Also
cheaper because they provide the same brightness while using less
electricity. But the number one reason I love these bulbs is that they don't
throw off the ridiculous heat generated by incandescents. It's not a big
deal in the winter but for those of use without AC, CFLs can lower the room
temp by 5-10 degrees, at least in my experience.


If you have AC, you pay twice for any waste heat from any light you
use, once to make it, and once to force it out of the house. I'm not
sure, but I think it costs more to remove the heat from the house than
it does to make it in the first place.

By far most of the output of an incandescent bulb is heat, but aiu
things, even the light, from both cfls and incandescent, turns to heat
when it hits soomething and doesn't bounce off. Now white bounces a
lot more light off of it than does black, but if bounced off all the
light, you could turn off the electric lights in an all white room and
it would remain lit forever. Instead it gets dark in a tiny fraction
of a second. Where did all the light energy go? It turned into
heat, afaik.

  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/25/2009 8:00 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/25/2009 6:43 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:


Keep in mind that in this (hypothetical) "Grand Study" it's the total
costs to *everybody* that count, not just what it costs *me* as a
consumer. I know I can recycle my CFLs at a number of places (Home
Depot, Ikea, etc.) for free; what I'm after here is the actual cost of
transporting, storing, dismembering, sorting, and ultimately disposing
of the remains: recycling what can be recycled and landfilling the rest.
Including any energy expended in doing so.

I doubt if you or anyone else here has a figure for that, but it's a
real cost, one I think would be helpful to know. (I would be interested
in your educated guess.)


The Osram study on energy consumption includes "end of life" - I would
think that would include disposal.

As for my cost figures - that was only direct consumer cost, though I
suspect and hope that Home Depot includes cost of their recycling of
brought-in dead CFLs in the cost of their new ones. If you accumulate
your dead ones until the next time you had to go to Home Depot anyway,
there should be extremely negligible cost and energy consumption of your
transportation.


Not to belabor this point too much, but Home Despot doesn't actually
recycle CFLs. I'm guessing that they actually sell the carcasses to
someone who disassembles them and scavenges the usable material. So my
question still remains: how much energy is required for this operation?

I'm also curious what usable stuff they're able to extract from all
those bulbs. I can't imagine that anyone wants to reuse any of the
transistors, capacitors, etc., so they must get ground up and somehow
turned into feedstock for ... something.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #10   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,144
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Mike Dobony wrote:

If you were Ayatollah of the world you wouldn't care about science.
The history of Islam is one of repression of science, among other
things.


Man, you need to do some reading. Start with a fellow named Kitab
al-Manazir, who between 1011 and 1021 wrote the seven-volume Book Of Optics
that helped to establish the modern scientific method. That's not
surprising when you consider that while Europe was still mucking around in
the Dark Ages, science and art were flourishing in much of the Islamic
world. While that sadly changed over the centuries, it is foolish to
pretend that at one time the Islamic world wasn't ahead of the west in
scientific terms. And for that matter Christianity doesn't have such a
great record when it comes to suppressing science. Come to think of it, a
significant number of today's Christians seem to have some problems when it
comes to science, don't they.




  #11   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Aug 25, 7:52*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
..
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.
  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/25/2009 11:01 PM stan spake thus:

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.


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
  #13   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 66
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538


"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...
Since this seems to be a fairly hot topic here I thought I'd give
it another little shove. (And I hope Don Klipstein responds, as he
seems to be one of the most knowledgeable folks here in this
field.)

So it's one of the burning questions of our age: are CFLs really
that much more efficient than incandescents? Should we go
whole-hog over to what Homer Simpson calls the "twirly" light
bulbs to save ourselves (by cutting carbon emissions, etc.)?

Plus now we have a new contender, LEDs, to throw into the mix.

If I were Ayatollah of the world, here's what I think I'd do. I
would want good answers to all these questions, based on good
science and not just speculation, "common sense" or other less
reliable ways of arriving at a conclusion.


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


  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

David Nebenzahl wrote:

One of the most important things to consider, I think, is the fact
that CFLs contain fairly complex electronics, requiring construction
at the front end and disposal at the back end. How much energy does
this all consume? (That little matter of mercury in CFLs also demands
investigation.)
It's important to look at something like this holistically so that we
don't end up embracing a policy that, to use an analogy, yields a
barrel of oil while requiring two barrels of oil to produce it.


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.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,926
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Aug 25, 10:31*pm, mm wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:18:14 -0400, "h"
wrote:



I don't care about efficiency. CFLs are MUCH cheaper in the long run. Mine
have all lasted at least 6 years instead of 6 months for incandescents. Also
cheaper because they provide the same brightness while using less
electricity. But the number one reason I love these bulbs is that they don't
throw off the ridiculous heat generated by incandescents. It's not a big
deal in the winter but for those of use without AC, CFLs can lower the room
temp by 5-10 degrees, at least in my experience.


If you have AC, you pay twice for any waste heat from any light you
use, once to make it, and once to force it out of the house. *I'm not
sure, but I think it costs more to remove the heat from the house than
it does to make it in the first place.

