Post by thread:[TECH] CFL vs incandescent vs LED

On 5 April 2012 06:28, YES NOPE9 <spam_OUTyesTakeThisOuTnope9.com> wrote: > http://lewrockwell.com/orig13/wheaton2.1.1.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter > > CFL don't seem to last longer than incandescents Some good material there BUT far from the full story, and I doubt his general conclusions. I have had some CFL bulbs last over 25,000 hours of operation. And yes, they were operated as abnormally as the ones he cites which were turned on & off every 2 minutes. Mine were low wattage (6W or 8W usually) and were almost never turned off. I mark all CFL bulbs with the date when installing them. I regularly get years of calendar use. Operating hours varies. Few fail within months. If you want best output per Watt, buy brands made by people who know what they are doing both in CFL manufacture and other areas. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken* is one such but there are others. The Philip Tornado CFL's were top ranked for output in tests arranged by an often reputable consumer organisation here and about 2 x brighter than bottom contenders. Philips publish lumen per Watt (when new) data on the packets and elsewhere. I'm adequately convinced that CFLs make economic sense in most domestic situations. And I've yet to find an incandescent equivalent to the 100 Watt electrical input CFL in my dining room light fitting that will fit directly in the fitting - or a daylight white incandesecent. ie CFL's are not perfect and not as good as some claim, but I deem them as adequately good. YMMV. I have no financial interest in Philips ... - just like their products generally. They even do an OK job of 'badge engineering' things. If they sell it with their name on it's more likely than average to be OK - here anyway. Russell McMahon * name changed in 1991, alas. I visited their original factory in 2003 - even though it had been utterly destroyed in WW2. Nicely rebuilt as a 'corporate monument'

I have CFL bulbs in applications at my home where they replaced incandescent bulbs. The CFL outlasts the incandescent by at least 5 times, under the exact same conditions. They also provide as much light as the equivalent incandescent. I use the least expensive ones I can find and have compared them to the more expensive "name brand" CFL bulbs. I find no advantage to using the more expensive name brand bulbs in any area. There is a light fixture in my dining room which has 5 bulbs. I was replacing at least one of the incandescent bulbs every couple of months. Once I replaced all 5 with CFL bulbs that stopped. I put in the CFL bulbs over 4 years ago and haven't replaced a single one since. This fixture is turned on and off. There is one which stays on 24/7, it is in a hallway and the CFL bulbs outlast the incandescent bulbs I used to use in that fixture by at least 10 times. The only thing I find in the article with which I can totally agree is the toxic aspect. {Original Message removed}

Randy, Are you going to be home later tonight? If so, I'll give you a call later. Regards, Jim {Quote hidden}> -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [TECH] CFL vs incandescent vs LED > From: "Randy Abernathy" <.....randyabernathyKILLspam@spam@bellsouth.net> > Date: Thu, April 05, 2012 8:13 am > To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'" <piclistKILLspammit.edu> > > > I have CFL bulbs in applications at my home where they replaced incandescent > bulbs. The CFL outlasts the incandescent by at least 5 times, under the > exact same conditions. They also provide as much light as the equivalent > incandescent. > > I use the least expensive ones I can find and have compared them to the more > expensive "name brand" CFL bulbs. I find no advantage to using the more > expensive name brand bulbs in any area. > > There is a light fixture in my dining room which has 5 bulbs. I was > replacing at least one of the incandescent bulbs every couple of months. > Once I replaced all 5 with CFL bulbs that stopped. I put in the CFL bulbs > over 4 years ago and haven't replaced a single one since. This fixture is > turned on and off. > > There is one which stays on 24/7, it is in a hallway and the CFL bulbs > outlast the incandescent bulbs I used to use in that fixture by at least 10 > times. > > The only thing I find in the article with which I can totally agree is the > toxic aspect. > > > {Original Message removed}

