On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:11:00 +0000 (UTC), (Don Klipstein)
wrote:

In , zzz wrote:
On 24 Apr 2010 06:02:19 +0 UTC, (Don Klipstein) wrote:

In ,
keith wrote:

On Apr 23, 2:35*pm, ransley wrote:
On Apr 23, 7:19*am, Tegger wrote:

ransley wrote in news:
:

On Apr 20, 5:25*pm, Tegger wrote:

I am happy to leave CFLs on the store shelf for others to buy.

Tegger

And you are so blissfully happy paying 75% more for electricity for
a apliance that outputs near 95% of its energy consumed as heat.

Yep. Because in actual dollar terms, that 75% is a trivial amount of
money.

Run 11-100 w incandesants

Most of our incandescents are 40 and 60 watt. We do have a couple of
Tri-lites that go up to 150, but they're normally on at the 100W
setting.

and be happy knowing you AC this summer has to
remove that extra 1000w of heat

Well, that's part of the point. Generally speaking, when I need my
bulbs, the A/C is off. When I need my A/C, the bulbs are off.

Moreover, in the winter, when the need for the bulbs is greatest, the
heat from the bulbs reduces the need for the furnace, so my gas bill is
lower.

And we follow the ancient (and apparently forgotten) precept of turning
the lights off when we leave a room, so there are few bulbs left on
regularly. With incandescents, I can do that. Snap, it's on. Snap, it's
off. No waiting.

CR and Popular Mechanics Mag did
reviews and dont agree with your happiness on color rendition of life
expectancy.

I see threads in this groups with comaplints about color unless you buy
/just/ the right kind of bulb. And being in people's homes with CFLs, I
have to disagree with CR. Also, CR is hard left-wing and as religiously
"green" as they come, so their judgements are unlikely to be bias-free.

With HDs 9 yr warranty my HD soft whites will be free
forever , be happy, stay ignorant.

Except that you had to pay ten times the cost of incandescents to get
that 9-year warranty...

Every building ive covnverted to cfls the electric bill dropped
50-60%,

Cool! They save money on my heat pump, water heater, and oven, too!
Hows that work?

IOW, you're a liar.

CFLs replacing incandescents save on net energy costs, even when heat
pumps, water heaters, and ovens are included.

Insignificant.

My experience suggests otherwise, especially considering ROI.

You think a nickel is significant. I don't.

Heat pumps deliver around twice as much heating from a given amount of
electricity consumption as resistive heaters do, since about half the
heat that heat pumps put out is pumped in from outside rather than heat
from converting electrical energy to heat energy.

Duh! You have a command of the obvious, anyway.

Since incandescent household lighting has very little of its heat
heating the water in water heaters or the contents of ovens, I am prone
to take a dim view of those advocating incandescents over CFL on the heat
of incandescent home lighting being good for water heaters and ovens.

Either you aren't reading or your biases are making you blind. No one is
advocating incandescent bulbs because they save electricity. CFLs are ugly,
the light is ugly, are slow to start, can't be used in many fixtures, and are
expensive, no matter what "ransley" says.

My personal experience is ratio of cost of bulbs to life expectancy
achieved in my experience hardly above that of incandescents - and add to
that the electricity cost savings - ROI gets impressive.

Nonsense. You're looking for your green fix. I'd rather not have (green) CFL
light. It makes no sense.

CFLs are not
ugly to me, and I can easily enough get ones whose light is not ugly.

I've not seen one. I tried a bunch and *all* had issues, from green or blue
casts, to *slow* starts (to the point that they were always off before they
got to full brightness). ...and they're *UGLY*.

(That part has gotten easier in recent years.) Every CFL I used in the
past 3 years took anywhere from zero time to 1.5 seconds to start, with
most taking less than half a second.

I've never had one light in five *minutes*.

I know which ones are worse at
starting dim and needing time to warm up, and which ones are not -
unlike opponents of energy efficiency. (CFLs with "outer bulbs" over
the fluorescent tubing have a very high tendency to start dim and need to
warm up - often mentioned as being useful in bathrooms.)

Never had one with an outer bulb. ...I don't think.

I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who
would not love a 50% reduction. *The heat is generated, you put it in,
whether or not the bulb is off, but who only runs the AC when no
lights are on, kinda like torchure isnt it! *I bet you never did a
cost comparison of BTUs from Ng to electric because for most all the
US electric is easily now double the cost of gas, you never thought
why electric furnaces and boilers dont sell in your area did you. And
at 1.85 for a 4 pack of cfls, well you just again prove you dont know
any facts you speak of.

I repeat, you need to learn to *think*.

As if CFL advocates don't in light of the above?

Right. With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating
season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club.

That means using energy-efficient lighting has its net energy cost
savings merely halved on the few cold days outside heating season like the
case of most days in heating season?

No, that wasn't what I meant and you know it. Heat pumps are used for more
than heat.

It's not halved for a "few cold days". We heat about the same number of days
as we air condition (AC a little less $$). Heat pumps don't have double the
(effective) efficiency as resistive heat at all temperatures. They get down
to 1:1 at around 30F, and then switch to resistive heat. It's *not* as cut
and dried as you pretend.

As if outside "heating season", the
heat from lower-energy-efficiency lighting is something that one would
want to pay for, and even pay in addition for removal of such heat from
one's home?

Outside the heating season it's naturally lighter outside. It is *not*
symmetrical.