By far most of the output of an incandescent bulb is heat, but aiu
things, even the light, from both cfls and incandescent, turns to heat
when it hits soomething and doesn't bounce off. Now white bounces a
lot more light off of it than does black, but if bounced off all the
light, you could turn off the electric lights in an all white room and
it would remain lit forever. *Instead it gets dark in a tiny fraction
of a second. * Where did all the light energy go? *It turned into
heat, afaik.


Inacandesant by the high percantage of infrared they omit heat more,
its not light you see. I have read 93-96% of energy consumed by an
incandesant is output as heat, the majority of energy out put is
infrared that heats. Flourescent by they way they operate are better.
Incandesants to me, are electric heaters that output 4-6% light. In
winter they are not as bad, but electricity costs me 50% or so more
per BTU than Ng. The only place I use incandesants is my frige, can
lights, and a few other things. I burn out a HD cfl and I get a new
one free.


  #16   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/26/2009 4:13 AM Bob-tx spake thus:

"David Nebenzahl" wrote in message
s.com...

If I were Ayatollah of the world, here's what I think I'd do. I
would want good answers to all these questions, based on good
science and not just speculation, "common sense" or other less
reliable ways of arriving at a conclusion.


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.


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
  #17   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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]


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."


  #18   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/26/2009 11:37 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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]


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."


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
  #21   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

In article , mm wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:18:14 -0400, "h"
wrote:

I don't care about efficiency. CFLs are MUCH cheaper in the long run. Mine
have all lasted at least 6 years instead of 6 months for incandescents. Also
cheaper because they provide the same brightness while using less
electricity. But the number one reason I love these bulbs is that they don't
throw off the ridiculous heat generated by incandescents. It's not a big
deal in the winter but for those of use without AC, CFLs can lower the room
temp by 5-10 degrees, at least in my experience.


If you have AC, you pay twice for any waste heat from any light you
use, once to make it, and once to force it out of the house. I'm not
sure, but I think it costs more to remove the heat from the house than
it does to make it in the first place.


It's not that bad - maybe 1/3 of what it costs to produce the heat, give
or take, depending on efficiency of your A/C and how much hotter it is
outside than inside.

By far most of the output of an incandescent bulb is heat, but aiu
things, even the light, from both cfls and incandescent, turns to heat
when it hits soomething and doesn't bounce off. Now white bounces a
lot more light off of it than does black, but if bounced off all the
light, you could turn off the electric lights in an all white room and
it would remain lit forever. Instead it gets dark in a tiny fraction
of a second. Where did all the light energy go? It turned into
heat, afaik.


True, with exception of the amount escaping your house as light (and as
optical band infrared) - normally a very small percentage.

- Don Klipstein )
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

On 8/25/2009 8:00 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In article , David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 8/25/2009 6:43 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:


Keep in mind that in this (hypothetical) "Grand Study" it's the total
costs to *everybody* that count, not just what it costs *me* as a
consumer. I know I can recycle my CFLs at a number of places (Home
Depot, Ikea, etc.) for free; what I'm after here is the actual cost of
transporting, storing, dismembering, sorting, and ultimately disposing
of the remains: recycling what can be recycled and landfilling the rest.
Including any energy expended in doing so.

I doubt if you or anyone else here has a figure for that, but it's a
real cost, one I think would be helpful to know. (I would be interested
in your educated guess.)


The Osram study on energy consumption includes "end of life" - I would
think that would include disposal.

As for my cost figures - that was only direct consumer cost, though I
suspect and hope that Home Depot includes cost of their recycling of
brought-in dead CFLs in the cost of their new ones. If you accumulate
your dead ones until the next time you had to go to Home Depot anyway,
there should be extremely negligible cost and energy consumption of your
transportation.


Not to belabor this point too much, but Home Despot doesn't actually
recycle CFLs. I'm guessing that they actually sell the carcasses to
someone who disassembles them and scavenges the usable material. So my
question still remains: how much energy is required for this operation?


I would expect the energy consumption for that part is in the "end of
life" part, which when combined with manufacturing and transportation
amounts to 2% of total life cycle energy usage (assuming the CFL lasts
10,000 hours, 4% if it lasts 5,000 hours).

I'm also curious what usable stuff they're able to extract from all
those bulbs. I can't imagine that anyone wants to reuse any of the
transistors, capacitors, etc., so they must get ground up and somehow
turned into feedstock for ... something.


I would think that the mercury gets recovered and everything else gets
landfilled, especially if they are using lead-free solder.

- Don Klipstein )
  #24   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

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.

