cfl bulbs , are they real money savers

Status
Not open for further replies.
blr_p said:
Lack of sufficient generating capacity. I'm actually surprised to hear this happens in Maha, as i always thought it was 'first world' state.

Then we need to learn from Gujarat.

They are literally the only 'shining light' in this country.
Mumbai (and Pune) is a well maintained city. Other parts of Maharashtra are pretty crappy, just like Bangalore.

While banning incandescent bulbs is bad, I fully support the move to supply CFLs at competitive rates. Is it going to be made available through the PDS?
 
I think distributing cfl bulbs at subsidised rates of rs 15/bulb is a very good initiative and will lead to massive power conservation as most people dont buy a cfl bulb due to higher initial cost.
 
What's with these answers guys, which end you thinking with here :(

adder said:
Well i am in for the move i alone cut my power consumption by more then 600watt by going into CFL ,energy saved is energy saved.Thats enough for a house or hut in a village to lit there bulb or watch tv in their 14" tv or put on a fan.
Hey, if it turns you on, super :D

But it is dangerous to assume you know whats best for the poor guy, let him choose. If he's poor he ain't going to be using too much anyway.

adder said:
Build more power plants,how many will you build.I don't want a power plant or a nuclear power plant near my house.Its just add more pollution.
Estimate what the power reqmt will be 5-10 yrs from now. Plan accordingly. Start with increasing the capacity of existing plants.

Just imagine if 50 years ago they asked the same question we would be still be using candles today.

Ever opened up one of those wonderful CFL's, lots of delicious electronic equipment in there innit. Where exactly does it go when you throw it out. Do we recycle everything so it does not leech out into the underground water system. I've not heard of any recycling being offered here at all.

You've still not answered what the situation will be like 5 yrs from now when whatever savings get elliminated by growth. If we dodge the hard questions then it gets harder later.

RS4 said:
I think distributing cfl bulbs at subsidised rates of rs 15/bulb is a very good initiative and will lead to massive power conservation as most people dont buy a cfl bulb due to higher initial cost.
How long for ? Do we get any enforceable guarantee's here ?

I mean where is the research to show that lights take up a signficant portion of consumed power. If i were to pull a number out of my ass, i would say lighting amounts to 10-20%. No more. The rest would be used by heating, cooling, industrial use etc. Of the percentage used for lighting what % is down to incadescent and what is due to fluorescent ?

Do offices use incandescents, course not. What about malls, nope. A lot of houses i've been to use only tubelights.

Well sh!t i really wonder how much savings we talking about with all this banning business :huh:

Why am i the only one that thinks this is just one big money making scam with ZERO future vision...

I hope this idea gets killed because its retarded.
 
I also use t5 tubes in living rooms since renovation of my flat

Got those @ 450 last year of havells

these have really reduced my electricity bills by 30%
 
@blr_p, main problem is govt babus need a scapegoat to push the blame on to something. This time they chose incandescent bulbs. Next it would be geysers or mabye even tv sets. Fact is they wont and will not say there is a shortfall of capacity in power stations. Regarding the setting up of power stations if we take into consideration the next 10 years requirement - It will fail.

Case in point - Enron power project in Maharashtra. It was the country's biggest power project with a capacity of about 2,184 MW for two plants i think. Lets consider the plants were fully operational and give full 100% capacity at peak. Still they fall very very short of the states demand today about 4000MW - about 9 years from when the projects was finalized.

IN 5 years the cost of living would be different. Electronics, cooling, etc would be cheaper and would be in more homes, and maybe eating more energy. Maybe electric cars would be the norm (with the rich) - who knows. No one could calculate how much demand would be. More demand for something in less supply, will create restrictions somewhere.
 
6pack said:
@blr_p, main problem is govt babus need a scapegoat to push the blame on to something.This time they chose incandescent bulbs. Next it would be geysers or mabye even tv sets.
and it will get no where as i suspect will befall this banning initiaitive.

6pack said:
Fact is they wont and will not say there is a shortfall of capacity in power stations.
Why ?

6pack said:
Regarding the setting up of power stations if we take into consideration the next 10 years requirement - It will fail.

