• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

LIght bulbs going "metric"

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
I don't suppose anybody happens to remember Environment Canada's wonderful metric measure for windchill not too many years ago?

Guess what is used today?.......people couldn't/wouldn't understand it, thus ignored it....
 

danchapps

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
GAP said:
I don't suppose anybody happens to remember Environment Canada's wonderful metric measure for windchill not too many years ago?

Guess what is used today?.......people couldn't/wouldn't understand it, thus ignored it....

I remember it, just don't remember the name. I remember they were attempting to implement it as they didn't feel the windchill factor was accurate enough. I felt it was, if they told me it was going to feel like -40 I knew to stay inside. I think their problem was they didn't do enough to educate the population about how to understand it.
 

c_canuk

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
In my opinion, which is probably worth what it costs you, CFLs are a scam and they are doing this to hide the power they save which isn't much.

Not that every fixture in my house doesn't have them

A regular incandecent bulb contains only glass and metal, with a very small bit bakelight. it will almost completely break down... the metal will rust away and the glass will break down into sand...

a CFL contains circuitry which contains many trace chemicals, plus the tubes contain phosphorus and mercury, 2 things you don't want to be breathing or in your ground water, the circuitry and the plastic don't easily break down.

CFLs typically reduce energy consumption by 25%, lets look at the numbers

average of 4 bulbs lit 8 hours a day

Incandecent  - 80W(cause in most rooms a 60 is too dim) * 4bulbs * 8 hours = 2560watt hours = 2.560 KWHrs *.09 cents per KW H = $0.23

CFL - 20W * 4 * 8 = 640 wH = .640 KWh * .09 = $.057

LED - 8W * 4 * 8 = 256 wH, .256 KWh *.09 = $ .023

CFL should be banned and LEDs should be pushed, they won't because LEDs effectively last forever, and they loose out on replacement costs.

not to mention this exposes that your lights aren't even a noticable factor in your power bill, and thus aren't a noticibale factor in stopping energy waste - especially if you use electric heat or a source that is more expensive than electric heat as the waste energy from a lightbulb ends up heating your home, thus it's not waste in the winter.

you want to cut back hard on your carbon foot print and power bill, switch to a gas on demand water heater.

an electric water heater uses about 480 KW/H per month compared to the 2 * 30 = 60 KW you'll save on switching to CFLs that pollute the ground water and don't biodegrade.
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2
Points
430
You forgot to include carbon footprint of manufacturing requirements vs relative lifespan for incandescent vs CFL bulbs.

And how will switching to an on-demand water heater light my house? (That is, after all, the topic.)
 

c_canuk

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I figure the carbon footprint must be larger in CFLs as they contain everything that an incadecent does, plus more.

I suppose a gas on demand hot water heater won't light up your house (well it shouldn't and if it does I suggest calling a repair facility or fire department as relevant :) ) but it will save at least 8 times more power than changing out your light bulbs would.

I suppose you could afford to turn all your lights on 7 times longer and still claim to be green. :)
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2
Points
430
c_canuk said:
I figure the carbon footprint must be larger in CFLs as they contain everything that an incadecent does, plus more.

But since they don't burn out as quickly ....
 

Long in the tooth

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Both Watts and Lumens are metric.  Nowhere in the referenced article does it mention 'changing to metric' or 'going to metric', so I'm not sure where you get the byline 'Light bulbs going "metric"'.

But when you find out let me know.
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
890
Points
940
Michael O'Leary said:
Next time I'll just use short words, simple sentences, and primary colours.

No primary colours, but how's this?

lightbulb.gif


Oh and don't take this seriously, either, folks!  ;D
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
PMedMoe said:
No primary colours, but how's this?

lightbulb.gif


Oh and don't take this seriously, either, folks!  ;D

and I just went out and bought 5 4packs of 60 watt bulbs....I figured I had my lighting cost aced!!!  ::)
 

GAP

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
20
Points
380
Check the Contrails thread, most of them are there.....
 

KingKikapu

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Unlike CFL, LED's were never designed to be used as an omnidirectional light source.  It's only been until recently that there's been a big push to make a LED lightbulb that not only has good dispersion characteristics, but also a nice soft white colouring.  That was actually much harder to engineer than the CFL movement which is almost two decades old.  Sure LED (or OLED) will probably be the dominant lighting source down the road, but in the meantime we have several ways to produce light with varying power requirements.  So why are we stuck on wattage again?

It's funny: I was just thinking of my pricey LED mountain biking light (think several hundred dollars) that is also quite a feat of engineering.  They made a 200+ lumen light (that's damn bright for the record) that has a smooth dispersion characteristic on the peripheri, but also has a prominent transition to an intense, focused beam at the centre (makes sense for night riding afterall).  That light cost an arm and a leg a few years ago, but they're slowly reaching acceptable prices with the tech maturity.  Household LED lights certainly are following that trend.
 

c_canuk

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Michael O'Leary said:
But since they don't burn out as quickly ....

I don't buy into that, on average use simulated in a lab they last 10 times longer than a regular incandecent, however I've got one incandecent on a dimmer in my house that refuses to burn out and a couple in lamps, and since I bought the place I've replaced several CFLs that aren't even on that much.

CFLs seem to burn out faster the more you turn them on and off, and incandecents seem to burn out after a long time burning, and while turning them on and off causes them to pop, if they haven't reached critical stage it doesn't seem to hurt them as much as CFLs. Fun fact, the pop and bright flash when an incandecent burns out is actually a very tiny fusion reaction.

I change a CFL once ever month or so.

Anticdotal evidence... so

Besides I'm not a believer in CO2 causing environmental problems anyway, though I'm very concerned with releasing toxic liquid heavy metals into the environment and the circuitry uses some pretty exotic chemicals and toxins that just aren't present in regular old incandecents.

[/hijack]

I think lumens and Wattage are both important specs on the bulb, lumens to provide actual output, and wattage to show consumption, so you could come up with an efficiency unit by specifying lumens/watts.

Since they are pushing us to rely more and more on producing our own off grid power to supplement what we consume and reduce our consumption so that our self produced power provides a large a percentage of our total use as possible, which only makes sense to increase effective ROI.

so lumens might not be the measurement you are most concerned with if you have a target of providing say 50% of your own power, you may be more concerned with how many watts you consume.

If a carbon tax ever gets rolled out this would be a big issue as well.

that might be the angle the EU is going for... many of them have carbon taxes, maybe they are trying to hide/protect the ammount people are paying extra by making it harder to get the most efficient products. Nah too tin foil hat.
 

Michael OLeary

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2
Points
430
c_canuk said:
I don't buy into that, ...

So don't buy into it.  We all know that this is the internet, where any one person's anecdotal evidence trumps any number of laboratory studies, that must obviously be part of some government conspiracy or other.  Do you think the Illuminati might be involved?

 
Top