On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:24:20 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Friday, October 16, 2020 at 9:51:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2020 13:24:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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

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

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

You're assuming that 100% of your power bill is lighting. That would
be quite unusual.

I assumed 100% lights for electricity usage to make the math easy and it also makes it more likely the LED pays for itself. My electric usage each month is lights, TV, computer, refrigerator, washer, dryer. Furnace blower in the winter. No AC usage. Lights are maybe half of electric usage. In the winter months my electricity usage goes up a lot. 437 kwh Jan 2020. 236 kwh Sep 2020. Refrigerator runs identical year round. Washer/dryer usage is same each month. TV and computer usage is same each month. Only thing that changes between Jan and Sep is lighting. And furnace blower. So lighting added 200 kwh for me during the winter. And I burned a lot of lights at night in Sep. So I think lights are the majority electric usage for me. They probably account for 50% of my total electric bill each month.

200kWh? That's 270W 24 hours a day. As my father used to yell "TURN
THE **** LIGTHS OFF!"

I can only wish I had $30 electric bills. Mine are more like $250
Summer and Winter - and I consider that more than acceptable. Lighting
is in the noise. The electric water heater and 2.5T and 5T heat pumps
are the biggies. In the coldest (not really cold) months the heat
pumps are using "aux heat" so really just resistive heat.

I'm going LED because:
1. fluorescent fixtures are getting hard to find. HD had none
in the style (2-tube wrap) I've put in other areas of the shop.
They only had LED fixtures.
2. The LED replacement tubes for the other fixtures weren't much
more expensive than the real thing.
3. LEDs allow more fixtures on a 15A lighting circuit. ;-)

The difference in the electricity cost for lighting is immaterial.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Diesels also require less routine maintenance and last longer than
gasoline engines. These factors are rather important to someone
making money on their vehicle. Down time gets expensive.

The original post in this thread said he used the lights less than 5 hours in a bit less than a year. Running a light bulb less than 5 hours in a year isn't going to burn much energy no matter how efficient or inefficient it is. He said right up front that he really doesn't use the lights. So LED isn't going to give any benefits if its only on 5 hours in a whole year. You'd probably be happy enough using candles for 5 hours in a year.

Yes, I didn't realize this is where you were coming from. With your
little electricity use, you couldn't justify much in the way of
hardware either.

On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 10:25:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

But fluorescents with an electronic ballast don't have 120 Hz or 60 Hz modulation (flicker).
If you work with moving machinery, that's an important advantage.

LEDs are no different.

False. A 4 kHz AC ballast for fluorescent tubes sustains a plasma that gives off light
continually, but the same with LEDs doesn't get the same effect, because LED turns
dark in a microsecond, but fluorescent turns dark in a millisecond.

Put an electronic ballast behind both and call me again.

The 'regular-ballast' and direct to AC wire LED variants go dark 120 times per second.
SOME, not all, LED light supplies give filtered and regulated DC current, but the
sales literature doesn't tell you about that.

Bingo! Some. Not all.

You can see odd strobing effects on some video recordings, if the light flickers, and it can
kill remote controls or make my machine tools seem stationary when in full powered motion.

For cheap units, sure. That really messes with the PF. My cheap
fluorescents are like that. I can hear the breaker buzz in my
entrance panel. It's quite loud with all the tubes running. These
are really cheap units. Electronics ballasts can increase the
frequency to where it's not a problem.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 11:54:05 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/17/2020 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

The "simply rewire" means someone can replace the LED tubes with
regular fluorescent tubes (and blow a fuse, or explode, or... whatever).

I've thought about that. I'm not sure how to tackle it so am using
the replacement tubes. I suspect bad things would happen with one of
each but tubes _should_ be replaced in sets (whatever's connected to
the ballast)
If you are worried about that, it's a simple thing to write in black
magic marker in the fixture, LED ONLY.

Yeah, that's going to work with 99% of the people out there. Hell,
they're too stupid to use their turn signals.

I've replaced a lot fluorescent tubes, removing the ballasts and
sticking in LEDS. In my bathrooms that each had 3 double tube el cheapo
fixtures behind translucent drop ceilings, I would replace tubes about
once a year or so (PIA). I replaced the tubes with LEDS, and removed the
ballasts and no failures in 3 years. Better yet, I had to remove half
the led bulbs because they were too bright, so now instead of 6 junk
fluoresents, I have 3 LED tubes. I used the extra bulbs to replace
quality Fluorescents that never failed in 45 years in my shop, just to
save electiricty and for the extra light, but mainly just to use the
extra LED lights.

