In article ,
dpb wrote:

[[.. sneck ..]]

Interesting that Lew would point this out in a followup post that a
higher-cost bulb pays for itself even at lower power cost but can't help
but try to make a putdown to the logic of using a 130V to obtain the
same benefit.

Substituting a standard 130V bulb for a standard 120V one probably does *NOT*
pay for itself -- *IF* you need the same light output as the 120V bulb gives.

Running a bulb at lower than the 'rated' voltage, _does_ extend the life of
the bulb, *BUT* the quantity of light output (the 'lumens') goes down even
_faster_ than the savings in electricity. Thus the 'cost per lumen' of the
eletricity is _higher_ usuwing the 130V bulb at 120v, vs the 120v bulb.

It is also a fact that the cost of electricity over the life of the bulb
swamps the cost of the bulb itself.

That said, there are "much more efficient" technologies for lighting than
'incandescent', e.g. 'halogen'. These technologies have a _much_ higher
lumen output _per_watt_of_power_consumed_ than conventional incandescents.
Thus, you can get the same _light_ output, for far less power consumed.
Amortized over the rated life of the bulb, the power savings _greatly_
exceed the cost of the 'high-priced' bulb required to achieve the savings.o

Running the _same_ technology (incandescent) in a down-graded form (130V bulb
at 120V) does *not* achieve these savings. In fact, because the bulb is being
operated in a 'less than optimum' (relative to _design_ criteria) manner, the
cost _per_lumen_output_ is higher than the optimal operation.