Bulbs first, flatscreens second, vacuum cleaners next?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Slava

I suppose you're probably right, this is a better way to calculate this rather than my convoluted rant above. I was just so annoyed with his comment that I spit that one out!

That's what she said

[You Need a Thneed]

CFLs usually "burn out" due to poor quality ballasts, not due to the bulbs themselves. better quality CFLs should have better ballasts (should being the key word) LED bulbs have no ballasts, but you still want to make sure you are buying a good quality one.

Also of note, that bulb lifespans are measured to when they give off half the amount of light as a new bulb, on average.

Incandescents have a filament that will eentually break. CFLs have ballasts that will stop working. If a LED blub is of good quality, there's really nothing that should stop working, so theoretically, is you are ok with the bulbs being less than half as bright as new, you could use them for longer than their lifespan.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by photon

And I've only had one CFL bulb die in 5+ years; you'd need a higher replacement rate to offset the savings.

Interesting. I've had a significantly higher replacement rate than this, which is the main reason I don't like them.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Interesting. I've had a significantly higher replacement rate than this, which is the main reason I don't like them.

I've had a lot of problems with cheap CFLs from Costco, including short lifespan, taking several seconds to turn on, and inconsistent brightness, while CFLs I've bought at other stores have been pretty good.

[photon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

I'd like some kind of source showing the average bulb is on for 8 hours a day. That seems extremely improbable to me.

As I said it varies depends on usage, but lifespan also depends on usage so all things being equal it doesn't matter (unless there's other factors as mentioned like lifespan being reduced by frequent on/off).

8 hours was just a number to pick, I made no claim as to what actual usage is because it doesn't really matter what actual usage is, savings is a percentage of usage, not an absolute.

So yes of course if person A spends $40 a month on lighting and person B spends $20 because they turn lights off more often or have less lights or less people at home or more windows or whatever, person B is going to save less actual dollars (but again in theory the lights should last longer as well, so over the life of the bulb the savings will be the same, person B will just need more actual years to recoup the cost)

Originally Posted by bizaro86

To me, anyone who's using their lightbulbs an AVERAGE of 8 hours per day could do more for the environment by turning some of their lights of than by switching to CFLs.

Very true, and doing both would be even better. But in the winter 8 hours is very common since some lights have to be on basically from 6:30am when the day starts till midnight when everyone's gone to bed, and I work from home so I have some lights during the day too (though not usually in the summer, I get enough light in the summer from windows)

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Another (admittedly anecdotal) piece of information comes from electricity bill. It runs $70-$100 per month for a house with ~40 lightbulbs, not including potlights. With the amount of the bill that is fixed charges and the fact that other appliances (TV, computer, fridge, etc) all use electricity, I can't see there being a reasonably timed payout there.

8 cents per kWh, take the wattage of the bulb, multiply it out, the math can't lie. But a $1 savings easily gets lost in the noise of varying usage.

Or maybe some (cheap ones?) CFLs use more than they're supposed to?

[photon]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

Interesting. I've had a significantly higher replacement rate than this, which is the main reason I don't like them.

I think the one I replaced was an Ikea one, where most of my other ones are more expensive Phillips ones.

Like anything else, some will be better than others.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

What probably makes sense economically is to replace the bulbs that you are using a lot with CFLs, or even better LEDs, but leave the rarely used lights.

Hopefully by the time you need to replace the rarely-used lights, either the price of CFL/LED bulbs has gone down or high efficiency incandescents (which are still allowed) are available at a reasonable price.

I think its probably fair to leave the rarely used lights until they need replacement.

The cost of LED bulbs in five years will likely have come down so much that virtually no incandescent or CFL bulbs will be sold for residential purposes.

The LED bulbs that I got on sale for $10 each earlier this year will pay for themselves within a year over incandescents, and not too much longer over CFLs. Of course, my wife stays home with the kids, so those bulbs easily average more than 8 hours per day of being on.

Unfortunately, most similar LED bulbs that you find at Home Depot do not give off as much light as mine, and cost around $30.

In five years or so, when high quality LED bulbs are $10, it's not going to be a question of which bulbs are cheaper to operate.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by photon

You don't have to estimate anything, the cost of electricity in Alberta right now is about 8 cents per kWh (1000 W for an hour), if you signed up for a contract that's what EasyMax is, the others vary up and down by a bit, or if you don't have a contract it goes up and down more, but that's about what it averages out to.

60W light bulbs are called 60W light bulbs because that's their wattage.

