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 |
#81
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
" wrote in
: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons. I just asked my wife (who does all the money stuff around here). She says we pay about $150 a month for water/sewer/electricity, which come combined on one bill. She's not sure about the exact breakdown without actually checking, but I seem to remember that water and sewer were about $50 last I looked. So electricity is likely about $100 a month. So, now I must attempt to remove from the equation the microwave, stove, both fridges, the clothes washer, clothes dryer, computers, TVs, radios, wife's hair dryer, 4' fluorescent lights in the basement, and various other components that get used less frequently than the above, before I can determine how much electricity I'm actually wasting on the incandescents, most of which are not in use for most of the day, even in winter. Then I need to add a correction factor for those CFLs that would need to stay burning all the time, to make sure they will supply immediate light when needed, like the porch light. Consideration of all this is how I come to the conclusion that CFLs are not all they're cracked-up to be when it comes to saving money. They probably do save money, but the amount saved is surely very, very small. -- Tegger |
#82
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Apr 24, 12:58*pm, "
wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of *Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. *Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Since you admit to not using light and you live in the dark you are right you wont save a penny. |
#83
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Apr 24, 12:48*pm, "
wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 06:02:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote: On Apr 23, 2:35*pm, ransley wrote: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in news: : On Apr 20, 5:25*pm, Tegger wrote: I am happy to leave CFLs on the store shelf for others to buy. Tegger And you are so blissfully happy paying 75% more for electricity for a apliance that outputs near 95% of its energy consumed as heat. Yep. Because in actual dollar terms, that 75% is a trivial amount of money. Run 11-100 w incandesants Most of our incandescents are 40 and 60 watt. We do have a couple of Tri-lites that go up to 150, but they're normally on at the 100W setting. and be happy knowing you AC this summer has to remove that extra 1000w of heat Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. CR and Popular Mechanics Mag did reviews and dont agree with your happiness on color rendition of life expectancy. I see threads in this groups with comaplints about color unless you buy /just/ the right kind of bulb. And being in people's homes with CFLs, I have to disagree with CR. Also, CR is hard left-wing and as religiously "green" as they come, so their judgements are unlikely to be bias-free. With HDs 9 yr warranty my HD soft whites will be free forever , be happy, stay ignorant. Except that you had to pay ten times the cost of incandescents to get that 9-year warranty... Every building ive covnverted to cfls the electric bill dropped 50-60%, Cool! *They save money on my heat pump, water heater, and oven, too! Hows that work? IOW, you're a liar. *CFLs replacing incandescents save on net energy costs, even when heat * * * * pumps, water heaters, and ovens are included. Insignificant. *Heat pumps deliver around twice as much heating from a given amount of electricity consumption as resistive heaters do, since about half the heat that heat pumps put out is pumped in from outside rather than heat from converting electrical energy to heat energy. Duh! *You have a command of the obvious, anyway. *Since incandescent household lighting has very little of its heat heating the water in water heaters or the contents of ovens, I am prone to take a dim view of those advocating incandescents over CFL on the heat of incandescent home lighting being good for water heaters and ovens. Either you aren't reading or your biases are making you blind. *No one is advocating incandescent bulbs because they save electricity. *CFLs are ugly, the light is ugly, are slow to start, can't be used in many fixtures, and are expensive, no matter what "ransley" says. I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who would not love a 50% reduction. *The heat is generated, you put it in, whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! *I bet you never did a cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know any facts you speak of. I repeat, you need to learn to *think*. *As if CFL advocates don't in light of the above? Right. *With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You are Ignorance at it best |
#84
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 08:06:35 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote: ransley wrote: On Apr 23, 3:00 pm, keith wrote: On Apr 23, 2:35 pm, ransley wrote: On Apr 23, 7:19 am, Tegger wrote: ransley wrote : On Apr 20, 5:25 pm, Tegger wrote: I am happy to leave CFLs on the store shelf for others to buy. -- Tegger And you are so blissfully happy paying 75% more for electricity for a apliance that outputs near 95% of its energy consumed as heat. Yep. Because in actual dollar terms, that 75% is a trivial amount of money. Run 11-100 w incandesants Most of our incandescents are 40 and 60 watt. We do have a couple of Tri-lites that go up to 150, but they're normally on at the 100W setting. and be happy knowing you AC this summer has to remove that extra 1000w of heat Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. CR and Popular Mechanics Mag did reviews and dont agree with your happiness on color rendition of life expectancy. I see threads in this groups with comaplints about color unless you buy /just/ the right kind of bulb. And being in people's homes with CFLs, I have to disagree with CR. Also, CR is hard left-wing and as religiously "green" as they come, so their judgements are unlikely to be bias-free. With HDs 9 yr warranty my HD soft whites will be free forever , be happy, stay ignorant. Except that you had to pay ten times the cost of incandescents to get that 9-year warranty... -- Tegger Every building ive covnverted to cfls the electric bill dropped 50-60%, Cool! They save money on my heat pump, water heater, and oven, too! Hows that work? IOW, you're a liar. I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who would not love a 50% reduction. The heat is generated, you put it in, whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! I bet you never did a cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know any facts you speak of. I repeat, you need to learn to *think*.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. CFLs are 65-75% more efficent. FACT, 11, 100 w incandesants output the same heat as a 1000w resistance heater. FACT, for most of the US Ng is now about half the price of Ng per BTU. FACT, incandesants waste 75% more energy than Flourescents. So keep heating your house this summer with incandesants, and keep running that AC more to remove that heat your incandesants enter in your home, just Keep a wastin and paying a higher electric bill. Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. Holy cow, a 100w light bulb which draws less than 1 amp puts out more heat than a 1,000w heater drawing 9 amps? I should get rid of the CFL lights I have and heat the house with 100w light bulbs next winter and save a lot of money, thanks for the tip! Dang! I'm gonna save so much money I'll have to call the newspapers and TV stations so they can inform everyone that the energy crisis is over! I knew the coming government ban on 100w light bulbs was a conspiracy by government and energy companies to rip of consumers. SOUND THE ALARM! WE WON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! TDD Mr Dufus - I don't think you READ his diatribe very well. He DID say 11 100 watt bulbs. In his (undeserved, perhaps) defense. |
#85
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
" wrote in
: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons. the watermelons always want people to "cut back" and enact more regulations rather than produce more energy and more cheaply,like by building more clean nuclear power plants. they are the Flat Earth Society. I suspect they don't even get what "watermelon" means in this reference. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at localnet dot com |
#87
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
|
#88
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:55:46 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:28 -0500, " wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:28:31 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote in part: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: SNIP to here Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Our heat pumps will "run" seven or eight months a year... When in use they don't often get shut down at night (though the thermostat will cycle). Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. Yep. It costs about half as much to heat a home with a heat pump as it does with resistive heating. And in most areas, it costs less to heat a home with gas or oil than it does with resistive heating. The "half as much" applies to a small outside temperature band where less heat is actually needed. Yes, that drops the cost of the "wasted" incandescent electricity by "50%" instead of 100% and a similar amount with other heat sources. Something the CFL idiots never take into account. That still doesn't get us to "ransley's" 50% electricity savings he's trying to tell us that is somehow "normal". And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. Perzactly! The average bulb in our house is likely on for 2 minutes per day with only the bathroom lights on for anything close to an hour per day. CFLs really suck in our application; won't have them. What? No need for lighting for long outside a bathroom in a house in a location that needs heat 7-8 months out of the year? It's time for you to try thinking, Don. Heat pumps are not only used in heating season. SNIP from here Use a proper sig separator. In a well dsigned house with reasonable window area in most of the country, if you use natural gas for heat and hot water and electricity for everything else, how much power is consumed by lighting on an average day? Say 3 lights for 4 hours, and a couple more for an hour each. Say they are 100 watt bulbs. That's 1400 watt hours - or 1.4kw hours per day for essential lighting. If you have kids at home, and they are in differnt rooms, double it. Add a bit to be fair, and you have 3KWh of lighting consumption. Ok, $.30. You make a pot of coffee with your 1500 watt tea kettle. It takes 3 minutes? Sounds light by two or three, but... That's 75 watt hours Yout toast is another 125? Your Bacon and eggs another 500. Then there is your refrigerator, and your circulating fan on your furnace (2.4KwH minimum) Now add for to six hours of TV (or twelve), for another 2-3kWh (double). So your lighting is already less than half your electrical consumption - meaning that if you turned ALL your lights OFF you would save roughly half of your electricity. So even if your CFLs consume 1/4 the power your incandescents do, you are only saving about 35% of your power consumption. In reality you usually use electricity for a lot more non-lighting purposes than just breakfast so the returns drop even more - even if you also use more lights. Yep. Lighting really is small potatoes. CFLs are a (lousy) solution without a problem. CFLs definitely save money - but I'll never believe 50% of the electrical bill unless they are like mine and don't work at all after several months to a year - and I've NEVER bought cfls for half a buck, or even a buck. In my opinion the only CFL worth wasting much time on is the one that plays on the "big" field - and I don't even waste time or TV power on them these days. I haven't even watched the 'N' version for a couple of years. ;-) |
