Perspectives, Then vs. Now

[jaclaz]

How is a "projected lifespan based on never being switched off and on" in any way supportive of a policy of reducing energy use and environmental impact? I mean, no one ever turns their lights on and off, do they???

Yep.

Just as an example, unlike Trip, on my back porch/hallway I have a movement sensor activated rather powerful halogen lamp 150 W .

The sensor has an ambient light, so that the motion sensor is not activated if not when it is "dark enough".

The sensor also has a switch off timer (if no further motion is detected) after 1 1/2 minutes.

When I (or wife) come back home in the afternoon/evening it gives us time enough to find the keys (in a BRIGHT light) and open the door.

As well when people/friends come, they are greeted by a well lighted path.

Considering the passing of cats (that sometimes trigger the motion sensor ) this thingy is switched on, say, 15 times per day (actually per night).

15x1.5=22.5 minutes or roughly 1/3 of an hour, more exactly 0.375

150x0.375=56.25 Wh per day

To be fair I have to add the very low power the sensor needs, less than 1 W, so I have to add around 24 W/h, making it overall 80 Wh per day.

Halogen lamps are far less sensible to power cycles and short length of them, and the cost of a "no name" one is around 1.5 €, such a lamp lasts (in real life) 2 to 3 years or more.

Trip (assuming he is using a 11W CLF) will "save" energy by having it 24x11=264 Wh per day, i.e. roughly 4 times what I use, with the "advantages" of having a completely unneeded light during daytime and a lower level of lighting at night.

If he bought a "good brand" CLF, he probably have paid it around US$ 9.00 or so, i.e. roughly 4 times or around € 6.00 and have hopefully double the life, between 4 and 5 years.

jaclaz

[ROTS]

The only reason they did this is because their are more id*** CHEAP consumers, and with ideas like FREE ENERGY, that is what they are doing. I would rather they, throw out FREE ENERGY and just double the amount per Kw.