The math's been shown a few times now, which part don't you agree with?



It depends entirely on how much the lights are on, as I've already said.



Most of those things don't run for as long as lights do. A computer doesn't draw more than a few light bulbs worth of electricity, furnaces run then turn off (and the heat comes from gas not electricity), cable boxes probably take tens of watts, dishwashers run for 45 mins / day, etc etc.

You can even get a watt-meter and plug it in to various devices to see how much they use, lights use a significant portion because they tend to be on for extended periods.



Trimming the bill $2 a month would still be $24 a year, and if your light usage is enough to only spend that much on lighting the lights are going to last a lot longer than the 4 years it'll take to recoup the cost (since bulbs are rated for hours lit).

And I've only had one CFL bulb die in 5+ years; you'd need a higher replacement rate to offset the savings.

I'm not going to dispute all of these points because most of it is conjecture and estimation. I get that the cost for electricity is about $0.08/kwh and you can calculate that. I have no idea what the actual usage for lighting is per month or per year though? Sure its possible that the CFLs save you energy and save you a lot....but that might add up to pennies when compared to the other expenditures in terms of energy?

I also get that you can buy a meter and check everything to see what the draw is, but I just don't have the inclination. So maybe someone with a meter should plug it and get a reading and then turn on a light, take a reading and change the bulb for another reading?

How long would it actually take to make this worthwhile for the average person? My experience has been that the bulbs burn out at about the same rate as the incandescents....

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by photon

As I said it varies depends on usage, but lifespan also depends on usage so all things being equal it doesn't matter (unless there's other factors as mentioned like lifespan being reduced by frequent on/off).

That does matter. The time it takes to get your money back is an important part of your return. Would you pay $1.00 to get 1 cent per year back for the next 120 years? Probably not. The time value of money plays a part in a replacement analysis.

Originally Posted by photon

8 cents per kWh, take the wattage of the bulb, multiply it out, the math can't lie. But a $1 savings easily gets lost in the noise of varying usage.

The math certainly doesn't lie, and it was done correctly upthread. What does matter is the assumptions. Things like bulb life and usage per day. The actual wattage and lumens of the bulb should be as per their ratings, but many things like that aren't checked as thoroughly as they could be.

Originally Posted by photon

Or maybe some (cheap ones?) CFLs use more than they're supposed to?

I don't know the quality of the CFLs in my house, as most of them were there when I moved in. That may be a factor. I've since stopped replacing with CFLs. On the other hand, if we're going to limit the discussion to higher quality CFLs, then we should use the higher price for the economic analysis.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

This is the biggest point of difference. 3 hours per day would be a stretch for my most used lights, and some of them don't get 3 hours in an average month (guest bedroom/bathroom).

My experience also hasn't been that CFLs last for 10,000 hours. I've had them go out more frequently that incandecents in the same room. And the two fixtures I'm discussing are almost always used at the same time, so it's a reasonable comparison. Maybe 10,000 hours is their lab life, but in my house they don't last that long. (And I can't figure any way they'd be getting damaged. They are on the ceiling in a no kids/pets house, where they are used on average of 1 time per day. Seems ideal to me)

Since I've started using more CF bulbs I've never changed one.
The same can't be said for the incandescent bulbs in my house.

My anecdotal evidence trumps yours!

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Since I've started using more CF bulbs I've never changed one.
The same can't be said for the incandescent bulbs in my house.

My anecdotal evidence trumps yours!

The first post I made about that (see #52) I made it clear I realized that was anecdotal. I'm not aware of any independent study of CFL lives under actual usage condition in private homes. I would be happy to be proven wrong on that.

There may be differences in the electricity supply to my house vs your house, or our usage pattern. If that's the case, then CFLs may make sense for you but not me.

[drhu22]

I've switched to these...

http://videosift.com/video/DIY-light...NO-electricity

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not going to dispute all of these points because most of it is conjecture and estimation. I get that the cost for electricity is about $0.08/kwh and you can calculate that. I have no idea what the actual usage for lighting is per month or per year though? Sure its possible that the CFLs save you energy and save you a lot....but that might add up to pennies when compared to the other expenditures in terms of energy?

I also get that you can buy a meter and check everything to see what the draw is, but I just don't have the inclination. So maybe someone with a meter should plug it and get a reading and then turn on a light, take a reading and change the bulb for another reading?

How long would it actually take to make this worthwhile for the average person? My experience has been that the bulbs burn out at about the same rate as the incandescents....

