Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#19
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#21
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 ) |
#23
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#24
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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!! |
#28
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#29
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#30
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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! |
#33
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
|
#34
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
In article ,
wrote: wrote: 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. Yeah..... except healthcare It would if the government would stay out of it. Most of the healthcare concerns trace back to tax policies that (1). tie insurance to the work place and (2). lead to you and me only paying (on average) out of pocket only about 20% of the costs. We really should TRY free market before we dis it. -- Searching is half the fun: life is much more manageable when thought of as a scavenger hunt as opposed to a surprise party. Jimmy Buffett |
#35
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#39
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
CFLs vs LEDs vs incandescents: round 1,538
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 |
#40
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
CFLs | UK diy | |||
CFLs....again | Home Repair | |||
CFLs | Home Repair | |||
Musing about wood going round and round. Where it stops nobodyknows! | Woodturning | |||
can a small round table expand to large round dining table exist? | Woodworking |