#89
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:35:21 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote: On Apr 24, 12:48*pm, " wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 06:02:19 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote: On Apr 23, 2:35*pm, ransley wrote: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in news: : On Apr 20, 5:25*pm, Tegger wrote: I am happy to leave CFLs on the store shelf for others to buy. Tegger And you are so blissfully happy paying 75% more for electricity for a apliance that outputs near 95% of its energy consumed as heat. Yep. Because in actual dollar terms, that 75% is a trivial amount of money. Run 11-100 w incandesants Most of our incandescents are 40 and 60 watt. We do have a couple of Tri-lites that go up to 150, but they're normally on at the 100W setting. and be happy knowing you AC this summer has to remove that extra 1000w of heat Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. CR and Popular Mechanics Mag did reviews and dont agree with your happiness on color rendition of life expectancy. I see threads in this groups with comaplints about color unless you buy /just/ the right kind of bulb. And being in people's homes with CFLs, I have to disagree with CR. Also, CR is hard left-wing and as religiously "green" as they come, so their judgements are unlikely to be bias-free. With HDs 9 yr warranty my HD soft whites will be free forever , be happy, stay ignorant. Except that you had to pay ten times the cost of incandescents to get that 9-year warranty... Every building ive covnverted to cfls the electric bill dropped 50-60%, Cool! *They save money on my heat pump, water heater, and oven, too! Hows that work? IOW, you're a liar. *CFLs replacing incandescents save on net energy costs, even when heat * * * * pumps, water heaters, and ovens are included. Insignificant. *Heat pumps deliver around twice as much heating from a given amount of electricity consumption as resistive heaters do, since about half the heat that heat pumps put out is pumped in from outside rather than heat from converting electrical energy to heat energy. Duh! *You have a command of the obvious, anyway. *Since incandescent household lighting has very little of its heat heating the water in water heaters or the contents of ovens, I am prone to take a dim view of those advocating incandescents over CFL on the heat of incandescent home lighting being good for water heaters and ovens. Either you aren't reading or your biases are making you blind. *No one is advocating incandescent bulbs because they save electricity. *CFLs are ugly, the light is ugly, are slow to start, can't be used in many fixtures, and are expensive, no matter what "ransley" says. I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who would not love a 50% reduction. *The heat is generated, you put it in, whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! *I bet you never did a cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know any facts you speak of. I repeat, you need to learn to *think*. *As if CFL advocates don't in light of the above? Right. *With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - You are Ignorance at it best You lost the argument. No problem, you can admit it. |
#90
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:37:15 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote:
" wrote in : On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons. I just asked my wife (who does all the money stuff around here). She says we pay about $150 a month for water/sewer/electricity, which come combined on one bill. She's not sure about the exact breakdown without actually checking, but I seem to remember that water and sewer were about $50 last I looked. So electricity is likely about $100 a month. Ours is about the same, glued together differently perhaps. In the Winter and Summer it's higher (Summer a *lot* higher if I water the lawn), spring/fall not so much. So, now I must attempt to remove from the equation the microwave, stove, both fridges, the clothes washer, clothes dryer, computers, TVs, radios, wife's hair dryer, 4' fluorescent lights in the basement, and various other components that get used less frequently than the above, before I can determine how much electricity I'm actually wasting on the incandescents, most of which are not in use for most of the day, even in winter. It's easer to add up the hours the lights are on. Like I said, mine average minutes per day, with the only ones on for as much as an hour are the ones in the bathroom (both getting ready in the morning). Then I need to add a correction factor for those CFLs that would need to stay burning all the time, to make sure they will supply immediate light when needed, like the porch light. Ouch. There go the savings. Consideration of all this is how I come to the conclusion that CFLs are not all they're cracked-up to be when it comes to saving money. They probably do save money, but the amount saved is surely very, very small. Yep. Be sure to stock up on light bulbs. I plan on having a lifetime supply by the end of the year (500 ought to do it). |
#91
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 16:34:13 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote: On Apr 24, 12:58*pm, " wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of *Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. *Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Since you admit to not using light and you live in the dark you are right you wont save a penny. I don't use much light, particularly in the summer when I'm air conditioning. It's good to see that you can admit it when you're wrong, though. |
#92
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 19:40:57 -0500, Jim Yanik wrote:
" wrote in : On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons. the watermelons always want people to "cut back" and enact more regulations ^^^^^^ others rather than produce more energy and more cheaply,like by building more clean nuclear power plants. they are the Flat Earth Society. That's not fair to the flat Earthers. The latter doesn't use the force of law. I suspect they don't even get what "watermelon" means in this reference. |
#93
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , The Daring Dufas wrote:
ransley wrote: in small part, snipped down to this by me, D.K. FACT, 11, 100 w incandesants output the same heat as a 1000w resistance heater Holy cow, a 100w light bulb which draws less than 1 amp No, the statement is not that well punctuated but he did mean 11 of these, not one. puts out more heat than a 1,000w heater drawing 9 amps? I should get rid of the CFL lights I have and heat the house with 100w light bulbs next winter and save a lot of money, thanks for the tip! Dang! I'm gonna save so much money I'll have to call the newspapers and TV stations so they can inform everyone that the energy crisis is over! I knew the coming government ban on 100w light bulbs was a conspiracy by government and energy companies to rip of consumers. SOUND THE ALARM! WE WON'T LET THEM GET AWAY WITH IT! - Don Klipstein ) |
#94
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
|
#95
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In article , Tegger wrote:
" wrote in : On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. snip Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. You're not laughing, you're absolutely apoplectic with anger that I choose not to agree with you, and wish instead to go my own way with incandescents. You probably regard my viewpoint as horribly immoral. That's the way with watermelons. I just asked my wife (who does all the money stuff around here). She says we pay about $150 a month for water/sewer/electricity, which come combined on one bill. She's not sure about the exact breakdown without actually checking, but I seem to remember that water and sewer were about $50 last I looked. So electricity is likely about $100 a month. So, now I must attempt to remove from the equation the microwave, That is likely much more negligible than the lighting. stove, Is it electric? Even if it is, there is some fair chance that incandescent home lighting amounts to more. both fridges, That is usually the biggie in households without electric heat and extreme skimping or lack of A/C. the clothes washer, That usually amounts to less than lighting of the same home does even if such home's lighting is mildly to moderately on the energy-efficient side. A washer usually consumes less than a kilowatt for no more than a few hours per week, usually less than 10 KWH per month. clothes dryer, If the heat is from gas rather than electric, then its electricity consumption is usually even less than that of the washer. computers, Even in homes when they are left on 24/7 and the computers do not go into energy-conservation modes when not in use, the computer(s) usually consume less electrical energy permonth than the home lighting does. TVs, That gets to be a bit of another "bone of contention", as in an area where opportunities for improvement in energy efficiency abound. That became "more true" during the past decade or so, as screen size of home TVs bloomed about as much as (or more likely outrunning) energy efficiency of making each square foot of a TV screen glow. radios, Most now consume only a few watts, comparable to an incandescent *nightlight* or a CFL whose light output is in the 25-40 watt incandescent equivalence range. wife's hair dryer, KWH per month, if getting to double digits, probably has the first significant digit being 1 or 2. 4' fluorescent lights in the basement, 4' fluorescent is energy-efficient lighting. Even the "residential grade" turds of 4' fluorescent have energy-efficiency close to that of "big-3-brand-name" Energy-Star-logo'ed CFLs. and various other components that get used less frequently than the above, before I can determine how much electricity I'm actually wasting on the incandescents, most of which are not in use for most of the day, even in winter. Then I need to add a correction factor for those CFLs that would need to stay burning all the time, to make sure they will supply immediate light when needed, like the porch light. As much as I see many porch lights glowing 24/7/365 or on for *hours every night*, I expect those to be good candidates for usage of CFL (of wider temperature range duty, or "outdoor duty", "my words"). Consideration of all this is how I come to the conclusion that CFLs are not all they're cracked-up to be when it comes to saving money. They probably do save money, but the amount saved is surely very, very small. Usually $ to $$ per year, often with "rate of return" / "ROI" exceeding historical average of investing into "S&P 500 index funds" according to projecting backwards the methods/rules and incurred expense ratios of even Vanguard's "Index 500" fund, even should it have existed in 1929 and you "bought in" at the "1929 high". (And while Vanguard's "Index 500" fund existed, most stock mutual funds fared worse than Vanguard's "Index 500"). - Don Klipstein ) |