And hence this is why we regulate the efficiency of these things. Because the average schmoe can't be bothered (rightly so) to do the math to save himself money. Instead governments can do that, save customers money and reduce energy demand. Bang. Bang. Bang.

My problem is that before people get all upset like FoL they actually sit down and work it through.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Since I've started using more CF bulbs I've never changed one.
The same can't be said for the incandescent bulbs in my house.

My anecdotal evidence trumps yours!

Of course it anecdotal, but I replace bulbs far less often now that I've got a mixture of CFL and LED in my house. I don't remember changing a burnt out bulb in my house in the last year (other than the stupid bathroom fixture that uses halogen bulbs that there is no low energy replacement bulb for).

I know that I was replacing bulbs quite often before I switched.

Of course, I haven't recorded bulb change dates, so it's not very scientific.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by drhu22

I've switched to these...

http://videosift.com/video/DIY-light...NO-electricity

Shouldn't those be called skylights, not lightbulbs?

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm not going to dispute all of these points because most of it is conjecture and estimation. I get that the cost for electricity is about $0.08/kwh and you can calculate that. I have no idea what the actual usage for lighting is per month or per year though? Sure its possible that the CFLs save you energy and save you a lot....but that might add up to pennies when compared to the other expenditures in terms of energy?

I also get that you can buy a meter and check everything to see what the draw is, but I just don't have the inclination. So maybe someone with a meter should plug it and get a reading and then turn on a light, take a reading and change the bulb for another reading?

How long would it actually take to make this worthwhile for the average person? My experience has been that the bulbs burn out at about the same rate as the incandescents....

The bulbs themselves tell you how much energy they use - it is written right on them. Watts = amount of energy being used (for the amount of light being put out is measured in lumens). So you know know how much energy is being used. Then the only question is how long each light is turned on.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Originally Posted by valo403

You lose any ability to make a reasoned argument with stuff like this. You come off as that weird guy with the pube beard sitting in the corner of the lecture hall randomly blurting out nonsense and earning the hatred of everyone around you.

damn and here i thought that the beard looked awesome!
This thread is a classic example that a "salami method" works like a charm. Just keep the servings small and people will swallow it, wipe off their mouth with the back off their hand and thank you for it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The bulbs themselves tell you how much energy they use - it is written right on them. Watts = amount of energy being used (for the amount of light being put out is measured in lumens). So you know know how much energy is being used. Then the only question is how long each light is turned on.

Right...I get that. Over what period of time do they use that wattage though? Is it an hour? I really have no idea.

[Tinordi]

damn and here i thought that the beard looked awesome!
This thread is a classic example that a "salami method" works like a charm. Just keep the servings small and people will swallow it, wipe off their mouth with the back off their hand and thank you for it.

What the hell are you even talking about?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Slava

I have no idea what the actual usage for lighting is per month or per year though?

It says right on the bulb though 60W, 100W, etc all you need to do is multiply by how long you've got the light on.

Running a 60W bulb costs you half a cent per hour. Running a 100W bulb costs you 8/10ths of a cent per hour. Running a CFL costs you 1/10th of a cent per hour.

Originally Posted by Slava

Sure its possible that the CFLs save you energy and save you a lot....but that might add up to pennies when compared to the other expenditures in terms of energy?

Well sure, but again the individual view isn't the only meaningful one. You may only save a few dollars per month compared to the tens or hundreds you spend on other energy, but if you add up that across hundreds of thousands of homes, all of a sudden you don't need to build a nuclear power plant, or you can shut down a coal fired plant, or you don't have to upgrade your power distribution grid as soon.

That's a VERY significant thing.

Originally Posted by Slava

I also get that you can buy a meter and check everything to see what the draw is, but I just don't have the inclination. So maybe someone with a meter should plug it and get a reading and then turn on a light, take a reading and change the bulb for another reading?

No real need though unless one suspects the rating on the bulb is wrong. 60W vs 12W. One will cost you half a cent to run for an hour, the other will cost you one tenth of a cent.

Originally Posted by Slava

How long would it actually take to make this worthwhile for the average person? My experience has been that the bulbs burn out at about the same rate as the incandescents....

Well if they burned out at the same rate, obviously wouldn't be worth it. I've read before that the minimum on/off cycle should be like 20 minutes, and if you turn them on and off for less than 5 minutes their lifespan can be reduced down to a incandescent's. So for bathrooms (for example) that would be something to be aware of.

All of this goes away with LEDs and Phillips should have their cheaper version of their 60W L Prize winning bulb out next year.