Case in point - Enron power project in Maharashtra. It was the country's biggest power project with a capacity of about 2,184 MW for two plants i think. Lets consider the plants were fully operational and give full 100% capacity at peak. Still they fall very very short of the states demand today about 4000MW - about 9 years from when the projects was finalized.
And how easy would it be to add addtional capacity to these plants ? Surely they must have planned for it. So what if the plants do not meet expectations, the point is to keep on expanding because demand is not going to drop.

And i would advocate they be coal fired, we have tons of coal, they can fit scrubbers in the chimneys to cut down on pollution. This is the cheapest way until nuclear comes on line in a decade from now.

As for tackling those pesky environmentalists, let them live in the dark for a few years, they will soften their stance. When France was faced with this dilemma in the 60's De Gaulle just told his ppl that he could not guarantee that when they woke up the next morning whether anything would work. Fixed the problem right away.

6pack said:
IN 5 years the cost of living would be different. Electronics, cooling, etc would be cheaper and would be in more homes, and maybe eating more energy. Maybe electric cars would be the norm (with the rich) - who knows. No one could calculate how much demand would be. More demand for something in less supply, will create restrictions somewhere.
That last line is ominous as it directly implies those restrictions will be in terms of growth.

The bottom line is whether we want to grow or not, this has major implications for a lot of things.

LEDs are the big unknown here, they currently cost in the 3 figures US, a piece, if that could drop further they would beat CFL's easily.
 
i think the power plants cannot be upgraded like we upgrade pc's. to add more capacity you need to build another one from scratch. that means more land, more machines and more grids to the new location of the plant. I think about 70% of our power plants are run on coal. rest would be hydro and nuclear being just 2-3%.

but more than these there is one place govt can save on power - transmission and distribution losses. Its as high as 40% in my state. That means the power company looses about 40% of power just transmitting and distributing to our homes and industrial areas. If this is bought down to about 5% by some means there could be a lot of savings in power bills too.

Electricity sector in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
See the thing is in villages they still have power cuts,since we are still having power shortages.So if one can afford and use all the power they want thats fine its still legal,but what about the poor man in the villages he to would want to turn on the fan when its hot,while we in sit switch a AC in every bedroom.He to would want to watch a tv,while we in city have big tvs in mulitple rooms,some of them aren't exactly efficient.
while we may get 24hrs power supply they have power cuts.

Even the USA is for the ban on incandescent bulbs from 2012 and would be complete by 2014.California and europe union are or were planing to ban power hungry larges screen tvs.

Just because of human selfishness( hey i can afford ,i can use all the power i want) just because of them the others have to suffer in either having no power or drinking polluted water ,breathing polluted air.

Yes i have seen whats inside a CFL,its not like ones is going to buy a new one every day.

Now whether our KA governement is really doing it to save power or to fill their own pockets is a different story.

BTW i have seen shops and offices already using CFL high powered ones like 70 watt or 90 watt and they are very bright.
 
6pack said:
i think the power plants cannot be upgraded like we upgrade pc's. to add more capacity you need to build another one from scratch. that means more land, more machines and more grids to the new location of the plant.
Then that is what they have to do. We have problems to solve they are responsible for the outcome. Otherwise they should resign and we will elect someone else.

Tamils, Andhras & Gujjus do not have these problems, so why should we. I mean if the opposition is so strong then subsidise the above ppl to construct power stations in their state in exchange for equally subsidised rates of power in return :)

6pack said:
I think about 70% of our power plants are run on coal. rest would be hydro and nuclear being just 2-3%.
Right, so adding more capacity is cheapest with coal.

6pack said:
but more than these there is one place govt can save on power - transmission and distribution losses. Its as high as 40% in my state. That means the power company looses about 40% of power just transmitting and distributing to our homes and industrial areas. If this is bought down to about 5% by some means there could be a lot of savings in power bills too.
So a savings of 35%. This seems very optimistic, ppl selling these solutions have an interest to make it seem better than what it really is, in the end the payback period has to be worth it.

adder said:
Even the USA is for the ban on incandescent bulbs from 2012 and would be complete by 2014.California and europe union are or were planing to ban power hungry larges screen tvs.
Be very careful about justifying our behaviour with what happens in the west. I think that ban in the US is just as dumb for the reasons already outlined. This is typical of what the Democrats do, reduce or remove choice when there is any.

adder said:
Just because of human selfishness( hey i can afford ,i can use all the power i want) just because of them the others have to suffer in either having no power or drinking polluted water ,breathing polluted air.
The blame should be put on the govt not on ppl that pay their bills, i cannot understand why you refuse to see this. Govt is failing to do their job but instead you say we are selfish :(

Just think about when there is a food shortage, who is the one responsible for ensuring & distributing food ? We do not go on an accuse each other of being greedy and eating too much. Same thing.

Anytime someone tells you that you are selfish, because you consume too much or pollute too much they are telling you to be less productive. If this continues we might as well turn our state into a university & retirement home like Kerela. Not much power demand over there now is there. I bet they dont suffer too much power cuts because they have not much indistry to speak of besides tourism. Most of their productive ppl have to work elsewhere.

adder said:
Yes i have seen whats inside a CFL,its not like ones is going to buy a new one every day.
But if the option of incadescents is removed with a ban, they will still end up, cummulatively over time, polluting the environment isn't it.

adder said:
Now whether our KA governement is really doing it to save power or to fill their own pockets is a different story.
Until they justify the reasons i think its safe to assume otherwise.

adder said:
BTW i have seen shops and offices already using CFL high powered ones like 70 watt or 90 watt and they are very bright.
They are equivalent provided you go with the next higher rating to get the equiv light output.

Therefore to get 100W equiv light, go with a 23W CFL instead of a 20W. What it says on the box is very optimistic. That too, output diminishes over time. A 6 month old CFL is no longer as bright as a brand new one is. Never had to worry about this with simple old fashioned light bulbs.
 
those old fashioned gls light bulbs which say 40W consume 40W but their light output is just about a fraction. It is mentioned as 415 lumens on a 40W gls lamp cover. Whereas the cfl of 8W gives out about 400 lumens and is comparatively more friendly on the eye. Even the gls lamps output diminishes with age as the gas filled inside it reduces due to heat, oxidation, etc.

You could save that extra wattage to run other thing in your home. In 32W maybe run a fan or so. See the difference removing just 1 gls lamp makes.

What i'm getting to at is not to save power and so on. You can use as much power as you like but use it wisely. Using energy efficient products will benefit you the most. how? instead of lighting up 1 gls lamp of 40w you could light up 5 cfls using the same amount of power. You could light up 5 rooms instead of just 1. Doing that you could help other to similarly light up 5 rooms in their homes. Since you would not draw 40x4 = 160W from the grid. That 160W would be used by other people to light their homes or you could use that 160W for something else. If everyone thought like this the world would be less starved of power. But that's just wishing for the impossible.
 
blr_p said:
Be very careful about justifying our behaviour with what happens in the west. I think that ban in the US is just as dumb for the reasons already outlined. This is typical of what the Democrats do, reduce or remove choice when there is any.

Well those or steps by US congress do reduce global green house gas emissions.

The US people really like incandescent bulbs because under the CFL white light or tubelight they look like vampires or ghosts ,this is the reply i got from my caucasian american aunt when she was here in bangalore but was happy with warm color CFL lamps all tubelights and incandescent bulbs were replaced by warm color cfl lamps.

Our ban is for reducing power consumption not exactly aimed at cutting green house gas.

blr_p said:
The blame should be put on the govt not on ppl that pay their bills, i cannot understand why you refuse to see this. Govt is failing to do their job but instead you say we are selfish :(

Just think about when there is a food shortage, who is the one responsible for ensuring & distributing food ? We do not go on an accuse each other of being greedy and eating too much. Same thing.
Anytime someone tells you that you are selfish, because you consume too much or pollute too much they are telling you to be less productive. If this continues we might as well turn our state into a university & retirement home like Kerela. Not much power demand over there now is there. I bet they dont suffer too much power cuts because they have not much indistry to speak of besides tourism. Most of their productive ppl have to work elsewhere.
Agree the blame for power shortage is the government.With a country like india where the cities are crowded with rapid change in lifestyle our energy demands are rapidly increasing,in my street alone 2 neighbors put 3 AC this summer which all contribute to increase in power consumption add multiply that in thousands we will have a severe power shortage.Setting a power plant will cost millions people need to be relocated,environmental damages.

No one is saying or forcing you to be less productive .changing to CFL doesn't have any effect in terms of productivity.

We humans by nature are selfish in some way or other including me.Initially i hated CFL bulbs after being used to tubelight and incandescent bulbs ,but overtime i got used to it,like i said by reducing the power consumption a person in a village can lit up is home,now multiply that by the millions,our power shortage is solved or in check.

Also why do you think oil prices are going up its due to demand,if all the people started buying big suvs or gas guzzling saloon cars.the price of oil will shoot up,the poor man who don't own cars or bikes will still suffer ,since fuel prices will have automatically add to rise in inflation leading to higher food costs.

Again if i am selfish and waste all the power i want even if its unintentional ,our government will soon increase the power tariff since they have to now start buying from private producers and other states,while we can afford it.the poor man has to pay the price for our selfish lifestyle .
I have gone to villages its hell when power goes there.

We also use UPS/inverter in cities to counter the power cuts,but when the power do come back the ups needs 1.5x more power to charge the depleted battery.
Sure you can blame the government for the shortage ,but again due to our selfish nature, while our batteries are charging the poor villagers has to stay in dark.

blr_p said:
But if the option of incadescents is removed with a ban, they will still end up, cummulatively over time, polluting the environment isn't it.
perhaps but it will be far less then coal burning power stations.
blr_p said:
Therefore to get 100W equiv light, go with a 23W CFL instead of a 20W. What it says on the box is very optimistic. That too, output diminishes over time. A 6 month old CFL is no longer as bright as a brand new one is. Never had to worry about this with simple old fashioned light bulbs.
yes but the brightness of incandescent bulbs are directly proportional to the voltage.
My cfl bulbs still give descent output even when there is a low voltage of 120v,where as the incandescent bulb rated at 60watt is equivalent to a 0 watt bulb (or whatever its called) in terms of light output
With the money saved in power consumption one can always buy a new CFL incase if it does go kaput.
 
6pack said:
those old fashioned gls light bulbs which say 40W consume 40W but their light output is just about a fraction. It is mentioned as 415 lumens on a 40W gls lamp cover. Whereas the cfl of 8W gives out about 400 lumens and is comparatively more friendly on the eye. Even the gls lamps output diminishes with age as the gas filled inside it reduces due to heat, oxidation, etc.
You could save that extra wattage to run other thing in your home. In 32W maybe run a fan or so. See the difference removing just 1 gls lamp makes.
When comparing a bulb with a CFL for brightness use bulbs that are coated white (phillips calls them soft white) instead of transparent. Then compare the brightness you see between the two. Ignore what lumens are said on the cover, all that matters is whether you can perceive the difference. If you cannot then you are getting the same light output from a cfl as the bulb.

I'm not debating about the efficiency of a CFL, of course it is more efficient. A light bulb gives out three quarters of its consumption in heat and the remainder is light. But you need to be aware of the tradeoff's you pay for in exchange for this efficiency.

6pack said:
What i'm getting to at is not to save power and so on. You can use as much power as you like but use it wisely. Using energy efficient products will benefit you the most. how? instead of lighting up 1 gls lamp of 40w you could light up 5 cfls using the same amount of power. You could light up 5 rooms instead of just 1. Doing that you could help other to similarly light up 5 rooms in their homes. Since you would not draw 40x4 = 160W from the grid. That 160W would be used by other people to light their homes or you could use that 160W for something else. If everyone thought like this the world would be less starved of power.
All good provided the payback period works out. With a cfl its roughly 3 months depending on usage. I've not been able to get CFLs to last me more than 6 months, they start dimming out, the tube goes black etc and then its gone. This is with using them 8-10hrs a day, if you use them for say 2-3 hrs then they last longer.

All my lamp holders hold the cfl in a socket up, tube down configuration. I read that it works better the other way as heat buildup is less that way ie tube up and socket below, so that means changing the fittings in the house to accomodate them.

6pack said:
But that's just wishing for the impossible.
Not only that its completely futile, instead why not appeal to ppl's selfish & greedy motives. Too many idealogies that ignore these natural tendencies lose out to those that exploit them.

Why not come out with incentives like if you use 10% less than your avg consumptoin of the year you will get credits that can be used to lower your bill ? Initiaitves along these lines will have a much larger impact in changing ppl's behaviours with very little preaching, moralising & ultimately banning. Treat ppl like responsible adults and they start to behave like them.

