CFL Lightbulbs, LEDs, Incandescents

They did do startup, but I thought this was a 'watt hour' test that showed steady state consumption. You're probably right about lining up the same lumen output, although on the face of it that makes me wonder how good any of the comparisons were. But then I always find 3-4 things to quibble about with regards to mythbuster experiments...

For what its worth, the lights they were using seemed to be of somewhat similar light output...its not like they had some little lite-brite peg for an LED vs a 90 watt incandescent. It was a full size bulb that was putting off some serious light.
 
All I know is since learning of the LED bulbs, the cloud of "smug" that formed over my house from installing CFLs has dissapated. :'(
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
They did do startup, but I thought this was a 'watt hour' test that showed steady state consumption. You're probably right about lining up the same lumen output, although on the face of it that makes me wonder how good any of the comparisons were. But then I always find 3-4 things to quibble about with regards to mythbuster experiments...

For what its worth, the lights they were using seemed to be of somewhat similar light output...its not like they had some little lite-brite peg for an LED vs a 90 watt incandescent. It was a full size bulb that was putting off some serious light.

Well, several different sources are showing LEDS peaking @ about 70 lumens/watt. CFLs max out at around 60 lumens/watt, florescent tubes do better - around 100 L/W. Incandescent tungsten about 16 lumens / watt (very dependent on wattage - one high watt bulb is more efficient than two or three low watt bulbs together for the same light output). Here's one ref:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminous_efficacy#Examples_2

I'm guessing the TV camera made them look similar brightness, but 1W is only going to get you ~ 70 lumens max, and that 90 watt tungsten would be around 1400 lumens. The cameras compress the differences, as does your eye/brain.

I'd be curious to see a cradle-to-grave analysis of LED vs tungsten vs CFL - those CFLs have mercury in them, offset somewhat by less mercury spewed by a coal burning plant to produce the electricity. But, I wonder how much energy and pollution an LED creates in it's production. It's longer life span would help. I have had one CFL burn out, I was moving the lamp at he time, maybe it didn't like that?

RE: Mythbusters and 'scientific technique' - I never watched the show (don't have cable), but my brother started talking it up. Sounded interesting, so I looked up some references on the web. From what I've read, these guys are doing the public a disservice by presenting this stuff as 'factual' or scientific. These guys are really weak, often do not set up the experiments correctly, and make statements that cannot be derived from their data. The most common logic error seems to be - 'we tried to do X and couldn't do it, therefore it can't be done'. WRONG. It just meant they couldn't do it. It does not mean it can't be done under different conditions, etc. With that logic, I could 'prove' that it is impossible to run a four minute mile (or five minute for that matter) ;).

-ERD50
 
The mythbusters guys definitely leave a lot of big gaping holes.

But where else can you see a crash test dummy strapped to a toilet full of gasoline in a sealed plastic room blown up? Or the same dummy dropped from a bridge into the SF bay? Or strapped to a chair lined with rockets a la wiley coyote and launched in the air? Or a rocket that uses salami as rocket fuel? Or employing FBI explosives experts to blow up a cement truck full of concrete to the point where it disintegrates? Or using a full size crane and a pile of storage containers as a gigantic trebuchet?

My favorite "what the?" of all mythbusters time was the "jaws" one. Someone help me with this logic:

"We've all seen the jaws movie where the giant 25' shark does x, y and z. We're going to try to see if a shark that big could really do all those things. Now the largest great white shark ever caught was 21 feet. So we're going to make a 21 foot dummy shark and..."

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I've had two CFL's burn out, but one of them went right away after a buzz and rattle, so it was probably made wrong, and the other one was a garage light exposed to 120 degree heat that nevertheless lasted about 8 year of irregular use.
 
Interesting discussion. My technical volunteer interests keep me in contact with the companies that are producing most of the white light LEDs. I have a handfull of LED flashlights and keychain lights (even lighted ink pens) that these companies give away at technical trade shows, so techno-geeks are often discussing this topic at conferences. This is an interesting technology that has already found applications in traffic lights as mentioned in previous posts. General lighting is their target market to experience massive growth. But there are some aspects of this technology applied to general lighting that I'm not sure have been completely considered. 1) the LEDs that are showing high efficiency are operating off of low voltage DC power. Any effort to run these from 110V AC requires that every outlet include a power converter. While this is a fairly trivial thing to accomplish, it does add cost, efficiency, and reliability concerns that have to be considered. There is some talk and progress toward developing an AC LED light, but that's not the device that is producing high efficiency. 2) LED manufacture requires the growth and processing of high purity semiconductors (primarily SiC and GaN). This growth and processing requires a great deal of energy -- lots of ovens involved in several stages of development. Today, SiC and GaN cannot be grown on wafers of larger than 4" diameter (in contrast some production Silicon wafers are 12" diameter). Most GaN and SiC devices are still being manufactured on 2" or 3" wafers. It would require a huge uptick in volume requirements to justify processing white light LEDs on 12" wafers, thus enjoying the economies of scale that Silicon enjoys. Until that happens, the energy/cost tradeoffs are not going to be nearly as attractive. So we have a "chicken or the egg" problem here.

I have purchased and used a number of CFLs over the years. The ones I purchased years ago all exhibited very short lifetimes and never came close to paying for themselves. I decided to try again several months ago and purchased 3 more. So far, so good. The problem is, I have a stack of incandescent bulbs in my cabinet that were free after rebate. I seem to be able to find more light bulb sales that offer "free" bulbs than I can use. The alternate lighting technologies have to offer dramatic cost reductions with very high reliability to beat the end-of-life costs of conventional lighting. :)
 
Ugh. Dont make me take a picture of my "light bulb closet"... :p

I must have 60 incandescent bulbs and absolutely no use for them until I sell the house, remove all my cfls, and replace them all with the original incandescents.

The really cool thing I saw on some tv show was a "light gathering device" that used optical fibers to gather and distribute light throughout a home, including storage for night time use.

Here:
http://www.inhabitat.com/entry_4.php
http://www.arch.hku.hk/~kpcheung/daylight/day-4.htm

This is fun too: http://www.builditsolar.com/References/Half/ProjectsConservation.htm#Lights
 
sgeeeee said:
Interesting discussion. .... 1) the LEDs that are showing high efficiency are operating off of low voltage DC power. Any effort to run these from 110V AC requires that every outlet include a power converter. While this is a fairly trivial thing to accomplish, it does add cost, efficiency, and reliability concerns that have to be considered.

True, each LED operates on about 3 volts DC. But that issue is somewhat offset by the fact that you need several LEDS chips (about a dozen) to come up with the equivalent light output of one standard 60W bulb. So, 12 chips in series x 3V each is 36V DC, So, yes, you still need a converter to run from standard AC, some added complexity, cost and reliability issues - but you don't need to convert all the way down to 3V. That is what makes them so perfect for flashlights ( 2 cells ~ 3V), and cars (4 LEDS in series match the 12V car system). I'm pretty sure traffic lights run on 48V to take advantage of standard industrial (telco) battery backup systems, so they can match a string of LEDS to 48V.

2) LED manufacture requires the growth and processing of high purity semiconductors (primarily SiC and GaN). This growth and processing requires a great deal of energy

I'd like to see some numbers on this for all the bulb types. We might be robbing Peter to pay Paul? Similar to solar panels, I understand it takes a considerable time to generate enough energy to offset the energy used to make the panel. That is why it is so tough to compete with petroleum and coal - all that energy was produced a million years ago. All we need to do is pump or dig it out of the ground and burn it. Unfortunately, that creates other problems.

I have purchased and used a number of CFLs over the years. The ones I purchased years ago all exhibited very short lifetimes and never came close to paying for themselves. I decided to try again several months ago and purchased 3 more. So far, so good.

The new ones are much better than the old. I gave up on them until I saw some my FIL had installed. I really liked the light, no flicker, and they are cheap enough to try out again. I keep replacing more and more as time goes on.

-ERD50
 
One way to lower the use of lights ...My sister bought one of these. Many in her community have them.

http://solatube.com/
Solatube Daylighting System

Natural light lifts spirits, makes spaces appear larger, and reveals our world in its true color. Beyond its aesthetic appeal, it also reduces eyestrain, increases our productivity, and lessens electrical demand. Unfortunately, today's buildings rarely have enough natural light.

Now it's possible to change that with a highly advanced, yet affordable Solatube Daylighting System. The Solatube Daylighting System utilizes revolutionary breakthrough technology to redirect light down a highly reflective shaft and diffuse it throughout your interior space. Whether you need to light a small bathroom or a warehouse, the Solatube Daylighting System has the right light for anyresidential orcommercial need. When used alone, or in multiples to light expansive spaces, the Solatube160 DS, 290 DS, 21-O and 21-C are sure to deliver the light that you need. Solatube, Innovation in Daylighting™.
 
Hmmm...I'll have to poke around...I was just looking at a batch of those at lowes the other day and they were a little more efficient than a standing freezer, but not THAT much.

All my neighbors hunt and fish all the dang time, since we live in the middle of excellent territory for both. They're always offering me sacks of stuff and I usually have to shrug and say i'm out of freezer space.
 
No, it's a freezer that's used as a fridge. You just add a thermostat to an everyday chest freezer that turns on the "Freezer" only when the temp goes above 40 degrees.

The main savings comes from the fact that all the cold just sits in the well-insulated tub.

You'd have to be a real radical tightwad to use it, since it would take up a lot of space in the kitchen, and you'd have to bend over every time you wanted to get the butter, but it's a very clever idea.
 
TromboneAl said:
you'd have to bend over every time you wanted to get the butter

Theres a joke in there somewhere.

Ah...I see, its been modded down. Makes more sense now, but considering current convenience features going to three doors and whatnot, bending over appears to not be something americans want to do.

Whoops, theres another one.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
All my neighbors hunt and fish all the dang time, since we live in the middle of excellent territory for both. They're always offering me sacks of stuff and I usually have to shrug and say i'm out of freezer space.

Hey Fuzzy: (Apoligize to the rest of the board for temporarily going off topic.) I remember telling you a long time ago, that you are in the best part of Calif. (Unless you are an aspiriing rock star, or look forward to spending your time bar-hopping with Paris Hilton) ;)

I quit hunting two years ago because it was interferring with playing tournament golf. (My wife was not really happy about that, because golf balls are really hard to digest, and she loves venison.) ;)

My great nephews (fortunantly) supply my wife with all the "game" that we can handle.

At last count in our freezer, we had venison, duck, Geese, trout, Salmon,
Dove, Quail, Elk, etc. etc. (A carnivors delight). ;)

Sorry for going off topic.
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
Theres a joke in there somewhere.

....bending over appears to not be something americans want to do....

Only in election years!

:D Let no opportunity go wasted.
 
Jarhead* said:
Apologize to the rest of the board for temporarily going off topic.

Well shoot, that never happens.

Its a nice area...if we could get rid of the gangs and the meth labs that is... :p

Laurence...you owe me a beer for the slow throw right over the plate.
 
ERD50 said:
Just imagine what a significant change it would be if this wasn't always turned into a partisan issue ;)

Neither party has done much of anything to bring about any significant change.

In the words of Lewis Black: "The Republicans say 'I have a sh!tty idea' and the Democrats say 'I can make it sh!ttier!'."

Reverse the two parties, if you like.

-CC
 
My take is that the republicans have lousy ideas but are usually good executors of those ideas while the democrats have great ideas and lousy execution. I usually will take good execution of a bad idea over bad execution of a good idea.

Of course, lately the ideas stink and the execution is leaving a lot to be desired too.
 
Laurence said:
People need to be educated as to the real cost of our current way of doing things. Let's start with 3000 dead and billions spent in Iraq.

We could also start by dealing with people who spend $300/month on gas.
 
Shawn said:
We could also start by dealing with people who spend $300/month on gas.

You forgot the smiley face.

I drive a stick shift car to work that get's nearly the gas mileage your car does, and the gas money is primarily spent by DW taking my disabled daughter to therapy. If you read more than one post of mine, you'd know I've already minimized my energy consumption in a lot of ways. But hey, that's o.k. bring it on, show me what you got. Just make your shots across the bow less passive-aggresive.
 
Aint it funny how great a memory some people have for a particular snarky detail they'll let you have back a week or two later, but they dont remember all that pesky context?

The good news is, having laid the grenade, most of the time they dont even bother to go back and read the thread to see what you had to say about it. I guess these folk arent particularly interested in the details.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamebait
 
Eh, that was just a reminder of some of the really, really dumb things people say sometimes.

Or a warning to those who get obsessed over a bad idea and take it too far.

Sorry pal, but if you wanna run with the big dogs, you cant piss like a puppy. :)
 
Cute Fuzzy Bunny said:
Eh, that was just a reminder of some of the really, really dumb things people say sometimes.

Or a warning to those who get obsessed over a bad idea and take it too far.

Sorry pal, but if you wanna run with the big dogs, you cant piss like a puppy. :)

:eek: :LOL:
 
Laurence said:
You forgot the smiley face.

I drive a stick shift car to work that get's nearly the gas mileage your car does, and the gas money is primarily spent by DW taking my disabled daughter to therapy. If you read more than one post of mine, you'd know I've already minimized my energy consumption in a lot of ways. But hey, that's o.k. bring it on, show me what you got. Just make your shots across the bow less passive-aggresive.

Despite your sarcasm, a smiley was considered. I put it in. Took it out. Put it in. Took it out.

