Welcome to Omgili,
Omgili ( Oh My God I Love It ;) is a search engine for discussions. With Omgili you can find answers and solutions, debates, discussions, personal experiences, opinions and more... To learn more about Omgili click here.
This is a complete preview of the discussion as it was indexed by Omgili crawlers. Use this preview if the original discussion is unavailable.
Click here to view the original discussion.
[http://forums.2cpu.com/showthread.php?t=91...]
Click here to search for discussions with Omgili discussions search engine.
 |
Cost of power savings vs. reality... - 2CPU.com Discussion Forums
I work in a university building.
I'm a Federal employee, but we're allied with the university I work at.
They recently started a project to "conserve energy" in our building...So far, most of this seems to come from changing fluorescent bulbs and ballasts.
However, I don't quite understand where the savings come in.
I'll use my office as an example.
The old tubes were 34W, 4' T12 (Philips Alto).
The new tubes are 32W, 4' T12 (also Philips, but Alto II).
My office has ten fixtures with room for two tubes in each fixture.
Until now, five of the fixtures had worked and were stocked with the 34W bulbs.
The amount of light in here was perfect.
When they fixed things up today, they now have all ten fixtures blazing away.
It's way too bright and the bulbs are a lot more red than before.
Before: 10x34W == 340W.
Now: 20x32W == 640W.
o_O
I'm guessing the new ballasts also run a bit more efficiently than the old ones, but again, they're running twice as many of them.
I'll most likely dig up a ladder sometime next week and pull about half of the bulbs out.
The hallways on my floor had about every third or fourth fixture lit.
This was fine by me;
There was plenty of light due to lightly-colored walls, a floor that reflected a portion of light upwards again, etc.
Once again, they've got every fixture going now.
It's way too bright and it seems inconceivable to me that they're actually saving any money on power.
Am I missing something, or is the road to high power bills paved with good intentions?
The only upside to this is they were going to dispose of the (good, used) bulbs and I got to have my pick...So the fixtures in the garage at home that have burned-out bulbs will finally get working bulbs.
|
|
Another thing is that the cost of conversion can be huge.
And you might not reap the benefits for many, many, many years from a cost saving point.
BUT, but some people don't think exactly that way..
In other words, it may be better for them to save up for a one time conversion purchase and appear to reap a monthly benefit....
So it actually CAN work (even it doesn't "make sense")..
Depends on how you handle yourself fiscally.
|
|
Geez Hemi you sound like a conservative now, maybe get quad can explain to us how this saves everyone money and how it saves the planet!
But i agree, by forcing folks to switch when there is no good economic reason to do so, is a waste of money.
When prices come down on this stuff, then it will make sense.
|
|
Quote: : Geez Hemi you sound like a conservative now, maybe get quad can explain to us how this saves everyone money and how it saves the planet!
But i agree, by forcing folks to switch when there is no good economic reason to do so, is a waste of money.
When prices come down on this stuff, then it will make sense.
Naw, he'll just pop in, call everyone ignorant with little to no explanation, pop back out, just to pop in again later to troll some more.
As for the original subject...we've got a lot of the same thing going on in the military right now.
They're spending a lot of money on 6S and "green" initiatives (AFSO 21 for us) that will probably be scrapped long before they get halfway to paying off.
Anything that has a real chance to succeed is way too expensive to get funding at the base level.
Instead we're left with stuff like LED replacements for florescent bulbs that put out a bluish light that's nearly useless.
Things like building a dozen new huge toolboxes so we have enough for every aircraft parking location instead of just enough for the number of aircraft we're flying on a daily basis.
The idea is to keep the toolboxes out there to save people the time of pushing them in and out from a central location every day.
Oh wait, someone still has to go out there every shift to inventory the tools and issue them to someone on the next shift.
Also, it's monsoon season and tools rust when they're left out in the elements.
So now we need to build 30 little shelters for those tool boxes.
But when those shelters get built you know someone's going to use them as a trash receptacle.
So then someone will need to go around and make sure they're cleaned out so the stuff can't get loose and possibly harm a jet engine or tire.
All to save 22 people on two different shifts the 5 minutes it takes each day to push the box onto and off of the flightline.
People don't think things through...like trading in a paid off vehicle that gets 18mpg on a $25K vehicle that gets 30mpg so they can "save on gas".
|
|
My high school won some kind of award in the 70s for power savings.
They installed things like, multiple light switches so you had 3 sets of lights per classroom.
Lone, at my work I replaced a single 2x AA battery flashlight with a 9x AA 9 LED flashlight.
The light was ~$25, but the savings in batteries is good.
With the old flashlight we were going through 2 batteries every 2 weeks.
With the old light, as soon as someone accidentally left it on for a few hours the batteries went dead.
The new light lasts some 200+ hours and has been left on multiple times overnight without someone realizing it.
Even with this we still go 9+ months between battery changes.
I don't care so much about the cost of batteries as we don't pay for them, but its a hassle to go get a new set from the tool crib every time someone leaves the thing on.
|
|
My company’s first attempt at power savings was to go around and remove 2 bulbs form all the 4 bulb light fixtures in the office areas.
(florescent) With everyone at their desks squinting to see, they go out and buy everyone a desk lamp.
Some florescent others incandescent.
Most were incandescent.
One room was being redone at this time so they went with some new light fixtures.
I don’t remember the specs, but like Hemi, they were suppose to be lower wattage and extra bright.
They are the size of 4 bulb fixtures but only have spots for 2.
Yet they put 4 fixtures in a little room, meant to be our video conference room and small projection room.
It is way too bright in there and when the projector and video camera is needed at the same time, you either have a dark image with the camera or the projected image is washed out by the lights.
They still haven’t put any kind of dimming lights in there.
What they did put in there was, can you guess it;
Another desk lamp.
Now it seems since OSHA has a requirement for minimum lumens in working areas, they had to go back and put bulbs back in many of the fixtures and the desk lamps are still in place and in use.
|
|
Quote: : Geez Hemi you sound like a conservative now, maybe get quad can explain to us how this saves everyone money and how it saves the planet!
But i agree, by forcing folks to switch when there is no good economic reason to do so, is a waste of money.
When prices come down on this stuff, then it will make sense.
I'll primarily stick to explaining why you're completely ignorant.
p.s.
LED
|
|
Replacing ALL of the bulbs is not about cost savings, it is about safety.
If a fixture is unlit it becomes a saftey hazard and must have bulbs/ballast replaced.
When they calculate the cost savings they do so based on what the current cost would be to light all fixtures.
It is NOT based on what the current power bill is.
|
|
LED lighting is still way too expensive for normal use.
It's also not much more efficient than fluorescent(35% vs 33%).
The cheaper LED bulbs tend to flicker and produce low-quality light.
A lot of people see that LED bulbs use only a couple of watts, but they only produce 80-200 lumens.
A old-style 60-watt incandescent produces 800-1000 lumens, and a 13-watt compact fluorescent is also 800-1000 lumens.
LED's will likely be the future of lighting, but for now the best we've got is really fluorescent.
Cold cathode fluorescent is also coming along, and may beat out LED's in the long run.
Biggest challenge to LED right now is that you've got to assemble a circuit board with about 100 individual through-mount parts.
Not very economical.
How much waste was produced by throwing out dozens of functional fixtures and bulbs?
What about energy wasted in production, transportation, and installation of the new ones?
Sounds flawed from the get-go.
If you're doing repairs, renovations, or new construction, sure, go energy-efficient, but otherwise it's hard to justify.
|
|
Quote: : My high school won some kind of award in the 70s for power savings.
They installed things like, multiple light switches so you had 3 sets of lights per classroom.
Lone, at my work I replaced a single 2x AA battery flashlight with a 9x AA 9 LED flashlight.
The light was ~$25, but the savings in batteries is good.
With the old flashlight we were going through 2 batteries every 2 weeks.
With the old light, as soon as someone accidentally left it on for a few hours the batteries went dead.
The new light lasts some 200+ hours and has been left on multiple times overnight without someone realizing it.
Even with this we still go 9+ months between battery changes.
I don't care so much about the cost of batteries as we don't pay for them, but its a hassle to go get a new set from the tool crib every time someone leaves the thing on.
I think we're talking about two different light uses here.
I wasn't talking about an LED flashlight, although my maintenance folks do still prefer the 2 D-cell Maglights for inspecting aircraft over the LED lights.
When they're putting their career and an aircrew's life on the line, I'd rather they be able to see every little detail.
There are some places where they shouldn't be cutting corners in the name of "efficiency" and "cost cutting".
I was talking about the LED replacement strips for florescent ceiling lights like Slash was talking about.
They don't put out enough light and the bluish cast to the light makes matters worse.
They're already starting to take them out of the work areas and put them in places like closets and bathrooms instead.
