On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:06:41 -0500, "
wrote:


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.

All the units that are not either "U" tube or "twisties" have an outer
bulb. I've got some "fat alberts" and some that look like normal
bulbs, and some PAR reflectors and they all take a LONG time to come
to full brighness - none of these) have lasted 2 years and most cost
me well over $3 - the PARS were $9 and change - and never seen a 9
year warranty. The current crop of 14 watt Phillips "fat alberts" cost
me $8 each in 3 pack - and are already taking twice as long to come up
to brightness than they did when they were bought in November of 2009.
The PAR at the bottom of my stairway is a 15 watt sylvania installed
in August 2009 and takes at least 5 minutes to warm up. It is the 4th
or 5th installed in that location over the last 3 years. At least 2
lasted less than 3 months - and one lasted about 15 seconds.The
incandescents always lasted over 3 years. We've been in this house 28
years - and I think I replaced that bulb 3? times before I started
putting in CFLs to satisfy my "thrifty" wife.

I guess you have money to burn because I know of no one who
would not love a 50% reduction. Â*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! Â*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.

Up here we heat from about Canadian Thanksgiving 'till May 24 on an
average year. - That's 7 months. Last summer the AC ran for about a
week. Heating is an absolute necessity - AC is an option.

Friends with ground source heat pumps this past winter only had a few
days at a time where back-up heat was required. for more than an hour
or two - during our deep freeze that got down below zero F.
Air sourced heat pumps don't do well up here - and you don't see a lot
of them any more.

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.