#96
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
|
#97
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
Rob Budd wrote in
: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:37:15 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: Consideration of all this is how I come to the conclusion that CFLs are not all they're cracked-up to be when it comes to saving money. They probably do save money, but the amount saved is surely very, very small. I switched most of my lights to CFL a few years ago. As a result, I saved enough electricity that the power company changed me to a lower rate structure, which gave me additional savings. They said I qualified because I had reduced my power consumption by more than 10% than the same period the preceeding year. If I save 10%, that amounts to ten dollars a month. I am not going to bother with CFLs if the hassle means only ten dollars a month. And unless you are a total retard, that porch light does not need to be on 24/7 just to make sure you have "light when needed" I should have been clearer: By "all the time", I meant "all the time after it starts to get dark outside". And that I see absolutely everywhere. I walk a lot, and thus have lots of time to observe people's lighting behavior. I'd say that, comparing outside-lighting left on all the time, CFLs outnumber incandescents at /least/ ten-to-one. -- Tegger |
#98
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:02:10 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , z... wrote: On 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. SNIP from here toedit for space Do you claim that no home can have its electric bill halved by switching from incandescents to CFLs? Pretty much. If *all* he had were electric lights, no refrigerators, no electric water heater, no stove, no clothes dryer, no dish washer, no AC, only electric lights, perhaps. He would still have the "billing" (flat) rate to deal with. In any case it's a trivial amount. For most, more can be saved by turning the damned things off (which CFLs make problematic). If the heat is not electric (fairly common) and A/C is not used at all or only extremely sparingly (less common but I have done that and lived through that in non-A/C households), and no electric dryer is used (gas one or clotheslines used instead), then it appears to me that halving a household's electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs is fairly easy to do. It's *STILL* a trivial savings, if at all. I am aware that for a USA national average, only 9% of residential electricity use is for lighting. That means 6.375% reduction if the residential lighting is all replaced by lighting 4x as efficient as before. You'r assuming that *all* lighting is now incandescent and can be replaced by CFL. Silly. But the national average does include electric home heating being done disproportionately where eectricity cost is less than the national average, so for national average cost savings of quadrupling efficiency of the lighting I expect more than 6.375%. I expect much less than 50% for USA national average, but that some households can achieve 50% reduction of electric bill by doing nothing but replacing the lighting with more efficient lighting. Handwaving nonsense. Reducing electricity consumption by home lighting can easily pay off in areas where residential electricity cost is more than USA's national average, such as in the metro areas of NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. It appears to me that ratepayers in those areas have been hard-hit by interest payments on corporate bonds issued by electric companies building nuclear power plants whose construction progress was delayed by anti-nukers through a time of historically high interest rates. Ok, so let the anti-nukers and other watermelons live in mud huts (in camps, where they won't do any more harm), where they belong. |
#99
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 06:22:47 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , z... wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 04:37:33 -0700 (PDT), ransley wrote: SNIP to here, even at risk of loss of track of who said what FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. No, dumbass, *ALL* of it is. Just as *ALL* of the output of CFLs is heat (yes, less of it). CFLs are 65-75% more efficent. Whoopie! FACT, 11, 100 w incandesants output the same heat as a 1000w resistance heater. Wow, another master of the obvious. What's so bad about shifting home heating energy consumption from the home lighting to something likely having greater cost effectiveness, such as many home heating systems? Often, the home heating system delivers more BTU per $ due to energy source being other than electricity. Nothing as long as you're not lying about it. Count it all. Let the consumer make the choice. Stop watermelons, dead. Increasing energy efficiency of the home lighting also reduces cost of any home air conditioning pumping out the heat from whatever lighting needs to be used when A/C needs to be used (and in USA that is far above zero). During that time less lighting is needed, naturally. The point is that lighting is a *trivial* use of electricity, yet CFLs are presented as the savior. Just give up your incandescents and all will be well. YOU VILL GIVE THEM UP! Nope, not happening. I don't want CFLs. FACT, for most of the US Ng is now about half the price of Ng per BTU. What *are* you yammering about? That was typo-ed - the one who stated this appeared to me to be typo-ing a claim that for most of US natural gas costs about half as much for home heating as electricity does, possibly qualifiable for electric heat being resistive as opposed to from a heat pump. Thanks, I read it five times and couldn't make any sense of it. FACT, incandesants waste 75% more energy than Flourescents. So what? That electricity is absolutely *trivial* compared to the heat pump, water heater, oven, and plasma TV. Not the water heater in any home owned by any homeowner I know, Your electric water heaters didn't use electricity? Not most oven energy usage in the experience of my entire life, You electric oven doesn't use electricity? And plasma TVs still only exist in a minority of homes even in mid-2010 due to high cost and after that high energy consumption per square foot of screen area being second-worst second to CRT. Ah, so they don't register on my electric bill? And it appears to me that electric heat pumps are disproportionately used where electricity cost is below-average and/or where winters are chilly to the particular extent where electric heat pumps are more advantageous (as in requirement of major home heating while most of the time during winter the outdoor temperature is low enough to require major home heating but high/consistent enough to make an electric heat pump to be the way to go, with consideration to local cost of electrical energy). Well, duh! Figure that, heat pumps are used where heat pumps work. BTW, they seem to be common in much of the US, now. They still *swamp* my lighting bills. The heat pumps are easily half my highest bills (about $100/mo in the coldest/warmest months). So keep heating your house this summer with incandesants, and keep running that AC more to remove that heat your incandesants enter in your home, just Keep a wastin and paying a higher electric bill. Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. Idiot. Light bulbs are *rarely* turned on in cooling season[*]. How about Philadelphia at 9 PM to 11 PM in most summer days? Or Memphis or Houston or New Orleans for that matter? My house isn't in Philadelphia, or Houston (but about 300 miles from NOLA). Between 9:00 and 11:00 I doubt that I ever have a light on for more than five minutes. Well, we leave the porch lights on (not candidates for CFLs, if I did like them) if we're gone. That time of year has more light, though I can understand that the blind can't see that. [*] and when they are, I want light *now*, not in fifteen minutes because in fifteen minutes they'll have been off for at least ten. Every CFL in my home is close to fully warmed up in 1 minute or less. Lucky you. That certainly *wasn't* the case in my VT home. They took a good fifteen minutes to come up to full light. Since I only wanted them on for *maybe* two, they were a total loser. Most of my home-use CFLs are almost fully warmed up in half a minute. My bathroom is bright enough for me to use (or more-still) within 1 second after I turn the switch on - when I dare. (At times I find the need to take a leak when the fractional-watt LED nightlight there gives me all the light I want and then-some.) That's I use. Yes, I do like LED nightlights. I don't much care about the lousy color when all I want to do is save my toe, and the cat. We have several around the house. Also, do you believe that most people go to bed for the night as soon as it gets dark even during cooling season? Especially at lower latitudes where cooling needs are greater, sunset time varies less with time of year, and where USA has population shift towards? Such as in/near Houston or Phoenix? We weren't talking about everyone. No I don't go to bed when it gets dark, but that's generally the time we relax in front of the 500W plasma television. It gives off enough light. |
#100
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:21:52 -0400, Rob Budd wrote:
On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:55:37 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: Rob Budd wrote in m: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:37:15 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: Consideration of all this is how I come to the conclusion that CFLs are not all they're cracked-up to be when it comes to saving money. They probably do save money, but the amount saved is surely very, very small. I switched most of my lights to CFL a few years ago. As a result, I saved enough electricity that the power company changed me to a lower rate structure, which gave me additional savings. They said I qualified because I had reduced my power consumption by more than 10% than the same period the preceeding year. If I save 10%, that amounts to ten dollars a month. I am not going to bother with CFLs if the hassle means only ten dollars a month. That's fine if you are a completely self-absorbed, greedy, selfish person who cares about no one but himself. We're not paying your electric bill, no. How about doing something simply because it's the right thing to do? Because it's *NOT* The "right thing to do". Another watermelon patch uncovered. |
