Reply With Quote
Damn, Darrin actively wants to be stupid.
lol @ the % being static.
Damn, Darrin actively wants to be stupid.
I'm sure the kwh rates will remain exactly the same..
I guess I am. Explain how you get from your first clause to the second.
90% is just not enough!
You simultaneously suck at deduction and math.
Darrin, do you ever think it might be a good idea to cut your losses in a thread, or does what you perceive to be your internets rep force you to hold on to stupidly untenable positions until grim death?
If only you would have looked a little further. Phillips is the favorite to win the L-prize which is for a 60w replacement bulb in which 75% of its parts must be manufactured here, 75% of it must be assembled here, it must produce in excess of 900 lumens, last 25000 hours, consume 10 w, and be priced at $22. It is similar to the one on sale right now but a little brighter a little more energy efficient and a little cheaper. They are in the testing phase at the moment.
Additionally, the link you posted doesn't specify LED bulbs. Heck it even has a picture of a CFL in the article... Go to solarfest next year and you can get a four pack for free. HEB gives them away sometimes for free too. If not free, they are pretty cheap. You can save your money on electricity and not have to spend whatever fairy tale amount you come up with. Also, by the time those CFLs burn out, you can probably buy 100w replacement led's for $5 after inflation.
Last edited by Drachen; 05-18-2011 at 12:38 PM.
Would have required reading. Darrin's allergic.
Assuming I turn on my lights for the same amount of time each day, how could my % energy saved be anything but?
Who said they weren't?
Additionally, the link you posted doesn't specify LED bulbs. Heck it even has a picture of a CFL in the article... Go to solarfest next year and you can get a four pack for free. HEB gives them away sometimes for free too. If not free, they are pretty cheap. You can save your money on electricity and not have to spend whatever fairy tale amount you come up with. Also, by the time those CFLs burn out, you can probably buy 100w replacement led's for $5 after inflation.
The link showed a picture of both and I won't be buying any CFLs.
By having a light source that throws out equivalent lumens per watt (10w vs 60-100w) such that you burn dramatically less energy for as much or more light. What's hard about that concept?
Then go Halogen incandescent. I don't know anything about them other than they are also part of the L-Prize.Who said they weren't?
The link showed a picture of both and I won't be buying any CFLs.
I understand that. What do MY INDIVIDUAL savings have to do with an increasing population?
Wow, you guys and Darrin are having completely different conversations at the moment...
The claim that started all this % BS got misconstrued somewhere, and Darrin (and I can't believe I'm saying this) was actually right in his statement.
Basically, he stated given that you replace a 60W incandescent with a 10W LED, the amount of energy you save there is static. Which is true. Just because more people use electricity, or energy costs more, doesn't mean that that one lightbulb is going to become more efficient. The actual amount of energy conserved is static (well, within a range that varies based on weather, solar flares, etc).
Not granted, at some point he oddly transitioned from talking about monetary savings to energy savings (and his monetary claims were just off), but he's correct in that the amount of energy saved from each lightbulb switched is static.
Higher population = greater demand = greater cost.
We can't control the right to reproduction, we can try to use better tech to make amenities we've become accustomed to (like electricity) more sustainable.
Thanks. For a minute a thought I was talking to a bunch of zombies.
Well, I stopped talking dollars because the cost of energy and the value of the dollars is, admittedly, not static.
sigh
God, I should hope not.
Please expand on this -- I'm having trouble following how there is an equivalence in efficiency between 10 and 60 watts, be it on an individual household level, or a national one.
Instead of sighing, you could make your argument intelligible. Try it -- I'm open to learning something.
Just remember, this whole thread was predicated on Darrin's delusional Federal Mandate of LED bulbs.
Yes when he shifted his arguement from being that we wouldn't save a lot of energy over to monetary savings then to the non-effects of rising population and rates on individual energy savings if he were to switch then he finally made a true statement. Unfortunately, no one was aware that he had made the switch from money to individual energy savings.
It is true if you purchase one of these bulbs you will be using 1/6th of the electricity that you are now on the lighting from that socket. No amount of population increase or rate rise will push you from that fantastically efficient standard to an even better spectacularly efficient standard all other things being equal.
It's not an equivalence of energy. It's a static ratio.
He's saying this:
{Amount of Energy used by 10W LED} / {Amount of Energy used by 60W incandescent} = a constant number (X).
Real energy savings would be X * light usage.
Real monetary savings would be X * light usage * price
The X stays the same.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
