On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 05:02:10 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , z... wrote:
On 24 Apr 2010 15:36:32 +0 (UTC), Tegger wrote:

ransley wrote in
:


snip


Dam what kind of Dumb ****s you and teger are, totaly stupid
ingnoramuses. FACT, 94-96 % of the power consumed by incandesants is
output as HEAT, not light you see or use.



But, as I keep pointing out (very politely, mind you), the primary problem
is that the /dollar values/ in question are very small, regardless of what
the percentages are.

That is the only percentage that matters. Ransley is a liar with his 50%
*overall* savings with the only change being CFLs.

SNIP from here toedit for space

Do you claim that no home can have its electric bill halved by switching
from incandescents to CFLs?

Pretty much. If *all* he had were electric lights, no refrigerators, no
electric water heater, no stove, no clothes dryer, no dish washer, no AC, only
electric lights, perhaps. He would still have the "billing" (flat) rate to
deal with. In any case it's a trivial amount. For most, more can be saved by
turning the damned things off (which CFLs make problematic).

If the heat is not electric (fairly common) and A/C is not used at all
or only extremely sparingly (less common but I have done that and lived
through that in non-A/C households), and no electric dryer is used (gas
one or clotheslines used instead), then it appears to me that halving
a household's electric bill by replacing incandescents with CFLs is
fairly easy to do.

It's *STILL* a trivial savings, if at all.

I am aware that for a USA national average, only 9% of residential
electricity use is for lighting. That means 6.375% reduction if the
residential lighting is all replaced by lighting 4x as efficient as
before.

You'r assuming that *all* lighting is now incandescent and can be replaced by
CFL. Silly.

But the national average does include electric home heating
being done disproportionately where eectricity cost is less than the
national average, so for national average cost savings of quadrupling
efficiency of the lighting I expect more than 6.375%. I expect much
less than 50% for USA national average, but that some households can
achieve 50% reduction of electric bill by doing nothing but replacing
the lighting with more efficient lighting.

Handwaving nonsense.

Reducing electricity consumption by home lighting can easily pay off
in areas where residential electricity cost is more than USA's national
average, such as in the metro areas of NYC, Chicago and Philadelphia.
It appears to me that ratepayers in those areas have been hard-hit by
interest payments on corporate bonds issued by electric companies
building nuclear power plants whose construction progress was delayed
by anti-nukers through a time of historically high interest rates.

Ok, so let the anti-nukers and other watermelons live in mud huts (in camps,
where they won't do any more harm), where they belong.