#101
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
Rob Budd wrote in
: On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 12:55:37 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: If I save 10%, that amounts to ten dollars a month. I am not going to bother with CFLs if the hassle means only ten dollars a month. That's fine if you are a completely self-absorbed, greedy, selfish person who cares about no one but himself. How about doing something simply because it's the right thing to do? The "right thing" in /your/ opinion, or in /my/ opinion? -- Tegger |
#102
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zzz wrote:
On 24 Apr 2010 05:28:31 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote in part: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: SNIP to here Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Our heat pumps will "run" seven or eight months a year... When in use they don't often get shut down at night (though the thermostat will cycle). Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. Yep. It costs about half as much to heat a home with a heat pump as it does with resistive heating. And in most areas, it costs less to heat a home with gas or oil than it does with resistive heating. The "half as much" applies to a small outside temperature band where less heat is actually needed. You call that temperature band small. That temperature band appears to me to include nearly all heating on the Pacific Coast from San Francisco to 49 degrees N latitude. It also appears to me to be wide enough to include both long-term year-round average temperature and long-term average temperature of January alone for all of USA's "Northeast Corrider" from Washington DC to Boston including the suburbs. Yes, that drops the cost of the "wasted" incandescent electricity by "50%" instead of 100% and a similar amount with other heat sources. To me, use of home heating other than resistive electric heat increases the home heating cost of using energy-efficient lighting from 0% to 50% of the electricity savings. Something the CFL idiots never take into account. That still doesn't get us to "ransley's" 50% electricity savings he's trying to tell us that is somehow "normal". Can you tell us how he claimed that was "normal" as opposed to "can be done"? I am aware that changing to energy-efficient lighting can reduce the electric bills of some homes by 50% (I have done that), and that in most homes the savings from doing so are smaller. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. Perzactly! The average bulb in our house is likely on for 2 minutes per day with only the bathroom lights on for anything close to an hour per day. CFLs really suck in our application; won't have them. What? No need for lighting for long outside a bathroom in a house in a location that needs heat 7-8 months out of the year? It's time for you to try thinking, Don. Heat pumps are not only used in heating season. Do you mean how some of them can be "reversed" to be used for cooling to negate need for separate air conditioning units? Or are you talking about heating outside of "heating season"? Can you tell me better how my thinking is insufficient for questioning lack of need for lighting for long outside of bathrooms in homes when heat is not needed? SNIP from here Use a proper sig separator. OK, if you want to bitch me out about that... -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#103
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:28 -0500, " wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:28:31 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote in part: On Apr 23, 7:19Â*am, Tegger wrote: SNIP to here Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Our heat pumps will "run" seven or eight months a year... When in use they don't often get shut down at night (though the thermostat will cycle). Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. Yep. It costs about half as much to heat a home with a heat pump as it does with resistive heating. And in most areas, it costs less to heat a home with gas or oil than it does with resistive heating. The "half as much" applies to a small outside temperature band where less heat is actually needed. Yes, that drops the cost of the "wasted" incandescent electricity by "50%" instead of 100% and a similar amount with other heat sources. Something the CFL idiots never take into account. That still doesn't get us to "ransley's" 50% electricity savings he's trying to tell us that is somehow "normal". And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. Perzactly! The average bulb in our house is likely on for 2 minutes per day with only the bathroom lights on for anything close to an hour per day. CFLs really suck in our application; won't have them. What? No need for lighting for long outside a bathroom in a house in a location that needs heat 7-8 months out of the year? It's time for you to try thinking, Don. Heat pumps are not only used in heating season. SNIP from here Use a proper sig separator. In a well dsigned house with reasonable window area in most of the country, if you use natural gas for heat and hot water and electricity for everything else, how much power is consumed by lighting on an average day? Say 3 lights for 4 hours, and a couple more for an hour each. Say they are 100 watt bulbs. That's 1400 watt hours - or 1.4kw hours per day for essential lighting. If you have kids at home, and they are in differnt rooms, double it. Add a bit to be fair, and you have 3KWh of lighting consumption. You make a pot of coffee with your 1500 watt tea kettle. It takes 3 minutes? That's 75 watt hours Yout toast is another 125? Your Bacon and eggs another 500. Maybe a little unusually, I tank up on hot caffeinated beverages after I get to work at my "day job" and tank upon cold ready-to-drink caffeinated beverages at home as well as at times on the job. I use the time saved for getting in some sleep or getting done something else that I want to do (sometimes that's getting paying work done). Then there is your refrigerator, and your circulating fan on your furnace (2.4KwH minimum) 2.4 KWH per day minimum for a furnace circulating fan? How about days when I don't need heat much or at all? What about modern technology where effort is made to reduce the energy cost of such things? How about if the circulating fan is my landlord's problem? How about my *actual situation* where my heat is delivered without a circulating fan, and is not resistive electric heat? So your lighting is already less than half your electrical consumption - meaning that if you turned ALL your lights OFF you would save roughly half of your electricity. So even if your CFLs consume 1/4 the power your incandescents do, you are only saving about 35% of your power consumption. I did already admit that 50% is only achievable in some homes and most will save less. As I said before, for USA national average, lighting is 9% of residential electricity use. Even with the percentage being lower where electricity costs less and higher where electricity cost is more, I see 50% reduction of electric bill by changing the lighting to be doable in only some minority of homes. In most homes, the percentage is less, often a lot less, but still significant. In reality you usually use electricity for a lot more non-lighting purposes than just breakfast I don't eat hot breakfast. Cold cereal with milk, some juice and caffeinated soda takes less time and costs me no utility bills unless the refrigerator costs me more to store milk in it. so the returns drop even more - even if you also use more lights. CFLs definitely save money - but I'll never believe 50% What I claimed before is that in some but not most homes 50% is achievable, and in most homes a lesser but still-significant amount is doable. of the electrical bill unless they are like mine and don't work at all after several months to a year Most CFLs that I have used lasted 4 years or more. I have mentioned brand of CFL or abusive application that in my experience accounts for most CFLs that don't. - and I've NEVER bought cfls for half a buck, or even a buck. Lowest I saw for ones other than dollar store 99%-stool-specimens is $9.99 for a 6-pack plus sales tax. That is still a lower ratio of cost-per-bulb to life expectancy (even if only CFL only averages 4,000-6,000 hours in real-world) than incandescents. Energy savings are in addition to bulb savings in that area. In my opinion the only CFL worth wasting much time on is the one that plays on the "big" field - and I don't even waste time or TV power on them these days. -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#104
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zzzzzz wrote:
On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:55:46 -0400, wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 12:43:28 -0500, " wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 05:28:31 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote in part: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: SNIP to here Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Our heat pumps will "run" seven or eight months a year... When in use they don't often get shut down at night (though the thermostat will cycle). Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. Yep. It costs about half as much to heat a home with a heat pump as it does with resistive heating. And in most areas, it costs less to heat a home with gas or oil than it does with resistive heating. The "half as much" applies to a small outside temperature band where less heat is actually needed. Yes, that drops the cost of the "wasted" incandescent electricity by "50%" instead of 100% and a similar amount with other heat sources. Something the CFL idiots never take into account. That still doesn't get us to "ransley's" 50% electricity savings he's trying to tell us that is somehow "normal". And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. Perzactly! The average bulb in our house is likely on for 2 minutes per day with only the bathroom lights on for anything close to an hour per day. CFLs really suck in our application; won't have them. What? No need for lighting for long outside a bathroom in a house in a location that needs heat 7-8 months out of the year? It's time for you to try thinking, Don. Heat pumps are not only used in heating season. SNIP from here Use a proper sig separator. In a well dsigned house with reasonable window area in most of the country, if you use natural gas for heat and hot water and electricity for everything else, how much power is consumed by lighting on an average day? Say 3 lights for 4 hours, and a couple more for an hour each. Say they are 100 watt bulbs. That's 1400 watt hours - or 1.4kw hours per day for essential lighting. If you have kids at home, and they are in differnt rooms, double it. Add a bit to be fair, and you have 3KWh of lighting consumption. Ok, $.30. Except that USA national average electricity cost is more than 10 cents per KWH - was 11 a couple years ago, probably closer to 12 now. Make that 35 cents *per day* for the amount of lighting mentioned, which appears to me below-average in modern USA homes unlike mine. The Philadelphia metro area is bracing itself for a big jump soon from the already-above-national-average rate. You make a pot of coffee with your 1500 watt tea kettle. It takes 3 minutes? Sounds light by two or three, but... That's 75 watt hours Yout toast is another 125? Your Bacon and eggs another 500. Then there is your refrigerator, and your circulating fan on your furnace (2.4KwH minimum) (Except that I have cold breakfast to save time as well as energy, and my heat does not use a circulating fan) Now add for to six hours of TV (or twelve), for another 2-3kWh (double). That means the TV consumes 500 watts - sounds to me very high! My TV consumes slightly less than 100 watts! My boyfriend and I combined only have the TV on 2 hours per day on average! So your lighting is already less than half your electrical consumption - meaning that if you turned ALL your lights OFF you would save roughly half of your electricity. So even if your CFLs consume 1/4 the power your incandescents do, you are only saving about 35% of your power consumption. In reality you usually use electricity for a lot more non-lighting purposes than just breakfast so the returns drop even more - even if you also use more lights. Yep. Lighting really is small potatoes. CFLs are a (lousy) solution without a problem. One thing that I see is ROI. SNIP from here -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#105
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zzz wrote:
On 24 Apr 2010 06:02:19 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote: On Apr 23, 2:35*pm, ransley wrote: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in news: : On Apr 20, 5:25*pm, Tegger wrote: I am happy to leave CFLs on the store shelf for others to buy. Tegger And you are so blissfully happy paying 75% more for electricity for a apliance that outputs near 95% of its energy consumed as heat. Yep. Because in actual dollar terms, that 75% is a trivial amount of money. Run 11-100 w incandesants Most of our incandescents are 40 and 60 watt. We do have a couple of Tri-lites that go up to 150, but they're normally on at the 100W setting. and be happy knowing you AC this summer has to remove that extra 1000w of heat Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. CR and Popular Mechanics Mag did reviews and dont agree with your happiness on color rendition of life expectancy. I see threads in this groups with comaplints about color unless you buy /just/ the right kind of bulb. And being in people's homes with CFLs, I have to disagree with CR. Also, CR is hard left-wing and as religiously "green" as they come, so their judgements are unlikely to be bias-free. With HDs 9 yr warranty my HD soft whites will be free forever , be happy, stay ignorant. Except that you had to pay ten times the cost of incandescents to get that 9-year warranty... Every building ive covnverted to cfls the electric bill dropped 50-60%, Cool! They save money on my heat pump, water heater, and oven, too! Hows that work? IOW, you're a liar. CFLs replacing incandescents save on net energy costs, even when heat pumps, water heaters, and ovens are included. Insignificant. My experience suggests otherwise, especially considering ROI. Heat pumps deliver around twice as much heating from a given amount of electricity consumption as resistive heaters do, since about half the heat that heat pumps put out is pumped in from outside rather than heat from converting electrical energy to heat energy. Duh! You have a command of the obvious, anyway. Since incandescent household lighting has very little of its heat heating the water in water heaters or the contents of ovens, I am prone to take a dim view of those advocating incandescents over CFL on the heat of incandescent home lighting being good for water heaters and ovens. Either you aren't reading or your biases are making you blind. No one is advocating incandescent bulbs because they save electricity. CFLs are ugly, the light is ugly, are slow to start, can't be used in many fixtures, and are expensive, no matter what "ransley" says. My personal experience is ratio of cost of bulbs to life expectancy achieved in my experience hardly above that of incandescents - and add to that the electricity cost savings - ROI gets impressive. CFLs are not ugly to me, and I can easily enough get ones whose light is not ugly. (That part has gotten easier in recent years.) Every CFL I used in the past 3 years took anywhere from zero time to 1.5 seconds to start, with most taking less than half a second. I know which ones are worse at starting dim and needing time to warm up, and which ones are not - unlike opponents of energy efficiency. (CFLs with "outer bulbs" over the fluorescent tubing have a very high tendency to start dim and need to warm up - often mentioned as being useful in bathrooms.) I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who would not love a 50% reduction. *The heat is generated, you put it in, whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! *I bet you never did a cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know any facts you speak of. I repeat, you need to learn to *think*. As if CFL advocates don't in light of the above? Right. With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club. That means using energy-efficient lighting has its net energy cost savings merely halved on the few cold days outside heating season like the case of most days in heating season? As if outside "heating season", the heat from lower-energy-efficiency lighting is something that one would want to pay for, and even pay in addition for removal of such heat from one's home? - Don Klipstein ) |
#106
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zzzzzzz wrote:
On 25 Apr 2010 05:02:10 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , z... wrote: On 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. SNIP from here toedit for space Do you claim that no home can have its electric bill halved by switching from incandescents to CFLs? Pretty much. If *all* he had were electric lights, no refrigerators, no electric water heater, no stove, no clothes dryer, no dish washer, no AC, only electric lights, perhaps. He would still have the "billing" (flat) rate to deal with. My experience in the Philadelphia metro area is that this is $5.something per month. In any case it's a trivial amount. I don't see electric bills as trivial. One thing I do see is opportunities with high ROI. For most, more can be saved by turning the damned things off (which CFLs make problematic). I already illuminate only what I need to illuminate and when I need to do so. I still have most of my CFLs producing light for ~4,000 hours without kicking the bucket. If the heat is not electric (fairly common) and A/C is not used at all or only extremely sparingly (less common but I have done that and lived through that in non-A/C households), and no electric dryer is used (gas one or clotheslines used instead), then it appears to me that halving a household's electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs is fairly easy to do. It's *STILL* a trivial savings, if at all. Reducing monthly electric bill by even what one can earn after taxes in an hour or half an hour appears to me to be attractive. And, the ROI looks good to me! I am aware that for a USA national average, only 9% of residential electricity use is for lighting. That means 6.375% reduction if the residential lighting is all replaced by lighting 4x as efficient as before. You'r assuming that *all* lighting is now incandescent and can be replaced by CFL. Silly. A very high percentage of USA home lighting by energy consumption as opposed to photometric output actually is even now both incandescent and replaceable by CFL, linear fluorescent or LED lighting. But the national average does include electric home heating being done disproportionately where eectricity cost is less than the national average, so for national average cost savings of quadrupling efficiency of the lighting I expect more than 6.375%. I expect much less than 50% for USA national average, but that some households can achieve 50% reduction of electric bill by doing nothing but replacing the lighting with more efficient lighting. Handwaving nonsense. Reducing electricity consumption by home lighting can easily pay off in areas where residential electricity cost is more than USA's national average, such as in the metro areas of NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia. It appears to me that ratepayers in those areas have been hard-hit by interest payments on corporate bonds issued by electric companies building nuclear power plants whose construction progress was delayed by anti-nukers through a time of historically high interest rates. Ok, so let the anti-nukers and other watermelons live in mud huts (in camps, where they won't do any more harm), where they belong. -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#107
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zz wrote:
