On Apr 11, 7:56*am, Tegger wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote innews:WdKdnTo7lvI3M1zWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@earthlink. com:





"GE says the new bulb uses just 9 watts and provides a 77% energy
savings while lasting 25 times as long as the 40-watt bulb it's
intended to replace."

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...b-lasts-years/

Assume a 40-watt bulb lasts 1000 hours.

40w x 1000 = 40 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $6.00 operating cost over life of
bulb.

The new bulb uses 9 watts. So for the same period,

9w x 1000 = 9 kwh x $0.15/kwh = $1.35 operating cost.

And the difference in purchase price between the two bulbs?

My problem with the CFLs is that the amounts of money they save, over the
time they save it, are exceedingly trivial. Not worth it, to me. It's not
worth it to most consumers either, which is why the bulb industry nas to
lobby the government to ban incandescents in order to create a market for
their CFLs.

--
Tegger- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The money a Cfl saves over an incandesant is 75%++ in electricity
consumed. I pay near .50c a cfl bulb of warm white 2700k, with a 9 yr
warranty from HD. Cfls are Prime Time and in all commercial buildings
I work work and visit.