A Bright Idea (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Yachtie -> A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 10:29:17 AM)

Cost effective too[8|]

The U.S. government last year announced a $10 million award, dubbed the “L Prize,” for any manufacturer that could create a “green” but affordable light bulb.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the prize would spur industry to offer the costly bulbs, known as LEDs, at prices “affordable for American families.” There was also a “Buy America” component. Portions of the bulb would have to be made in the United States.

Now the winning bulb is on the market.

The price is $50.


[sm=applause.gif]


[sm=rofl.gif]




Marc2b -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 11:44:37 AM)

For fifty fucking dollars that bulb better still be in use when my great grandchildren (well, if I had any) are in their eighties.




Musicmystery -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 11:51:39 AM)

You are SO missing the point. The cost of lighting a bulb far outstrips its cost.

Consider a larger scale:

http://www.ledsmagazine.com/news/4/8/16

Currently, the City incurs $372,000 in annual electricity costs for street lighting, and this could be reduced by 47% if all the fixtures are replaced with LEDs. Along with a further projected 75% reduction in $179,000 of annual capital and maintenance costs, the City could realize $309,090 in annual savings.

"Congratulations to Welland for leading the way with its pilot project to install LED street lighting,



More energy-efficient light-emitting diodes are rapidly becoming the preferred lighting solution worldwide
By David Biello |
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=led-there-be-light

torraca-LEDs FIRST LED CITY: Torraca, Italy, is the first town to be entirely lit by LED lights. Image: COURTESY OF CREE

Torraca is a small village of 1,200 people in Italy. It is also the first place in the world to be totally illuminated by light-emitting diodes (LEDs). Representing a sea change, much like when electric lamps first graced London's Holborn Viaduct back in 1878, some 700 streetlights (each containing 54 LEDS) now line Torraca's arteries—and locales around the world, from Beijing's Bird's Nest Olympic Stadium to the Raleigh Convention Center's Shimmer Wall in North Carolina, have begun to use LEDs to light up the night.

"There are more than 30 installations like Torraca around the world," says Mark McClear, director of business development at Durham, N.C.-based LED-maker Cree, Inc., which made the LEDs in Torraca's streetlamps. "It's growing weekly."

The lightbulb of the future may just be a small piece of semiconductor. Rather than heating tungsten to at least 3,100 degrees Fahrenheit (1,700 degrees Celsius) or exciting fluorescent gases, LEDs can produce lumens with less electricity.

. . .

Cost has been the major obstacle for LEDs, which last up to as 50,000 hours (10 years if used 12 hours a day)—gradually dimming over time—compared with about 800 hours for a typical 100-watt incandescent. "The average bulb is on two hours a day. At that rate, an LED would last 136 years," McClear says. "If you bought a fixture and only used it two hours a day, it would last longer than your house. It would last longer than you."

Potential energy savings, however, appear to hold more sway with cities and building owners than cost. After all, some 22 percent of all electricity use in the U.S. is devoted to lighting, according to the U.S. Department of Energy—and switching to LEDs could save $280 billion by 2028. In fact, researchers at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., estimate that replacing incandescents with LEDs could save $1.83 trillion in energy costs globally over the next decade and eliminate the need for 280 1,000-megawatt power plants.

"Forcing electricity though a filament and heating it up to the point where it emits light, [is] horribly inefficient, on the order of 95 percent inefficient," McClear says. "The best LEDs are on the order of 35 percent more efficient."

Among those dazzled by LEDs: North Carolina State University in Raleigh, which last year installed 730 Cree LED lights in a dormitory building and saved 44 percent of the energy consumed by the fluorescent predecessors per day, according to the university. Discount chain Wal-Mart has replaced fluorescent light fixtures in its freezer sections with LEDs. And the City of Los Angeles plans to replace some 140,000 street lamps with LED fixtures by 2014 at a cost of $57 million, tapping some of its funding from the Clinton Climate Initiative and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power.