And then the next owner burns the house down. No problem. It's not
yours anymore.

BW, the LEDS were SUNCO 6 for $40 on Amazon. I looked, and they don't
have them now, and don't know if they will be restocked. Probably a
little snooping around will find similar. They are the type that work
with or without the ballast. Seems stupid to use them with the ballast,
but whatever.

Lowes here at 10packs for as low as $50 but I wanted the 6500K 3400l?
tubes. They were 10 for $75. Still not bad.

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

The original post in this thread said he used the lights less than 5 hours in a bit less than a year. Running a light bulb less than 5 hours in a year isn't going to burn much energy no matter how efficient or inefficient it is. He said right up front that he really doesn't use the lights. So LED isn't going to give any benefits if its only on 5 hours in a whole year. You'd probably be happy enough using candles for 5 hours in a year.


I'd likely use my LED flashlight instead of the candle - - - -



Totally relamping the plant and warehouse, replacing high bay sodium
with LED panels had a payback of less than 3 years - NOT counting what
would have been spent replacing ballasts (and bulbs) over that time
span - and the light is much better - and it doesn't take 3-5 minutes
for the lights to get back to full bright after a power glitch!!!!!!
(when the relamp was done at least 5 ballasts were needing replacement
- at about $150 a unit plus installation and the failure curve was
going up exponentially - likely have needed another 12 in the next
year - and each year folowing???)

Just the labour cost to replace the ballast on the high bay sodiums
was ridiculous - you needed the "girraffe" and the power (277 volt)
had to be shut down, putting the whole place in darkness. The
flourescent panels are all "plug and play"and can be switched out on
the run - keeping a few spares in stock- every failure so far (6 years
now?) has been a failed solder joint on a panel - none has failed a
second time after repair - 3 or 4 lamps were replaced under warranty
- they let us keep all the failed units except one and the maintenance
guy found the fault before tha manufacturer did.
These lights are on 8-10 hours a day, 5 and 6 days a week.



I suspect the various (low-voltage DC, high-voltage AC,
dimmable, not dimmable, flickering, flicker-free, etc.) LED options mean that one
can never re-lamp or re-power a fixture, if a lamp or power brick dies, you need... a new
fixture.
You can buy replacement LED tubes for standard fluorescent fixtures, the tubes
run on line voltage, so you simply rewire the fixture to bypass the ballast.

I've converted a dozen F96T12 two-bulb fixtures with LED tubes, which _are_
easily replaceable.

You can also get LED tubes that are drop-in replacement in standard
48" fixtures using the existing ballast.

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 10:34:04 PM UTC-4, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 18:41:06 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

The original post in this thread said he used the lights less than 5 hours in a bit less than a year. Running a light bulb less than 5 hours in a year isn't going to burn much energy no matter how efficient or inefficient it is. He said right up front that he really doesn't use the lights. So LED isn't going to give any benefits if its only on 5 hours in a whole year. You'd probably be happy enough using candles for 5 hours in a year.


I'd likely use my LED flashlight instead of the candle - - - -


Or my smart phone...

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

Be careful with the "extra mileage". Depending on where you are
diesel can be a good deal more expensive than gas.
The difference in mileage will almost ALWAYS be more than the
difference in price because the price is "loosely" based on price per
therm, and deisel is more energy dense than gasoline. (one part of the
reason a diesel is more efficient)
The deisel is also more efficient in how it uses each "therm" because
it runs at a much higher compression ratio and it does not have
"throttling losses" or "pumping losses" of a typical gasoline engine.

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

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 11:54:05 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/17/2020 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

The "simply rewire" means someone can replace the LED tubes with
regular fluorescent tubes (and blow a fuse, or explode, or... whatever).

I've thought about that. I'm not sure how to tackle it so am using
the replacement tubes. I suspect bad things would happen with one of
each but tubes _should_ be replaced in sets (whatever's connected to
the ballast)
If you are worried about that, it's a simple thing to write in black
magic marker in the fixture, LED ONLY.

