Sorry, George76, but this article is the biggest pile of bullshit I have ever seen posted on FR. It has more errors that a Swiss cheese has holes. Whoever wrote it is a scientific illiterate.
A major problem for me is my pool pump network of pipes. My pool must run year round for 12 hours a day. At temperatures below freezing the pump turns on continuously to prevent freezing. We lose power a lot and my generator only powers the 120Volt circuits. I keep a 60 Watt incandescent bulb inside the exposed pipes and filter box. It turns on automatically when utility power is lost. That 60 watt bulb is enough heat to keep my pump, heat pump, and pipes from freezing up solid and breaking. Space heaters draw too much current and are a fire hazard unattended. I need that heat from the incandescent bulb!
You completely failed to understand the article. It wasn’t on science, it was on economics. The argument is basically it doesn’t matter if LED bulbs are physically “more efficient” in terms of watts. If people prefer incandescent lighting regardless of LED’s using less electricity, then LEDs are LESS economically efficient. Economics is the social science of economic value as decided by the preferences of human beings, not by measurement of wattage or even dollar cost. He also addressed the fact that LED bulbs are so expensive and fail sometimes that even the dollar savings aren’t as large as advertised.
These are economic, not physics arguments. The cure for your economic illiteracy might start with reading Mises.
“Sorry, George76, but this article is the biggest pile of bullshit I have ever seen posted on FR.”
The color of the light is annoying if you have 2 lamps in the same room with different color (one very white, the other more yellowish which is what incandescent bulbs put out). But if you buy the same bulbs it doesn’t bother me that LEDs are less yellow. And I have only changed 1 bulb in the last 6 months out of probably 50.