Here in Ontario Canada incandescent are being phased out. I have slowly switching for about 12 years now. Early CFLs were expensive and poor economics were a mix. At first light wise a 13w CFL was a poor replacement for a 100w in. To examine the ecominics lets consider 5000 hours of operation (life of CFL). Comparing cost of 100W incandescent to 27w CFL 10 years ago CFL $10 + 5000 hrs * .027 kW * 0.10 $/kWh = $10 + $13.5 = 23.5 Incandescent $1 * 5000/2000 + 5000 hr * 0.100 kW * 0.1 $/kW = $2.5 + $50 = 52.5 Looks like a no brainer. However it is important to take use into account and what cash flows look like so payback periods are taken into account. Assume use the light on average 7 hours per day (2 morning 4 evening weekdays + 10 on weekends 50/7= 7.15). Monthly operating costs can be calculated. 30.42 days/month * 7 hrs/day = 213 hrs per month. CFL = 213 hrs * .027 kW * .10 $/kWh = $0.575 / month operation. Incandescent = 213* 0.1 kW * .1 $/kWh = 2.13 / month operation Payback is ($10-1$)/(2.13-.575)= 6 months. Again pretty much a no brainer provided you have $10 to spend on the bulb. But what about the bulb in the garage that, to same energy, operates on a motion sensor and daylight sensor? In my garage I have it on a 2 minuet timer. I estimate it typically 3 to four times a day in the winter and in the summer few times a week. Days are long in the summer and short in the winter. To be conservative estimate 2 times a day. 2 * 2 min * 1 hr/ 60 min * 30.4 days/ month * 0.027 kw * * 0.10 $/kWh = $0.005472 per month 2 * 2 min * 1 hr/ 60 min * 30.4 days/ month * 0.1 kw * * 0.10 $/kWh = $0.0202 per month Payback (10-1)/(0.0202-.005472) = 608 months (50 years) Add the fact that in the winter the CFLs simply don't light up due to the cold. An incandescent is a much better choice here. The big savings come from using only when necessary. This sort of thing is true for the a fridge, stove light in the attic and other applications low usage factors. Usage for the light in my back yard is more complicated. But in the winter when I want to turn it on to see if we got freezing rain or for some other reason the warm up time is like an hour. All this ignores that fact that CFLs contain mercury and have disposal costs not included here. Put them in the garbage and you contaminate the land fill. Brake them and you contaminate your house. The values I used for estimates were based on my first use 10 years ago. Things have improved. CFL bulbs are half the price and electricity is 50% higher. So the paybacks for the ordinary use estimates are even more favorable. In my garage an incandescent is a good choice. Note that life of incandesces is a strong function of the voltage in your house. Here the line voltage can vary from ~105 to ~135 depending on the transformer your hooked up to and where. Day to day and month to month fluctuation is only a couple of volts. My old house had a voltage running about 129. Standard and Economy incandescent blew continually giving me life times in the hundreds of hours and not rated value of 2000. But the bulbs were rated at 110V. Being a resistive load, they were actually consuming 100W * (130^2/110^2) = 139 W. This would yield slightly better lumens per watt efficiency due to a higher filament temperature but kills the bulbs quick. Long life bulbs are just regular bulbs rated at 130 V. So if you use them and you are on the low side of the voltage say 105V they consume (105^2/110^2)*100W= 91w with a lower lumen per watt efficiency. Led bulbs are more efficient still but currently more costly then CFL. For small duty cycles I believe incandescent win. On Thu, 2012-04-05 at 09:13 -0400, Randy Abernathy wrote: {Quote hidden}> I have CFL bulbs in applications at my home where they replaced incandescent > bulbs. The CFL outlasts the incandescent by at least 5 times, under the > exact same conditions. They also provide as much light as the equivalent > incandescent. > > I use the least expensive ones I can find and have compared them to the more > expensive "name brand" CFL bulbs. I find no advantage to using the more > expensive name brand bulbs in any area. > > There is a light fixture in my dining room which has 5 bulbs. I was > replacing at least one of the incandescent bulbs every couple of months. > Once I replaced all 5 with CFL bulbs that stopped. I put in the CFL bulbs > over 4 years ago and haven't replaced a single one since. This fixture is > turned on and off. > > There is one which stays on 24/7, it is in a hallway and the CFL bulbs > outlast the incandescent bulbs I used to use in that fixture by at least 10 > times. > > The only thing I find in the article with which I can totally agree is the > toxic aspect. > > > {Original Message removed}