On 25 Apr 2010 06:22:47 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: SNIP to this point Not the water heater in any home owned by any homeowner I know, Your electric water heaters didn't use electricity? No, the natural gas water heaters in my home, my mother's home, my divorced father's home, my boyfriends's mother's home, and in the home of my only sibling living elsewhere from above, and in my church, all of those water heaters that I know do not use electricity for water heating. Not most oven energy usage in the experience of my entire life, You electric oven doesn't use electricity? What? Have you not heard of natural gas ovens? Among myself and family and close friends, I know of 5 gas ovens and 1 electric one. And plasma TVs still only exist in a minority of homes even in mid-2010 due to high cost and after that high energy consumption per square foot of screen area being second-worst second to CRT. Ah, so they don't register on my electric bill? So you are arguing on basis of choosing a TV of a kind that uses more electricity than is used by most chosen by our fellow Americans? (Or what was your argument here, since what I responded to having to do with TV usage was snipped out?) And it appears to me that electric heat pumps are disproportionately used where electricity cost is below-average and/or where winters are chilly to the particular extent where electric heat pumps are more advantageous (as in requirement of major home heating while most of the time during winter the outdoor temperature is low enough to require major home heating but high/consistent enough to make an electric heat pump to be the way to go, with consideration to local cost of electrical energy). Well, duh! Figure that, heat pumps are used where heat pumps work. BTW, they seem to be common in much of the US, now. They still *swamp* my lighting bills. The heat pumps are easily half my highest bills (about $100/mo in the coldest/warmest months). Even there, the ROI on investing in energy-efficient lighting is usually impressively good. So keep heating your house this summer with incandesants, and keep running that AC more to remove that heat your incandesants enter in your home, just Keep a wastin and paying a higher electric bill. Im laughing hard at this stupidity you two keep posting. Idiot. Light bulbs are *rarely* turned on in cooling season[*]. How about Philadelphia at 9 PM to 11 PM in most summer days? Or Memphis or Houston or New Orleans for that matter? My house isn't in Philadelphia, or Houston (but about 300 miles from NOLA). Between 9:00 and 11:00 I doubt that I ever have a light on for more than five minutes. That sounds to me like you go to bed to sleep for the night by 9 PM. It does appear to me that an American needing to have only one light in the house to be on and only on for 5 minutes between 9 and 11 PM is even more uncommon than an American household that can halve its electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs. Well, we leave the porch lights on (not candidates for CFLs, if I did like them) if we're gone. I know of some CFLs that are good for porch lights. The Philips SL/O, or whatever they call them now and maybe now only available from Home Depot in 15 watt wattage, do well. My mother uses those for porch lights, and they usually last more than a year running all night every night and through many days. That time of year has more light, though I can understand that the blind can't see that. [*] and when they are, I want light *now*, not in fifteen minutes because in fifteen minutes they'll have been off for at least ten. Every CFL in my home is close to fully warmed up in 1 minute or less. Lucky you. That certainly *wasn't* the case in my VT home. They took a good fifteen minutes to come up to full light. Since I only wanted them on for *maybe* two, they were a total loser. Most of my home-use CFLs are almost fully warmed up in half a minute. My bathroom is bright enough for me to use (or more-still) within 1 second after I turn the switch on - when I dare. (At times I find the need to take a leak when the fractional-watt LED nightlight there gives me all the light I want and then-some.) That's I use. Yes, I do like LED nightlights. I don't much care about the lousy color when all I want to do is save my toe, and the cat. We have several around the house. Also, do you believe that most people go to bed for the night as soon as it gets dark even during cooling season? Especially at lower latitudes where cooling needs are greater, sunset time varies less with time of year, and where USA has population shift towards? Such as in/near Houston or Phoenix? We weren't talking about everyone. No I don't go to bed when it gets dark, but that's generally the time we relax in front of the 500W plasma television. It gives off enough light. -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#108
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In article , Tegger wrote:
Rob Budd wrote in : On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 22:37:15 +0000 (UTC), Tegger wrote: Consideration of all this is how I come to the conclusion that CFLs are not all they're cracked-up to be when it comes to saving money. They probably do save money, but the amount saved is surely very, very small. I switched most of my lights to CFL a few years ago. As a result, I saved enough electricity that the power company changed me to a lower rate structure, which gave me additional savings. They said I qualified because I had reduced my power consumption by more than 10% than the same period the preceeding year. If I save 10%, that amounts to ten dollars a month. I am not going to bother with CFLs if the hassle means only ten dollars a month. And unless you are a total retard, that porch light does not need to be on 24/7 just to make sure you have "light when needed" I should have been clearer: By "all the time", I meant "all the time after it starts to get dark outside". And that I see absolutely everywhere. I walk a lot, and thus have lots of time to observe people's lighting behavior. I'd say that, comparing outside-lighting left on all the time, CFLs outnumber incandescents at /least/ ten-to-one. My experience is that even in the left-winging University City section of Philadelphia, on-all-night outdoor lighting has houses having CFL outnumbering incandescent by more like 3-to-1, likely closer to 2.5-to-1. In the neighborhood of my closest friend other than my boyfriend (near but outside Lansdale PA), I find the ratio to be fairly close to 1-to-1, definitely *a lot less* than 2-to-1. In my boyfriend's mother's neighborhood (Aldan PA), most outdoor lighting by households is incandescent. In my mother's neighborhood (in Abington township PA), I see outdoor lighting by households being incandescent but maybe by a small margin. And, I was counting fixtures rather than watts. My mother enjoys savings compared to incandescent for her porch light, whether or not she turns it off daytime. - Don Klipstein ) |
#109
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:50:24 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zzzzzz wrote: On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 20:55:46 -0400, wrote: snip for size In a well dsigned house with reasonable window area in most of the country, if you use natural gas for heat and hot water and electricity for everything else, how much power is consumed by lighting on an average day? Say 3 lights for 4 hours, and a couple more for an hour each. Say they are 100 watt bulbs. That's 1400 watt hours - or 1.4kw hours per day for essential lighting. If you have kids at home, and they are in differnt rooms, double it. Add a bit to be fair, and you have 3KWh of lighting consumption. Ok, $.30. Except that USA national average electricity cost is more than 10 cents per KWH - was 11 a couple years ago, probably closer to 12 now. Make that 35 cents *per day* for the amount of lighting mentioned, which appears to me below-average in modern USA homes unlike mine. Wow, what to do with a nickel... The Philadelphia metro area is bracing itself for a big jump soon from the already-above-national-average rate. Doesn't change the percentages. Lighting is still insignificant. You make a pot of coffee with your 1500 watt tea kettle. It takes 3 minutes? Sounds light by two or three, but... That's 75 watt hours Yout toast is another 125? Your Bacon and eggs another 500. Then there is your refrigerator, and your circulating fan on your furnace (2.4KwH minimum) (Except that I have cold breakfast to save time as well as energy, and my heat does not use a circulating fan) Now add for to six hours of TV (or twelve), for another 2-3kWh (double). That means the TV consumes 500 watts You can do arithmetic! - sounds to me very high! Measured. My TV consumes slightly less than 100 watts! My boyfriend and I combined only have the TV on 2 hours per day on average! If SWMBO wasn't working it would be more like 24. snip In reality you usually use electricity for a lot more non-lighting purposes than just breakfast so the returns drop even more - even if you also use more lights. Yep. Lighting really is small potatoes. CFLs are a (lousy) solution without a problem. One thing that I see is ROI. Bigger fish to fry, without *ugly* bulbs. BTW, I do have T10s in the "attic" (bonus room above garage - finishing it into a shop). |
#110
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 04:15:40 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zzz wrote: On 24 Apr 2010 05:28:31 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote in part: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: SNIP to here Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Our heat pumps will "run" seven or eight months a year... When in use they don't often get shut down at night (though the thermostat will cycle). Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. Yep. It costs about half as much to heat a home with a heat pump as it does with resistive heating. And in most areas, it costs less to heat a home with gas or oil than it does with resistive heating. The "half as much" applies to a small outside temperature band where less heat is actually needed. You call that temperature band small. That temperature band appears to me to include nearly all heating on the Pacific Coast from San Francisco to 49 degrees N latitude. It also appears to me to be wide enough to include both long-term year-round average temperature and long-term average temperature of January alone for all of USA's "Northeast Corrider" from Washington DC to Boston including the suburbs. Small band of temperature. Heat pumps certainly don't have SEERs of 14 at 20F, where more heat is needed than at 50F (where a *lot* less is needed). Yes, that drops the cost of the "wasted" incandescent electricity by "50%" instead of 100% and a similar amount with other heat sources. To me, use of home heating other than resistive electric heat increases the home heating cost of using energy-efficient lighting from 0% to 50% of the electricity savings. So what is 50-100% of insignificant? Something the CFL idiots never take into account. That still doesn't get us to "ransley's" 50% electricity savings he's trying to tell us that is somehow "normal". Can you tell us how he claimed that was "normal" as opposed to "can be done"? I am aware that changing to energy-efficient lighting can reduce the electric bills of some homes by 50% (I have done that), and that in most homes the savings from doing so are smaller. The idiot was proposing that 50% savings were normal and expected. Given that some use electricity for other than light, it's a silly proposition. I don't believe you. Come show me. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. Perzactly! The average bulb in our house is likely on for 2 minutes per day with only the bathroom lights on for anything close to an hour per day. CFLs really suck in our application; won't have them. What? No need for lighting for long outside a bathroom in a house in a location that needs heat 7-8 months out of the year? It's time for you to try thinking, Don. Heat pumps are not only used in heating season. Do you mean how some of them can be "reversed" *ALL* of them can. That's why they're called "heat pumps", rather than "air conditioners". to be used for cooling to negate need for separate air conditioning units? Or are you talking about heating outside of "heating season"? Can you tell me better how my thinking is insufficient for questioning lack of need for lighting for long outside of bathrooms in homes when heat is not needed? When AC is used, it tends to be lighter longer, reducing the lighting heat load on the HP, over what would be used in heating season. It is *not* symmetrical. Besides that point, we just don't use much lighting, even in winter months, and surely don't leave them burning without reason. There is a *lot* more savings to be had by using less lighting than forcing people to use crappy CFLs. I turn lights off. I will *not* use CFLs. BTDT. SNIP from here Use a proper sig separator. OK, if you want to bitch me out about that... It worked. ;-) |
#111
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:11:00 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zzz wrote: On 24 Apr 2010 06:02:19 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , keith wrote: On Apr 23, 2:35*pm, ransley wrote: On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in news: : On Apr 20, 5:25*pm, Tegger wrote: I am happy to leave CFLs on the store shelf for others to buy. Tegger And you are so blissfully happy paying 75% more for electricity for a apliance that outputs near 95% of its energy consumed as heat. Yep. Because in actual dollar terms, that 75% is a trivial amount of money. Run 11-100 w incandesants Most of our incandescents are 40 and 60 watt. We do have a couple of Tri-lites that go up to 150, but they're normally on at the 100W setting. and be happy knowing you AC this summer has to remove that extra 1000w of heat Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off. Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is lower. And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's off. No waiting. CR and Popular Mechanics Mag did reviews and dont agree with your happiness on color rendition of life expectancy. I see threads in this groups with comaplints about color unless you buy /just/ the right kind of bulb. And being in people's homes with CFLs, I have to disagree with CR. Also, CR is hard left-wing and as religiously "green" as they come, so their judgements are unlikely to be bias-free. With HDs 9 yr warranty my HD soft whites will be free forever , be happy, stay ignorant. Except that you had to pay ten times the cost of incandescents to get that 9-year warranty... Every building ive covnverted to cfls the electric bill dropped 50-60%, Cool! They save money on my heat pump, water heater, and oven, too! Hows that work? IOW, you're a liar. CFLs replacing incandescents save on net energy costs, even when heat pumps, water heaters, and ovens are included. Insignificant. My experience suggests otherwise, especially considering ROI. You think a nickel is significant. I don't. Heat pumps deliver around twice as much heating from a given amount of electricity consumption as resistive heaters do, since about half the heat that heat pumps put out is pumped in from outside rather than heat from converting electrical energy to heat energy. Duh! You have a command of the obvious, anyway. Since incandescent household lighting has very little of its heat heating the water in water heaters or the contents of ovens, I am prone to take a dim view of those advocating incandescents over CFL on the heat of incandescent home lighting being good for water heaters and ovens. Either you aren't reading or your biases are making you blind. No one is advocating incandescent bulbs because they save electricity. CFLs are ugly, the light is ugly, are slow to start, can't be used in many fixtures, and are expensive, no matter what "ransley" says. My personal experience is ratio of cost of bulbs to life expectancy achieved in my experience hardly above that of incandescents - and add to that the electricity cost savings - ROI gets impressive. Nonsense. You're looking for your green fix. I'd rather not have (green) CFL light. It makes no sense. CFLs are not ugly to me, and I can easily enough get ones whose light is not ugly. I've not seen one. I tried a bunch and *all* had issues, from green or blue casts, to *slow* starts (to the point that they were always off before they got to full brightness). ...and they're *UGLY*. (That part has gotten easier in recent years.) Every CFL I used in the past 3 years took anywhere from zero time to 1.5 seconds to start, with most taking less than half a second. I've never had one light in five *minutes*. I know which ones are worse at starting dim and needing time to warm up, and which ones are not - unlike opponents of energy efficiency. (CFLs with "outer bulbs" over the fluorescent tubing have a very high tendency to start dim and need to warm up - often mentioned as being useful in bathrooms.) Never had one with an outer bulb. ...I don't think. I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who would not love a 50% reduction. *The heat is generated, you put it in, whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! *I bet you never did a cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know any facts you speak of. I repeat, you need to learn to *think*. As if CFL advocates don't in light of the above? Right. With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club. That means using energy-efficient lighting has its net energy cost savings merely halved on the few cold days outside heating season like the case of most days in heating season? No, that wasn't what I meant and you know it. Heat pumps are used for more than heat. It's not halved for a "few cold days". We heat about the same number of days as we air condition (AC a little less $$). Heat pumps don't have double the (effective) efficiency as resistive heat at all temperatures. They get down to 1:1 at around 30F, and then switch to resistive heat. It's *not* as cut and dried as you pretend. As if outside "heating season", the heat from lower-energy-efficiency lighting is something that one would want to pay for, and even pay in addition for removal of such heat from one's home? Outside the heating season it's naturally lighter outside. It is *not* symmetrical. |
#112
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
|
#113
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:28:02 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zzzzzzz wrote: On 25 Apr 2010 05:02:10 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , z... wrote: On 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0 (UTC), Tegger wrote: ransley wrote in : snip Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is output as HEAT, not light you see or use. But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what the percentages are. That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50% *overall* savings with the only change being CFLs. SNIP from here toedit for space Do you claim that no home can have its electric bill halved by switching from incandescents to CFLs? Pretty much. If *all* he had were electric lights, no refrigerators, no electric water heater, no stove, no clothes dryer, no dish washer, no AC, only electric lights, perhaps. He would still have the "billing" (flat) rate to deal with. My experience in the Philadelphia metro area is that this is $5.something per month. ....and you were going to save $.05 per day. In any case it's a trivial amount. I don't see electric bills as trivial. One thing I do see is opportunities with high ROI. I see the *LIGHTING* part of my electric bill as an absolutely trivial amount. The electric clothes dryer, dish washer, refrigerator, stove, water heater, and heat pumps are not so trivial, but not a bank breaker, either. Sure, I'd like a 50% reduction in my bill. I wouldn't walk across the street for $5, though, particularly if it cost me $50. For most, more can be saved by turning the damned things off (which CFLs make problematic). I already illuminate only what I need to illuminate and when I need to do so. I still have most of my CFLs producing light for ~4,000 hours without kicking the bucket. When it takes 5-15 minutes for them to get to full brightness, most will leave them on. Again, most of my lights are only on long enough to get from the switch at one end of the hall to the one at the other. The bathroom and kitchen are the exceptions, where I don't want fluorescent light at all. If the heat is not electric (fairly common) and A/C is not used at all or only extremely sparingly (less common but I have done that and lived through that in non-A/C households), and no electric dryer is used (gas one or clotheslines used instead), then it appears to me that halving a household's electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs is fairly easy to do. It's *STILL* a trivial savings, if at all. Reducing monthly electric bill by even what one can earn after taxes in an hour or half an hour appears to me to be attractive. And, the ROI looks good to me! If your life is built around being green, perhaps. Otherwise trivial. ... |
#114
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:59:12 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zz wrote: On 25 Apr 2010 06:22:47 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: snip repetitive stuff My house isn't in Philadelphia, or Houston (but about 300 miles from NOLA). Between 9:00 and 11:00 I doubt that I ever have a light on for more than five minutes. That sounds to me like you go to bed to sleep for the night by 9 PM. Can't you read? We generally watch television (or are online) during that time. No lights required. Plasma and LCD screens put out plenty of light so we don't (often) trip on the cats (they do like to lie in the middle of the floor). It does appear to me that an American needing to have only one light in the house to be on and only on for 5 minutes between 9 and 11 PM is even more uncommon than an American household that can halve its electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs. I thought you said you halved your bill with only CFLs. Well, we leave the porch lights on (not candidates for CFLs, if I did like them) if we're gone. I know of some CFLs that are good for porch lights. The Philips SL/O, or whatever they call them now and maybe now only available from Home Depot in 15 watt wattage, do well. My mother uses those for porch lights, and they usually last more than a year running all night every night and through many days. Nope, the porch lights are cans and the garage lights are decorative, as are all the interior lights with the exception of a two table lamps. No CFLs need apply. |
#115
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:06:41 -0500, "