I've replaced a lot fluorescent tubes, removing the ballasts and
sticking in LEDS. In my bathrooms that each had 3 double tube el cheapo
fixtures behind translucent drop ceilings, I would replace tubes about
once a year or so (PIA). I replaced the tubes with LEDS, and removed the
ballasts and no failures in 3 years. Better yet, I had to remove half
the led bulbs because they were too bright, so now instead of 6 junk
fluoresents, I have 3 LED tubes. I used the extra bulbs to replace
quality Fluorescents that never failed in 45 years in my shop, just to
save electiricty and for the extra light, but mainly just to use the
extra LED lights.

BW, the LEDS were SUNCO 6 for $40 on Amazon. I looked, and they don't
have them now, and don't know if they will be restocked. Probably a
little snooping around will find similar. They are the type that work
with or without the ballast. Seems stupid to use them with the ballast,
but whatever.

Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
One thing to keep in mind - other than the issue of the possibility
of putting in the wrong bulb - when you remove the ballast and install
direct wire LEDs you totally nullify the UL and/or csa certification
of the fixture - may not be an issue in your home shop, but anywhere
the department of labor gets involved, you do NOT want to get caught -
nor if an electrical inspectio n (say for insurance reasons) is
required. Installing "replacement" tubes using the ballast no
certification is affected.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

If you operate in a locality where government puts enough tax on it
you never recover.

The OP said he used the lights ~ 5 hours / year.
You'd probably be happy enough using candles for 5 hours in a year.


I'd likely use my LED flashlight instead of the candle - - - -


Or my smart phone...


It's a very long narrow storage area, under the front porch
cold room which is used ~ a couple times per week -
but just in & out 30 seconds or so - but carrying preserves
or other such items - carrying a flashlight wasn't an option -
the single, pull-cord light at the entrance served to light-up
about 1/3 of the room. The addition of the 3 ft. LED
provides good light for the other 2/3 for reading the label
on a jar of preserves or a storage tote or whatever.
The electric bill or the cost of the fixture were never any
consideration for this 1-fixture job.
... it was having the top-quality, most expensive fixture
fail prematurely that was the peeve.
John T.

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:46:58 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:

On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 11:54:05 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/17/2020 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

The "simply rewire" means someone can replace the LED tubes with
regular fluorescent tubes (and blow a fuse, or explode, or... whatever).

I've thought about that. I'm not sure how to tackle it so am using
the replacement tubes. I suspect bad things would happen with one of
each but tubes _should_ be replaced in sets (whatever's connected to
the ballast)
If you are worried about that, it's a simple thing to write in black
magic marker in the fixture, LED ONLY.

I've replaced a lot fluorescent tubes, removing the ballasts and
sticking in LEDS. In my bathrooms that each had 3 double tube el cheapo
fixtures behind translucent drop ceilings, I would replace tubes about
once a year or so (PIA). I replaced the tubes with LEDS, and removed the
ballasts and no failures in 3 years. Better yet, I had to remove half
the led bulbs because they were too bright, so now instead of 6 junk
fluoresents, I have 3 LED tubes. I used the extra bulbs to replace
quality Fluorescents that never failed in 45 years in my shop, just to
save electiricty and for the extra light, but mainly just to use the
extra LED lights.

BW, the LEDS were SUNCO 6 for $40 on Amazon. I looked, and they don't
have them now, and don't know if they will be restocked. Probably a
little snooping around will find similar. They are the type that work
with or without the ballast. Seems stupid to use them with the ballast,
but whatever.

Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.
One thing to keep in mind - other than the issue of the possibility
of putting in the wrong bulb - when you remove the ballast and install
direct wire LEDs you totally nullify the UL and/or csa certification
of the fixture - may not be an issue in your home shop, but anywhere
the department of labor gets involved, you do NOT want to get caught -
nor if an electrical inspectio n (say for insurance reasons) is
required. Installing "replacement" tubes using the ballast no
certification is affected.

Maintenance came around our building and replaced all of the
fluorescent tubes with LEDs. I saw them pulling out the ballasts but
don't know if they were replaced by another. They weren't even
electricians and, *horrors* used ladders without safety nets.

writes:

The difference in the electricity cost for lighting is immaterial.


