Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
"Next electric bill you get- I want you to CELEBRATE "
Get a grip Hunky, this is NOT about electric rates, it's about the lamps. The simple fact is when the number before the W is lower you pay less than if the number before the W is higher. You've bitched about the rates before and that'ts not a problem, but it is a separate issue now.
Now on to the topic at hand. I was a firm believer that flourescent tubes were better because they were more efficient and lastED longer. The old 40W 4' tubes used to be great. But then they had to tamper with something that worked. They got it down in wattage by a pittance, and I found personally that they no longer lasted as long. I know this by personal experience, using 8 tubes in 4 fixtures, a case of 24 tubes lasted a bit over two years. After that I started going back to incandescent and the long life type actually lasted a bit longer than the "new and improved" tubes.
The fact still remains that the incandescents burned up a bunch of energy producing heat. When the last four tubes go, I'm putting up screw in fixtures, but they will have CFLs installed in them.
Another bitch people had about the old tubes was the flicker. Apparently some people have a shorter persistence of vision which makes it noticable and irritating. However the CFLs do not seem to have that problem. Mercury vapor lamps had the flicker problem even worse, so much so if you wanted to use a video camera you would not be able to use high speed shutter. Even with flourescents, the problem existed, the lighting would apparently change as the frame rate of the camera fell in and out of phase with the electric power. With the mercury vapor jobs it looked like the place was lit by strobe lights.
So that bothered some people, but they seem to have worked that out in CFLs.
There are disadvantages to CFLs, breaking one is not pleasant. Instead of argon and frosting with your broken glass you get some nasties. The question now is, just how much does mercury go for, and can it be salvaged from these lamps ? I doubt you can do much with that, but it's a thought.
Also CFLs, just like incandescents are not all created equal. For the scoop on that, don't go by what they say it's the "equivalent of".... look at the lumens. I haven't done any study on it, but I suspect it would turn out something like incandescents, more lumens per watt = shorter life, or higher cost.
Another up and coming technology is high brightness LEDs. Flashlights are now switching over, and that is probably good. The CFL is inherently more rugged for things like trouble lights because jarring it will not break the filament. I think LEDs are even more rugged. But think - a trouble light or a flashlight - why are you carrying it ? Well if you bump it into something and the filament breaks, you no longer have light, which you obviously needed.
The other point, they missed the mark in a way. A very small portion of the electricity used in most places goes for lighting. Take 100 watts of any kind of lighting and compare it to other electrical devices. A microwave oven approaches or exceeds 1000 W, a toaster oven, similar ro maybe a hair more for a big one. A refrigerator can be anywhere from 400 - 800 W depending on age and capacity. Newer ones draw less and run longer. If you have an electric stove you might as well use arc lamps. An electric dryer sucks it in as well, as do many appliances. However many of those are meant to produce heat, or move it. Electricity is not so bad at moving heat, as in an air conditioner or fridge, but is terrible for producing heat compared to gas. In fact gas air conditioners and refrigerators do exist, but they cost more and I really don't know if they are more efficient. It may seem silly to burn gas to cool something, but the system works. But then if the sealed system leaks you get more nasties than you would from an electrically powered unit using a compressor.
Did they really have to ban incandescent lamps ? Normally I would say no, but people are that stupid sometimes. I don't think they should've banned them, but what other choices do they have in a place like California ? Tax them ? That is social engineering via taxtion which I oppose almost universally, almost. Let's say I oppose it for domestic trade. The only other option would be to subsidize CFLs or their manufacturers, which is the other side of the same coin. Which brings us to - where are these lamps made ?
Doesn't it seem that in time they'll find a way to shorten the longevity to maintain sales, like they did with just about everything else ? Right now they last years, and in time people will forget just when they changed them last. Money will prevail and to pretend it won't is illogical.
T^T
|
To the whiners about incandescent light bulbs - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread