7 ms·

> The relative cost of lighting on the monthly electricity bill is tiny so those savings are pretty small. Getting a more efficient fridge, washing machine, TV

> The relative cost of lighting on the monthly electricity bill is tiny so those savings are pretty small. Getting a more efficient fridge, washing machine, TV or (in our profession) computer typically has a much bigger effect on electricity expenses. And that is assuming your heating and cooking is done with gas. The switch from using tiny space heaters for light to using LEDs that consume a tenth of the power was a huge savings. It only takes a few 100w bulbs to equal or exceed the energy consumption of a modest desktop computer.

nine_k 8y ago
This is correct. I just thought that "everybody" has switched to CFLs 10 years ago, when they became decent.
- ip26 8y ago
  CFLs are everywhere, but came with a lot of downsides. My personal observation was that they were never more than 50% of the bulbs in a house (that I ever saw).
- lupire 8y ago
  They never became decent. They were always loaded with toxic mercury that became a hazard if the glass broke, and they had short life and though some good one existed, the market was overrun with bulbs with long warm up times, bad color, and buzzing.
- ConceptJunkie 8y ago
  They were decent 20 years ago. In my experience, the quality dropped sharply around 10 years ago or so. I've seen at least one CFL fail within a few weeks of buying it. LPT: Don't buy the globe ones that go over your bathroom mirror. They are practically pre-burned-out for your convenience.
- dwighttk 8y ago
  Yeah, I switched a few bulbs to CFLs 10 years ago when they "became decent", and then switched them out every 6 months (i.e. when they burned out) until LEDs "became decent"... Haven't had as much trouble with LEDs as CFLs, but I'm definitely not paying $10+/bulb like I did with CFLs.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    > definitely not paying $10+/bulb Maybe you should. I mean, the cheapest option is rarely the most durable or performant. See Vimes' Boots Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes#Boots_theory_of_socio-economic_unfairness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes#Boots_theory_of_soci...
    - dwighttk 8y ago
      those $10 CFLs burned out almost as quickly as I could replace them. Kinda spoiled me on the whole "spend more for something that will last longer" theory.
FredFS456 8y ago
I don't know about you, but I had long switched to CFL's before LED bulbs came around. CFLs are definitely not as efficient as LEDs, but at least they're still a fraction of the power that incandescent bulbs use.
- blattimwind 8y ago
  Modern fluorescent lamps are surprisingly efficient and the electric ballasts seem to be more reliable than any LED bulb I've seen so far. The tubes do fade eventually, but the tube itself only costs 1-2 Euros and the environmental impact is pretty low of these where the mercury cycle is closed.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    >environmental impact is pretty low of these where the mercury cycle is closed // Which countries have widespread recycle facilities for CFLs? In UK I'm almost certain they all just go in to landfill (in this country or another).
    - droithomme 8y ago
      In the US you can drop off burned out CFLs in recycling bins at Home Depot and Lowes. However yes, most people don't know about that and just landfill them.
      - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
        >"we asked to more than 1,000 people at the end of 2009. Then, 68% surveyed threw their last energy saving light bulb in the bin." (Which? [0]) // Bit out of date but indicative of the UK situation I imagine. The best I could do for the USA situation was that [1] shows about 1.5M recycled CFLs in 2010, vs [2] shows about 300M sold in 2009, 0.5% recycle rate ... [0] https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/do-you-recycle-your-old-energy-saving-light-bulbs/ https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/do-you-recycle-... [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/04/despite-mercury-concerns-few-people-recycle-their-cfls/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/04/despite-mer... [2] https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/cfls_compact_fluorescent_lamps.html https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/cfls_compact...
masklinn 8y ago
> It only takes a few 100w bulbs to equal or exceed the energy consumption of a modest desktop computer. Might even take a single one, depending on the specific machines it might be pulling no more than 60~80W idle. As in performance optimisation, energy optimisation requires measurements.
ip26 8y ago
To add, your typical laptop these days has a 45W or 65W power supply, which will not be fully loaded most of the time!
- masklinn 8y ago
  They specifically mention desktop computers, not laptops.
  - iforgotpassword 8y ago
    They're basically at the same level if you don't use high end CPUs and gaming GPUs. Also see here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worlds-most-efficient-high-end-computer http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worl... - tldr: 30w idle for an unmodified average system. Mind you this was 2012, mid range systems surely haven't gotten more power hungry since then.
    - masklinn 8y ago
      > Also see here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worl.. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worl.... - tldr: 30w idle for an unmodified average system. That's an order of magnitude more than an idle laptop. And they're not talking about any sort of "average system" they're ballparking a "reference desktop" which tops out at 150W under load, that's not just "don't use a gaming GPU" that's "don't use a GPU at all". And if you're building a "desktop computer" with an APU and an SSD… why are you building a desktop computer?
      - iforgotpassword 8y ago
        > That's an order of magnitude more than an idle laptop. Uuh.. yes... And an order of magnitude less than "several 100w light bulbs" > And if you're building a "desktop computer" with an APU and an SSD… why are you building a desktop computer? Ergonomics?
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
vanderZwan 8y ago
I have to admit that I have used only CFLs for decades (with a few exceptions where the produced heat was a positive side-effect, not a negative) and had not considered there are plenty of households that still use incandescent light bulbs.

nine_k 8y ago

This is correct. I just thought that "everybody" has switched to CFLs 10 years ago, when they became decent.

ip26 8y ago
CFLs are everywhere, but came with a lot of downsides. My personal observation was that they were never more than 50% of the bulbs in a house (that I ever saw).
lupire 8y ago
They never became decent. They were always loaded with toxic mercury that became a hazard if the glass broke, and they had short life and though some good one existed, the market was overrun with bulbs with long warm up times, bad color, and buzzing.
ConceptJunkie 8y ago
They were decent 20 years ago. In my experience, the quality dropped sharply around 10 years ago or so. I've seen at least one CFL fail within a few weeks of buying it. LPT: Don't buy the globe ones that go over your bathroom mirror. They are practically pre-burned-out for your convenience.
dwighttk 8y ago
Yeah, I switched a few bulbs to CFLs 10 years ago when they "became decent", and then switched them out every 6 months (i.e. when they burned out) until LEDs "became decent"... Haven't had as much trouble with LEDs as CFLs, but I'm definitely not paying $10+/bulb like I did with CFLs.
- nine_k 8y ago
  > definitely not paying $10+/bulb Maybe you should. I mean, the cheapest option is rarely the most durable or performant. See Vimes' Boots Theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes#Boots_theory_of_socio-economic_unfairness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Vimes#Boots_theory_of_soci...
  - dwighttk 8y ago
    those $10 CFLs burned out almost as quickly as I could replace them. Kinda spoiled me on the whole "spend more for something that will last longer" theory.

FredFS456 8y ago

I don't know about you, but I had long switched to CFL's before LED bulbs came around. CFLs are definitely not as efficient as LEDs, but at least they're still a fraction of the power that incandescent bulbs use.

blattimwind 8y ago
Modern fluorescent lamps are surprisingly efficient and the electric ballasts seem to be more reliable than any LED bulb I've seen so far. The tubes do fade eventually, but the tube itself only costs 1-2 Euros and the environmental impact is pretty low of these where the mercury cycle is closed.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  >environmental impact is pretty low of these where the mercury cycle is closed // Which countries have widespread recycle facilities for CFLs? In UK I'm almost certain they all just go in to landfill (in this country or another).
  - droithomme 8y ago
    In the US you can drop off burned out CFLs in recycling bins at Home Depot and Lowes. However yes, most people don't know about that and just landfill them.
    - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
      >"we asked to more than 1,000 people at the end of 2009. Then, 68% surveyed threw their last energy saving light bulb in the bin." (Which? [0]) // Bit out of date but indicative of the UK situation I imagine. The best I could do for the USA situation was that [1] shows about 1.5M recycled CFLs in 2010, vs [2] shows about 300M sold in 2009, 0.5% recycle rate ... [0] https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/do-you-recycle-your-old-energy-saving-light-bulbs/ https://conversation.which.co.uk/home-energy/do-you-recycle-... [1] https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/04/despite-mercury-concerns-few-people-recycle-their-cfls/index.htm https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2011/04/despite-mer... [2] https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/cfls_compact_fluorescent_lamps.html https://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/12/cfls_compact...

masklinn 8y ago

> It only takes a few 100w bulbs to equal or exceed the energy consumption of a modest desktop computer. Might even take a single one, depending on the specific machines it might be pulling no more than 60~80W idle. As in performance optimisation, energy optimisation requires measurements.

ip26 8y ago

To add, your typical laptop these days has a 45W or 65W power supply, which will not be fully loaded most of the time!

masklinn 8y ago
They specifically mention desktop computers, not laptops.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  They're basically at the same level if you don't use high end CPUs and gaming GPUs. Also see here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worlds-most-efficient-high-end-computer http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worl... - tldr: 30w idle for an unmodified average system. Mind you this was 2012, mid range systems surely haven't gotten more power hungry since then.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    > Also see here: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worl.. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/135719-5-9-watts-the-worl.... - tldr: 30w idle for an unmodified average system. That's an order of magnitude more than an idle laptop. And they're not talking about any sort of "average system" they're ballparking a "reference desktop" which tops out at 150W under load, that's not just "don't use a gaming GPU" that's "don't use a GPU at all". And if you're building a "desktop computer" with an APU and an SSD… why are you building a desktop computer?
    - iforgotpassword 8y ago
      > That's an order of magnitude more than an idle laptop. Uuh.. yes... And an order of magnitude less than "several 100w light bulbs" > And if you're building a "desktop computer" with an APU and an SSD… why are you building a desktop computer? Ergonomics?
iforgotpassword 8y ago

vanderZwan 8y ago

I have to admit that I have used only CFLs for decades (with a few exceptions where the produced heat was a positive side-effect, not a negative) and had not considered there are plenty of households that still use incandescent light bulbs.