buickanddeere
Super Member
I like the incandescent lamps in the washrooms fall, winter and spring. They help warm up the room and clear the fog from the mirror.
CFL Rant
- Thread starter vulcancowboy
- Start date
- Views: 13634
JDgreen227
Super Member
I really wonder how many members in the federal congress have stock or hold an interest in the companies that manufacture CFL or LED bulbs? As for me, I have been stockpiling incandescent bulbs for YEARS now...mainly to use in trouble lights or outdoor cord reel fixtures, etc. And do you know what is REALLY, REALLY STUPID about phasing out incandescent bulbs like the older 100 and 75 watt standard base type? I am looking around my family room, dining room , and kitchen as I compose this...there are a total of 45 bulbs in this 850 square foot area....guess how many are the 100 watt and 75 watt standard base type?
ONE....the rest are fluorescent, candelbra base, specialty bulbs like the ones in the fridge or microwave over the range, or 40 watt fan bulbs. The idea that replacing ONE LOUSY 100 WATT bulb with a CFL or LED in this part of my house will save energy enough to make a difference is so absurd it defies logic.....:laughing:
ONE....the rest are fluorescent, candelbra base, specialty bulbs like the ones in the fridge or microwave over the range, or 40 watt fan bulbs. The idea that replacing ONE LOUSY 100 WATT bulb with a CFL or LED in this part of my house will save energy enough to make a difference is so absurd it defies logic.....:laughing:
dave1949
Super Star Member
• Number of households in the U.S. 1960-2013 | Statistic
There are about 122.5 million households in the US. If each of those replaced one 100 watt bulb with it's lumen's equivalent CFL or LED bulb, they would each save about 80 watts per hour of use.
So:
Assuming an average daily use time of 3 hours x 80 watts = 240 watt hours saved per household per day.
240 watt-hours x 122,500,000 homes = 29,400,000,000 watt-hours (29.4 gigawatt-hours) saved per day nationwide.
At $0.10 per kWh:
$0.10 x .24 kWh = $0.024 per home per day
$0.024 x 122,500,000 homes = $2,940,000 saved electric costs per day nationwide.
It adds up.
There are about 122.5 million households in the US. If each of those replaced one 100 watt bulb with it's lumen's equivalent CFL or LED bulb, they would each save about 80 watts per hour of use.
So:
Assuming an average daily use time of 3 hours x 80 watts = 240 watt hours saved per household per day.
240 watt-hours x 122,500,000 homes = 29,400,000,000 watt-hours (29.4 gigawatt-hours) saved per day nationwide.
At $0.10 per kWh:
$0.10 x .24 kWh = $0.024 per home per day
$0.024 x 122,500,000 homes = $2,940,000 saved electric costs per day nationwide.
It adds up.
bumperm
Veteran Member
There is some logic in replacing incandescents, especially as LED lamps continue to improve in light output (lumens per watt) and as the cost creeps downward.
For some applications, say where a light is used a fair amount and/or if it gets cycled on and off a lot, LEDs make sense. The 10 watt TCP BR30 floods I purchased for less than $10 each, consume 10 watts and put out markedly more light than the 65 watt filament bulbs they replaced. They are "soft white" and the color temperature (2700 Kelvin), appears close the replaced lamps as well.
Besides efficient use of electricity, they cast a more even light that my wife appreciates in the kitchen and over the counter. If they get there advertised 20,000 hours life, they will have paid for themselves several times over - - if I live that long :c).
CFL's pretty much suck. They are more efficient than incandescents, but they often have a warm up delay and they don't last as long when cycled often.
As to our dumb bunny government being invested in LEDs, well maybe, if they are invested heavily in China where most of the LEDs are from.
For some applications, say where a light is used a fair amount and/or if it gets cycled on and off a lot, LEDs make sense. The 10 watt TCP BR30 floods I purchased for less than $10 each, consume 10 watts and put out markedly more light than the 65 watt filament bulbs they replaced. They are "soft white" and the color temperature (2700 Kelvin), appears close the replaced lamps as well.
