Reply With Quote
Indeed, there is very little honor in it...
For the record: I claim no virtue for myself for pointing out your many flaws.
Last edited by Winehole23; 05-24-2011 at 02:21 PM. Reason: simplified
Indeed, there is very little honor in it...
As I understand it, halogens aren't even more efficient, they just last longer. So, I'm a bit curious how they would pass new federal efficiency standards.
<sigh>
Yes, halogens produce more light per unit of energy, but they still waste a lot of that energy in the form of heat. A halogen could be used in an easy-bake oven.
There, happy Dumpster?
See? Either you are willfully ignorant, a pathological liar, or just unbelievably lazy. Which is it?
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/22283
The new bulbs, which use halogen elements, provide energy savings of about 28% compared to conventional incandescents. That meets or exceeds efficiency standards established in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Wattage options are as follows:
29-watt replaces a 40-watt incandescent
43-watt replaces a 60-watt incandescent
72-watt replaces a 100-watt incandescent
See? Either you are willfully ignorant, a pathological liar, or just unbelievably lazy. Which is it?
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/i...splay/id/22283
The new bulbs, which use halogen elements, provide energy savings of about 28% compared to conventional incandescents. That meets or exceeds efficiency standards established in the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007. Wattage options are as follows:
29-watt replaces a 40-watt incandescent
43-watt replaces a 60-watt incandescent
72-watt replaces a 100-watt incandescent
Look at previous post, you lazy .
Do your ing homework for a change, bot.
Already did, asshole.
It's a shame that you predicated this whole idiotic thread on an assumption that was incorrect. Try again.
Although I did get to talk coffee with WH, so it has had it's moments.
As I understand it, Darrin posts a bunch of ignorant he has to walk back from once the less ignorant members of the board prove how ignorant he is.
Ideologues suck.
Seems kinda harsh.
When Darrin said " halogens aren't more efficient," I take it he wasn't referring to energy efficiency but heat, or something like that.
Well, they are slightly more efficient when it comes to light per unit of energy. The one source I found gave that at about 18%
You are correct that they last longer.
They last (roughly) about 3 times longer, but cost 6 times as much. Then end result is that you spend twice as much on bulbs per hour of usage.
(edit)
Link for source of above info:
http://www.ehow.com/about_5426256_ha...andescent.html
(end edit)
Factor all of that in and I will add halogens to the comparison.
LED:Bulbs: $48
Electricity: $40.30
Total cost: $88.30
Florescent:
Bulbs: $20
Electricity: $62
Total cost: $82
Incandescent:
Bulbs: $52.08
Electricity: $310
Total cost: $362.08
Halogen:
Bulbs: $97.14 (incandescant *1.87)
Electricity: $262.71 (incandescent / 1.18)
Total cost: $360.25
Virtually identical in cost performance to regular incandescent.
Where the big difference is though is in heat. Halogens put out a acious amount of heat, and are known fire hazards. I will set aside the risk of fire, as most insurance companies absorb that, although such costs would ultimately come back to the consumer if they were adopted on a widespread basis. Too complicated for our simple comparison though.
If you are in Texas or a similar hot climate, that would certainly make the cost of cooling the house higher, by a measurable amount, especially if you figure you might have 10 to 20 of the things running.
Here is a bit more:
http://www.lightingdesignlab.com/art...en/halogen.htm
In the end the LEDs are still far cheaper to run, and as the cost per bulb comes down, will be the hands down cheapest by any measure.
As the technology progresses, I would be willing to go out on a limb and say that both the quality and quan y of the light will change, until LEDs provide the same "warm" yellow light that incandescents do now.
Of course cost isn't everything. If the cheaper LEDs are grating to your eyes, then spend the extra cash to get the kind of light that you like more, by all means.
The lower voltage Halogens are a bit more efficient than the figures you're using. But, heat is an issue. I used halogens in my studio, which uses track lighting, and those can create a pretty toasty control room. I recently replaced the halogens with cfl track light bulbs and the heat is waay down, although they do still get pretty warm.
Not sure if serious.
But, since efficiency is being discussed within the context of the 2007 law, I'd say it's a safe to assume it's energy efficiency being bandied about.
...and harsh is my middle name....well, that or steak....yeah, harsh-steak....wait...that don't look good.
Lemme get back to you on the whole harsh thing.
It's not very hard, and the opportunities are legion.
The scanty rewards of such easy and indolent work would seem to be a deterrent, but the trend of posting contradicts this.
Bandied about, sure. Safe to assume Darrin was on the same page? Not so sure.
Yeah, I had to base that from one poorly sourced website, but it is safe to conclude that halogens are somewhere in the neighborhood of regular incandescents when it comes to cost.
Given that LED's cost vastly less over their lifetime though, it is very safe to conclude that the LEDs and florescents are much cheaper in the long run, even if the assumptions used for the halogens are off by a fair margin.
I will probably replace our current florescents with LEDs based on this when they start burning out. After buying a good stock of cheap incandescents to leave in our rental house when we move, of course.
Whole beans, burr grinder. Only way to go.
Not really. I love my Keurig... recommendations:
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
