Advantages and disadvantages of energy-saving lamps

Tse is a lie ...

These lamps do not serve declared 6000 hours.

Hence the conclusion? ..

Yes, it has long been known that due to low color rendering, these lamps are only suitable for a stairwell.A lot of people having read the ads then sits and sees that their favorite yellow curtains have become for some reason a swamp color.

IMHO for living quarters is best quartz halogen lamps, especially low voltage at 12 V.

And then, what about the effect of luminescent on vision. In fluorescent lamps, the spectrum does not correspond to the sun, and besides, they flicker 100 times per second, because of this they were previously banned in child care facilities (now I don’t know how). Of course, flicker can be neutralized with the help of various technical solutions, such as turning on lamps in one room in different phases (but you won’t do this in an ordinary apartment, and in many institutions is there a three-phase lighting network?). Yes, you can use phase-shifting devices instead of a three-phase lighting network, but not everything is simple here. In addition, the disposal of luminescent is much more difficult than incandescent lamps. In my opinion, there is little ecology and many interests of electrical concerns, which are more profitable to sell expensive energy-saving light bulbs than cheap incandescent ones. And in connection with a decrease in the production of incandescent lamps, their price and rate of return on them will increase many times, so who is the winner here is obvious.

RE: What about the effect of fluorescent lamps on vision

Almost all modern lighting systems using fluorescent lamps work with electronic ballasts that convert the mains voltage to high-frequency oscillations with a frequency of 35-50 kHz. As a result of this, a 100-Hz flicker of lamps is not felt in any way and does not have a bad effect on vision. Therefore, in this case, no special measures should be taken to eliminate the flashing of fluorescent lamps. In addition, electronic ballasts additionally save energy (about 25%) compared to electromagnetic ballasts. The only truly serious drawback of this type of lamp is its high cost.

RE: nwt

I agree that the energy-saving lamp will work or not work, the declared service life is a very important and even key issue. The quality of an energy-saving lamp is influenced by many factors and the quality depends to a very large extent on the manufacturer. Why do some energy-saving lamps fail before the declared life of the manufacturers read in my new article "How are compact fluorescent lamps arranged?".

The average life of an incandescent lamp is 1000 hours, and that of an energy-saving lamp is 10,000 hours (unless of course they lie), and it is five times more economical. Consequently, ten incandescent lamps will be replaced in 10 thousand hours, which means that they will be bought. Plus energy savings for all this time. Conclusion: running everything to the store for energy-saving lamps!

Having bought energy-saving lamps and replacing them with all the “Ilyich bulbs”, I regretted it very much later. The money spent on the purchase of energy-saving lamps did not work out. Money was stuffed like a cat under the tail. If the “Ilyich’s bulb”, even worked by the narrow-eyed neighbors, shines for at least six months, then the energy-saving lamps that are made, as stated, by our guest workers and in domestic production, “burn like candles.” I had to screw in the “Illich's bulbs” to their old places, because those energy-saving lamps had already burned out everything, and buying the same ones was going to sucker again.

What is the saving when an energy-saving lamp is ten times more expensive than an incandescent lamp? It is time to take up and reanimate Ilyich himself while he is being poured into the mausoleum and there they have not yet screwed up these same energy-saving lamps.

And what are others doing, who turned out to be smarter than me? The guys survived perestroika and are hardened with all sorts of "reforms." In the nineties they haggled with burnt incandescent lamps and there was a demand for them.And why, because the burned-out bulb can be in the office, by going to the side stairs or to the toilet, to replace it there with a working one.

Turning out a working light bulb, a burned-out screwed in there. And as if everything was so. Well, the bulb went out, and it was replaced by an electrician. For tomorrow, the next "novice businessman" came to the toilet or other place suitable for exchange, and did the same simple operation.

When money for the purchase of bulbs is taken from a different source, and not from your own pocket, then only then you can save on this.

Alenka, all that you so colorfully described is called theft. It turns out that you are ready to use compact fluorescent lamps only on condition that you get them for free (will be stolen by you)? "Take everything that is bad." And then what will we all come to? Do you yourself like to live in a society where everyone is just looking for where you can drag away with impunity?

And about the life of compact fluorescent lamps - this is a myth. Most normal lamps work for a long time. I have had such lamps for more than 4 years and not a single one has burned down yet. All acquaintances have about the same picture. Isolated cases of lamp burning do not count. Such lamps can be changed under warranty. By the way, maybe the myth of constantly burning compact fluorescent lamps was created due to the fact that there are too many “cunning waste heaters” around who change their burnt lamps to new ones according to the technology you described?

As for the durability and quality of fluorescent lamps.
Recently I slept 15 watts, bought at IKEA important in 1998.
Chinese, by the way ...
And she rested not from old age, but from 380 volts supplied to our riser by my beloved GIT.
Choose light bulbs with a "soft" start - and there will be happiness in the house.

I will add - according to my estimates, this lamp worked for at least 15,000 hours.
I bought 3 pieces - the stock was. Two still work, although they have already faded.

