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

[Christophe]

* and even less: 20,53 months and in case the bulb turns 24 / 24

Download the calculator here: https://www.econologie.com/calcul-du-ret ... -3659.html



I had fun with a "funny" calculation: The financial benefit of investing a compact fluorescent bulb to replace a conventional light bulb

To simplify (a little you will see that it is already quite complicated) I took these assumptions:

- the bulb turns 24h / 24h short continuously
- lifetime of 15 000h (nothing prevents it to exceed this lifetime)
- the electric kWh costs 0.1 € TTC (subscription included ca can be even a little more expensive but let's go)
- calculation based on thespotlight bulb E14 R50
- the bulb costs 17.50 € TTC
- a classic replacement bulb costs about 2.35 € TTC and has a life of 1000h.

Example (2nd google link on "R50 bulb" for the curious :)):


A) Gains on bulb changes (cost of equipment only):

- Assuming that on average the constructor data is just: 15 000 h = 15 x 1000h (if yes!)
- Gains on the change of the material: 15 * 2.35 - 17.50 = 17.75 €
- Cost per hour of operation of the classic: 2.35 € / 1000 = 0,00235 € / h = 0,235 cents € per hour.
- Cost per hour of operation of the fluo on the cost of the material: 17.50 € / 15 000 = 0,001167 € / h is 0,1167 cents € per hour.


We see that the cost of purchase compared to the operating hours of a conventional light bulb is already more than 2 times more expensive than that of a compact fluorescent and this without taking into account the energy saving (and the cost of changing bulbs: transport, time spent doing other
thing...).

So those who think fluorescent bulbs are too expensive just learn to calculate :)

Now calculate the energy gain!

B) Gain on saved energy

- Already the calculation is done in comparison with a conventional bulb of 40W while the fluo given in example will produce the equivalent of 50W (I did not find a classic R50 in 50W!). It does not matter so we will take 40W equivalent since if I have trouble finding a 50W R50 consumers also probably!
- Every h of operation we gain so 40 - 9 = 31 W equivalent
- On 15 000h it is therefore: 31 * 15 = 465 kWh
- In €: 465 * 0.1 = 46.50 € saved on 15 000h
- Energy cost per hour of the classic: 40 / 1000 * 0,1 = 0,004 € / h is 0,4 cents € per hour.
- Energy cost per h of fluo: 9 / 1000 * 0,1 = 0.0009 € / h is 0,09 cents € per hour.

It is interesting that the operating cost per hour (or energy) is respectively for the classic 0,4 / 0,235 = 1,7 and for the fluo 0,09 / 0,1167 = 0,77 times higher than the investment cost.

C) Cumulative gains and return on investment

To summarize, we have:

- for the classic: 0,235 + 0,4 = 0,635 cents € per hour of operation.
- for the fluo: 0,1167 + 0,09 = 0,207 cents € per hour of operation.

How much time to make profitable the fluocompacte = supplement of fluo / Gain per hour is in our case (the * 100 is because the hourly cost is in centime):

(17,50 - 2,35) * 100 / (0,635 - 0,207) = 3540 h.

It is therefore necessary 3500 h to make profitable this model in replacement of a classic model of 40W. If the bulb cremates before you lose money! So be sure not to buy low-end bulbs even if their cost seems alien. Indeed a neon bulb of the same characteristics to 10 € (assuming it exists) still 1700h to be profitable! Now nobody is immune to a network disruption and an unlucky flash of lightning (which should theoretically be supported by EDF but we can still dream).

Now (sorry for the length but it's important) let's see the most "interesting": the financial profitability linked to the investment of this compact fluorescent!

D) Financial profitability of a neon bulb

- We have just seen: the hourly gain of a compact fluorescent in operation is 0,635 - 0,207 cents € per hour is 0,428 cents € per hour.
- Number of hours in the year: 24 * 365,25 = 8766 h
- By turning 24 / 24 the bulb would make you win: 8766 * 0,428 / 100 = 37.50 € the 1ere year.
- Lifetime 15 000 h is 1,71 year. The bulb, in theory, does not take 2 years.
- The 2ieme year it remains so: 15000-8766 = 6234 h. That is a gain of 26,68 €.

Taking into account the initial investment of 17.50 € we therefore have a "virtual" financial return of: (37,50 + 17,50) / 17,50 = 314% per year.

The 2nd year we get, more "modestly": (37,50 + 17,50 + 26,68) / (37,50 + 17,50) = 48,5% annually

In the end, the return on the 15 000h is: (17,50 + 37,50 + 26,68) / 17,50 = 466% on less than 21 months.



Remarks and limits of reasoning

- some will laugh saying that it is ridiculous sums on a light bulb it is true: but what about the millards that can be changed in the world to see in France?

- some will laugh by saying that it is virtual and that it does not really allow you to earn money in your bank account. Certainly but to these people, surely too close to their money (or their banker or both), I say to go back to school to relearn the definition of an "economy".

- These calculations are valid only if the lifespan of the bulbs given by the manufacturer are realistic, but, statistically, there is as much chance that an incandescent bulb burns prematurely a neon bulb. No?

- Fluorescent bulbs 1ere price can never be profitable

- before placing your money in the bank at low rates think about this kind of small investment ...and yes buy better it can be an investment!

I stop there I think that few of you will read until the end ...

[freddau]

Or should we look for the cost of recycling ??

And I say, sacred calculation Master Capello:



It gives a little headache but c top

[Christophe]

Recycling is already included in the sale price via a "tax" (so hopefully the tax is calculated "fairly"):

- 0.30 € to us is included in the selling price. It is http://www.recupel.be who collects the sous sous at the pros!

- In France it's http://www.recylum.com/ who cares about it is 0.25 € I believe by light bulb. For a bulb 1er price of merd * it is 10% of the price !!

It is very interesting to note that this tax on WEEE is a bit of anything ... I have no precise figure but I have already seen laptops whose tax was 0.01 € .. to compare to that of a light bulb? I doubt that a pc is easier to recycle than a bulb and it is not necessarily more durable!

Well, it's better than nothing ...

On the other hand to be careful, some salesman (in particular the large distribution) does not include the ecotax in the advertising (except in very small). On a plasma it's 8 € I think.

[north]

Hello everybody
It's very attractive as a possibility, but I would like to understand
how do these compact fluorescent lamps work, because some echoes
warn against very insidious pollution linking to ignition and
use of these lamps.
Namely that it would generate waves in frequency ranges
microwaves and therefore dangerous to health in a radius of 3 meters
with of course an attenuation related to the distance of the individual by
report to the source.
Like the LEDs which they would not generate these fields,
but for some it is not necessary to fix eyes.
What is it really?
north

[david adv]

What makes me react in the reasoning is that it is a financial approach that goes on a false basis: that the bulb works permanently. It would be nice to redo the calculations with 1h, 3h, 5h, 8h daily operation that are more common in our homes than 24 / 24.
Without all redo, if I go on 3500h to have the return on inves., It is 10 years, 1h per day. On 10 years, the banker may offer you a return of 50% but with inflation of 30%, it is not simple. It should also be taken into account that energy is likely to take 5% every year.

In short, for me, the most important and reliable information here is that, based on 2008 purchasing costs, 2 lamp types and Kwh price, it is financially profitable. in 3500h is 1 / 5 its theoretical life.
The rest of the reasoning seems to me much less solid.

It's important to make this financial approach because our society is working on that. But what is important for the planet is the energy balance: which must take into account the gray energy needed for manufacturing, transport and sales.
It is also a very difficult calculation.

Finally, it would be necessary to calculate the cost of waste treatment, but unless it is much more polluting than the conventional bulb, with a lifetime 15 times higher, it is a priori all good.

Not to be overlooked: the bulbs accidentally break, probably as much as by wear so take care of your bulbs 17 euros!

[Christophe]

Namely that it generate waves in microwave frequency ranges and therefore dangerous for health in a radius of 3 meters with of course an attenuation related to the distance of the individual from the source.

3 meters! Bigre is 2 month when the info is out it was less than a m ...

To my knowledge neons have been used since the 20 years and billions of worker hours have been spent near neon without any problem.

And if there was an emission EM, which is very possible because of the nature of this light, I bet that GSM, Bluethoot and other Wifi are much more "powerful" and therefore, a priori, harmful ...

What is it really?
north

I rest the quesiton: as I have not seen a report certified by several labs I would remain very skeptical about this info ... which is more of the intox than anything else and that comes out as by chance when the government wants ban conventional bulbs ...

More reviews here: https://www.econologie.com/forums/les-lampes ... t4109.html

[Christophe]

What makes me react in the reasoning is that it is a financial approach that goes on a false basis: that the bulb works permanently.

Just like 24 / 24 secure money on a savings account since the goal was well compare the purchase of a fluo in comparison to a bank investment.

Otherwise I agree that it is not necessarily realistic of a general public use but it is not what was sought.

It would be nice to redo the calculations with 1h, 3h, 5h, 8h daily operation that are more common in our homes than 24 / 24.

Nothing easier, taking over the hourly cost ...

- for the classic: 0,235 + 0,4 = 0,635 cents € per hour of operation.
- for the fluo: 0,1167 + 0,09 = 0,207 cents € per hour of operation.

But that does not change much: in the end the gain on 15 000 h will be the same simply it will be more than 21 month ... so what would change it would be the annual gain in% and the comparison to the investment banking. I just explained pkoi, to be rigorous, it was necessary to take a bulb 24 / 24 ...

