Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More CFL BUNK

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More CFL BUNK

    Ellen picked out a new hall light for the house and we picked up a pack of CFL's the 4 Pak said on the packaging that these four bulbs will save us $184 a year.

    Using Excel that comes to $15.33 a month, or $3.83 a day. I then counted the amount of bulbs in the house. If they are correct, I should get back from Con Ed at the end of the year about $700 or more.

    According to a PSA on the History channel if every Wal Mart customer used one CFL it would equal taking 11,000,000 cars off the road. So I just took 2.81 cars off the road.

    It is getting weird out there

  • #2
    Fuzzy math, Bill. The $184 a year is about 50 cents a day, not $3.83 or 12 odd cents per bulb and that includes the saving in the much longer bulb life. It only saves about $30 in electricity costs over each bulb's lifetime.
    JDP/Maryland
    JDP Maryland

    Comment


    • #3
      quote:Originally posted by JDP

      Fuzzy math, Bill. The $184 a year is about 50 cents a day, not $3.83 or 12 odd cents per bulb and that includes the saving in the much longer bulb life. It only saves about $30 in electricity costs over each bulb's lifetime.
      JDP/Maryland
      That is exactly what I was getting at. FUZZY-WUZZY Math

      Comment


      • #4
        Math is an absolute. A lot of people think that how it "feels" is more important than if it works. CFL's must feel good.

        Comment


        • #5
          I still believe in CFLs, as much as my kids leave lights on, anyway! Any time you can take two rooms, as I did this week, from burning 160 to 240 watts down to 52 watts, just in light bulbs alone -- all the while improving the light output in both rooms, mind you -- I'll do it. Surely there'll be some savings there. At least I hope so.

          Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

          KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!
          Jacob Newkirk - Owensboro, KY

          KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL! Drive a Studebaker!

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm down to just one or two of the old style bulbs and even the $30/bulb savings in just electricity over the the few years life of the CFL's adds up. I was changing the bathroom bulbs at least once a year, the CFL's are now gong on year three, and that saves even more money.
            Just because a technology is new, does not make it automatically bad, especially if it saves me money.

            JDP/Maryland
            JDP Maryland

            Comment


            • #7
              The only downside to CFL's is the amount of electricity used at startup. If you are going to leave one on for a period of time, CFL is the only way to go. If the light is only going to be on for a short time, ie: a closet with the bump light switch that is only on when the door is open, than incandescent may be a better choice. The break even time escapes me. I am finding that more things seem to be escaping. Maybe they will make a cranial bump switch!!!!

              Comment


              • #8
                The "break even" time on a regular fluorescent is 20 seconds (even less on a CFL). So, if you are going into a room with fluorescent lights and only staying 20 seconds or less, they will cost you more money.

                Saw that on Mythbusters

                Mark Anderson
                Member SDC and FMCA
                Keeper of the Studebaker Cruiser Registry
                http://home.alltel.net/anderm

                My next Studebaker is in the future, but now getting my hair messed up in a Sebring ragtop!
                Almost as fun as a Studebaker!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Then what is it with reg. florescent bulbs?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Regular flourescents have a high-voltage transformer to kick up the 110v AC to some large voltage that I don't know right off hand. CFL's do not need nor have a voltage transformer. The high voltage needed to ignite the gas in tube flourescents uses considerably more watts just to create the higher voltage in the transformer.

                    '50 Champion, 1 family owner

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I probably wasn't clear. When Mythbusters ran the test, they were trying to figure out if it cost more electricity to turn a bulb on, rather than just leave it on (in other words, is the startup usage so much that you'd be better off leaving the bulb on). The ONLY bulb that was more than a few milliseconds, was a regular fluorescent tube. Those took a hit when you first turned them on that lasted 20 seconds. So, it cost more to startup those than regular bulbs. All of the other bulbs tested showed it would save money to turn them off when you leave the room. Only the fluorescents were better off left ON if you were going to be in the room for 20 seconds or less

                      Probably still clear as mud. Anyway, the CFLs used much less energy than regular incandescents but more than LED bulbs.

                      Mark Anderson
                      Member SDC and FMCA
                      Keeper of the Studebaker Cruiser Registry
                      http://home.alltel.net/anderm

                      My next Studebaker is in the future, but now getting my hair messed up in a Sebring ragtop!
                      Almost as fun as a Studebaker!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        We are switching to candles.How's that for "old school" CASO style?
                        Mono mind in a stereo world

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm going for 120 lightning bugs in a jar


                          Dick Steinkamp
                          Bellingham, WA

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            should I even open the jar and use those lightning bugs to power up my LCD TV?

                            Old 27 sanyo tube TV 90 watts to use.
                            New 32 LCD TV 185 Watts.

                            Guess I'm going to have to get more CFL bulbs to make up the difference.

                            Chop Stu
                            61 Lark

                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "Broken CFL bulbs release mercury vapors which are harmful to human and ecological health. The EPA has a page dedicated to clean-up of broken CFL Bulbs. ..." or so the web says.[xx(]



                              Dick
                              Mountain Home, AR
                              http://www.livingintheozarks.com/studebaker.htm

                              Dick
                              Mountain Home, AR
                              http://www.livingintheozarks.com/studebaker2.htm

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X