Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know the 'swirly' bulb CFL fixtures are efficient, and in this house we're putting the bulbs in all the fixtures as we go along, but what about my kitchen light? It is the kind that looks like a shop light-it has long tube bulbs with about 6 per fixture (there are two) with a plastic cover. It's quite bright, which is needed for my corner kitchen. I believe it was installed in 1985 when this kitchen was renovated.
Is this efficient like the CFL's? If it is, I'll keep it, although it's not great looking. If not, it's outta here and I'll install energy-star ones. I just don't know if ALL florsecents are efficient.
We bought some new fluorescent fixtures for our closets and laundry room. They carried the Energy Star label and had T8 ballasts which are electronic. Older fixtures have magnetic ballasts. The new ones don't hum or flicker.
I switched every light bulb in my house to CFL's, (Compact florescent lights) but was surprised when my electric bill was not reduced much at all. I thought it was because of an additional tax placed on power that coincided with my replacement bulb time period, but my electric bill shows my KW consumption was the same.
In talking with others I have heard that others have been equally disappointed. I'll keep cfl's in and will do alright on the replacement of bulbs, but CFL's did not do a whole lot in my home in any case energy wise. ???
I switched every light bulb in my house to CFL's, (Compact florescent lights) but was surprised when my electric bill was not reduced much at all. I thought it was because of an additional tax placed on power that coincided with my replacement bulb time period, but my electric bill shows my KW consumption was the same.
In talking with others I have heard that others have been equally disappointed. I'll keep cfl's in and will do alright on the replacement of bulbs, but CFL's did not do a whole lot in my home in any case energy wise. ???
Refrigerators, heat pumps, electric clothes dryers, etc are all bigger consumers of electricity in the typical home than lighting.
If they are like shop lights, with six lamps per fixture, x 2 fixtures, then the wattage is at a minimum 384 watts. That is a lot of wattage. We had something similar for kitchen lighting in our house in Florida.
In this house, I specified five can lights and two drop lights over the bar in the kitchen and have plenty of light with about a total of 100 watts. If more was needed, I would add undercounter lighting at the work areas rather than more lights in the ceiling.
Refrigerators, heat pumps, electric clothes dryers, etc are all bigger consumers of electricity in the typical home than lighting.
I know that, but if nothing changed in my home other then light bulbs, and they are supposed to save so much power, how come it never happened? How come others feel the same way?
I think as with most things, the claims did not amount to as much as they were supposed to be. Now do not get me wrong, I am not going back to standard bulbs, but I was disappointed.
I know that, but if nothing changed in my home other then light bulbs, and they are supposed to save so much power, how come it never happened? How come others feel the same way?
I think as with most things, the claims did not amount to as much as they were supposed to be. Now do not get me wrong, I am not going back to standard bulbs, but I was disappointed.
The energy is saved. It's apparently hard for you to discern that in your electricity bill. Lighting is typically about 9% of residential use. If you swapped out most of your incandescent bulb, you should have cut that by 2/3rd or better.
1000 kWh x .09 =90 kWh x 2/3 = 60 kWh saving.
It's probable hard for you to see a 60 kWh saving in the variability of your bill, but it's there.
I know that, but if nothing changed in my home other then light bulbs, and they are supposed to save so much power, how come it never happened? How come others feel the same way?
I think as with most things, the claims did not amount to as much as they were supposed to be. Now do not get me wrong, I am not going back to standard bulbs, but I was disappointed.
I think what it comes down to is that our lights don't consume a very high percentage of our total electricity. I don't have a credible website to back this up, but I'd guess that light bulbs only consume 5%-10% of your total monthly electricity.
So if your electricity bill is $100 per month - $10 of which is light bulb use - and you cut your light bulb use in half, you're obviously only saving $5 per month.
Again, I don't have facts to back up my opinion, and cannot say what the exact percentages are. But I'd bet I'm not too far off.
That said, I have CFL bulbs throughout our house. However, I think it's more efficient to just turn off the lights when you're not in the room, than to replace incandescents with CFLs.
I have defenitley found the CFL's to save some money-not tons, but some. I'm still not quite sure about that kitchen light though. It really is an odd light for a kitchen-and the people who renovated this place at that time, spent some dough on some nice stuff. I don't know why they chose it. It is very bright, which is probably why. I'll have dh look closely at the ballasts and see if it says what kind they are.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