I've read many of your posts. From memory, you have a cute and proud picture of you and your new baby, you had a contest for your new baby's name (that was you, wasn't it?), you lived near the epicenter of the Northridge earthquake, you are in IT or an IT'ish field, you live in or near San Diego, you like or at least have cats, and you are a Bronco fan. Except for the baby, I remember these items because I can relate. I'm a Bronco fan, love cats, know about earthquakes (computer simulated the ground motions of the Northridge earthquake), etc.

I didn't know about your daughter with DS. I assume you mentioned this in an effort to make me feel bad (now that's passive-aggressive). Well, I did feel bad.

You brought up the subject. Even though I was familar with your recent posts, I went back and read or quickly scanned everything you wrote since August 1 (510 posts). While I could have missed a few, outside the current thread, you touched on personal energy conservation in only two posts ... you mentioned the gas mileage of your Volvo twice (28 mpg), and in one of those posts you said that your power bill went from $85 to $65 when you switched to florescents. You made reference to your daughter having downs syndrome in two or three posts. You never mentioned your DW taking your daughter to therapy. You mentioned alcohol or alcohol consumption in perhaps 30-40 posts (sorry for not counting, but my obsession goes only so far). Apparently, you put on 12.5 miles on your Volvo from December 2005 through August 2006. I do not fully understand this since you mentioned your commute was only 12 miles (maybe your DW drives the Volvo). But to address your claim, I have read 510 of your posts and I have not seen much discussion about how you have minimized your energy consumption. Perhaps this was discussed prior to August 1.

My response was not directed specifically at you. However, it does surprise me when some of the most vocal proponents of environmental and other so-called liberal causes are also the biggest consumers of energy. Some individuals spout the typical rhetoric in one sentence and then gleefully share the delights of their many cross-country RV trips in the next sentence. Travel is often associated with ER, but travel also means energy consumption and waste. I'm sorry. You can't have it both ways. This reminds me of individuals who have "Don't Pollute" bumper stickers on the back of their SUV's.

Do you really drive 3500 miles/month (the estimated mileage from energy efficient vehicles at $300/month)? If so, and if this is to benefit your daughter, do you feel at least the slightest bit of gratitude that you live in a gas-guzzling environmentally-polluting war-mongering country that allows you to do what you feel is best for your family? Do you know how much you would spend on gas if you lived in, say, Norway? It is very possible that you would not have the financial resources that allow your DW to drive your daughter to therapy.

While your Volvo gets respectable gas mileage, an environmentally conscious person would immediately exchange it for a Prius or other such vehicle. A guess is that the energy *saved* from this earth friendly act would be greater than the per capita energy consumption of many if not most people in the world. It boggles the mind that the average American, including you, including me, can save more energy through simple steps than what the average person around the world consumes. Or, you could become a real environmentalist and not drive. Use mass transit. Ride a bicycle. I know several people who commute 20-50 miles daily on a bike. Each way. Watch that weight drop. It would seem to be an easy solution for a person training to run a marathon. Think of the cross training benefits. Save up for that solar power system by skipping the booze. If you really care about the environment, let alone the hundred's of thousands of people killed in alcohol-related deaths, it's a sacrifice you'll be willing to make. Of course, as an average American, you are more likely to continue your energy consuming ways and still complain about what the administration and others are or are not doing. You say that America is the number one polluter. Well, who is up near the front of the pack?

As for me, my gas-electric bill is usually less than $15 dollars/month (it is higher when I use space heaters to care for ill cats). My low was $7.04. When I switched to florescents 5 years ago, my bill dropped by only $2 due to my already low usage. Except for my water heater and wall furnance, I have an all electric 3 bedroom, 2 bathroom house. I do nothing special except to turn it off when it's not in use. Other than Khan, I may be the most energy efficient person on this forum. Yet I am not an environmentalist. I'm glad I have an automobile. I'm glad I can do all the things I get to do, even if it means wasting energy and polluting the earth. What I don't do is spout all the hypocritical rhetoric that comes from so many others. *I* am the problem. I am the cause of pollution and dwindling resources. I'm probably in the 90% percentile in the world-wide consumption of energy. What about you? You may be in the 95% percentile. Are you the problem, too? Is this even remotely possible?

Mind you, I'm not asking that you stop those 3500 miles. I'm not suggesting that you not have a high electric bill. I'm simply asking you to look in the mirror before telling others or the government what they should do.

Again, my comments are not directed specifically at you. I'm certainly not interested in an argument or anything else. You are obviously a great person with a lot of friends here. I'm a newbie. They will defend you, not me.

My time is limited. I've already spent way too much time on posts. If you respond, I may not see it. However, I will see it if you include it in a message.
 
Back
Top Bottom