wrote: I know which ones are worse at starting dim and needing time to warm up, and which ones are not - unlike opponents of energy efficiency. (CFLs with "outer bulbs" over the fluorescent tubing have a very high tendency to start dim and need to warm up - often mentioned as being useful in bathrooms.) Never had one with an outer bulb. ...I don't think. All the units that are not either "U" tube or "twisties" have an outer bulb. I've got some "fat alberts" and some that look like normal bulbs, and some PAR reflectors and they all take a LONG time to come to full brighness - none of these) have lasted 2 years and most cost me well over $3 - the PARS were $9 and change - and never seen a 9 year warranty. The current crop of 14 watt Phillips "fat alberts" cost me $8 each in 3 pack - and are already taking twice as long to come up to brightness than they did when they were bought in November of 2009. The PAR at the bottom of my stairway is a 15 watt sylvania installed in August 2009 and takes at least 5 minutes to warm up. It is the 4th or 5th installed in that location over the last 3 years. At least 2 lasted less than 3 months - and one lasted about 15 seconds.The incandescents always lasted over 3 years. We've been in this house 28 years - and I think I replaced that bulb 3? times before I started putting in CFLs to satisfy my "thrifty" wife. I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who would not love a 50% reduction. Â*The heat is generated, you put it in, whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! Â*I bet you never did a cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know any facts you speak of. I repeat, you need to learn to *think*. As if CFL advocates don't in light of the above? Right. With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club. That means using energy-efficient lighting has its net energy cost savings merely halved on the few cold days outside heating season like the case of most days in heating season? No, that wasn't what I meant and you know it. Heat pumps are used for more than heat. It's not halved for a "few cold days". We heat about the same number of days as we air condition (AC a little less $$). Heat pumps don't have double the (effective) efficiency as resistive heat at all temperatures. They get down to 1:1 at around 30F, and then switch to resistive heat. It's *not* as cut and dried as you pretend. Up here we heat from about Canadian Thanksgiving 'till May 24 on an average year. - That's 7 months. Last summer the AC ran for about a week. Heating is an absolute necessity - AC is an option. Friends with ground source heat pumps this past winter only had a few days at a time where back-up heat was required. for more than an hour or two - during our deep freeze that got down below zero F. Air sourced heat pumps don't do well up here - and you don't see a lot of them any more. As if outside "heating season", the heat from lower-energy-efficiency lighting is something that one would want to pay for, and even pay in addition for removal of such heat from one's home? Outside the heating season it's naturally lighter outside. It is *not* symmetrical. |
#116
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
|
#117
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zzzzzzzzzz
wrote: On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:28:02 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , zzzzzzz wrote: On 25 Apr 2010 05:02:10 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: SNIP from here to edit for space Do you claim that no home can have its electric bill halved by switching from incandescents to CFLs? Pretty much. If *all* he had were electric lights, no refrigerators, no electric water heater, no stove, no clothes dryer, no dish washer, no AC, only electric lights, perhaps. He would still have the "billing" (flat) rate to deal with. My experience in the Philadelphia metro area is that this is $5.something per month. ...and you were going to save $.05 per day. I figure more like 30 cents per day for my apartment. In most houses, the savings are more. In any case it's a trivial amount. I don't see electric bills as trivial. One thing I do see is opportunities with high ROI. I see the *LIGHTING* part of my electric bill as an absolutely trivial amount. The electric clothes dryer, dish washer, refrigerator, stove, water heater, and heat pumps are not so trivial, but not a bank breaker, either. Sure, I'd like a 50% reduction in my bill. I wouldn't walk across the street for $5, though, particularly if it cost me $50. For most, more can be saved by turning the damned things off (which CFLs make problematic). I already illuminate only what I need to illuminate and when I need to do so. I still have most of my CFLs producing light for ~4,000 hours without kicking the bucket. When it takes 5-15 minutes for them to get to full brightness, most will leave them on. My N:Vision spirals are most of the way warmed up in 1 minute, and are usually as bright at 2 minutes as they ae at 2 hours. This is according to my Lutron LX-101A light meter. My Philips and Sylvania spirals arrea only slightly slower to me. Again, most of my lights are only on long enough to get from the switch at one end of the hall to the one at the other. The bathroom and kitchen are the exceptions, where I don't want fluorescent light at all. If the heat is not electric (fairly common) and A/C is not used at all or only extremely sparingly (less common but I have done that and lived through that in non-A/C households), and no electric dryer is used (gas one or clotheslines used instead), then it appears to me that halving a household's electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs is fairly easy to do. It's *STILL* a trivial savings, if at all. Reducing monthly electric bill by even what one can earn after taxes in an hour or half an hour appears to me to be attractive. And, the ROI looks good to me! If your life is built around being green, perhaps. Otherwise trivial. ... -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#118
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:44:04 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zzzzzzzzzz wrote: On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:28:02 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , zzzzzzz wrote: On 25 Apr 2010 05:02:10 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote: SNIP from here to edit for space Do you claim that no home can have its electric bill halved by switching from incandescents to CFLs? Pretty much. If *all* he had were electric lights, no refrigerators, no electric water heater, no stove, no clothes dryer, no dish washer, no AC, only electric lights, perhaps. He would still have the "billing" (flat) rate to deal with. My experience in the Philadelphia metro area is that this is $5.something per month. ...and you were going to save $.05 per day. I figure more like 30 cents per day for my apartment. In most houses, the savings are more. Your numbers before were $.35 vs. $.30. Even at $.30/day, that's half the cost of an unreadable newspaper; trivial. At that "cost" there is no reason to put up with *ugly*. In any case it's a trivial amount. I don't see electric bills as trivial. One thing I do see is opportunities with high ROI. I see the *LIGHTING* part of my electric bill as an absolutely trivial amount. The electric clothes dryer, dish washer, refrigerator, stove, water heater, and heat pumps are not so trivial, but not a bank breaker, either. Sure, I'd like a 50% reduction in my bill. I wouldn't walk across the street for $5, though, particularly if it cost me $50. For most, more can be saved by turning the damned things off (which CFLs make problematic). I already illuminate only what I need to illuminate and when I need to do so. I still have most of my CFLs producing light for ~4,000 hours without kicking the bucket. When it takes 5-15 minutes for them to get to full brightness, most will leave them on. My N:Vision spirals are most of the way warmed up in 1 minute, and are usually as bright at 2 minutes as they ae at 2 hours. This is according to my Lutron LX-101A light meter. My Philips and Sylvania spirals arrea only slightly slower to me. The ones I bought certainly weren't. In cold weather they were even worse. The laundry room light (not a CFL) took at least a half hour to come up to brightness. Instead of just using it when we were in there, it stayed on all day. A real savings there. |
#119
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
In , zzzz wrote:
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:44:04 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , zzzzzzzzzz wrote: SNIP to here ...and you were going to save $.05 per day. I figure more like 30 cents per day for my apartment. In most houses, the savings are more. Your numbers before were $.35 vs. $.30. I re-estimated hours per week for each lamp since I did not commit that or my previous savings estimate figure to memory. Even at $.30/day, that's half the cost of an unreadable newspaper; trivial. At that "cost" there is no reason to put up with *ugly*. SNIP from here Except I don't find mine ugly at all. For one thing, CFLs come in a variety of color temperatures. And various brands, wattage ranges, general types, and tubing diameters have trends of slightly more purplish or more greenish color. Because of this, I can get the color that I want. And the spiral shape does not appear ugly to me. Anyway, the shape of a spiral CFL is not visible in many fixtures. Where the bare spiral tubing is visible, it is usually uncomfortably bright to spend much time looking at anyway. -- - Don Klipstein ) |
#120
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
LED bulb: 17 Years, $50.00
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:02:47 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote: In , zzzz wrote: On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:44:04 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein) wrote: In , zzzzzzzzzz wrote: SNIP to here ...and you were going to save $.05 per day. I figure more like 30 cents per day for my apartment. In most houses, the savings are more. Your numbers before were $.35 vs. $.30. I re-estimated hours per week for each lamp since I did not commit that or my previous savings estimate figure to memory. Even at $.30/day, that's half the cost of an unreadable newspaper; trivial. At that "cost" there is no reason to put up with *ugly*. SNIP from here Except I don't find mine ugly at all. You like looking at harsh, twisty, lights. What can I say? For one thing, CFLs come in a variety of color temperatures. And various brands, wattage ranges, general types, and tubing diameters have trends of slightly more purplish or more greenish color. Because of this, I can get the color that I want. ....and we're supposed to buy them all and throw away the ones we don't like? BTW, I've never seen one I like the light from. I do have several T10s (?) that I use for shop light. Different application, though. And the spiral shape does not appear ugly to me. It certainly does in my fixtures. They're intended for unfrosted bulbs. Twisties look like hell. Anyway, the shape of a spiral CFL is not visible in many fixtures. It would be in every one of mine, other than the cans, where they aren't useable, anyway. Where the bare spiral tubing is visible, it is usually uncomfortably bright to spend much time looking at anyway. 60W incandescents don't have that problem. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
30 years ago.... | UK diy | |||
Constitutionality of light bulb ban questioned - Environmental Protection Agency must be called for a broken bulb | Home Repair | |||
Pool light bulb any different than regular light bulb? | Home Repair | |||
Another four years ? | Electronics Repair | |||
Bug Light Bulb---any bulb for outside use that are not yellow? | Home Ownership |