DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Redelfs

In article ,
wrote:

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps provide a higher profit
margin since they CO$T more.

Negated by the much longer service life.

The average service life of the average Compact Fluorescent Lamp is
nowhere near that claimed of the manufacturers. Makers are including a
multi-year guarantee in confidence that most owners of prematurely
failed lamps will not have the documentation required to avail
themselves of the warranty coverage or will simply not bother.

The industry is WAY too young to state, unequivocally, that CFLs are
superior to incandescent.

Without legislative strong-arm enactments, the 50-cent, incandescent
light bulb would never be replaced by another technology.

Those big stores have no windows to open. They HAVE to have
airconditioning to be habitable. Just because those solar panels
aren't a complete solution doesn't mean they are not a significant
improvement.

If CO$T is no concern, I can't argue with you.

Since CO$T is EVERYTHING in the real world, I will cheerfully argue with
you.

Given the current state of photovoltaic technology, the system I
mentioned would become unusable due to age or functional obsolescence
WELL before it ever paid for itself. It's just a "feel good", GREEN
thing to do. It makes for a good, feature photo, too.

Meanwhile, the gigantic Mall of America, depite it's location in
Minnesota, does not need boilers to heat it in the winter. All heat is
supplied by passive solar and human body heat. That's because it was
engineered that way from the ground up.

I was born in Minnesota. There is NO WAY in hades that passive solar
and body heat is the ONLY source of heat there. I'm not calling you a
liar, because I am quite sure you believe what you claimed. I will not
believe it until I research the claim beginning with a cite by you.

Perhaps you overlooked a geothermal system?

Feed the World (Again)

Ethanol Must Die.
--

JR