Energy saving lightbulbs

[Steph]

The engine creates energy to propel the car. Where else does the energy come from?

Did you ever notice you have to fill the tank of your car with gas from time to time?

Environmentally friendly food production methods would require more labour as you would not be using chemicals to do the work for you.

More labour doesn't mean more energy consumption. And producing the chemicals requires energy to.

GDP = income = expenditure + savings.
Increased savings result in less economic activity thus slowing GDP growth or even reducing it.

If your formula were true:
GDP = expenditure + savings. If savings increase, then GDP increase

Increase savings would result in less economic activity only if you put your banknotes in a big hole and don't use it. But the money is used.

 

[Jesus Civs]

Did you ever notice you have to fill the tank of your car with gas from time to time?

A gallon of oil has alot of potential energy. The car engine produces that energy to propel the car. When is say "produce", you could also use "extract" or something along those lines.

More labour doesn't mean more energy consumption. And producing the chemicals requires energy to.

A comparison would need to be done to estimate the energy used in the labour intensive method and the energy used in the chemical/mechinised method.

We would need numbers like "joules per unit product prodcued" or something.

If your formula were true:
GDP = expenditure + savings. If savings increase, then GDP increase

If you increase savings, you must reduce your expenditure, hence you get an economic slow down.

When interest rates go up, savings go up, expenditure goes down, economy slows down.

Opposite applies to when interest rates go down.

 

[Jperkinson]

People banter on about how much more energy efficient CFL light bulbs are compared to incandescent bulbs (traditional bulbs).

I did my own comparison based on Irish prices for light bulbs and electricity consumption. My analysis showed that CFL light bulbs are at least 2.5 times more economical than standard light bulbs. Therefore, one might assume that they are 2.5 times more energy efficient.

We all install CFLs and the planet is saved.

Bollox!

WAKE UP PEOPLE!

If every lightbulb on the planet was changed to CFLs there would not be a decrease in energy consumption. It would remain the same.

The savings derived from switching to CFLs will only go towards bolstering our remaining spending budget.

Energy efficiency is a smoke screen. World GDP is directly linked to world energy consumption.

There are two ways to curtail energy production from ruining our lovely stratosphere:

1. Cut back world GDP (this isn't very possible)

2. Improve energy production so that it emits less global-warming inducing stuff (only way forward)

Just to chime in:

I don't agree with the above posters subsequent thoughts on how saved money necessarily goes towards energy consumption......Buying an antique chair is nothing like buying a tank of gas... even if they cost the same dollar amount. However, I do tend to agree with the conclusion that cutting GDP or improving generation (conversion) technology is the real way to go.

Incidentally, CFL's have MUCH more important negative effects...
1) While they will certainly last much longer in a 'controlled' environment... Source fluctuation, mechanical vibrations, and other disturbances that are common to regular use do drastically reduce their lifetime to only several lifetimes over incandescent. Often, the pure realized economic comparison (cost to purchase and run over time) favors incandescent light bulbs. This is, of course, the opposite of what the marketing labels tell you. This IS improving, but it is not there yet.

2) During the winter, you are most likely not saving ANY energy by using CFL's. The house which used to get ~40-50W of continuous heat per incandescent light bulb, is now only getting ~10W. The home heating system has to make up the difference... unless you lowered your T-stat... In which case, why not just lower it in the first place???

3) Environmentally speaking, The energy cost to produce a CFL tube, plastic base, IC circuits, PWB and the like are all incredibly more energy intensive than producing a simple incandescent light bulb. This is the same concept that people who build a brand new 'green' home are absolutely not being 'green'... since they are involved in creation and not re-use... They are not being as environmentally friendly as someone who buys an existing home (and probably spends less money).

4) CLF's are not unity power factor. They are not resistive loads (like incandescent). The reactive power needs to be compensated for by the power companies, which results in more inefficient utility operation.

These are good reasons not to buy CFLs. I don't think that the reasoning that saving money (which I don't think is true anyway) by switching to CFL's necessarily results in the same energy usage.

0.02

 

[Galatian]

Just to chime in:

I don't agree with the above posters subsequent thoughts on how saved money necessarily goes towards energy consumption......Buying an antique chair is nothing like buying a tank of gas... even if they cost the same dollar amount. However, I do tend to agree with the conclusion that cutting GDP or improving generation (conversion) technology is the real way to go.

Incidentally, CFL's have MUCH more important negative effects...
1) While they will certainly last much longer in a 'controlled' environment... Source fluctuation, mechanical vibrations, and other disturbances that are common to regular use do drastically reduce their lifetime to only several lifetimes over incandescent. Often, the pure realized economic comparison (cost to purchase and run over time) favors incandescent light bulbs. This is, of course, the opposite of what the marketing labels tell you. This IS improving, but it is not there yet.

Hmm, the once we have last muuuuuccccchhhhh longer then normal ones. But the EU has very strict regulation on how to produce certain things as well as a limit of mercury used in production, which is set to be at 5 mg at most in CFLs.

2) During the winter, you are most likely not saving ANY energy by using CFL's. The house which used to get ~40-50W of continuous heat per incandescent light bulb, is now only getting ~10W. The home heating system has to make up the difference... unless you lowered your T-stat... In which case, why not just lower it in the first place???

I agree with that on "normal" homes, but not on energy efficient homes which usually have a much better insulation and therefore you'd have to actually cool your house if you apply your calculations for normal light bulbs. Besides I don't think someone would care if it 1° C cooler on - let's say - the Statue of Liberty, just because they switched all the millions of normal bulbs their!

3) Environmentally speaking, The energy cost to produce a CFL tube, plastic base, IC circuits, PWB and the like are all incredibly more energy intensive than producing a simple incandescent light bulb. This is the same concept that people who build a brand new 'green' home are absolutely not being 'green'... since they are involved in creation and not re-use... They are not being as environmentally friendly as someone who buys an existing home (and probably spends less money).

True to the first one, but only as you have to consider that CFL hold a lot longer. In fact we have not changed out our CFL yet and they are running for over 2 years now. The lamps that still use normal bulbs need their replacement probably every 3-4 months.
How about investing money to make an existing home more energy efficient?
Besides that people will eventually also sell their energy efficient home.

4) CLF's are not unity power factor. They are not resistive loads (like incandescent). The reactive power needs to be compensated for by the power companies, which results in more inefficient utility operation.

Ok I'm not an expert here and since English is not my mother tongue I might have misunderstood something, but aren't transformers used to compensate exactly that?

These are good reasons not to buy CFLs. I don't think that the reasoning that saving money (which I don't think is true anyway) by switching to CFL's necessarily results in the same energy usage.
0.02

Nope, see above

Oh and the money I save from using CFC is possibly used to buy more expensive products, I agree with that. But how about buying more energy efficient products. I don't know if you have the same system in the US, but here in the EU every electronic device has a little tag on it when you look at them in a store. On the tag there is a letter like B or A which stands for the energy efficiency class. A is the best. Though they are usually more expensive I at least always buy them and I know my family does.

 

[Steph]

Oh and the money I save from using CFC...

How does using this forum save you money?

 

[Galatian]

Well since I had more money left over from using CFC I could finally retire my old and busted PC and get a new Notebook which is a loooootttt more efficient ...or something like that

Edit: Lol now I saw my mistake. You got me on that one

 

[Steph]

I almost did it myself 2 or 3 times in the very same thread. So I was sure someone else would fall, and I was eagerly waiting for it so I could spring the trap!!!

Am I not evil?

 

[El_Machinae]

Jesus Civs: you're missing an important point, but I can totally understand. It's a subtle point.

CFL increases the GDP/unit of CO2. While they might not save CO2 themselves (because the money is used elsewhere on energy consumption) they lead to compounding benefits which means that we can live richer while using an equivalently lower amount of pollution.

Additionally, more and more of our energy usage (%age) is going to be in CO2-friendly energy sources. If I'm purchasing energy-intensive goods, it's only a problem if the energy used in their production was CO2 producing.

Finally, this means that when my power utility company starts sequestering CO2, I can afford the impact on my electricity bill, because I'm not consuming as much electricity.

(Regarding the 'winter use' inefficiency above: yes, you might have to run your furnace a bit more if you switch to CFL. But different types of home heating produce different types of pollution levels. I'm quite sure that less CO2 is produced if I'm heating my home with natural gas compared to heating my home with electricity.)

 

[Lillefix]

That depends on where the electricity comes from doesn't it.

 

[Jperkinson]

(Regarding the 'winter use' inefficiency above: yes, you might have to run your furnace a bit more if you switch to CFL. But different types of home heating produce different types of pollution levels. I'm quite sure that less CO2 is produced if I'm heating my home with natural gas compared to heating my home with electricity.)

Agreed. However my statement was irrelevant of pollution levels... Just the measure of energy.

 

[Jperkinson]

Hmm, the once we have last muuuuuccccchhhhh longer then normal ones. But the EU has very strict regulation on how to produce certain things as well as a limit of mercury used in production, which is set to be at 5 mg at most in CFLs.

I agree with that on "normal" homes, but not on energy efficient homes which usually have a much better insulation and therefore you'd have to actually cool your house if you apply your calculations for normal light bulbs. Besides I don't think someone would care if it 1° C cooler on - let's say - the Statue of Liberty, just because they switched all the millions of normal bulbs their!

True to the first one, but only as you have to consider that CFL hold a lot longer. In fact we have not changed out our CFL yet and they are running for over 2 years now. The lamps that still use normal bulbs need their replacement probably every 3-4 months.
How about investing money to make an existing home more energy efficient?
Besides that people will eventually also sell their energy efficient home.

Ok I'm not an expert here and since English is not my mother tongue I might have misunderstood something, but aren't transformers used to compensate exactly that?

Nope, see above

I, personally, never get the 'rated' life out of a CFL. I frequently only get about 1 to 2 thousand hours... much less than the 15k promised. If you can get 15k out of a CFL, then by all means invest in them.

Perhaps I only buy cheaply made CFLs, or perhaps my utility quality is crap, and accelerates their life.

Also, energy efficient insulation systems in homes were around much longer than CFLs, and I don't know any of them that needed to turn on air conditioning in the winter to cool the place down to to 'light bulb heating'....

Transformers aren't primarily used to combat power quality issues (while the inductance does help some). Some CFL's come with PFC correction circuity. This circuit forces the current to align with the voltage in a sinusoidal fashion. (near unity power factor and low THD). Other CFL's do not, and impact the line quality. On a large scale, US utilitys can do some tricks (FACTS), but in general nothing is done and the generator picks up the tab.

This is more of a problem with an increase in use of DC electronic equipment than CFL's... but it is along the same lines.