All of us here have a certain attraction for traditional stuff but unfortunately we often fail to rightly discern the difference between the traditional ways that are good and the ways that are best left in the past. We look for ways to make more money while not getting good value with what we have.
Few people are into life cycle accounting/costing. When comparing alternative purchases, do you really compare bottom lines or just initial cost? Many people make the error of thinking the cheapest product that meets their minimum needs is the "smart buy." Could be but often isn't.
Lifecycle cost includes: initial cost + cost to maintain over its useful life + operating cost + "well you get the idea." Lets take a simple illustrative example, choosing between two competing styles of light bulb for a table lamp.
Lets look at the real price of lighting. One type of lamp is a traditional tungsten filament incandescent lamp and another is a CFL (Compact Fluorescent Lamp.)
Initial costs (without labor): The incandescent costs say $1.00 and it takes 10 of them to last as long as a CFL so that is $10.
Lets say the CFL costs $15. Using the same cost per kilowatt for both lamps... each incandescent uses $8 worth of electricity over its life so that is $80 worth of electricity. So for incandescent you have $80 + $10 = $90. That is $90 to supply bulbs and electricity to give light equal to just one CFL but what is the total cost of buying and operating the CFL?
It cost $15 and uses $21.60 in electricity over its life so that is $36.60 so clearly it is the SMART CHOICE. You save $68.40 over the life of the CFL compared to using the traditional incandescent. Any incandescent light that gets 3 or more hours run time a day on average is a good candidate for replacement with a CFL in most cases.
This same approach is good for many purchase decisions. On the surface of the issue, when you are at Wally world to pick up a light bulb, you see the bulb you want for $1.00 so why would you pay $15??? Because it makes you a net profit of $68.40 and that is a good thing. How many of us would have saved $14? Buy the dollar bulb instead of the 15 dollar bulb and save 14 dollars???????? Many of us "SAVE" money making the same sort of decisions, over and over again, thinking if it does the job and is cheaper so it is the best choice.
Life cycle cost analysis should be a standard tool in your finance toolbox. You don't want to be stepping over the dollars in your haste to pick up the dimes!
Note: The prices of bulbs in the example above were fictitious but reasonable. If you do the math using actual lamp costs and electrical rates in your area, you will get similar results. I know of few incandescent lamp usages in the 15 to 100 watt range that if used on average of 3 or more hours a day couldn't be advantageoulsy replaced by a CFL except in certain extreme applications. Extreme applications are such things as as oven lights. CFL don't put out much waste heat and so are poor for incubators. There are now CFL that work good in the cold but you have to check the specs.
[img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] Pat [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]
Reply With Quote
