Fluo-compacts test on "Que Choisir"

[oby]

Hello,

as I told you in another thread, compact fluorescent bulbs are currently not THE solution as many organizations claim.
In fact, the only studies shown are carried out by non-specialized organizations (UFC type, independent organizations, etc.).


Sincerely,

[I Citro]

as I told you in another thread, compact fluorescent bulbs are currently not THE solution as many organizations claim.
In fact, the only studies shown are carried out by non-specialized organizations (UFC type, independent organizations, etc.).

I don't see where you're coming from.
These "non-specialized" organizations are independent, this is already important, even if their tests do not control all the parameters (but who really controls them).

- Standard incandescent bulbs are disappearing from the market and are clearly no longer a solution.
- Halogen bulbs replace them in some cases with 20 to 30% energy savings but an incandescent bulb longevity.
- Compact fluorescent bulbs are becoming widespread with great disparities in quality and price.
- Technically more efficient LEDs are not yet available in efficient and competitive formats.

From my point of view, LED technology deserves new lighting formats without sockets because of increased longevity and especially "flat" lighting formats in line with the technology ...

Finally, the future in terms of lighting certainly has some nice surprises in store for us (OLED panels, electroluminescent paints, etc.).

To conclude, compact fluorescents are not THE solution, but an acceptable transitional solution while waiting for new technologies, and especially new formats, to reach maturity.

[oby]

We totally agree. I think that the future is a medium voltage network dedicated to lighting (to avoid the presence of transformer in each bulb ...). That said, at least in terms of energy expenditure in manufacturing / recycling, the conventional bulb was the best (with halogens). This is why: before seeing how much CO² the bulbs they put on us cost, we will not be able to comment on their real energy saving / pollution.

[I Citro]

We totally agree. I think that the future is a medium voltage network dedicated to lighting (to avoid the presence of transformer in each bulb ...).

You are referring to a low voltage 12V DC network to power LEDs.
If this is the case, I also asked myself the question and its relevance does not seem obvious to me ...
In low voltage and direct current, the losses of this mini network will be greater.

I had thought of it for supplying the lighting circuit with renewable energies (solar + wind).

I have LED lights supplied directly with 230V AC without transformer (just a filter capacitor).

[oby]

Hello,
yes the losses are greater, this is why the network must be as small as possible, therefore managed IN the house. With a good network with little resistance I think it will remain profitable.

[Macro]

I bought my house in 2003 .... I'm already at the 4th set of 1st price CFL bulbs in the basement. That of the stay is there since the 1st day (a phillips) on the 3 megaman spirals installed in the room of the big one in 2006 one slammed last year the two others work out time ...

A yes in the basement 1st price bulb (a lot of 4 at the queen merline at 9 € 90) ... They take 15 minutes to be full power ... Very often we are out for a long time ... What makes that moms prick my headlamp to get my pinard from the cellar ... It costs more in stacks ...

[Did67]

the moms prick my headlamp to go get my pinard in the cellar ..

What about someone who knows Reiser?

[Did67]

If this is the case, I also asked myself the question and its relevance does not seem obvious to me ...: |
In low voltage and direct current, the losses of this mini network will be greater.

Should be calculated, right ??? Because the intensities are also low, given the power consumed ...

There's always W = RI²t (where Sarkozy reformed this too?).

If we use the same wiring:

Unchanged

60 W conventional / 220: factor = 0,074
12 W compact fluorescent / 220; factor = 0,003
3 W LED / 12 V; factor = 0,0625

(I calculated I then I²; R and t being the same, the line losses will be proportional to the "factors" indicated).

So compact fluorescent in the lead, 2nd LED and classic bulb last ... These last two, same orders of magnitude. Obviously should be brought back to the lumen products to decide!

[oby]

Hello,

if you take into account the yields of the lamps mentioned in your post, the LEDs pass in front.

Sincerely,

[Gaston]

60 W conventional / 220: factor = 0,074
12 W compact fluorescent / 220; factor = 0,003
3 W LED / 12 V; factor = 0,0625

Obviously should be brought back to the lumen products to decide!

If we take "current" values:
classic: 10 lumens / W
compact fluorescent: 50 lumens / W
LED: 100 lumens / W

The three bulbs above would therefore produce respectively: 600, 600 and 300 lumens.

We can redo the calculation with the same number of lumens (600), we get:
60W classic: factor 0,074
12W compact fluorescent: factor = 0,003
2 * 3W LED 12V: factor = 0,25
2 * 3W LED 220V: factor 0.0007

if you take into account the yields of the lamps mentioned in your post, the LEDs pass in front.

The loss in power cables LEDs in 12V are well three times higher than those of a traditional bulb in 220V producing the same lighting (and 350 times more than the same LEDs in 220V).

That said, the losses in the cables are very low in absolute value and almost negligible compared to the consumption of the lights themselves ...
It is therefore profitable to use LEDs (even at 12V) rather than conventional bulbs.

The question of whether it is better to use a 12V or 220V network to power LEDs should be examined more generally, and not only on the aspect of losses.
I think for example that 12V LEDs should have a longer lifespan given the absence of the integrated power supply (which, moreover, produces harmful heat for LEDs).
They are also (slightly) cheaper ...