For most individuals, perhaps.

For large groups (cities, counties, states, countries) the savings
in consumption is significant.

wrote:



The OP said he used the lights ~ 5 hours / year.
You'd probably be happy enough using candles for 5 hours in a year.


I'd likely use my LED flashlight instead of the candle - - - -


Or my smart phone...


It's a very long narrow storage area, under the front porch
cold room which is used ~ a couple times per week -
but just in & out 30 seconds or so - but carrying preserves
or other such items - carrying a flashlight wasn't an option

https://www.harborfreight.com/310-lu...amp-63921.html

....or equivalent.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:51:32 +0000, Spalted Walt
wrote:

wrote:



The OP said he used the lights ~ 5 hours / year.
You'd probably be happy enough using candles for 5 hours in a year.


I'd likely use my LED flashlight instead of the candle - - - -


Or my smart phone...


It's a very long narrow storage area, under the front porch
cold room which is used ~ a couple times per week -
but just in & out 30 seconds or so - but carrying preserves
or other such items - carrying a flashlight wasn't an option

https://www.harborfreight.com/310-lu...amp-63921.html

...or equivalent.


Ha ! ... you tell my wife about that option .. :-)
John T.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 15:43:01 GMT, (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

writes:

The difference in the electricity cost for lighting is immaterial.


For most individuals, perhaps.

For large groups (cities, counties, states, countries) the savings
in consumption is significant.

We weren't even talking about major buildings???? sheesh

Some heat with their lighting and I've heard of at least a few of them
who screwed themselves by switching to LEDs.

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 3:19:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 10:25:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

But fluorescents with an electronic ballast don't have 120 Hz or 60 Hz modulation (flicker).
If you work with moving machinery, that's an important advantage.

LEDs are no different.

False. A 4 kHz AC ballast for fluorescent tubes sustains a plasma that gives off light
continually, but the same with LEDs doesn't get the same effect, because LED turns
dark in a microsecond, but fluorescent turns dark in a millisecond.

Put an electronic ballast behind both and call me again.

No need; the plasma lifetime in fluorescent tubes is known, and their ballasts always deliver AC instead
of DC because of filament sputter erosion. The AC will make LEDs go dark at zero crossings,
because those LED filled tubes (I've dissected some) have only diodes, no energy storage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 3:19:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 10:25:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

But fluorescents with an electronic ballast don't have 120 Hz or 60 Hz modulation (flicker).
If you work with moving machinery, that's an important advantage.

LEDs are no different.

False. A 4 kHz AC ballast for fluorescent tubes sustains a plasma that gives off light
continually, but the same with LEDs doesn't get the same effect, because LED turns
dark in a microsecond, but fluorescent turns dark in a millisecond.

Put an electronic ballast behind both and call me again.

No need; the plasma lifetime in fluorescent tubes is known, and their ballasts always deliver AC instead
of DC because of filament sputter erosion. The AC will make LEDs go dark at zero crossings,
because those LED filled tubes (I've dissected some) have only diodes, no energy storage.
You forget the persistence of the phosphor used to create the light
color.
\
From reaserchgate.net:

The alternative current driven light emitting diode (AC-LED) lighting
system has attracted a great deal of attention because of the high
luminous efficiency and the simple electric circuit. However, this
system causes the unacceptable flicker due to rapid fluctuations in
the voltage of the power supply. In order to compensate the flicker
effect in AC-LED, we proposed the use of yellow persistent luminescent
garnet phosphors. The time evolution of luminescence intensity
measurement of Ce³? and Cr³? co-doped Gd3Al2Ga3O12 phosphor using a
modulated blue laser diode was performed. From this measurement, the
flicker percent of Ce³? and Cr³? co-doped Gd3Al2Ga3O12 phosphor is
calculated and showed to be about 60%. This result demonstrated that
persistent phosphor is expected to solve the problem of flicker caused
in AC-driven LED lighting system.

Also many led replacement drivers use well filtered switch mode high
frequency power supplies. - the LEDs see virtually pure DC.

On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 3:19:45 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 11:37:18 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

On Saturday, October 17, 2020 at 10:25:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2020 01:58:55 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:

But fluorescents with an electronic ballast don't have 120 Hz or 60 Hz modulation (flicker).
If you work with moving machinery, that's an important advantage.

LEDs are no different.

False. A 4 kHz AC ballast for fluorescent tubes sustains a plasma that gives off light
continually, but the same with LEDs doesn't get the same effect, because LED turns
dark in a microsecond, but fluorescent turns dark in a millisecond.

Put an electronic ballast behind both and call me again.

No need; the plasma lifetime in fluorescent tubes is known, and their ballasts always deliver AC instead
of DC because of filament sputter erosion. The AC will make LEDs go dark at zero crossings,
because those LED filled tubes (I've dissected some) have only diodes, no energy storage.

Maybe the cheap crap but it's not all cheap Chinese crap. There are
such things as switching power supplies. No zero crossing - current
controlled (i.e. a ballast).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

You do know that in some localities there is a 25% surtax on diesel,
do you not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Data: https://www.taxadmin.org/assets/docs/Research/Rates/mf.pdf

Have at it.

On 10/19/2020 9:44 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

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

Diesel in Pgh Pa, which is in North America, costs more than gas. I
just looked on YP and diesel is around $2.85 gal and regular gas is
around $2.50.

--
Jack
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.

On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 12:12:07 PM UTC-4, Jack wrote:
On 10/19/2020 9:44 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

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

Diesel in Pgh Pa, which is in North America, costs more than gas. I
just looked on YP and diesel is around $2.85 gal and regular gas is
around $2.50.

--
Jack

....and if I'm reading this chart correctly, diesel is - on average - more expensive
than regular gas across the entire US, including reformulated Areas

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_gnd_dcus_nus_w.htm

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Diesels also require less routine maintenance and last longer than
gasoline engines. These factors are rather important to someone
making money on their vehicle. Down time gets expensive.

Less routine maintenance. OK. But the routine maintenance they do need is twice as expensive as gasoline motors. So maybe the same total cost between gas and diesel. And when it comes to actual repairs, you pay twice or triple the cost for a diesel repair than a gas repair. Diesel needs repairs too. Just like gas.

Last longer. OK. But you pay an extra $5000 up front. So you pay for this extra lifespan. Its not free.

Not sure but maybe overall the total cost between diesel and gas is about the same. Higher up front cost, higher repair cost, higher maintenance cost per event, is made up for longer lifespan, less maintenance, and maybe, maybe less overall repair. Ain't nothing free. If you need the benefits of diesel, extra power and extra fuel efficiency, its worth it. But if you really don't need that, then probably best to stay away.

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:40:32 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:
Be careful with the "extra mileage". Depending on where you are
diesel can be a good deal more expensive than gas.
The difference in mileage will almost ALWAYS be more than the
difference in price because the price is "loosely" based on price per
therm, and deisel is more energy dense than gasoline. (one part of the
reason a diesel is more efficient)
No, the price is based on the amount of tax the government wants to
charge.

Federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Diesel federal tax is 24.4 cents per gallon. Each state also charges taxes on gas and diesel.

States are usually a bit higher on diesel tax than gas tax. But not always.. And the amount difference can be a few pennies or 15 cents different. So it varies by state.
https://www.taxadmin.org/assets/docs...h/Rates/mf.pdf

In general diesel pays more tax. In general its 15 cents more per gallon with both state and federal. Where I live that is about the difference in price per gallon at the pump. Factor in the 10-20-30% better efficiency of diesel motors over gasoline motors compared to the extra 7% cost of diesel per gallon (0.15 / 2.30) and you are going to have to drive a lot of miles to make diesel pay for itself. Or really need the extra power of a diesel engine.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:40:32 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:
Be careful with the "extra mileage". Depending on where you are
diesel can be a good deal more expensive than gas.
The difference in mileage will almost ALWAYS be more than the
difference in price because the price is "loosely" based on price per
therm, and deisel is more energy dense than gasoline. (one part of the
reason a diesel is more efficient)
No, the price is based on the amount of tax the government wants to
charge.

Federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Diesel federal tax is 24.4 cents per gallon. Each state also charges taxes on gas and diesel.

