Beware: CFL duds - Page 2

"Jonno"




**  What an absolutely ASININE question.





** The only reason.

Failed traffic light lamps are not just expensive and awkward to replace,
they are a MAJOR  safety hazard.



.......  Phil

What an asinine answer. You really don't know what you're talking about
them do you?

"Jonno"



**  Don't annoy me with tripe like this,  Jonno.

  YOU just demonstrated what an utter ASS you are.

  Fuck off.



......   Phil

That was expected.!

The answer was expected.
Youre a nice guy in your own mind.
Cant get your way and throw a tantrum.
I asked a question. You delicately answered as is your nature.
Nutz to you Phil, youre a safety hazard. I hope you dont drive.
Road rage appears very likely with your type of instability.

That would be true. See below.




RTA in NSW estimate to save 10GWh/yr (10,400 tonnes of CO2/year) by
changing to LED lights, with a total saving of $2.8M pa in annual
energy, maintenance and upgrade cost.

http://www.energysmart.com.au/wes/images/pdf/10-4%20WES%20RTA%20Case%20Study%20Final.pdf

David

"David the Anonymous Fool" "





** Lets just break that pile of blatant PR drivel down into basic facts:

10GWh  seems like a lot of energy  -  but is not.

What is the potential bill for each hour ( are traffic lights even metered
? )

10GWh / 365/24  =   1.14 MWh.

1.14MWh  =  1140 kWh

At 10 cents  =  $ 114  per hour for * EVERY*  traffic light in NSW  !!!


What does even ONE maintenance crew and vehicle cost the RTA to have on the
road per hour ?

And there are how many in NSW  ???

Any real saving is entirely in reduced maintenance costs.




......   Phil

**Yep. And, unlike white LEDs, coloured ones have an indefinite life-span.

Indefinite as in you never know how long they will last. :-)
I certainly have replaced quite a few failed LED's over the years. But
besides failing completely, they can also diminish in light output. I have a
bar graph display that started out with 12 equal intensity LED's and now has
about 3 distinctly different intensities. I guess like everything else it
depends on the quality of the LED's.

MrT.

**Certainly. Early generation LEDs did suffer the effects you speak of, but
modern LEDs (anything beyond 1990 or so) of quality manufacture, is likely
to last pretty much forever. I had LEDs in my last home (quality ones) which
had not diminished in light output over a period of 15 years, whilst a
couple of white LEDs had appreciably lost output (down to around 30%) over a
period of 7 years.

its the phosphor that makes white LEDs degrade faster than others.

but the others *DO* degrade. LED lifetime is a serious issue for
manufacturers of LED video screens, traffic lights etc. Arrhenius
strikes again.

Cheers
Terry

They're talking about SAVING that amount. They are USING much more. Your
figures are stunted....

That equates to just under $1,000,000 pa saving on electricity. I
wouldn't call that insignificant.

David

I Agree But to get the whole picture, this page gives some more insight,
 >>> > http://www.otherpower.com/otherpower_lighting.html

"David the Anonymous Fool" "




**  $114 per hour is a  MINISCULE  amount for a body like the RTA.

Running one vehicle with a two man crew is far more expensive.

PLUS they have to borrow $18M to carry out the work.

Only way it will ever be paid off is if there is a dramatic reduction in
maintenance.




.......   Phil

Total savings is claimed at $2.8M pa, so if electricity saving is $1M
pa, the maintenance reduction is approx $1.8M pa. This hardly makes the
electricity saving *MINISCULE* compared to the maintenance costs, and
this is only for about 30% of the traffic lights, not *EVERY* light.

Got any figures to back up your claims Phil, or are they just something
you pulled out your ass?

David

 "David the Anonymous Fool" "




** $114 per hour is a  MINISCULE  amount for a body like the RTA.

    Get real anytime  -   you PITA  fuckwit.






** Sure -  the interest on the $18M loan exceeds the puny energy saving.

The maintenance cost saving due to long LED lamp life is the ONLY thing the
makes the deal potentially viable.

So  IS the only economic reason for going ahead.

PR bollocks does not count.




........  Phil

Neither does your unsubstantiated ravings.

I guess providing actual figures is a bit beyond your ability.

Without the $1M pa energy savings, the maintenance cost savings would
only just meet the cost of the loan, thus the energy savings are the
ONLY thing that makes the deal viable.

David

In fact BOTH the energy AND maintenance savings COMBINED make the deal
slightly better than marginal, BUT only assuming the predicted savings
actually EVENTUATE.

From past experience of government predictions, this is highly UNLIKELY. You
will almost certainly find the savings are not as great as expected, and the
replacement costs (parts and labor) are greater than expected. Still, if
nothing else it should provide some extra employment.

MrT.

"Mr.T"



** The whole thing is a blatant PR exercise ( aren't we so green !! ) for
the NSW Govt.

Bet the RTA had no intention of doing it until the $18M loan was offered by
the NSW Treasury.

BTW

I expect the LEDS are highly reliable plus there is lots of redundancy
anyway  -   but how about the SMPS used to power them running  24/7 in all
conditions ?

Could be out of the frying pan and into the fire with long term reliability
there.



.......   Phil