DIYbanter - View Single Post

Nate Nagel

wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

you have to figure out the break-even point for yourself of doing
something like that. More fuel efficient cars are often touted as a
necessity (our own Congress seems to agree with that) but if you figure
in the energy cost of making a new car, you'd still have to drive your
new car quite a few miles a year for many years to realize a "savings"
over just maintaining your old one.

Economic considerations often (but not always) lead you to the same
conclusions as considering energy use.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel