fluorescent bulbs, a financial profit of 466 21% in month *!

Consumption and sustainable and responsible diet tips daily to reduce energy and water consumption, waste ... Eat: preparations and recipes, find healthy food, seasonal and local conservation information food ...
andre-34
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 31
Registration: 06/02/07, 11:50




by andre-34 » 03/02/08, 18:41

good article well documented.
With me there is practically only that.
However:
- These lamps are more fragile than the lifespan they claim, in particular if they undergo very frequent on / off cycles.
- they are polluting! that's why we advertise them: the tubes if they are broken contain toxic substances and it seems that these lamps contain traces of mercury and become very weakly radioactive in the long run (that I don't know )
- they also include components that are difficult to recycle

What I would like to know is their complete balance sheet including the manufacturing of all the components, the recycling of some and the destruction of others.
I am not sure at this time that the ecological balance is very clearly in favor of an incandescent lamp.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 04/02/08, 18:53

andre-34 wrote:- These lamps are more fragile than the lifespan they claim, in particular if they undergo very frequent on / off cycles.


It was the case of the 1st generation and low cost but it is no longer the case currently with that of a certain quality.

andre-34 wrote:I am not sure at this time that the ecological balance is very clearly in favor of an incandescent lamp.


When we know how to quantify the pollution exactly we can talk about "profitability" precise or not ... In this case on energy a fluorescent is profitable.

It is also probably the most cost-effective and accessible energy-saving equipment ... am I wrong?
0 x
stone-ernest
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 19
Registration: 16/02/08, 17:33
Location: Parisian region




by stone-ernest » 20/02/08, 12:42

This calculation overlooks one very important thing: the heat given off by the incandescent lamp is not lost at all in winter, because it stupidly heats the room, like an electric heater. And that's less to provide as calories for heating the house 6 months out of 12 in our latitudes.

We can simplify the calculations:

Take the cost of 15 hours of operation:

- for a classic bulb :
Investment: 15 x 2,35 = € 35,25
(15 bulbs at 2,35 €)
Operation: (20/1000) x 15 x 000 = € 0,1
(20/1000 kWh x 15 hx 000 € / h)
Total: € 65,25

- for a compact fluorescent bulb :
Investment: € 17,50
(Price of a bulb)
Operation: (9/1000) x 15 x 000 = € 0,1
(9/1000 kWh x 15 hx 000 € / h)
Total: € 31,00

Difference : 65,25-31,00 = € 34,25 for 15 hours
Either, counting 6 h / d of ignition, over 2 days, or still about 500 years to amortize.
It's interesting, but not terrible ...

The ROI calculation in a previous post is not realistic, because it assumes, among other things, that the bulbs are permanently on, and it neglects the additional heating.

If we make the same comparison between a halogen bulb and a compact fluorescent bulb, the amortization period increases to more than 10 years, because of a longer lifespan.
These corrected calculations seem to show that it is not that bad to switch to CFLs, especially when examining the real illumination, that is to say the luminance (in lumens) and the rendering of the colors. Compact fluorescent lamps are only fluorescent tubes (commonly "neons") rolled up on themselves, therefore with a lower luminance (since the tube partly lights up itself) and equipped with a sophisticated electronic starting system .
The real savings are made when using real straight fluorescent tubes, which cost much less than bulbs, and provide better lighting. But we don't recommend them because we know that people don't want change shape. That is to say, they are ready to do something for the planet, provided that it costs them nothing.
It is all the ambiguity of the current measures which are especially spectacular ...
Hell is paved with good intentions, especially green hell ...
0 x
I exist, so I pollute. But I clean
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 20/02/08, 12:58

Zero Pointed my dear!

1) Your return calculation is wrong ... already because you take a classic 20W bulb while the fluorescent is equivalent to a 40W ...

Then it's mathematically impossible to solve it with your method because the number of classic fluorescent used will depend on the result. In short, iterates.

So you have to use a graphic resolution to determine it, see:
https://www.econologie.com/calcul-du-ret ... -3659.html

There are approximately 2800h. At 6 hours a day we find 2800/6 = 467 days i.e. 1 year 3 months and 1 week ... We are very far from the 7 years that you advance ... but you can still continue to heat yourself with conventional bulbs :)

With 20W and 0.1 € per kWh we would find 5000h of return or 833 days at 6 hours per day. It's more but still very far from 7 years ...

Check for yourself ...

Yep, a return on investment calculation is not that simple :) I broke my teeth too.

2) Is heating the ceiling really a useful energy supply? Electric heating (including heat pump) is thermodynamic heresy anyway ...

3) This calculation was not done to be realistic but to compare with a bank investment. When you put money in an account it is there 24/24 right? So same for the compact fluorescent ...

So by placing this money in a fluorescent rather than in your account you would gain 466% over 21 months compared to around 5% of a bank investment over the same period ...

4) Your last remark is also false BECAUSEusing fluorescent lights saves money in all cases as long as their duration is long enough to reach the point of return on investment.

Watch this simulator to convince yourself: https://www.econologie.com/calcul-du-ret ... -3659.html

ps: I like your signature anyway ... : Cheesy:
0 x
stone-ernest
I learn econologic
I learn econologic
posts: 19
Registration: 16/02/08, 17:33
Location: Parisian region




by stone-ernest » 20/02/08, 14:16

I think we got it wrong.

I place myself at the level of the one who has a classic bulb, and I calculate what is my loss.
You have replaced the classic bulb with a fluorescent, and you calculate after how long you will have recovered your investment.
When I calculate a "depreciation" of my perte je spread the on the operating time, but it obviously remains a loss!
So, I lose € 34,25 over 7 years, i.e. € 5 per year. That's not really good, but it's not much either ...

I took 20 watts instead of 40 since I consider that half is used for heating. (Okay, not terrible, but finally, not zero either, and in any case, not to be overlooked).

Do not make fun of people who would like to heat themselves with a light bulb. The result is exactly the same than with an electric heater.

The graphics method is a bit wrong. (But there, the rectification is to your advantage ...).
Indeed, at the point of intersection of the curves, you find yourself at the point of equivalence of past expenses, but not of expenses futures.
-If you have a classic light bulb, you have nothing.
- If you have a fluorescent bulb, you still have some 12 hours of operation .. at the only price of electricity. It is not zero.

For ROI calculation, I'm really formal. Your calculation would amount to calculating the profitability of a machine by considering that you run it 4 times faster than reality under the pretext that money is deposited in the bank 24 hours a day. The return on investment cannot go faster than the machine ...
0 x
I exist, so I pollute. But I clean
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 20/02/08, 14:40

pierre-ernest wrote:So, I lose € 34,25 over 7 years, i.e. € 5 per year. That's not really good, but it's not much either ...


Mmmm, still not agree, I think that 34,25 € is what you lose over 15 hours since it is precisely the value that you "do not" "earn" in the simulator with your parameters ... (000W and 20 € / kWh)

pierre-ernest wrote:Do not make fun of people who would like to heat themselves with a light bulb. The result is exactly the same than with an electric heater.


Yes, with the difference that there is no radiator hung on the ceiling ... (except radiant panels ...)

pierre-ernest wrote:The graphics method is a bit wrong. (But there, the rectification is to your advantage ...).
Indeed, at the point of intersection of the curves, you find yourself at the point of equivalence of past expenses, but not of expenses futures.


It is not false, it is "ideal", ie the investment cost is applied over 15 hours.

pierre-ernest wrote:For ROI calculation, I'm really formal. Your calculation would amount to calculating the profitability of a machine by considering that you run it 4 times faster than reality under the pretext that money is deposited in the bank 24 hours a day. The return on investment cannot go faster than the machine ...


Uh I think you're talking about financial performance and not ROI. If so I still don't agree with you ... the "financial" reasoning is good.

On the other hand it is not significant of the reality there I agree but in a real case the comparison with a bank return would be distorted (in the other direction) unless placing only Xh per day the money on his bank account : Mrgreen:

So to be more real, in the calculator we could add a page with the hours per day and the calculation of the profitability in real days as well as the CO2 saved. To do well it would be necessary to know the "gray CO2" of the 2 bulbs and that is not easy (we just know that that of the fluorescent is more important), ditto with the gray energy ...
0 x
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 20/02/08, 16:01

Hi Toff, I'm back on the glowing heater : Cheesy:

to repeat your last message, i am sure that the life of compact fluorescent lamps is no better than incandescance or halogen

The life of a bulb is mainly counted in number of "ignitions"

I would not put a compact fluorescent in a staircase, a cellar or a passage room because of the large number of "ignitions" and the somewhat slow response time of this type of bulb

I preferred to place timed presence detectors in these volumes. how much does a detector consume on standby? : Cheesy:

Yes in a garage, yes in rooms where we usually forget to turn off (in my case the boiler room, the garage and the wine cellar) can be in the living rooms
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
User avatar
delnoram
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/08/05, 22:14
Location: Mâcon-Tournus
x 2




by delnoram » 20/02/08, 16:48

Capt_Maloche wrote:I preferred to place timed presence detectors in these volumes. how much does a detector consume on standby?


the only device of this type whose consumption I measured was 2w so 48w per day and 17.5 Kw / h per year ...
I fired it and replaced it with a timer that cuts its power at the same time as the light
0 x
"Thinking should not it be taught in school rather than to make learning by heart the facts that are not all proven?"
"It's not because they are likely to be wrong they are right!" (Coluche)
User avatar
Capt_Maloche
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 4559
Registration: 29/07/06, 11:14
Location: Ile-de-France
x 42




by Capt_Maloche » 20/02/08, 17:06

Um, I have two (like dad :D ) installed either around 35 KW.h or 3.5 € per year for my comfort

Let's see we forget at least 15 times a year to extinguish these Put_ins of 60W bulbs that makes us:

60W x 2 x 8h x 15 times = around 15 KW.h, yeah, that is discussed
it must be equivalent

Yes Yes Christophe : Idea: , I see you coming, I should put a low consumption lighting, right?

Well no, we get used to these little useful gadgets quickly when we are loaded
0 x
"Consumption is similar to a search consolation, a way to fill a growing existential void. With, the key, a lot of frustration and a little guilt, increasing the environmental awareness." (Gérard Mermet)
OUCH, OUILLE, OUCH, AAHH! ^ _ ^
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 20/02/08, 18:18

Ah no Maloche, you do what you want ... even if you are wrong ... it's your money after all : Cheesy:

But you are still 10 years behind !!! Compact fluorescents (excluding chinoiserie) are no longer sensitive to ON / OFF ...

We have semi-Chinese (6 € each) in a shed for almost 1 year where the ON / OFF last about 30 seconds ... 5 to 10 times a day.
I did express to "test" ... and it seems to hold!

Only thing that threatens the profitability of a fluorescent: lightning and surge of the network ... but that's EdF who should pay ... we can always dream :)
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Sustainable consumption: responsible consumption, diet tips and tricks"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 114 guests