Makes it really fun trying to find the right printer cartridge in the supply closet.
|
|
|
Http://www.creells.com/calculator.aspx
Ann Arbor sure looks 'blue'
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/26/...with-100-leds/
lol
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/11...take-over.html
|
|
Quote: : quad http://www.creells.com/calculator.aspx
Ann Arbor sure looks 'blue'
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/26/...with-100-leds/
lol
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/11...take-over.html ..."at prices ranging $40 to $110" per bulb?
So I can spend an extra $37-107 over compact fluorescent and save an extra 2-3 watts per bulb?
At $0.12 per KWh for $37, even at 5 watts, that's 62,000 power on hours.
Cool tech?
Yes. Energy efficient?
Yes. Best on market?
Meh. Maybe if you have to get up 20 feet of power pole to change it.
|
|
These are merely starting costs and as demand and competition increase, retail prices will drop and lumens will rise.
CF bulbs dont typically have a lifespan of 4-10 years per bulb either like LED and mercury-free is justification enough to many people.
|
|
Quote: : quad These are merely starting costs and as demand and competition increase, retail prices will drop and lumens will rise.
CF bulbs dont typically have a lifespan of 4-10 years per bulb either like LED and mercury-free is justification enough to many people.
Any estimate as to WHEN the prices will come down?
I would venture that it will be similar to LCD, Plasma and DLP tv's...somewhere around 8 years before the cost difference is small enough to warrant the more efficient bulb.
|
|
|
I'm gonna have to go with when demand and competition increase.
|
|
|
I think we need to substitute get quad for a-s-s hole LOL
|
|
Some of the LED bulbs in machines I've replaced them in only lasted 6-12 months.
Granted, thats still twice as long as the incandescents, but the rest of the LED lights are still going at over a year.
|
|
Quote: : quad I'm gonna have to go with when demand and competition increase.
It may never happen.
Very few people can justify the cost for these LED lights and even fewer would actually spend the money on them.
Until the cost is close to CFL then I won't buy them since the 65 watt CFL equivelant uses about 13 watts of power and the LED equivalent uses 12 and I can get the CFL for $3.00 or less.
Maybe you environmentalists can spare an extra $127 each bulb but I know I don't have that kind of spare change.
To just replace the 7 CFL's in my kitchen/dining room and living room ceiling would cost me a month's rent...
The CFL's that I would be replacing use just 1 watt more than the LED so where is the savings?
|
|
Quote: : I think we need to substitute get quad for a-s-s hole LOL wrongos, it warms my heart to know I upset you so.
Stay self-centered with blinders on though, I'd expect no less of you at this point.
EM, at this point the cost savings isn't what I'm getting at so much as the amount of mercury prevented in landfills, runoff, water table, air, etc.
Although I believe LED will end up the cheapest way to produce light within the next 5 years...and try using a dimmer switch on a CF bulb.
Nonetheless, stick with CF for the time being but be prepared for the rise of 800+ lumen LED lamps w 60,000 hour lifespans and after that OLED.
Tell me this isn't badass (and it was done 5+ years ago):
http://www.thevospad.com/projects/th...s_pad_main.htm
http://www.thevospad.com/projects/th...ad_gallery.htm
|
|
Quote: : quad http://www.creells.com/calculator.aspx
Ann Arbor sure looks 'blue'
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/01/26/...with-100-leds/
lol
http://thefutureofthings.com/news/11...take-over.html Sheer ignorance.
Talk about incorrectly regurgitating stuff you read online.
Go read up some more.
If you google, you will find it.
|
|
Good show, two thumbs up.
You got it.
|
|
LED's contain arsenide, beryllium, and gallium.
Arsenide is not bad until it begins to break down, then it's arsenic.
Beryllium has been identified as a potential carcinogen.
Gallium is a calcium resorption inhibitor, which means it makes your bones release their calcium into your blood, where your kidneys have to deal with it.
It's used to treat cancer patients who have excess calcium.
So, we're trading a heavy metal for one poison, one carcinogen, and one calcium-eating element, but the marketing people for the LED's haven't bothered to mention that.
Great.
|
|
Nice troll.
it would literally take about 100+ LEDs to take up the same volume as your typical CF bulb.
Dropping an LED on the ground doesn't result in any consequence for which the EPA has several paragraphs of guidelines for cleanup and disposal either as with CF.
(and LED likely wouldnt break unless you smashed it with a hammer)
|
|
|
I am sorry did a pussy respond to your post, pay him no attention.
|
|
Quote: : quad nice troll.
it would literally take about 100+ LEDs to take up the same volume as your typical CF bulb.
Dropping an LED on the ground doesn't result in any consequence for which the EPA has several paragraphs of guidelines for cleanup and disposal either as with CF.
