Christian McArdle wrote:
The fact that electricity bills (here) are something like 1/10th of the
oil bill needed to heat the place, shows that bulbs are not the biggest
source of carbon dioxide pollution in the average house. The fact that the
CFL's cost about ten times what the ordinary bulb does indicates SOMETHING
about its energy of manufacture, too.

I can assue you that you don't have the average house.


Indeed I do not, but I do think before you sharpen that axe some more,
you should at least do the sums on your own house.

Lighting is probably the least of my domestic expenditures of the
electrical flavour. I would say that fridges and freezers run to more
than that.


And the other 'permanently on' stuff is not insignificant either..PABX,
router, printers, TV head amp, etc...


I do use CFLS where I can, more because they last longer though, and
cost less to buy when amortized over the life span.

Energy of manufacture of bulbs is tiny compared with the energy they emit
during their lifetimes, but you are right to indicate that this should
always be included in any comparison. Although not affecting the bottom line
in bulb comparisons, they because very significant in comparing electric and
hybrid cars, which do not cut the mustard, IMO.


Well I won;t disagree there.

However I still think that the largest single places to tackle domestic
energy expenditure are heating and the domestic car.

Here those two together can amount to a shatteringly high figure.

We simply don't drive when we can shop online...and try to modulate
heating..which leads me to another post I am about to make.


Christian.