New LED lights can put out the equivalent light of 100-watt incandescent while only consuming 13 watts of power. They also outlast equivalent compact fluorescent lightbulbs but use 50 percent less energy and skip the toxic mercury required as ballast. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that 670 million such fluorescent lights end up in the trash yearly and release some two to four tons of mercury per annum into the environment.

Advances in the underlying technology have allowed Cree, for one, to boost output from a single one-square-millimeter diode to 161 lumens per watt. Partially as a result, the Federal Reserve is using LEDs for its overhead recessed lights and the Pentagon has installed some 4,200 LED fixtures to reduce energy costs and improve light quality, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.




Musicmystery -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 11:52:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

For fifty fucking dollars that bulb better still be in use when my great grandchildren (well, if I had any) are in their eighties.

quote:

"The average bulb is on two hours a day. At that rate, an LED would last 136 years,"

...and at a fraction of the energy cost to light it.




SternSkipper -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 11:56:12 AM)

Just one problem ... the article is big fat lie ... What Phillips has produced is an ENTIRE LINE of LED lighting with a Wide range of pricing down as low as under $20. Yes, There's a $50 bulb alright, but it's the highest end model in the line.

But all that aside ... you DO understand Pricing on first run in the electronic business, right?
in 6 ,months to a year, they'll be on sale at home depot in 3 packs forv $10 bucks.

Article=Sensational
Post Fails




SternSkipper -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 11:58:28 AM)

quote:

...and at a fraction of the energy cost to light it.
search ebay for the whole line and think about how your house will be lit when the prices drop[:D]




Musicmystery -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:15:20 PM)

And then there's the energy costs. Do you guys get free electricity or something?

"a 7 watt LED home light bulb (60 watt direct replacement) will cost $2.00 a year to run left on for 8 hours a day vs. an incandescent which will cost $20.00"

"What’s more LED light bulbs are shatterproof, run cool to the touch, and contain no mercury or hazardous substances like CFL’s"

"The most notable advantages of LED light bulbs over conventional light bulbs are Led light bulbs last upwards of 50,000 hours"

And yes, they start at $19.89 (9 watt bulb).

http://www.earthtechproducts.com/energy-saving-led-light-bulbs.html






Marc2b -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:22:08 PM)

Two hours a day my ass! When I go home tonight the lamp by my cozy chair will be on at least six to seven hours. Sure, it will be on less as it stays light longer during the summer, but during winter... well, sitting around in the dark is boring.




Musicmystery -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:23:44 PM)

Yeah, Marc. If you burn it longer, it no longer costs energy.

[8|]

If you leave every light on in your house while sitting by your lamp, that's your issue, and your electric bill.

Average.





LaTigresse -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:25:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Two hours a day my ass! When I go home tonight the lamp by my cozy chair will be on at least six to seven hours. Sure, it will be on less as it stays light longer during the summer, but during winter... well, sitting around in the dark is boring.


I disagree with that...




Marc2b -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:30:14 PM)

quote:

Yeah, Marc. If you burn it longer, it no longer costs energy.


What the hell are you talking about?




Marc2b -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:31:39 PM)

quote:

I disagree with that...


Well, I can manage to amuse myself in the dark for a little while... but once I've spent my load things get boring (plus, groping around in the dark for my little blue towel is annoying).




Musicmystery -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:33:21 PM)

That's my point to you, exactly. The amount of time you burn one light bulb is irrelevant.

Spend as much as you like.

Here's another example.

This spring, I'm building a house. Now, it's costing me more than a traditional house would. However, it will cost almost nothing to heat or cool. And, it will never need outside maintenance. In your view perhaps, a waste of money. In mine, I'll be saving thousands every year forever.

Next year I'll add a windmill, and get paid for electricity instead of paying. Forever.




Marc2b -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:38:48 PM)

quote:

That's my point to you, exactly. The amount of time you burn one light bulb is irrelevant.


