energy saving lightbulbs

[Fit of Rage]

Ok so at the store today I found 100W equivalent lights that actually consume 23W. They were on sale for a box of 4, 10 for $10.00. Bascially, I got 40 of these energy saver bulbs for $10. Cool, don't think I'll have to change a bulb in my house for years.

[Ewan]

Yes, as it doesn't give out stupid amounts of heat like normal lightbulbs.

[Fit of Rage]

A lot of the energy in to standard light bulbs is converted to heat. That is why they are so innefficient.

I was slightly misleading in what I meant. Often they will be sold as their "equivalent" power rating. I.e. it will say "100W equivalent". What I meant was, go one up from what it is the equivalent of (So If you like a 100W normal bulb, get a 120W equivalent energy saver which is in reality about 30W)

So a high-efficiency bulb rated at 120 watts produces the same brightness as a normal 120 watt bulb (or a 100 watt bulb?), but actually consumes 30 watts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-aI1Ch39ZU

what does that have to do with this thread?

[Ewan]

Excuse me for asking what's probably pretty obvious but:

Isn't the power rating what matters in relation to energy use? 150W means that the light bulb uses 150 joules per second. How is that more energy efficient than a "normal" 60 watt (60 joule per second) bulb? Shouldn't an "energy-efficient" bulb consume less power, ie produce the same amount of light with 40W but with less heat output?

A lot of the energy in to standard light bulbs is converted to heat. That is why they are so innefficient.

I was slightly misleading in what I meant. Often they will be sold as their "equivalent" power rating. I.e. it will say "100W equivalent". What I meant was, go one up from what it is the equivalent of (So If you like a 100W normal bulb, get a 120W equivalent energy saver which is in reality about 30W)

[ZeUs!!]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-aI1Ch39ZU

[Emaho]

If it takes less electricity to use it = less electricity purchased = less electricity do the electricity company have to produce = saves the nature.

ok, the nature of these lightbulbs is that they take some time to light up, that is a con of having these lights, in order to choose to convert to these lights there must be a substancial financial saving.

a bulb costs about 2.50 (according to mom)
a normal bulb is 0.18 (bought them before)

a bulb is supposed to last 12 times as long as a normal bulb. 12x0.18=2.16
based on bulb costs, not worth it.

each bulb is documented to save between 5.00 and 10.00 per year on electricity bills. assuming an average of 7.50 this results in an annual benefit of 7.16 per bulb.

the apartment in question, has i think.... about 3 bulbs used often. = 21.48

question: is the reduced performance of the bulb, plus the effort of installation etc... worth that?

[Subjugation]

I wasn't sure about em, but I got a good deal through a promotion the local power company was offering.

Yes, they are significantly more expensive than the regular ones, but they last much longer, so the difference in price is made up in the end.

They aren't as hot as the other ones are, so you can have a lamp next to you and not get all hot from the radiant heat.

The light emitted is brighter than the other ones once they warm up, so I like it better.


Only problem: Right when you turn them on, they need a couple seconds to warm up to their full power. So when I tried to install them on my porch light, the timer doesn't work---because the porch's light timer is not compatible with them. So I just have to use a regular bulb for the front porch, and I use the energy saving flourescent ones in all the indoor lites.

[Jerome Scuggs]

one bulb saves $36 a year. i said fuck it and bought some normal ones

though i do have one on one of my lamps and yeah, it's pretty bright

[Fit of Rage]

hey fu, i sent you a message, I'm still on vacation till sunday

edit: ps with love

[PaulOakenfold]

Words

PULL YOUR WEIGHT

motherfucker

[Fit of Rage]

Excuse me for asking what's probably pretty obvious but:

Isn't the power rating what matters in relation to energy use? 150W means that the light bulb uses 150 joules per second. How is that more energy efficient than a "normal" 60 watt (60 joule per second) bulb? Shouldn't an "energy-efficient" bulb consume less power, ie produce the same amount of light with 40W but with less heat output?

[Ewan]

Yes they are better because:

They use up a lot less power (which is v. important if you're moving in to a house with frieds at Uni)
They last a lot longer, so although at first they are quite a bit more expensive (doc flabby wtf? do you spend £7 or £8 on a normal lightbulb? they're like 99p for normal ones) but you'll never have to change it if you're renting the house for a year or two, they last years.


The only problem is that they take a while to light up, like when you turn them on they're not at their full brightness but it only takes a few mins for them to get up to brightness.

And like someone said, get an energy rating a little higher than what you would get for a normal bulb. Get 120W or 150W

[Emaho]

He's going to grow things in a box, special seedlings.