(and LED likely wouldnt break unless you smashed it with a hammer) So, a LED will never decompose or break in a landfill?
Also, CFL's aren't filled with mercury.
It's about 4 milligrams.
You're again talking about a very miniscule amount.
What about those 72-LED bulbs?
Bet there's at least 4 milligrams when you add up 72 of them.
You would only need 55 micrograms in each LED.
Still a concern for groundwater contamination and proper disposal if you're talking about producing 200 million of them.
|
|
Scrolling past the internet pissing contest..
With just about anything to "save energy" you just to have to look at your situation.
Just do the math on the initial cost, the savings, and then factor in the practicality (does this option really work better for me?).
I hope that logic is not news to anyone.
For example, I just replaced my old dual Opteron box with a new core2-duo system.
The Asus board I got had a bunch of power saving features on it and I got an 80+ certified PSU to run the whole thing.
I check all my appliances and such with a wattmeter and holy crap was there a difference!
The old dual opty would draw as much as 300watts (at the wall socket) and this thing only pulls 95-120watts depending on system load.
It's a faster machine to boot!
Now, that sounds impressive right?
Less than half the power consumption...
But then looking at the price per kw/h on my power bill even if I was running this machine 24/7(which I'm not) the cost savings in the course of a year would be about $150.
In reality, it's more like 24 hours a week...
So it saves maybe $30 or so.
It would have been really pointless to replace my old PC just for power savings- the system would be long obsolete before paying for it's self.
However, I was building a new rig because I wanted a faster system and the old rig was developing some quirks.
Since I was building a new system anyway, the "power saving" stuff wasn't much more expensive so it made sense.
That's really how I think things need to be done.
Your old lights/computer/fridge/whatever are due to be replaced and you just get a new one that's energy saving.
Remember, folks building this new high efficiency stuff isn't cost free, nor is disposing of the old stuff.
Trouble is gas prices go up a bit and the sheeple panic and do all kinds of rash and silly things.
|
|
Quote: : So, a LED will never decompose or break in a landfill?
Also, CFL's aren't filled with mercury.
It's about 4 milligrams.
You're again talking about a very miniscule amount.
What about those 72-LED bulbs?
Bet there's at least 4 milligrams when you add up 72 of them.
You would only need 55 micrograms in each LED.
Still a concern for groundwater contamination and proper disposal if you're talking about producing 200 million of them.
I'm fairly certain you realize that one bad LED in a 72-bulb lamp wouldnt render it useless.
If anything, I'd imagine a 10+ year lifespan with that design which would explain the current price points which also equates to gazillions less per year in landfills.
Also, most of the newest LED bulbs on the market have only 3 diodes or less so the 72-diode lamps will most likely not be mainstream.
I know you're smart enough to realize that breaking 2 or 3 LED diodes each the size of an ant doesn't produce anywhere near the hazardous particulate matter on the scale of breaking a single CF.
Can you point me to a similar set of guidelines for LED disposal/cleanup as those for compact fluorescent?
(this is more a rhetorical question lol)
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/index.htm#fluorescent
Of all the chemical compounds listed in our argument, mercury is most certainly the one least desirable in the water table.
http://orf.od.nih.gov/Environmental+...lthHazards.htm
Bottom line, with enough mercury in the water table we'll end up with neurological defects on the scale of wrongos.
(and I don't have to tell you that most people don't enjoy crazy old halfwit men stalking them on the internet)
p.s.
Did anyone bother to look at the VOS pad?
I'm headed in that direction.
http://www.thevospad.com/projects/th...s_pad_main.htm
|
|
|
Get quad,
This is by far the best high-end lighting I've seen to date.
I can't imagine what it would cost if you can even get it installed in the States.
I've been thinking of a similar system using Christmas tree LED light strings in RGB arrays.
|
|
Quote: : get quad,
This is by far the best high-end lighting I've seen to date.
I can't imagine what it would cost if you can even get it installed in the States.
I've been thinking of a similar system using Christmas tree LED light strings in RGB arrays.
In all honesty I think that kind of lighting is neat for show but if I had to live there it would drive me nuts.
The colors are strange and I also think that the QUANTITY of light is lacking.
I don't need the whole place to be lit up but I do need a certain level of directional light when doing something at a desk for instance.
The ambient light seems like it is the focus rather than light necessary for working.
|
|
|
I love ambient lighting and I like all the possible colors.
I'd have spot lighting for specific work areas where I need some white light to see by.
|
|
|
|