Since last year's explosion, where the government blew up our main power
station we have what must be one of the most expensive electricity
tariffs in the world. If I take the bottom line of our last bill and
divide it by the kWh consumed, it works out at €0.283/kWh. CFLs for ever!
Brian
On 29/08/2012 15:06, Karen Tellefsen wrote:
> CFL's do use less power, so whether they are cost effective or not depends
> on the cost of power.
>
> Karen Tellefsen - Electrical Testing
> Alpha / 109 Corporate Blvd./ S. Plainfield, NJ 07080
> [log in to unmask]
> 908-791-3069
>
>
>
>
> From: Steven Creswick <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>,
> Date: 08/28/2012 07:26 PM
> Subject: Re: [TN] what is the reliability of CFLs and LEDs as
> incandescent light bulb replacements?
> Sent by: TechNet <[log in to unmask]>
>
>
>
> Bob,
>
> I can't say that my early experience with CFL's was all that good - high
> cost, early/immediate failure, non-existent disposal infrastructure,
> definite fire hazards, and bulbs that illuminated the room like a singular
> tiny birthday candle - poorly.
>
> More recent CFL's appear to be more reliable, but I remain cautious about
> the type of fixture they are utilized in. Disposal infrastructure is
> still
> very weak, with all the burden falling upon the consumer.
>
> Strangely, some of the best results I've had with 'CFL's' is with the
> reflector/floodlight version where the entire bulb is contained within the
> glass envelope, similar to the conventional incandescent flood light. I
> have 4 of them in my 'woodshed' that surrounds my outdoor boiler. They
> operate ON & OFF all year long - steaming hot Summer and bitter cold
> Winter
> [although in the Winter-time they seem agonizingly slow to warm up. Their
> cool glow is complemented by the how glow of the coals in the stove :-)
> ].
> The bulbs have been in intermittent use for 4 years, and are still going
> strong ...
>
> Use of a conventional open coil CFL's in outdoor fixtures is futile.
>
> The last four sentences of Phil's second article pretty much say it all.
> Reminds me of the push for Pb-Free - a great deal of hand-waving and smoke
> &
> mirrors. Very much a 'feel good' type of justification, rather than
> science/math.
>
> IMHO - Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TechNet [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bob Landman
> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:29 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [TN] what is the reliability of CFLs and LEDs as incandescent
> light
> bulb replacements?
>
> A very interesting discussion about what's inside these new devices. Have
> any of you torn one of them apart to see how well they are made? You'll
> be
> amazed at the poor quality of the components in a lamp that's supposed to
> have a 10 year life.
>
> -Bob Landman
>
> IFTLE 98 Lester the Lightbulb vs CFL and LED : the Saga Continues By Dr
> Phil
> Garrou
>
> In IFTLE 63 [ see IFTLE 63, "Bidding Adieu to Lester Lightbulb
> http://www.electroiq.com/blogs/insights_from_leading_edge/2011/08/iftle-63-b
>
> idding-adieu-to-lester-lightbulb.html] back in Aug 2011 IFTLE attempted to
> make the case that our little 25 cent friend Lester the incandescent bulb
> had gotten a bump rap as he awaited extinction on death row.
>
> It's not that the claims of the newer technologies (CFL and LED) using
> less
> power than incandescent bulbs are invalid, but rather what appears to be
> the
> bold faced lie that their much greater cost is compensated by their
> decades
> long lifetimes that upsets all Lester supporters.
>
> http://www.electroiq.com/blogs/insights_from_leading_edge/2012/04/iftle-98-l
>
> ester-the-lightbulb-vs-cfl-and-led-the-saga-continues.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> ***** Please note that my E-Mail address has changed *****
> Please address mail to me using our new [log in to unmask] address.
> ____________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ____________________________________________________________________
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
> For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please contact helpdesk at x2960 or [log in to unmask]
______________________________________________________________________
|