Without all redo, if I go on 3500h to have the return on inves., It is 10 years, 1h per day. On 10 years, the banker may offer you a return of 50% but with inflation of 30%, it is not simple. It should also be taken into account that energy is likely to take 5% every year.

You raise 2 things that I did not take into account in the calculation because it would have complicated things with a lot of uncertainty:

a) inflation; yes but it is the same as it is a real investment (buying the light bulb) that a virtual placement (banker) ... so its effect is finally zero no in the comparison no?

b) increased energy; yes and it can only be "favorable" to the fluorescent.

The rest of the reasoning seems to me much less solid.

What I remember most, and that I have not put enough forward I think it's ca:

- for the classic: 0,235 + 0,4 = 0,635 cents € per hour of operation.
- for the fluo: 0,1167 + 0,09 = 0,207 cents € per hour of operation.

In this hourly cost the cost of the bulb is taken into account ...

It's important to make this financial approach because our society is working on that. But what is important for the planet is the energy balance: which must take into account the gray energy needed for manufacturing, transport and sales. It is also a very difficult calculation.

Yes it is already more delicate, a fluo certainly requires more energy to manufacture than a classic but I think it is profitable quickly enough ...

I would like to find precise information above ... maybe on the site of recyclum?

[innuend0]

Hi everybody,

I think it is important not to fall into the panel by directly comparing a compact fluorescent lamp with an incandescent lamp.

Indeed, these two types of lamps are not identical, they do not provide the same service, at least in some cases.
In other words, compact fluorescent lamps do not always replace the incandescent lamps in your home.

The economic impact of these differences between these 2 types of lamps should be incorporated into the study, but it is an uncertain and unobvious task ...


I will only mention here the main and major deficiencies of compact fluorescent lamps, compared to incandescent lamps:

1) Luminous flux takes time to reach 100% (usually up to 2 full minutes). Only 40% is obtained when lighting the lamp.
This is very problematic especially in the morning before going to
work, when one is a little in a hurry and needs an immediate light flow.

One of the bad ways to solve this problem would be to oversize the lamp's power, in which case the return on investment would be reduced to lower numbers.

We can also respond to this problem by choosing one of the few rare "quickstart" models, although a study shows that "quickstart" models in fact do not reach their full light output faster than conventional models .... .

2) They are not designed to be able to be lit, then shortly after extinguished (at the risk of reducing their life) The OSRAM lamp manufacturer recommends at least 2 minutes between switching on and off. Not always practical ...

In places where one needs an immediate luminous flux (in my case to me: bathroom), and those where one passes very often and for a short time (hallway), I recommend the use other lamps, and this as long as better lamps are born. (some defects appear to be inherent to compact fluorescent technology)

I take this message to ask a question about the econology store. Why did you choose Megaman instead of a "100% European" "brand, OSRAM, which probably supplies the best compact fluorescent lamps (... and others) in the world?

[Christophe]

Without all redo, if I go on 3500h to have the return on inves., It is 10 years, 1h per day. On 10 years, the banker may offer you a return of 50% but with inflation of 30%, it is not simple. It should also be taken into account that energy is likely to take 5% every year.

You make me think and I start to have a serious doubt about this calculation of return ...

1) Cost of the gear

- Cost per hour of operation of the classic: 2.35 € / 1000 = 0,00235 € / h = 0,235 cents € per hour.
- Cost per hour of operation of the fluo on the cost of the material: 17.50 € / 15 000 = 0,001167 € / h is 0,1167 cents € per hour.

2) Cost of energy

- Energy cost per hour of the classic: 40 / 1000 * 0,1 = 0,004 € / h is 0,4 cents € per hour.
- Energy cost per h of fluo: 9 / 1000 * 0,1 = 0.0009 € / h is 0,09 cents € per hour.

Indeed, according to these same figures (which are just them) of hourly cost we get:

a) classic bulb: 1 / 100 * (0.235 + 0.4) * 1000 = 6.35 € for 1000h
b) fluorescent bulb: 1 / 100 * (0,1167 + 0,09) * 15000 = 31 € for 15 000h is 2,06 € for 1000h

The fluorescent bulb would be, in any case, 3 times cheaper reported at time of use, and this cost of material included. In other words: the fluo is profitable from the moment of the purchase ... on the conditions that the durations of life are respected obviously ...

Problem: it is a paradoxical result with the other method of 3500h ... so where is the reasoning error ???

Edit: after cogitation I think I found the paradox.

a) this method is valid on 15 000h
b) the 1st is valid "in real time" (dear not too how to put it ...)

[north]

Hello everybody
Here is the link where he talks about this dangerousness, because as for the mobile phones, it is now proven.
In this way, you can make your own opinion.
http://next-up.org/Newsoftheworld/LampeFluocompacte.php