Searching \ for '[TECH] CFL vs incandescent vs LED' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/displays.htm?key=led
Search entire site for: 'CFL vs incandescent vs LED'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[TECH] CFL vs incandescent vs LED'
2012\04\04@213611 by RussellMc

face picon face
On 5 April 2012 06:28, YES NOPE9 <spam_OUTyesTakeThisOuTspamnope9.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'

2012\04\05@091410 by Randy Abernathy

flavicon
face
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}

2012\04\05@094956 by jim

flavicon
face

Randy,
Are you going to be home later tonight?  If so, I'll give you a call
later.

Regards,

Jim

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2012\04\06@075013 by Andrew Kettner

flavicon
face
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}

> {Original Message removed}

2012\04\07@112533 by RussellMc
face picon face
> The only thing I find in the article with which I can totally agree is the
> toxic aspect.

It's argued that a modern CFL with low mercury content contains
substantially less mercury than is released into the environment is
coal is used to provide the difference in energy between a CFL and
incandescent over a CFL lifetime. Your assumptions and data may vary.



          Russel

2012\04\07@152752 by Bob Blick

face
flavicon
face
On Sun, Apr 8, 2012, at 03:24 AM, RussellMc wrote:
> > The only thing I find in the article with which I can totally agree is the
> > toxic aspect.
>
> It's argued that a modern CFL with low mercury content contains
> substantially less mercury than is released into the environment is
> coal is used to provide the difference in energy between a CFL and
> incandescent over a CFL lifetime. Your assumptions and data may vary.

And not all bulbs get tossed into a landfill. People around here are
pretty well trained as to where things get disposed, our utility bills
have info on a regular basis. All the hardware stores have a bin for old
CFLs.

I find every so often a bulb has cracked during operation. I don't know
how much mercury escapes. It's not a frequent occurence.

CFLs are a good source of inductors.

Bob

-- http://www.fastmail.fm - Accessible with your email software
                         or over the web

2012\04\07@155408 by Dwayne Reid

flavicon
face
At 01:27 PM 4/7/2012, Bob Blick wrote:

>CFLs are a good source of inductors.

Yep.  I usually grab dead CFLs whenever I run across them and disassemble them for parts.  I leave the tube itself intact (and attached to the plastic cover that hides the electronics) and drop those into the recycle bin at my local Home Depot.

I don't have a large collection of dead CFLs but in almost all of the ones that I do have, the bulb failed but the electronics themselves are just fine.

I pull the circuit board and recycle the rest.

dwayne

-- Dwayne Reid   <.....dwaynerKILLspamspam.....planet.eon.net>
Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd    Edmonton, AB, CANADA
(780) 489-3199 voice          (780) 487-6397 fax
http://www.trinity-electronics.com
Custom Electronics Design and Manufacturing

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2012 , 2013 only
- Today
- New search...