- This topic has 559 replies, 46 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 5 months ago by
enron_by_the_sea.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM #337029January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM #336515
poway_seller
Participantstrictly efficiency speaking, you are CORRECT. recessed (even flood bulbs) doesn’t luminate like standard overhead with a single bulb. Unfortunately (or fortunately) from a design perspective we have recessed (and can’t change that). well, maybe a floor lamp in the most used room(s) would help somewhat as long as it is not halogen… good point.
January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM #336844Participantstrictly efficiency speaking, you are CORRECT. recessed (even flood bulbs) doesn’t luminate like standard overhead with a single bulb. Unfortunately (or fortunately) from a design perspective we have recessed (and can’t change that). well, maybe a floor lamp in the most used room(s) would help somewhat as long as it is not halogen… good point.
January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM #336931Participantstrictly efficiency speaking, you are CORRECT. recessed (even flood bulbs) doesn’t luminate like standard overhead with a single bulb. Unfortunately (or fortunately) from a design perspective we have recessed (and can’t change that). well, maybe a floor lamp in the most used room(s) would help somewhat as long as it is not halogen… good point.
January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM #336960Participantstrictly efficiency speaking, you are CORRECT. recessed (even flood bulbs) doesn’t luminate like standard overhead with a single bulb. Unfortunately (or fortunately) from a design perspective we have recessed (and can’t change that). well, maybe a floor lamp in the most used room(s) would help somewhat as long as it is not halogen… good point.
January 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM #337049Participantstrictly efficiency speaking, you are CORRECT. recessed (even flood bulbs) doesn’t luminate like standard overhead with a single bulb. Unfortunately (or fortunately) from a design perspective we have recessed (and can’t change that). well, maybe a floor lamp in the most used room(s) would help somewhat as long as it is not halogen… good point.
January 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM #336525jficquette
Participant[quote=poway_seller]”So 100 watt burning for an hour will cost 1/10 of a kilowatt hour (100/1000) x the rate of 20 cents or say .02 per hour, or 48 cents a day. So if you left if on for 24 hours and 30 days that 100 watt light bulb would be about $15 bucks a month.”
sounds like my biggest issue may come from lighting as well.. nearly all recessed. I should check the wattage on all. problem is all are on electronic dimmers, and most CFL lightbulbs fail on electronic dimmers. The only ones that I’ve found that work on dimmers are Phillips bulbs and they are $12 each. So multiply that by 100 lights and it gets expensive! Cost vs. savings needed on that one…
Forgot to mention also have 2 40 pint per day capacity dehumifidiers that run 24 hours per day on 1st floor (which is below grade and back wall has moisture to pull out). I guess I need to find the wattage on those.[/quote]
Lights are expensive and its the last place you really look because you can’t really appreciate the cost until you sit down and run the numbers.
John
January 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM #336853Participant[quote=poway_seller]”So 100 watt burning for an hour will cost 1/10 of a kilowatt hour (100/1000) x the rate of 20 cents or say .02 per hour, or 48 cents a day. So if you left if on for 24 hours and 30 days that 100 watt light bulb would be about $15 bucks a month.”
sounds like my biggest issue may come from lighting as well.. nearly all recessed. I should check the wattage on all. problem is all are on electronic dimmers, and most CFL lightbulbs fail on electronic dimmers. The only ones that I’ve found that work on dimmers are Phillips bulbs and they are $12 each. So multiply that by 100 lights and it gets expensive! Cost vs. savings needed on that one…
Forgot to mention also have 2 40 pint per day capacity dehumifidiers that run 24 hours per day on 1st floor (which is below grade and back wall has moisture to pull out). I guess I need to find the wattage on those.[/quote]
Lights are expensive and its the last place you really look because you can’t really appreciate the cost until you sit down and run the numbers.