For reliability of power supply, energy saving does not interfere with installing a voltage relay in the general network.

The real approach.

1. We measure with a light meter. Illumination from CFLs is 2.3 ... 2.6 times higher (not 5 ... 6 times) than from ordinary LVs, with the same power consumption.

2. The standards of illumination and quality characteristics of lighting in public buildings and household buildings of enterprises (according to VSN 219-74) require an increase in illumination by 2 times, when using fluorescent lamps instead of incandescent lamps.

3. Conclusion. The efficiency of fluorescent lighting is 1.3 times higher than that of incandescent lamps. Across a vast country, a 30% reduction in artificial lighting costs brings huge savings. In everyday life, savings of 30% - while maintaining the same comfort - are not superfluous.

4. Advertising claims about saving five or six times - there is an empty fantasy.

The article under the term "energy-saving lamps" refers to compact fluorescent lamps. With all their advantages, it should be noted that in our time, LED lamps exist and are available for use, which are even more energy-saving lamps than fluorescent ones. The future is with LED lighting!

For the test, I acquired two so-called "energy-saving lamps" at 165 rubles each.
The first, after working for a whole week, burned out. The second originally placed in the room, moved to the toilet, because her eyes were very tired. In the kitchen, for about 5 years now, an ordinary incandescent lamp has been hanging. Question: WHERE HERE IS ECONOMY ??

Such a realization that the authors write in the comments about different energy savers. For some, they have been working for years, for someone a week. I, too, was disappointed in energy conservation. I bought completely different, and cheap Chinese and expensive, with a smooth start and without. Both those and those burn.

I took IKEA lamps - the whole set (3 pcs.) Burned out without working for a year.

Uniel took a lot, changed Lerua burned to new ones. The new one burned out right away - is it sense to constantly run around to change the flea?

Took Phiplips (declared operating time of 8000 hours!) - The same outcome.

I took Ecola (one lamp with a GU 5.3 cap more than 200 rubles.) - burned about 3-4pcs.

Someone will say - this is because of power surges. Perhaps, but visually I do not notice these jumps. Another technique works, and nothing, why are the launch blocks in the savings systems whimsical ?!

As a result, I have a whole "zoo" of burned-out savings - I still can’t tell you before disposal. Saving on them is a myth, an ordinary marketing scam.

Now, instead of the burnt ones, I put the usual “Ilyich” and halogen lamps, since they cost an order of magnitude cheaper.

I bought three savings, from different manufacturers. To check the reliability. One covered herself in a week ............. using a ball. Two others have been working for a year now.

All this savings is complete nonsense, as an electrician with 15 years of experience, I can say this with complete confidence. 1 plus of such a lamp is that - there is no need to install an electronic ballast for start-up in the lamps; everything is mounted in the lamp. And now the cons in order - 1-high cost 2-do not like to turn on and off often 3- refuse to work together with dimmers 4-mercury compounds are included in the lamp special disposal is required 5-audible low-frequency hum from electronic ballast 6-do not work at low temperatures -10 and below they shine dimly or refuse to shine altogether 7-long burn-up time from several seconds to several minutes 8-if the backlight indicator is present in the switch, this lamp starts to flicker 9-the light of such a lamp is not natural and hurts the eyes.

In December 2011, he bought four CFLs of Feron and Uniel firms, with a soft start, with a warm shade, with a power of 30 - 35 watts. Put them in the corridors and the kitchen. Now is September 2013. All lamps work properly, although the brightness is not the same as in the first year. The average operating time is 6 hours a day. In the summer, we practically do not include it.

He studied in the 10th grade. I put an ordinary lamp in a table lamp, in the light of which I prepared my lessons, and used it as a night lamp. The lamp worked for 6 years, all the time while studying at the university.

At the grandmother’s toilet, the incandescent light was on for about 15 years. These are temperature changes (the toilet is not in a heated room) Frequent on / off ... And you say ...

The state program on energy conservation has gained momentum with a shift towards CFL, in view of the most affordable implementation of the Federal Law, which does not require a professional program for real energy conservation at enterprises, nor more expensive costs. For check.

2016 year. Energy savers cost 150 rubles on average, they work for two years according to oral surveys. The seller says 10 percent return. If they have been working for 2 years, then why change them instead of Ilyich’s limps? I did not change, I bought a few years ago with a margin of 7 rubles for two boxes. And given the desire of the supreme managers to rip off the people, through high tariffs and taxes, he decided to assemble his own microelectric power station. Something happened, but until a year of the experiment has passed, it is impossible to claim 100% what happened.

Observations - now it’s summer and lighting is not often included, a long daylight hours (17 hours), in winter it is shorter (7 hours) and even more cloudy days. But I notice that at a cost of 120 kW in December, in the summer, when the microelectric power is turned on, a waste of 90 kW. The experiment ended, and Ilyich’s light bulbs were enough - 30-50 years would be enough.

About lighting, I can’t read the document in the bank, their lighting hits my eyes, so there’s also a reason not to switch to luminaires.