I'm not talking about how much it cost to power the bulb, I'm talking about how much the damn bulb itself costs. There's nothing irrelevant about that. When a bulb burns out, you have to get a new one (ya might have noticed) For fifty fucking bucks the damned thing better last a long, loooong, time. Not all us can afford to shell out fifty fucking dollars for a fucking light bulb.




Marc2b -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 12:57:40 PM)

quote:

in 6 ,months to a year, they'll be on sale at home depot in 3 packs forv $10 bucks.


They better be because there is no way in hell that I'm shelling out fifty bucks, or even twenty, for a fucking light bulb!




masternoname -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 1:40:43 PM)

I was thinking there was no way I could afford these given my inclination to drop light bulbs, but shatterproof [:)]

Yea, I could get behind this idea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

And then there's the energy costs. Do you guys get free electricity or something?

"a 7 watt LED home light bulb (60 watt direct replacement) will cost $2.00 a year to run left on for 8 hours a day vs. an incandescent which will cost $20.00"

"What’s more LED light bulbs are shatterproof, run cool to the touch, and contain no mercury or hazardous substances like CFL’s"

"The most notable advantages of LED light bulbs over conventional light bulbs are Led light bulbs last upwards of 50,000 hours"

And yes, they start at $19.89 (9 watt bulb).

http://www.earthtechproducts.com/energy-saving-led-light-bulbs.html








Yachtie -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 1:42:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

That's my point to you, exactly. The amount of time you burn one light bulb is irrelevant.


Not all us can afford to shell out fifty fucking dollars for a fucking light bulb.


Nothing is to much when it comes to green.

[8|]




Edwynn -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 3:02:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Two hours a day my ass! When I go home tonight the lamp by my cozy chair will be on at least six to seven hours. Sure, it will be on less as it stays light longer during the summer, but during winter... well, sitting around in the dark is boring.


The statistic is for averaged total consumption-hours of all light bulbs, including the ones that are never turned off along with the ones that might be turned on for two minutes every one or two years. Six hours a day for the most often turned on lights is about right, but most households have plenty of bulbs that are turned on less often and for shorter times.

Speaking of long lasting bulbs, here is one that is going on 111 years in operation, ~ 1 million hours. Keep in mind that it is a four watt piece of glass blown art work and is suspected by experts of having a perfect vacuum seal, almost a fluke occurrence in manufacture of bulbs or vacuum tubes (Br. "valves," De. "Elektronenröhren," oder stimpt, "Röhren").

Aside some exceptional exceptions as the above example, the bad deal with incandescents is that long bulb life and kwh efficiency are at cross purposes, improvement of one only as in detriment to the other.







DomKen -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 3:09:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

That's my point to you, exactly. The amount of time you burn one light bulb is irrelevant.


I'm not talking about how much it cost to power the bulb, I'm talking about how much the damn bulb itself costs. There's nothing irrelevant about that. When a bulb burns out, you have to get a new one (ya might have noticed) For fifty fucking bucks the damned thing better last a long, loooong, time. Not all us can afford to shell out fifty fucking dollars for a fucking light bulb.

They do last a long time.

50,000 hours is the average. That's 2083 days for the math challenged (assuming 24 hour/day use) or more than 5 1/2 years. In that time the savings on the electricty used and all the bulbs not bought will more the cost of the bulb.




Musicmystery -> RE: A Bright Idea (3/9/2012 3:20:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

That's my point to you, exactly. The amount of time you burn one light bulb is irrelevant.


I'm not talking about how much it cost to power the bulb, I'm talking about how much the damn bulb itself costs. There's nothing irrelevant about that. When a bulb burns out, you have to get a new one (ya might have noticed) For fifty fucking bucks the damned thing better last a long, loooong, time. Not all us can afford to shell out fifty fucking dollars for a fucking light bulb.

First, it's $20, not $50. Second, you will spend $20 every year on lighting your cheap bulb.

But it's your money.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2024
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0390625