John
January 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM #336941Participant[quote=poway_seller]”So 100 watt burning for an hour will cost 1/10 of a kilowatt hour (100/1000) x the rate of 20 cents or say .02 per hour, or 48 cents a day. So if you left if on for 24 hours and 30 days that 100 watt light bulb would be about $15 bucks a month.”
sounds like my biggest issue may come from lighting as well.. nearly all recessed. I should check the wattage on all. problem is all are on electronic dimmers, and most CFL lightbulbs fail on electronic dimmers. The only ones that I’ve found that work on dimmers are Phillips bulbs and they are $12 each. So multiply that by 100 lights and it gets expensive! Cost vs. savings needed on that one…
Forgot to mention also have 2 40 pint per day capacity dehumifidiers that run 24 hours per day on 1st floor (which is below grade and back wall has moisture to pull out). I guess I need to find the wattage on those.[/quote]
Lights are expensive and its the last place you really look because you can’t really appreciate the cost until you sit down and run the numbers.
John
January 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM #336970Participant[quote=poway_seller]”So 100 watt burning for an hour will cost 1/10 of a kilowatt hour (100/1000) x the rate of 20 cents or say .02 per hour, or 48 cents a day. So if you left if on for 24 hours and 30 days that 100 watt light bulb would be about $15 bucks a month.”
sounds like my biggest issue may come from lighting as well.. nearly all recessed. I should check the wattage on all. problem is all are on electronic dimmers, and most CFL lightbulbs fail on electronic dimmers. The only ones that I’ve found that work on dimmers are Phillips bulbs and they are $12 each. So multiply that by 100 lights and it gets expensive! Cost vs. savings needed on that one…
Forgot to mention also have 2 40 pint per day capacity dehumifidiers that run 24 hours per day on 1st floor (which is below grade and back wall has moisture to pull out). I guess I need to find the wattage on those.[/quote]
Lights are expensive and its the last place you really look because you can’t really appreciate the cost until you sit down and run the numbers.
John
January 26, 2009 at 2:13 PM #337059Participant[quote=poway_seller]”So 100 watt burning for an hour will cost 1/10 of a kilowatt hour (100/1000) x the rate of 20 cents or say .02 per hour, or 48 cents a day. So if you left if on for 24 hours and 30 days that 100 watt light bulb would be about $15 bucks a month.”
sounds like my biggest issue may come from lighting as well.. nearly all recessed. I should check the wattage on all. problem is all are on electronic dimmers, and most CFL lightbulbs fail on electronic dimmers. The only ones that I’ve found that work on dimmers are Phillips bulbs and they are $12 each. So multiply that by 100 lights and it gets expensive! Cost vs. savings needed on that one…
Forgot to mention also have 2 40 pint per day capacity dehumifidiers that run 24 hours per day on 1st floor (which is below grade and back wall has moisture to pull out). I guess I need to find the wattage on those.[/quote]
Lights are expensive and its the last place you really look because you can’t really appreciate the cost until you sit down and run the numbers.
John
January 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM #336530meadandale
Participant[quote=poway_seller]It’s not the money per se, but more the principal of not wanting to waste it, and perhaps being more environmentally responsible in some small way. [/quote]
You have 2.5 people living in a 5500 sq foot home and you are concerned about being environmentally resonsible? Are you serious?
That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one, lol.
January 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM #336858Participant[quote=poway_seller]It’s not the money per se, but more the principal of not wanting to waste it, and perhaps being more environmentally responsible in some small way. [/quote]
You have 2.5 people living in a 5500 sq foot home and you are concerned about being environmentally resonsible? Are you serious?
That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one, lol.
January 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM #336946Participant[quote=poway_seller]It’s not the money per se, but more the principal of not wanting to waste it, and perhaps being more environmentally responsible in some small way. [/quote]
You have 2.5 people living in a 5500 sq foot home and you are concerned about being environmentally resonsible? Are you serious?
That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one, lol.
January 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM #336975Participant[quote=poway_seller]It’s not the money per se, but more the principal of not wanting to waste it, and perhaps being more environmentally responsible in some small way. [/quote]
You have 2.5 people living in a 5500 sq foot home and you are concerned about being environmentally resonsible? Are you serious?
That’s an oxymoron if I’ve ever heard one, lol.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.