On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

So a new HEI 70 watt incandesant = 100w in conventional incandesant
output, a 25w cfl = 100w in conventional incandesant output, there is
still no comparison in savings, And new models of CFLs out now do 70+
LPW, vs 60-65 LPW of what we see now in most stores. An incandesant
bulb is esentialy a heater outputting light in limited visable
spectrum. A 100 watt incandesant outputs no more than 4-8% of its
consumed energy in light we see and benefit from, the rest is in heat.
In winter its not so bad, you get a big benefit of extra heat, in
summer, incandesants even HEI, are a big load on your AC bill. Now if
for most of the US electric costs were as cheap as Ng per Btu it would
not be so bad, but for me electricity is still much more expensive per
BTU than NG and my company is raising it again. Electricity costs will
be above fossil fuels cost, since most electricity is made from them.
And at what true cost in hours life does this HEI give? All higher
output bulbs Ive seen last less in hours, from Thinner filaments. We
should Tax the incandesant and rebate the CFL. Think what you will pay
extra this summer for AC cooling your home, to offset the lightbulbs
heating your house this summer. You will complain about those high AC
bills near to come, and they are for me to. 10 regular 100 watt
incandesants will be dumping at least 920 watts of heat inside, heat
you then pay to remove, how smart we are.

Hi Mark,

I never suggested HEI lamps are technically superior to CFLs or a more
economical alternative, although there are no doubt applications where
they could prove to be a better choice.

The claim was made that incandescent lamps will be banned and I
pointed out that's not the case. As I stated in my original post,
there are incandescent lamps available now that meet these new minimum
standards, so anyone who wants to use an incandescent light source can
continue to do so, if that is indeed their preference.

Cheers,
Paul