On Apr 29, 7:53*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article
,

wrote:
having consumers buy and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

Why the urge to get[ing] CFLs adopted?

As a nation, we couldn't make the most obvious, most important
switch-over (metric), but we can sure shoot ourselves in the foot and
MANDATE a phase-out of the perfectly good, viable, affordable,
world-wide-user-based, CHEAP light bulb!!

Congress passed an "Energy" bill.

My President SIGNED the damned thing.

...to phase-out the cheap light bulb.

[muttering] Brilliant. *Just flat-out BRILLIANT!! *

Do you REALLY think the manufacturing and retail businesses are pushing
CFLs because of some etherial, warm and fuzzy, environmentalism
awareness?

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.

I saw the most amazing thing on the employee rag at Wal-Mart: *A store
rooftop completely covered with solar panels; *Except those numerous
locations occupied by a large sky light. *And HUGE air conditioners
popping-up around the roof.

Just ONE of those air conditioners will consume more energy in one WEEK
than ALL the solar collectors accumulate in a month of Sundays.

What about the footprint of the battery and equipment to STORE the
power, the equipment to invert the DC to usable AC, and the arrangements
and efforts to get that collected power to ONE of the break room
refrigerator or some SIMILAR SINGLE device?

Don't get me wrong: *I support the development of so-called ALTERNATIVE
energy. *I am sure I am paying for it now in many ways.

Until that "breakthrough" discovery" we've all been waiting for (a
viable replacement for oil and wired electricity) we should NOT mandate
a conversion to alternate energy and technologies (illumination) based
on CO$T alone.
--
* * * * * *
JR

Its the ignorant guys like you that make advaces in life BS , a bunck
of **** heads