In , I, Don Klipstein wrote in part:

o Comparative cost of each type, based on energy consumption and lifespan


Using 11 cents per KWH:

60 watt "standard" 870 lumen incandescent lasting 1000 hours and costing
85 cents:
$7.45 per 1,000 hours


75 watt 1100 hour 800 lumen 3-for-$1 dollar store incandescent:
$8.55 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 750 hour 1190 lumen 85-cent one dimmed to 800 lumens (65 watts,
roughly 3000 hour life expectancy):
$7.43 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 750 hour 1190 lumen 85-cent one dimmed to 870 lumens (67 watts,
roughly 2200 hour life expectancy):
$7.75 per 1,000 hours

13 watt CFL, costing $4.50, if it lasts 4500 hours, 800 lumens on a good
day:
$5.93 per 1,000 hours


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

18 watt CFL, costing $4.50, if it lasts 4500 hours, 1100-1200 lumens
on a good day and usually exceeding 900 for practical purposes:
$6.48 per 1,000 hours


I should have said $2.98 per 1,000 hours.

- Don Klipstein )
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,368
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Don Klipstein wrote:
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.

In , I, Don Klipstein wrote in
part:

o Comparative cost of each type, based on energy consumption and
lifespan


Using 11 cents per KWH:

60 watt "standard" 870 lumen incandescent lasting 1000 hours and
costing 85 cents:
$7.45 per 1,000 hours


75 watt 1100 hour 800 lumen 3-for-$1 dollar store incandescent:
$8.55 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 750 hour 1190 lumen 85-cent one dimmed to 800 lumens (65
watts, roughly 3000 hour life expectancy):
$7.43 per 1,000 hours

75 watt 750 hour 1190 lumen 85-cent one dimmed to 870 lumens (67
watts, roughly 2200 hour life expectancy):
$7.75 per 1,000 hours

13 watt CFL, costing $4.50, if it lasts 4500 hours, 800 lumens on a
good day:
$5.93 per 1,000 hours


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

18 watt CFL, costing $4.50, if it lasts 4500 hours, 1100-1200 lumens
on a good day and usually exceeding 900 for practical purposes:
$6.48 per 1,000 hours


I should have said $2.98 per 1,000 hours.



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.




  #26   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,469
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On 8/26/2009 3:06 PM Don Klipstein spake thus:

In m, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

I'm also curious what usable stuff they're able to extract from all
those bulbs. I can't imagine that anyone wants to reuse any of the
transistors, capacitors, etc., so they must get ground up and somehow
turned into feedstock for ... something.


I would think that the mercury gets recovered and everything else gets
landfilled, especially if they are using lead-free solder.


That's certainly at odds with at least the impression one gets from the
reports one sees on TV from time to time, touting how "responsible"
recyclers are now recovering the materials from such things as discarded
electronics, rather than shipping them overseas and letting 7-year-old
barefoot children pick them apart in a junkyard.

I would have thought that the electronics would get ground up and then
reclaimed, at least to some extent. Wouldn't it be just wasteful to put
all those metals back into the landfill?

Then again, maybe I was being naive.


--
Found--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

"Clot" wrote:

I suspect that the
overall impact is minute compared to actually opening the door and keeping
it unduly open!


I know.... you are right

I'm just an "optimizer" by nature and cant help myself!

But....... if there are 400 million people in the USA
and say 100 million homes.... and if we save just ONE
watt in the fridge bulb.... that is 100 million watts
saved!!
  #30   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/26/2009 11:37 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

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]


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."


Well, that pretty much squares with a lot of the crap you post here.

At least you're consistent.


Thanks. I enjoy irritating progressives.




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 388
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:52:28 -0700, David Nebenzahl
wrote:

...


I would order a Grand Study of the problem. This study would not just
look at the efficiencies of various bulb types in isolation: it would
attempt a holistic approach, where every aspect of creating and using
light bulbs is considered, not just the simple matter of CFLs using less
electricity to emit the equivalent amount of light:

Seems to me there are the following aspects to consider:



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.
  #32   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 384
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

dpb 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.


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!
  #35   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,431
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

In article , Clot wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:
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.


I don't think I need to repeat these

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.


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-aca.../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=ar...rticleID=10261

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 )


  #36   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,538
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Don Klipstein wrote:

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-aca.../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=ar...rticleID=10261

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).


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.


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,926
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Aug 26, 4:05*pm, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 8/26/2009 11:37 AM HeyBub spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:


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]


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."


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


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.
  #38   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,368
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

Don Klipstein wrote:
In article , Clot wrote:
Don Klipstein wrote:


snip

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.


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.


  #40   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,926
Default CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538

On Aug 27, 8:22*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
wrote:

dpb 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.


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!


Here you go, you can buy this new fridge, equipped with freezer and
fridge LED lights, to save bundles on your electricity costs. Let us
know about the payback period.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16896140196


And your food will look sickly in the blue grey Leds I saw in one frige
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CFLs Dave UK diy 7 August 12th 09 10:25 AM
CFLs....again No Name Home Repair 14 May 13th 09 01:05 PM
CFLs Home Repair 1 January 15th 07 07:22 AM
Musing about wood going round and round. Where it stops nobodyknows! Arch Woodturning 3 April 4th 06 07:50 PM
can a small round table expand to large round dining table exist? sab Woodworking 19 December 19th 04 04:08 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"