--- Updated Post - Automerged ---

adder said:
Well those or steps by US congress do reduce global green house gas emissions.
Perhaps but its a drop in the ocean as the US has not signed any binding emission agreements on this because neither we nor China will agree to it. All talk about this topic from any of the three countries mentioned is hot air.

adder said:
The US people really like incandescent bulbs because under the CFL white light or tubelight they look like vampires or ghosts ,this is the reply i got from my caucasian american aunt when she was here in bangalore but was happy with warm color CFL lamps all tubelights and incandescent bulbs were replaced by warm color cfl lamps.
I agree with your aunt and warm white takes preference over cool white with me anyday.

The problem here is there are only two colours to choose from whereas there is more selection of colour temperatures abroad, which give a more natural colour. An incadescent bulb or light at its temperature gives you a 90% accurate colour rendition, not to mention being easier on the eye as well. Tubelight or cool white otoh only gives you a 30% accurate rendition Now i'm not saying that a warm white cfl will be as good as a bulb its like 66% but it will be better than a cool white. So understand the tradeoff's you make when you choose what to use ;)

It's funny you say it makes caucasians look like ghosts, it makes us brownies look much more brown. Basically, it makes ppl look cheap & tacky.

adder said:
Our ban is for reducing power consumption not exactly aimed at cutting green house gas.
All depends on whether its justified and i've not seen the proof of that yet.

adder said:
Agree the blame for power shortage is the government.With a country like india where the cities are crowded with rapid change in lifestyle our energy demands are rapidly increasing,in my street alone 2 neighbors put 3 AC this summer which all contribute to increase in power consumption add multiply that in thousands we will have a severe power shortage.Setting a power plant will cost millions people need to be relocated,environmental damages.
But ppl are not going to stop buying ACs are they.

adder said:
No one is saying or forcing you to be less productive .
If we face regular power cuts thats exactly what will happen because there is a shortfall in generating capacity that is not being addressed.
adder said:
changing to CFL doesn't have any effect in terms of productivity.

Initially i hated CFL bulbs after being used to tubelight and incandescent bulbs ,but overtime i got used to it,like i said by reducing the power consumption a person in a village can lit up is home,now multiply that by the millions,our power shortage is solved or in check.
Let me demonstrate the mistake you are making here :)

You look at your house and figure so much goes for lighting, rest is for something else. Now if lighting makes up the majority of your power bill then going towards CFLs will give you a drastic savings. But you cannot extrapolate from your own personal experience in your home for the whole city.

Until we know what % lighting makes up of the total electricty consumption pie and what % incandescents make up of just the lighting section. Nobody has offered this data they are just saying if it works for your home then it will make a signficant difference to consumption overall for a city. I have trouble believing this claim until its proved.
adder said:
Also why do you think oil prices are going up its due to demand,if all the people started buying big suvs or gas guzzling saloon cars.the price of oil will shoot up,the poor man who don't own cars or bikes will still suffer ,since fuel prices will have automatically add to rise in inflation leading to higher food costs.
Yes but rising prices have changed ppl's behaviour already in terms of suv's.

adder said:
Again if i am selfish and waste all the power i want even if its unintentional ,our government will soon increase the power tariff since they have to now start buying from private producers and other states,while we can afford it.the poor man has to pay the price for our selfish lifestyle .
I have gone to villages its hell when power goes there.
And once they do that ppl will start to agitate and they will be forced to do something about it :)

adder said:
perhaps but it will be far less then coal burning power stations.
If we do not increase generating capacity then you have to also account for lost productivity in that equation. Everything is tied up you cannot look at these things in isolation.
adder said:
With the money saved in power consumption one can always buy a new CFL incase if it does go kaput.
Yes but then it makes no difference to whether you go for cfl or a bulb in that case does it. And this is my point of contention. Six months and the light output is decreased for me, so the 3 months payback subsidises the nextcfl purchase 3 months later. No difference at all is there.

Look, they can try this subsidising experiment with taxpayer money but i'm pretty sure it wil not last as its not going to make a difference. But we will have lost that money already which in hindsight could be put to better use if they just used their heads a little more :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.