SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: d[-_-]b who wrote (183408)2/23/2004 7:25:41 PM
From: Road Walker  Read Replies (1) of 1574948
 
Eric,

re: I have a house full of 60 watt can or flood lights, each one in fluorescent would cost at least $8-9 each - probably 25 in total.

So 25*8 = $400-450, ignoring the comparison with existing lights and not knowing how much of my total power bill is lighting, assuming it lowered my monthly by just 10% it would take at least two years to re-coup the cost.

I have considered doing this over time, but then the hodge podge of lighting starts to annoy me - I can say I'm surprised how long some of my traditional bulbs have lasted, some well over six years now.


First, the most expensive part of lighting is energy cost. It would save you ~75% on your electricity cost (more if you know anything about color temperature and visual acuity). Second, compact fluorescents should last almost 10 times as long as incandescent, so the actual up front payment is at least break even, if not cheaper. As an added benefit, CF's produce much less heat. If air conditioning cost is a more expensive than heating, then you have another minor benefit.

It's a no brainer from a cost perspective, much more of a no brainer from an energy perspective. But folks won't drop the $8 on a bulb that will save them $16. When they can buy the special at $0.60.

John
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext