Comments on: Light and Darkness, Part II http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=light-and-darkness-part-ii EPA's Blog About Our World Fri, 17 May 2013 15:29:28 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: puns http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-55770 puns Sat, 30 Mar 2013 08:50:01 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=17727#comment-55770 Dear Amy, this was another excellent post from you!
I too encounter this question of yours many times “How much does it cost to light up a house like Fenway Park?”
It hurts me like a razor wire does…

]]> By: Systech http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-55132 Systech Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:27:02 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=17727#comment-55132 Right,Good to see these useful info here..Thanks a lot for sharing them with us….

]]> By: Amy http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-54777 Amy Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:37:33 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=17727#comment-54777 To Wade.. according to manufacturers, LED lights use 90 percent less energy than incandescent bulbs, so you would save $8.64 a year at current energy prices.

]]> By: Mike @ luminoworld.com http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-54699 Mike @ luminoworld.com Thu, 17 Jan 2013 10:16:34 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=17727#comment-54699 I like LED ropes very much for outside decoration. They are safe, waterproof and energy saving. I think they are much more handy than typical light bulbs – I wouldn’t use even LED light bulbs for decorations, because it is difficult to avoid problems with high humidity.
Anyway, I still cannot understand the use of fluorescent lamps – they contain mercury – the most toxic element for living beings. One thing is to talk about saving energy, but the we still have to keep in mind how the lamp would be recycled.

To Wade: I would say that it is worth to contribute a little to reducing the energy demands. It might not be completly economical, but if everybody does the same good thing, it may result in global changes.

Regards,
Mike.

]]> By: wade http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-54442 wade Wed, 02 Jan 2013 19:55:31 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=17727#comment-54442 I just yesterday (as for the past 50 or so years) removed my Christmas lights from the house and yard. I have some 800 “old fashion incandescent” bulbs, some of which have faded over the past 15 or so years they have given me light. I burn them 8 hrs/day, 15 days/yr @ 1.0 watt/bulb which makes a power plant produce 96,000 watt hours of electricity. Fortunate to live in the South where power is less than $0.10 per killowatt hr, this cost me $9.60/yr. Please help me justify replacing with LED’s.

]]> By: Jim http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2012/12/light-and-darkness-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-54381 Jim Fri, 28 Dec 2012 16:59:53 +0000 http://blog.epa.gov/blog/?p=17727#comment-54381 I don’t think most people would view something that has to “creep up on them” as beneficial.

]]>