Wearing out the lights & taps through "excessive conservation"?
 

EDIT - by MetroMPG...

Split this thread off from the "why should I EOC" topic, since my snarky comment sparked an actual discussion about lights & faucet wear from over-conservation :)

-------------------


Oh crap! That dam [sic] wear!

I guess that's understandable for CFLs in colder climates - or older magnetic ballast fluorescents... (If I recall, myth busters tested a whole array of lights for their startup times :))

LOL, actually, our tap did wear out from too much on and off, we don't have a hot water faucet anymore :p. I shut off lights when I leave the room out of habit, even when people are still in there. And I also sit in the dark because i get in the house when it's sunny and stay sometimes till it's dark, trying to figure out why I can't read the words on the newspaper. Oh wait.. the lights are out... IT'S 5:30!? Even tho they say it's bad for your eyes, I watch tv and use the computer with the lights off, the screen gives off enough light right? :rolleyes:

I've been in the facility maintenance gig for a while now, and I can tell you this: on and off kills the bulb. Incandescent or fluorescent, the cycling will destroy it faster. There's no way around it.

There's some firehouse in CA that's had the same bulb running nigh-onto-continuously for about 100 years (that's not an exaggeration); the bulb is never ever turned off. It even has its own webcam.

I think, looking solely from the bulb's lifespan point of view, the cutoff is around seven minutes for a fluorescent. If you're going to be away from the light more than seven minutes, turn it off. That's the interval I set the automatic switches for in the kitchen at work.

No doubt about that but I'm also a firm believer that it is the heat that actually kills a bulb, this I speak from experience as I have noticed time and again the lower the bulb's wattage the longer it lasts.

It's not even the heat per se, maybe a little, but it's the cooling off and warming up that causes expansion and contraction in the materials of the bulb that does it.

So not only does a lower wattage bulb save energy, it also lasts longer.
With CFL's it's the same thing thou with a CFL's actual usage it makes little sense to flicker them, once on leave it on for a bit and don't turn it on for no good reason.

btw all households should be lighted 100% with cfl's by now.

I've actually seen the bulb... And the only thing spectacular about it is it's age... It's only a 4W bulb and gives of in incredibly small amount of light (less than the light from a toaster's heating elements :p). It's currently on a dedicated/filtered power supply :thumbup:


Have some data for us? Sounds like a good life cycle study read :)

In any case, I found the mythbusters results... They had their bulbs going on/off every two minutes. The results came out to a little more than 8 on/off cycles per day for a 5 year expectancy. Which, to me, makes sense - I've got CFL bulbs exceeding either 6 or 7 years now (one of which has always been in a ceiling fan - just not always the same one :p) and I don't think I surpass 8 cycles per day :)

Hell, I've got a CFL in my refrigerator - people were complaining about how long it takes for the light to come on in their cold climates... A tad less than a second @ 38 degrees and 10 or so second to reach full (noticeable) brightness... I feel bad for those that keep their houses at 38 degrees :eek:

alot of our CF lights get the date they were installed written on the base, some of them get the store they came from as well so if we find we like them we can find them again.
for ambent light in the living room I have a string of white LED christmas tree lights on top of the bookshelf along one wall, around 3 watts and I can read by them, good also for ifI'm leavingthe house at nightand want to come back to a lit house, they draw as less then the TV/dvd/vcr do when they are all 'off' (5 watts).

They cheat... the power has been running through a resistor first, for decades, so its only been getting a fraction of the power it should be drawing.

It's bad because of the sharp contrast for prolonged exposures. Reading in dim light is actually shown to have no long-term consequences.

You made good sense up until there.

There are rooms where a person just goes in 'n' out, that would be pitch black otherwise. They are prime candidates for remaining incandescent. Also incandescent works better where there's a dimmer switch. I like CFLs for the other places though.

My rooms are in fact warmer than 38 degrees and yes, the CFL takes quite a while to reach full brightness from cold- more than 10 seconds for sure.

FL's in general are a crappy light source. They are great for task lighting such as over the sink, outdoor, basement and maybe for some background lighting. But it isn't a "natural" light source. We are use to seeing light as given off by a heat source like the sun. Now you can get great color correct FL's. But, human eyes are more attuned to heat/resistance sources of light.

Unless I am mistaken they flicker at different frequencies then computer monitors so they may give you a headache with all the flashing going on. At least that was true in days of yore. That may have changed with the LCD monitors. I am still using an energy hogging monster 24" crt. I also would never let a senior citizen use a CFL for a reading lamp. Just too much glare.