h a l f b a k e r yCeci n'est pas une idée.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Suppose there were a law that required that all packages of light bulbs show how much money the bulbs within will cost to use, over their lifespan, based on the national cost of electricity at the time of the package printing.
For a 4 pack of 60 watt bulbs, lasting 1000 hours per bulb, and at an electicity
cost of approx $0.12 / kwh, the package would have to say "Costs $28.8 to use, over their lifespan."
For a singly packed CFL, using 15 watts, and lasting 10,000 hours, it would say "Costs $18 to use, over its lifespan." Naturally, it could still say, "Replaces ten 60 watt incandescents, which would cost $57 over their lifespans"
I believe that this would encourage people to use CFLs, even more than the current type of packaging.
EnergyGuide Label
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/08/elabel.jpg
Required for many new appliances in the US. [Spacecoyote, Feb 07 2009]
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I think they should have warnings "when the electric company dinks the voltage the lifespan of these things goes right down the crapper" |
|
| |
(-) I don't like that it's a law, and the published measurement confusingly mixes the effects of long life (good) and high energy consumption (bad). I'd also wish that it would take the complete ecological footprint of bulb-production or -disposal into account, not just the actual use time. |
|
| |
So I guess you are against LEDs as thir lifetime cost will be astronomical. |
|
| |
This is partially baked in appliances in US in a useful way showing yearly electric and water usage. Expanding that to all electric items would be good as long as a agreed upon usage pattern was used. |
|
| |
Enough with laws, already. I'd be interested to know the
carbon footprint per year, but I'm pretty sure that all carbon
footprints are arbitrary, and can be made to show whatever
you like. As for cost over lifetime, screw that. Let the
consumer actually use several neurons simultaneously or pay
the penalty. |
|
| |
Incidentally (and since I'm in rantish mood), do the figures
for CFLs and LEDs take into account the additional heating
you need if you haven't got a couple of hundred watts of
"waste" heat coming out of your lighting, and don't live in a
warm climate? |
|
| |
I was tickled I found a 5W CFL bulb... I just hope it lasts long enough for me to forget it cost $4 |
|
| |
[MB] That 100 watts is only a wash if you have electric heat,
it's still a benefit if you have any other type, as the others
are more efficient. |
|
| |
A total life cycle cost/lumen hour would be a useful figure,
but very difficult to calculate, and any time you require a
label, the manufacturer is going t set up their test in the way
that gives them the greatest advantage, it's not a very good
approach. |
|
| |
I suppose whale oil lamps would win by these metrics. [-] |
|
| |
With certain appliances in the US, stating the electricity cost on the packaging is mandatory. It's not required for light bulbs, but that doesn't stop the manufacturers from bragging about it, and they do. So I say, baked. |
|
| |
Is there mandatory shelf labeling, too? It must say "the CFL on this shelf lasts half as long as stated on the package, is much dimmer than the 'comparable wattage' shown, flickers, and smells like it's on fire." |
|
| |
//Incandescent bulbs have been banned in this country//
Even for headlights? Wow, that's harsh. |
|
| |
[UB] Assuming a largely coal power generation system, the mercury in a CFL is less than that released by the coal burned to power the equivalent incandescent. |
|
| |
/ [MB] That 100 watts is only a wash if you have electric heat, it's still a benefit if you have any other type, as the others are more efficient. / |
|
| |
Cheaper, perhaps, but not more efficient. Electric heat is 100% efficient. |
|
| |
Nothing is 100% efficient, that red glow the heating filament makes costs something. |
|
| |
I stand by my comment and politely ask the respondent to give it more thought. |
|
| |
Texticle, electric heating is only 100% efficient if you don't count the losses between when the original energy source is created and the time it enters your house. |
|
| |
Let's say you use electricity from coal. Coal is first dug from the ground (at the cost of some energy in the form of petrol), then shipped to the power plant (more energy used), then burnt to create heat for a steam engine (a very far cry from 100% efficiency, at least if cogeneration isn't used), converted to electricity with a generator (also much lower than 100% efficiency), then sent over wires to your home (more energy loss), then, in your home, it's converted to heat, at 100% efficiency (but only this final step is 100% efficient). |
|
| |
If, on the other hand, you left out the power plant, burnt the coal yourself to run your own steam engine and your own generator, sold the electricity made back to the power company (or used it yourself), and used the "waste" heat to heat your home, you would have more heat in your home per pound of coal burnt than from an electric heater, *plus* you'd have the money from selling the electricity you made back to the power company. |
|
| |
[goldbb], I'm aware of your arguments, but I could just as easily propose a hypothetical situation where self-use of the coal for electricity generation is far more lossy than centralised used and distribution. |
|
| |
[Texticle]
If your primary goal is heat production, there is no situation in which burning the fuel directly at home in an even moderately efficient appliance is less effecient than using electricity produced by fuel burned elsewhere.
If your primary goal is electricity generation, then yes, central generation is more efficient. If you mix the two goals, then it is a tossup depending on the mixture and plants involved. |
|
| |
[MechE] dunno... Hydrogen fuel-cell co-generation sounds pretty yummy. What's the loss-rate for a large-scale generation plant to your appliance, including step up and down transformers and line-loss ? |
|
| |
I believe the best thermodynamic powerplants in existence are only about 60% efficient. I'm not certain about line and transmission losses, but I believe most home delivery is about 40-50%. I know fireplaces can be (well) below this, but almost all other direct burning heaters are better.
I will exclude heat pumps, espcially ground loop heat pumps from this, because they may do significantly better. They were omitted originally because the compariosn was to a resistive heater (100 watt bulb).
|
|
| |
As for hydrogen anything, tell me where you're getting the hydrogen, and I'll tell you whether it's better. |
|
| |
destructive decomposition of CH4 into 2H2 and C |
|
| |
I've bunned this; only because showing wattage on a devices does not mean a lot to most people in terms of cost of running it. Not only is it hard to convert to money, it is also the peak or maximum power which is quoted - e.g. a coffee machine guzzles a lot of power during brew (5 mins) and a lot less during keep-warm (3 hours+) and calculating it all at brew rates is a large overestimation. Showing money however makes much more sense - cost of typical use of the device (e.g. coffee machines at one brew a day (beverage demand driven) or typical longevity of device (e.g. chinese-made electrical equipment at about three hours (lifespan of product). |
|
| |
New packages of light bulbs made for sale in America now
are required to state how much their contents cost per
year, assuming 3 hours of use per day and 11 cents per
kilowatt hour. |
|
| |
11 cents per kwH? Shit, that's cheap! I'm paying 23.7
cents at the moment. |
|
| |
My last power bill was $1826.06, for 90 days.
Seriously. |
|
| |