States are usually a bit higher on diesel tax than gas tax. But not always. And the amount difference can be a few pennies or 15 cents different. So it varies by state.
https://www.taxadmin.org/assets/docs...h/Rates/mf.pdf

In general diesel pays more tax. In general its 15 cents more per gallon with both state and federal. Where I live that is about the difference in price per gallon at the pump. Factor in the 10-20-30% better efficiency of diesel motors over gasoline motors compared to the extra 7% cost of diesel per gallon (0.15 / 2.30) and you are going to have to drive a lot of miles to make diesel pay for itself. Or really need the extra power of a diesel engine.

You clearly do not live in New England. I have seen $1.00/gallon
difference between diesel and unleaded. Investigate and it's state
tax.

On 10/20/2020 3:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:40:32 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:
Be careful with the "extra mileage". Depending on where you are
diesel can be a good deal more expensive than gas.
The difference in mileage will almost ALWAYS be more than the
difference in price because the price is "loosely" based on price per
therm, and deisel is more energy dense than gasoline. (one part of the
reason a diesel is more efficient)
No, the price is based on the amount of tax the government wants to
charge.

Federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Diesel federal tax is 24.4 cents per gallon. Each state also charges taxes on gas and diesel.

States are usually a bit higher on diesel tax than gas tax. But not always. And the amount difference can be a few pennies or 15 cents different. So it varies by state.
https://www.taxadmin.org/assets/docs...h/Rates/mf.pdf

In general diesel pays more tax. In general its 15 cents more per gallon with both state and federal. Where I live that is about the difference in price per gallon at the pump. Factor in the 10-20-30% better efficiency of diesel motors over gasoline motors compared to the extra 7% cost of diesel per gallon (0.15 / 2.30) and you are going to have to drive a lot of miles to make diesel pay for itself. Or really need the extra power of a diesel engine.

You clearly do not live in New England. I have seen $1.00/gallon
difference between diesel and unleaded. Investigate and it's state
tax.

What evidence to back up that claim. The rate chart as of Jan this year
shows for:


Total Excise Tax + Fee/Tax for Gasoline and Diesel, respectively to be:

Maine 30.0 31.2
Vermont 30.81 32.0
New Hampshire 23.825 23.825
Massachusetts 24.0 24.0
Connecticut 25.0 46.5 (+8.1% on petroleum tax on gas)
Rhode Island 35.0 35.0

Only Connecticut has any significant difference at all.

Adding the classic whipping boys of NY, NJ

New York 25.45 23.65 +unstated petroleum sales tax
New Joisey 41.4 48.5 unstated petroleum fee

Nothing there to approximate a dollar difference owing to taxes/fees

--

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:26:26 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/20/2020 3:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:21:29 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 3:51:00 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
On Sun, 18 Oct 2020 22:40:32 -0400, Clare Snyder
wrote:
Be careful with the "extra mileage". Depending on where you are
diesel can be a good deal more expensive than gas.
The difference in mileage will almost ALWAYS be more than the
difference in price because the price is "loosely" based on price per
therm, and deisel is more energy dense than gasoline. (one part of the
reason a diesel is more efficient)
No, the price is based on the amount of tax the government wants to
charge.

Federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cents per gallon. Diesel federal tax is 24.4 cents per gallon. Each state also charges taxes on gas and diesel.

States are usually a bit higher on diesel tax than gas tax. But not always. And the amount difference can be a few pennies or 15 cents different. So it varies by state.
https://www.taxadmin.org/assets/docs...h/Rates/mf.pdf

In general diesel pays more tax. In general its 15 cents more per gallon with both state and federal. Where I live that is about the difference in price per gallon at the pump. Factor in the 10-20-30% better efficiency of diesel motors over gasoline motors compared to the extra 7% cost of diesel per gallon (0.15 / 2.30) and you are going to have to drive a lot of miles to make diesel pay for itself. Or really need the extra power of a diesel engine.

You clearly do not live in New England. I have seen $1.00/gallon
difference between diesel and unleaded. Investigate and it's state
tax.

What evidence to back up that claim. The rate chart as of Jan this year
shows for:

The sign at the gas station.

Total Excise Tax + Fee/Tax for Gasoline and Diesel, respectively to be:

Maine 30.0 31.2
Vermont 30.81 32.0
New Hampshire 23.825 23.825
Massachusetts 24.0 24.0
Connecticut 25.0 46.5 (+8.1% on petroleum tax on gas)
Rhode Island 35.0 35.0

Only Connecticut has any significant difference at all.

Adding the classic whipping boys of NY, NJ

New York 25.45 23.65 +unstated petroleum sales tax
New Joisey 41.4 48.5 unstated petroleum fee

Nothing there to approximate a dollar difference owing to taxes/fees

That's now. When gas is $4 a gallon check again.

That river you swim in contains crocodiles.

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:57:57 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Sunday, October 18, 2020 at 5:14:54 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Diesels also require less routine maintenance and last longer than
gasoline engines. These factors are rather important to someone
making money on their vehicle. Down time gets expensive.

Less routine maintenance. OK. But the routine maintenance they do need is twice as expensive as gasoline motors. So maybe the same total cost between gas and diesel. And when it comes to actual repairs, you pay twice or triple the cost for a diesel repair than a gas repair. Diesel needs repairs too. Just like gas.

Engine teardowns, sure they're expensive. Most don't bother with
gasoline engines. By that time the vehicle is worth less than an
engine job.

Last longer. OK. But you pay an extra $5000 up front. So you pay for this extra lifespan. Its not free.

You didn't read what I wrote, did you?

Not sure but maybe overall the total cost between diesel and gas is about the same. Higher up front cost, higher repair cost, higher maintenance cost per event, is made up for longer lifespan, less maintenance, and maybe, maybe less overall repair. Ain't nothing free. If you need the benefits of diesel, extra power and extra fuel efficiency, its worth it. But if you really don't need that, then probably best to stay away.

No, I didn't think so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 12:11:59 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/19/2020 9:44 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

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

Diesel in Pgh Pa, which is in North America, costs more than gas. I
just looked on YP and diesel is around $2.85 gal and regular gas is
around $2.50.
As I said previously, fuels are often priced "per therm" - and with
deisel being 15% more energy dense by volume. that would make diesel
$2.87 per gallon to match gasoline so it is still a 2 cent per gallon
"real" advantage.

J. Clarke writes:
On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:26:26 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 10/20/2020 3:48 PM, J. Clarke wrote:

In general diesel pays more tax. In general its 15 cents more per gallon with both state and federal. Where I live that is about the difference in price per gallon at the pump. Factor in the 10-20-30% better efficiency of diesel motors over gasoline motors compared to the extra 7% cost of diesel per gallon (0.15 / 2.30) and you are going to have to drive a lot of miles to make diesel pay for itself. Or really need the extra power of a diesel engine.

You clearly do not live in New England. I have seen $1.00/gallon
difference between diesel and unleaded. Investigate and it's state
tax.

What evidence to back up that claim. The rate chart as of Jan this year
shows for:

The sign at the gas station.

There is a gas station on my way to work that sells high-test for $4.00
a gallon. The same premium gas is available at Costco for $2.75 a
gallon, and is around $3.00 gallon at most other gas stations.

One sign at one gas station? Meaningless data.


Total Excise Tax + Fee/Tax for Gasoline and Diesel, respectively to be:

Maine 30.0 31.2
Vermont 30.81 32.0
New Hampshire 23.825 23.825
Massachusetts 24.0 24.0
Connecticut 25.0 46.5 (+8.1% on petroleum tax on gas)
Rhode Island 35.0 35.0

Only Connecticut has any significant difference at all.

Adding the classic whipping boys of NY, NJ

New York 25.45 23.65 +unstated petroleum sales tax
New Joisey 41.4 48.5 unstated petroleum fee

Nothing there to approximate a dollar difference owing to taxes/fees

That's now. When gas is $4 a gallon check again.

In other words, you can't support your assertion.

On Monday, October 19, 2020 at 7:20:24 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2020 17:38:37 -0700 (PDT), whit3rd
wrote:


... the plasma lifetime in fluorescent tubes is known, and their ballasts always deliver AC instead
of DC because of filament sputter erosion. The AC will make LEDs go dark at zero crossings,
because those LED filled tubes (I've dissected some) have only diodes, no energy storage.

Maybe the cheap crap but it's not all cheap Chinese crap. There are
such things as switching power supplies. No zero crossing - current
controlled (i.e. a ballast).

Yes, there ARE such things. Good luck finding them when the consumer literature
describes the fixture without reference to them. This is one investigation...
https://youtu.be/BTq33MiVAsI