LED Bulbs?
in [Frugal Living]
|
From: Lou on 30 Jan 2007 21:25 "Don K" <dk(a)dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message news:XYednXDIr_Q8QCLYnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d(a)comcast.com... > "Seerialmom" <seerialmom(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1170200408.225596.222060(a)a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > > > The only thing I have LED's in at the moment is my hand-crank > > flashlights. I believe there were quite a few LED Christmas lights > > recently; more expensive initially but lower cost to run. > > Just wait until you get the bill for the carpel tunnel surgery. ;-) > > > Many cities have taken to use the LEDs in traffic lights as well. > > That probably has more to do with the high cost and effort to replace > a burnt-out bulb than with LED energy efficiency. > > > I don't think you're the first to notice the correlation between > > "lowering your consumption" and rates being raised. I've jumped > > through many hoops making my house energy efficient (insulation, dual > > pane windows, energy star appliances) but never really seeing any > > dramatic decrease in my bill. > > You've got cause and effect backwards. > The increasing rates caused you to lower your consumption. > Your lower consumption didn't cause the rates to increase. Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the rules current today, but in the past, state regulatory commissions have approved rate increases when consumption dropped. The utility built generating plants and entered into contracts based on estimates of consumption levels, and even if those levels drop, debt service does not. The theory being, I guess, that more expensive electricity is better than no electricity.
From: Michael Black on 30 Jan 2007 22:15 "Lou" (lpogodajr292185(a)comcast.net) writes: > "Don K" <dk(a)dont_bother_me.com> wrote in message > news:XYednXDIr_Q8QCLYnZ2dnUVZ_uWlnZ2d(a)comcast.com... >> "Seerialmom" <seerialmom(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:1170200408.225596.222060(a)a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > The only thing I have LED's in at the moment is my hand-crank >> > flashlights. I believe there were quite a few LED Christmas lights >> > recently; more expensive initially but lower cost to run. >> >> Just wait until you get the bill for the carpel tunnel surgery. ;-) >> >> > Many cities have taken to use the LEDs in traffic lights as well. >> >> That probably has more to do with the high cost and effort to replace >> a burnt-out bulb than with LED energy efficiency. >> >> > I don't think you're the first to notice the correlation between >> > "lowering your consumption" and rates being raised. I've jumped >> > through many hoops making my house energy efficient (insulation, dual >> > pane windows, energy star appliances) but never really seeing any >> > dramatic decrease in my bill. >> >> You've got cause and effect backwards. >> The increasing rates caused you to lower your consumption. >> Your lower consumption didn't cause the rates to increase. > > Maybe, maybe not. I don't know the rules current today, but in the past, > state regulatory commissions have approved rate increases when consumption > dropped. The utility built generating plants and entered into contracts > based on estimates of consumption levels, and even if those levels drop, > debt service does not. The theory being, I guess, that more expensive > electricity is better than no electricity. > > But you can actually reverse that. As energy consumption goes up, they have to keep building new plants, which can be costly. If they can throttle back each individual's demand, then the power companies can live longer with existing generators. Here in Quebec, Hydro keeps wanting to increase rates, with the claim that it will reduce consumption. Now, they get to play the "it's good for the environment to reduce consumption" card, yet given that most of the generators in the province, maybe all, are hydroelectric, electric useage is not the issue that it is where coal or oil power plants are located. The reality is that if they can get homeowners to reduce consumption, that leaves plenty of electricity with current plants that they can sell off to other power companies. One of the conundrums of electricity is that in order to supply all demands they end up with capacity that isn't used all the time. If they can cut back in those peak times, they don't have to add capacity. It's kind of amusing to see the electric company here wanting consumers to cut back on useage, given they used to really promote electricity, and I seem to recall they even gave rebates for people who switched over to electricity for heating. They want to raise prices so consumers will cut back, they've deliberately said that, when in the past they touted the cheap electricity and wanted people to convert. Michael
From: fluffy bunny on 30 Jan 2007 23:25 In article <1170194924.192588.288550(a)j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>, BeaForoni(a)msn.com wrote: > I have changed all my light bulbs to flouresent and the savings was > considerable, until the utility company raised rates. Now I am > starting > to see LED bulbs. Seem kind of spendy. Anyone have experience with > them? I'm not impressed with the volume lighting applications i've seen, such as the "LED bulb" for sale at Menards and Home Depot, but as directed beam sources, they're truly amazing. Many of my fellow hard-core illinois winter bike commuter engineer friends (real electrical engineers who ride bikes every day) have converted their bike lights to LED. The results have to be seen to be believed -- the beam these things throw is amazing, brilliant bright white, tightly collimated... LED efficiency doubled yet again in the last year. They make good bike lights, but i wouldn't light use them in place of a 13 W. florescent tube. Otoh, if you have a spotlight application... v.good if you're willing to do a little engineering. As of yet, few worthwhile consumer products are available other than flashlights. There is a really nice drop-in replacement for Maglite bulbs i saw recently. Also, LED's are becoming more and more popular in certain stage lighting applications. Look, try, see if you like. calculate power usage and remember that they should last on the order of 50,000 hours. ..max
From: Logan Shaw on 31 Jan 2007 01:14 BeaForoni(a)msn.com wrote: > I have changed all my light bulbs to flouresent and the savings was > considerable, until the utility company raised rates. Aren't you saving even more (with fluorescents, compared to incandescents) now that the rates are higher? :-) - Logan
From: Mike T. on 31 Jan 2007 08:08
<BeaForoni(a)msn.com> wrote in message news:1170194924.192588.288550(a)j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com... >I have changed all my light bulbs to flouresent and the savings was > considerable, until the utility company raised rates. Now I am > starting > to see LED bulbs. Seem kind of spendy. Anyone have experience with > them? > The LEDs produce intense light in a narrow beam. If you put a diffuser in front of them, the intensity drops to near zero. Short answer: LEDs are GREAT for flashlights, useless for household lighting. Other than night-lites, that is. LED night-lites are great. But the LED household lighting isn't significantly brighter than ight-lites. -Dave |