ransley wrote:

On Apr 19, 4:59 pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
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- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The minimums are a total joke, Bush BS, they do Nada, Nothing, to
help reduce US consumption of energy. Taxing Incandesant now, and
Rebate Cfls would help Now

. Isnt it interesting Germany may be 30% solar in 15 years, or Iceland
be fossil fuel free, and the US will be ****ed by the Mid East and our
greed. Even England bans non condensing heating units, thats a 10%
savings in heating, we do NOTHING, in the US nada. What BS we US folks
are.

Iceland is blessed with an abundant supply of readily available geo thermal
energy right from the ground. They use it extensively for electricity
generation and direct heating of buildings. It is also a country of only
350,000 people so its energy needs are significantly different than say, the
United States.

The United States *could* be making most of its electricity from nuclear (as
France now does), but has chosen not to. Instead more and more US
electricity is coming from Natural Gas, which consumes an important resource
that can be used for other uses (including heating, vehicles, making liquid
fuel, etc.). Unlike the rest of the world, the US does not separate its
nuclear waste, so the entire fuel bundle (plus the entire reactor when
replaced) are treated as one package to toss away...somewhere. The rest of
the world separates the various items, including the most radioactive
isotopes (which stay hot for hundreds of years) from the less radioactive
(but still dangerous) isotopes that stay "hot" for tens of thousands of
years, from the much lower radioactive fuel assemblies, etc.

By the way, France has one of the lowest per capita oil consumption of modern
developed countries, makes about 82% of its electricity from nuclear, with
most of the balance coming from hydroelectric. Wind power production is also
increasing. France is now developing and building its third generation of
reactors, which will be more efficient than ever. The second generation came
from the (former) United States's Westinghouse Company, before the US all but
through in the towel in researching/building nuclear electricity generation.

The national energy strategy for the United States could look radically
different, but public policy for decades has set stage for the current mess,
and it will continue to get much worse.