Besides efficient use of electricity, they cast a more even light that my wife appreciates in the kitchen and over the counter. If they get there advertised 20,000 hours life, they will have paid for themselves several times over - - if I live that long :c).
CFL's pretty much suck. They are more efficient than incandescents, but they often have a warm up delay and they don't last as long when cycled often.
As to our dumb bunny government being invested in LEDs, well maybe, if they are invested heavily in China where most of the LEDs are from.
bumperm
Veteran Member
$0.024 x 122,500,000 homes = $2,940,000 saved electric costs per day nationwide.
It adds up.
Okay, WOW! I'm sending the gum'nt a couple of LED bulbs along with a bill for 2.9 million - - I'll split the savings with them! Hope I got the math right on this. Do you think I should demand the whole 5.8 million?
dave1949
Super Star Member
I just wanted Bill to feel good about his $0.024 per day savings. He's pretty cheap ya know. Now you've ruined the idea talking about millions being split. :laughing:
JDgreen227
Super Member
Number of households in the U.S. 1960-2013 | Statistic
There are about 122.5 million households in the US. If each of those replaced one 100 watt bulb with it's lumen's equivalent CFL or LED bulb, they would each save about 80 watts per hour of use.
So:
Assuming an average daily use time of 3 hours x 80 watts = 240 watt hours saved per household per day.
240 watt-hours x 122,500,000 homes = 29,400,000,000 watt-hours (29.4 gigawatt-hours) saved per day nationwide.
At $0.10 per kWh:
$0.10 x .24 kWh = $0.024 per home per day
$0.024 x 122,500,000 homes = $2,940,000 saved electric costs per day nationwide.
It adds up.
Well, I have no issue with the electricity savings you illustrate....BUT: What is the REAL issue here...2.4 cents a day X 365 days=$8.76 a year....with CFL bulbs costing $4-6 each versus regular incandescent bulbs at 50 cents each....I see no real savings. Sorry....and you don't have to deal with hazardous waste disposal either.
dave1949
Super Star Member
If you paid $6.00 for a CFL and $0.50 for an incandescent, and each lasts three years:
3 years x $8.76 = $26.28 total saved. Take away the $5.50 price premium ($6 - $.50) = $20.78 total savings in three years. That's a large pizza--free--for one stinking light bulb. You want egg in your beer?
bumperm
Veteran Member
And it's not just energy savings vs bulb cost, there's also expected life span that shifts in favor towards LEDs even more. 1200 hours for incandescents vs 20,000 to 50,000 for LEDs. See:
Compare: LED Lights vs CFL vs Incandescent Lighting Chart
Compare: LED Lights vs CFL vs Incandescent Lighting Chart
PILOON
Super Star Member
Yeah, lighting whale oil is not easy either.
Guess they settled for candle power,
Perhaps they had eco friendly ice boxes.
JDgreen227
Super Member
Gee, gives me all warm fuzzies when an online buddy actually realizes what a miserly SOB I really am....
dave1949
Super Star Member
:laughing:
DoubleL
Bronze Member
Don't even consider CFL they suk. Go to LED.
Utilitech 9.9-Watt (60W Equivalent) A19 Medium Base (E-26) Warm White LED Bulb is $6.98 at Lowes as an example. Wait for one of those $5 off $50 coupons and save 10% of that price.
LD1
Epic Contributor
I dislike CFLs as much as most on here. They suck in frequently used situations, suck in cold weather, and dont last near as long as they are supposed to. But that being said, they still last about as long as an incandescent. And with the energy savings, it still makes sense to use them.
But I believe LED's are where its at now. Especially if they get anywhere close to their advertised lifespan. I just replaced my whole house of incandescent with LED's. 35 in total (not sure how some of you have 100+. Must be a huge house.
Some were cree, others where phillips flat bulbs. 3 hours of use a day and an LED uses 8.7 KwH per year. A 60w bulb would use 65.7 KwH. Thats about a $6.50 savings per year. Bulbs only cost $4-$5. So EVEN IF they only last a year like an incandescent would, it still makes sense to use them. But I am betting they will last alot longer.
But I believe LED's are where its at now. Especially if they get anywhere close to their advertised lifespan. I just replaced my whole house of incandescent with LED's. 35 in total (not sure how some of you have 100+. Must be a huge house.
Some were cree, others where phillips flat bulbs. 3 hours of use a day and an LED uses 8.7 KwH per year. A 60w bulb would use 65.7 KwH. Thats about a $6.50 savings per year. Bulbs only cost $4-$5. So EVEN IF they only last a year like an incandescent would, it still makes sense to use them. But I am betting they will last alot longer.
Looking4new
Super Star Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2012
- Messages
- 10,486
- Location
- Northern Ontario, Canada
- Tractor
- 2012 Kioti CK27HST w/cab
I have switched my whole house except for two bulbs, the fridge light and oven light over to LED from CFL. Best move I ever made. Any LED's that don't work go right back to where I bought them. I buy from 2 -places, Home Hardware and an outfit in Montreal, PQ .
I bought 4 recessed can mount type 27 watt retrofit LEDs from Costco for $15 each. You pull the old screw in CFL out, screw in the pigtail adapter, plug in the new LED and shove it all back in the can. Done. Well being the tinkerer that I am, I decided to test fire one before install. I temporarily wired it while it sat on my surface plate. Wow, a bunch of light and right now! I left it on for about a half hour and then unplugged it. The surface plate, a 24x36x4 granite slab, was very warm, and when I touched the cone shaped part of the LED I almost couldn't keep my hand on it because it was so hot. This got me to thinking about the cost to cool a room full of these "heaters". How much more of a load does the air conditioner have to produce, to keep up with this extra generated heat. So the LEDs may only use 27 watts, but how many watts to support them. I think the technology is very new and watts used will be lower in the near future. Since heat is energy, get rid of the heat, less energy is used to do the same job. Time will tell.
Quote Originally Posted by dave1949 View Post
Quote Originally Posted by dave1949 View Post
LD1
Epic Contributor
They certainly produce less heat than an incandescent
tractchores
Veteran Member
I have recently started to replace everything with LED's. We keep the house somewhat cold and the CFL's are pretty much useless... and outside in the winter they take 10's of minute to warm up (not very useful for a spotlight on a motion sensor). I now am switching everything to LED if I can break even within 1 year (so basically any switch on a lot or with many lights on it). Now that electric is rising nearly 30% in our area its much easier to justify the up front cost. It has definitely lowered our electric bill and the quality of the light is so much better. I've also been able to get more brightness out of the fixtures, which helps because there was a shortage of lights or something when my house was built (seems to have about half of what is normal). I prefer the LED's over the regular bulbs because of the huge amount of heat the regular ones generate, while I'm sure its fine in my ceiling cans it seems almost dangerously hot.
For folks struggling with the base of a CFL in a socket check out bulb extenders. They extend the base just enough to make it fit into most fixtures.
For folks struggling with the base of a CFL in a socket check out bulb extenders. They extend the base just enough to make it fit into most fixtures.
bumperm
Veteran Member
That's an understatement for sure! With any electrical device there will always be waste heat (unless we are talking about an electrical heater, in which case there will still be heat wasted due to wiring loss.
In the case of an incandescent lamp the efficiency is about 16 lumens per watt - lumens being a measurement of light output. LEDs are well over 100 lumens per watt now. Note that all the wattage dissipated or consumed, that doesn't go into producing light, is instead making heat.
The reason high power LEDs use heat sinks (those finned aluminum things) is that for longest life and to avoid thermal runaway, they want to operate at a temperature generally below 100 C.
If you think LED heat sinks get hot, try putting your hand on an incandescent lamp (or better yet, don't).
LD1
Epic Contributor
LED's are probably the coolest running light except florescent. HPS, Mercury, Metal Halide, Halogen ALL get MUCH hotter than LED's
