Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- From: "pfjw@xxxxxxx" <pfjw@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 22 May 2007 18:07:43 -0700
On May 22, 7:42 pm, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<p...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179879339.083258.125610@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 22, 1:29 pm, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<p...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1179855800.659560.219200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On May 22, 9:36 am, "Arfa Daily" <arfa.da...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
As far as 'opposites' go, it is largely a matter of semantics, and
philosophical debate. Black is the opposite of white in purely
physical
terms, in that black represents the absence of any wavelengths of
visible
light reaching the eye, whereas white represents the presence of all
visible
light. Trying to show that there is no such thing as a true opposite
is
an
old schoolboy debating society chestnut that we have probably all
taken
part
in. Philosophical debate can show anything that you want it to. If you
have
"black", and then something else that is not "white", then what you
have
is
not an 'opposite'. It is just what it says - something else ... :-)
Opposite vs. Polar Opposite. Occam's position was that something
either "was" or "was not". There is no subsantive or substantial
difference in quality between something that IS NOT, and the Polar
Opposite of what IS if only what IS is desired or required. So, puce,
ecru, sienna, magenta or any other color may as well be Black if White
is desired or required, and for all the difference it makes.
Getting more into life-cycle costs, now you are discussing incremental
costs as the cost of heating and fusing glass and transporting a given
volume (and unless transport is by air, the nature of these items is
by volume, not weight), and the labor in assembly. One more reason I
prefer PL-type lamps as the subsantial difference in the making of the
ballast is paid only once. But anyway... I can purchase a Euro-made
CFL from a local industral supplier (23 watts ~ 100 watts
incandescent) for about $5. A Chinese version for about $2 at Home
Depot. Both makers and sellers are making a profit. The labor in
Europe will be about 4X the cost of the labor in China, but as these
lamps are largely made and packed on highly automated machines, that
is negligible in the grand scheme of things. So, 1,500,000/1000 =
1,500kw of electricity. Which, at $0.14/kwh = $210 in operating costs.
If I purchase Hungarian "Action Tungsram" Lamps at 2/$1.00, and use 15
lamps, that will cost me $7.50. If I purchase GE or Sylvania US-made
lamps, that will cost me $15. So, my operating & purchase cost is $218
for round figures. For the PL/CFL at $5, and using 325kw, it is $50.36
assuming I purchase Euro-lamps. Add even $10 for "correct" disposal as
a future consideration.
Heat in a cold climate: An incandescent puts out about 6 watts of
light for 100 watts of power. So, 94 watts in heat. A CFL puts out the
same 6 watts of light at 23 watts of power. 1 watt = 3.413 BTU.
94 watts waste heat (summer and winter) will contribute 321 BTUH. One
gallon of #2 fuel oil = 130,000BTU. Or, the lamp contribute 1/405th of
the heat value of a gallon of fuel. At $3/gallon, that comes to
$0.00704 of saved fuel. However, the lamp burnt $0.01344 worth of
power to save that fuel. Not a good balance. Even at $3/gallon where
fuel (around here) is hovering around $2.25/gallon. Let's not discuss
the fuel burnt at the power-plant as that makes the trade-off even
worse. Gas or propane, the balance is yet worse. Only with electricity
is the balance nearly equal, and would be equal whether CFL/PL or
incandescent.
Of course, in the summertime, now one is burning electricity to remove
this waste heat.
Think it through, the numbers are implacable and pretty horrific in
reality.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
The figures look impressive in your favour, but it's actually very
difficult
to equate energy budget to monetary costs. Every process involved is very
inefficient, including transport. How do you arrive, for instance, at the
transport energy cost only being a real factor if we are talking air ? A
ship with x tons of cargo on board, will use less fuel than if it was
carrying 2x tons. If 2x tons won't fit on there, because its volume is
greater, then it will be necessary to either use a bigger ship, or do the
run twice. Either way, something that's heavier for the same physical
volume, will cost more energy to ship, no matter what the method - yes ?
Many factories are involved in making the constituent parts of a CFL
compared to an incandescent. All of those factories have to be lit and
heated. The workers have to be fed, and have to get to work, and back
home
again. All of these factors contribute to the manufacturing energy
budget.
I guess that we are never going to even come close to being together on
this
one ... Still, it's been an interesting exchange, and has stimulated me,
at
least, to look from some slightly different angles at the whole thing.
Arfa- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
You keep stopping at the hairy edge of the actuality. It will take 15
incandescent lamps to equal one (1) CFL/PL lamp. So, 15 x the ships to
transport them if imported. 15 x the trucks if domestic. Even if you
calculate strictly on weight, you are calculating on 60 oz. of
material transported vs. 8, so only ~7 x. Both ways.
Think it _ALL THE WAY_ through life-cycle costs.
BTW, the very best oil burner is ~80% efficient. But we are neglecting
peripheral efficiencies here. Were you to calculate all of those, the
numbers would be even more obvious. Gas burners run to 94% or so.
Electricity is 100%, delivery losses neglected as with all of the
figures above.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
OK, I need to think some more on this one. Maybe we're all looking at this
wrongly. Perhaps we should be looking to LEDs to replace incandescents. The
advances in this technology over the last 2 years has been astounding. I
would surmise that LED lighting modules are not a lot more complicated to
make than incandescents. Properly treated, the LEDs themselves now have
lives in excess of 100,000 hours, and can be made in virtually any colour
you like, so it should be possible to get a 100% match to an incandescent.
Even the drive requirements are becoming simpler, with cheap integrated
solutions becoming available. One of my magazines even detailed a LED module
for direct connection to 230v AC in last month's edition. At least these
devices produce instant light of a constant colour temperature, and are
virtually independent of ambient temperature. I would even venture that watt
for lumen, they are even more efficient than CFLs ?? Certainly more robust
physically, I would have thought, with any potentially harmful substances
very tightly locked away in the chemical composition of the chip, as well as
physically in the package.
Arfa- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Yep... and the wave of the future. Sadly LEDs to-date are severely
restricted in spectra, such that the ones suitable for most reading
purposes are nearly all in the blue-to-LFUV range and would give the
typical user a headache in short order as well as being nearly red/
green blind. They also have very limited 'cool-down' (much as
fluorescents in the past) such that they blink at whatever the AC
frequency or chopped DC Frequency. This is easily solved via a DC
supply, but the spectrum needs considerable work. I see multiple LEDs
in a diffuser to compensate for the above, but then voltages become
tricky. Nothing that time and care cannot solve. And once the
technology is solved, they will be quite cheap to manufacture.
Give it 3-4 years. About the expected life of the present generation
of CFL/PL lamps.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
.
- References:
- Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- From: Arfa Daily
- Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- Prev by Date: Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- Next by Date: Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- Previous by thread: Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- Next by thread: Re: More on lead-free junk solder
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
