Reply With Quote
Wow, usually Darrin runs and hides when he gets on in a thread.
I'd have to look it up, but I'm pretty sure the very low wattage and very high wattage and colored incandescent bulbs are always going to be available -- and there are already 100w equivalent incandescent bulbs available that meet the new efficiency standard. So Darrin is a complete liar for saying he won't have the choice and a complete idiot for stocking up on inefficient incandescents.
Wow, usually Darrin runs and hides when he gets on in a thread.
He finally left once he couldn't move the goalposts anymore.
Hey Darrin, I saw these at HEB, two for five dollars.
All the makings of a classic politics thread.
et cetera, ad infinitum.
I guess DarrinS thinks we'll find another holy grail of cheap, dense, plentiful energy. Maybe dark energy?
I just want to make sure Darrin understands what his choices in light bulbs will actually be in the future.
Darrin, do you actually understand after all your ignorant myths were dispelled?
If only we could figure out a way to tap into the endless supply of right-wing bloviating. , Yonivore would be considered a national asset, bless his pointy head.
I guess DarrinS thinks we'll find another holy grail of cheap, dense, plentiful energy. Maybe dark energy?
I could understand his desire to have a pimpin Hummer or something. That at least looks cool.
But there is no real similar "neato" factor for incandescent light bulbs.
Economically, the LED will completely pwn the incandenscents in the very near future, if they don't already.
Darrin has the right to light cigars with $100 bills in much the same fashion.
It isn't Big Bad Green Government that forces regular people to light cigars with matches or little chunks of wood. It is economics.
Keep fighting the good fight to spend money stupidly Darrin. I wish you luck.
Except that some people prefer certain types of light. A lot of people don't like flourescent light. I can't really stand LED light (too directional, needs to be diffused, but that basically gets rid of it's brightness, hopefully they'll get a good way around that in the future).
People have reasons for preferring one light source over another. Other's might not share it, but the preference still has meaning.
Incandescent lights are and will be available in the future.
At least unless the law changes any further. I'll probably switch out to halogen incandescent's once my gf moves in, since she doesn't like CFLs.
I was responding to RandomGuy implying he couldn't understand anyone wanting to keep using incandescent light bulbs.
When do you think that will happen?
Just to get some hard facts:
Cost of a 100W incandescent equivalent (assume they are measuring lumens, the measurement of light): $47.89, life span 50,000 hours.
I found a cost comparison here:
http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html
Given they have an obvious viewpoint, I decided to do some verification of their assumptions and found their 20 cents per kWh to be waaay too much.
But to be more realisitic I looked up the actual cost of electricity in San Antonio:
http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/Rate_...tric030110.pdf
6 cents plus a bit for peak usage. Call it 6.2 cents to be fair.
The cost comparison assumption of the price of electricity is the most critical assumption.
Re-running their analysis, using San Antonio rates means that running the same 50,000 hours of illumination gets the following costs for a 100w equivalent:
LED:Bulbs: $48
Electricity: $40.30
Total cost: $88.30
Florescent:
Bulbs: $20
Electricity: $62
Total cost: $82
Incandescant:
Bulbs: $52.08
Electricity: $310
Total cost: $362.08
(edit)
Incandescant - LED = $273.78
Most houses have more than one light bulb. Our little house has about 14, by my mental count.
If you have just ten in your house, then that is a total difference of some $2,737.80 over that time period.
(end)
Given electricity rates rise over time, that differential will certainly be more, making that figure somewhat conservative.
Currently Florescents seem to be cheapest by a smidge.
Halve the cost of an LED, and that edge disappears, especially given the fragility and mercury contents of the florescents.
Darrin has every right to keep spending 10 times the electricity on lighting his house.
Did I mention that the LED bulb only gives out 5% of the heat that incandescants do?
Any one bulb or even five probably don't put out that much heat, but when you are paying to cool your house most of the year, that extra heat isn't all that welcome from an efficiency standpoint. My gut says the difference probably isn't all that much money-wise, just to be fair. Still it is a minor consideration.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-20-2011 at 01:44 PM.
Based on the designs I saw in my browsing, I would say they are working on that too, and seem to have some solutions already.
Not an insurmountable engineering challenge at all.
Given the difference between the 50,000 hour cost of the incandescent and LED (some $200 or so by my calculation above) it would seem they have a good "budget" to work with to solve that problem.
The ONLY reason I would have incandescent light bulbs is to replace the LED's when I move out and take the LEDs with me.
I have no thoughts on it. That why I used unless instead of until. Given the enviromentally conscious, energy conscious direction of society, it wouldn't surprise me to see them continually restrict the efficiency requirements, but it also wouldn't surprise me to never see them change again.
I would imagine so. When they get an LED bulb I like, I'll gladly switch. There's no reason not to if you are fine with the light they provide.
Unless of course, better, more efficient lighting style pops up.
Some cheapskate already suggested that he did that a few pages back. You unoriginal cheapskate!The ONLY reason I would have incandescent light bulbs is to replace the LED's when I move out and take the LEDs with me.
Given that the incandescents are about 4 times as costly to operate, it would not seem to me to need any federal mandates.
I could easily see your local utility even providing some rebates for the things, since they would benefit by not having to build as many new power plants, giving LED's even more pwnage.
"it would not seem to me to need any federal mandates."
women because fluo and LEDs are "cooler" light than incandescents.
I have been going to Solarfest San Antonio for the last three years and CPS has been handing out 2 to 4 packs of CFLs for free each year. Additionally, every once in a while you can go to HEB and walk past the CFLs and notice a coupon from CPS taped to them so that you can buy a four pack for free. I would imagine that this would switch to LEDs pretty soon (2 years or so from now).
It's a proper complaint. Mostly that references the frequency of the light. With incandescents, it's skewed towards yellow (similar to the sun. "warm" section of the spectrum), while flourescent and LED's skew more towards blue ("cold" section of the spectrum).
Light frequencies can greatly affect the ability to see clearly for some people and in some situations. I can't really read things lit by an LED in an otherwise dark environment. Weird, but there you go.
Granted, the frequency of the light can easily be changed, as long as you don't mind lowering the intensity.
No she doesn't, she's been in a casket for 8 years as of this past Monday.
Philips new energy efficient retrofit halogen lamp category
New energy efficient halogen lamp category
In light of this, Philips has patented a new technology, which leads to huge levels of energy saving for halogen lamps. The new range, called Edore, saves 50% on energy and last three times longer compared to an ordinary incandescent light bulb.
http://www.newscenter.philips.com/ma...icle-15615.wpd
The radio jockeys in Hawaii must read whatever DarrinS has been reading; I heard this brought up today by some idiot.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
