Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The science and “controversy” behind your lightbulbs


DanteEstonia

Recommended Posts

lol,  interesting video until the "orange man bad" political rhetoric starts.  How about just let the free market decide?   And the insinuation that government (aka taxpayers) should buy "poor people" LED bulbs is eye-rolling,  but a liberal staple.

And CFL's frankly suck.  I no longer use them.   LED's are still too expensive.   So I've stocked up on incandescent bulbs and  have a several years supply now.  Also for Christmas I received a couple of these:  https://www.ucogear.com/candle-lanterns/   The website obviously markets them as primarily an outdoor product but I find they work fine indoors as well.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
  • Kill me now 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

CFL’s were a train wreck shoved down our throats. I have been switching everything in home and business to LED. The technology is fairly mature at this point, the price continues to fall, it makes fiscal sense. You can’t look at the initial costs, in the long term LED is a better investment. I’ve been using LED for several years and have only replaced on bulb, within days of it being installed, it was obviously a defective bulb. 

The real issue I had was what the government did to the fluorescent industry, first ramming immature technology of digital ballast down our throats, then essentially banning T12 lamps......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Bobref said:

That’s just more paternalism. 😀

Typical green gobblygook. Residential lighting accounts for less 6% of our nation’s energy bill. A 7% decrease in lighting costs amounts to about .4% reduction in energy usage. No mention of the increase electric cars are causing power consumption. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Impartial_Observer said:

No mention of the increase electric cars are causing power consumption. 

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/bargersville-chief-turns-heads-in-indianas-first-tesla-police-car/2606866001/

FTA:

Quote

In fuel alone, he said the Tesla costs taxpayers about $300 a month less than a gas-guzzling Charger.

The department projected it'll spend $1,728 per year on electricity for the Tesla, compared to $7,125 per year on gas for a Dodge Charger.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

How about a 25% reduction in the size and scope of the federal government, across all departments, agencies. bureaus, etc.?  That should save some energy consumption right there.

 

Industrial chillers with boilers systems, now you’re in the ball park for reducing energy consumption. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Coal fired?

Depends.

The cooling cycle is a lot more electricity dependent than the heating cycle. Nationally according to EIA coal amounts to about 27% or our electricity generation. I would guess that percentage is a lot higher in Indiana. 

Heat exchangers would run on a variety of fuels which is typically mandated by location. I'm not sure coal is in the equation. Fuel oil, natural gas, and propane I would guess are the major fuels. Of course there are still electrical components. 

My point being industrial facilities are the largest users of energy across the board. Whether a high rise office building or a manufacturing facility. Individuals switching the light bulbs in their home is akin to pissing in the ocean. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...