On Nov 16, 7:10*pm, "Tomsic" wrote:
"BobR" wrote in message

...
On Nov 16, 2:03 pm, "Tomsic" wrote:





"BobR" wrote in message

....
On Nov 15, 9:17 pm, "Tomsic" wrote:

wrote in message

.. .

On Tue, 15 Nov 2011 18:47:20 -0500, "Tomsic" wrote:

100 light bulbs would last me the rest of my life. Lighting is not a
significant part of my energy usage. We have task lighting where we
need it and motion detected lighting when we are walking around.
Most
of the time the house is pretty dark.

Lighting is about 12% of a home's energy use, so it doesn't stand out
on
the
electric bill. But, as we've seen, energy prices are rising and that's
not
likely to change anytime soon. So, those stocks of 100 watt bulbs get
increasingly expensive to operate every time one is put into a socket.
Already, in most places, it's cheaper to toss them than to use them..

I might believe that 12% number for those house that you can see from
space at night. It sounds awful high for my house.
I don't really have any 100 watt bulbs here. I do have CFLs where they
make sense but sometimes I just want an incandescent.

It's a number that I saw on the EPA Lighting web site, but I've seen
10-15%
other places. It depends a lot on where the house is located since the
biggest user of energy in homes is heating/cooling.
Incandescent bulbs have a quality of light that can't be matched (so
far)
with any energy-efficient alternatives. For certain kinds of lighting,
there's nothing better. I use them too, but energy efficiency is a
consideration -- from a cost standpoint if nothing else. There's some
new
halogen/incandescent technology coming out early next year in standard
bulbs
which doubles the lumens/watt from 15 to 30. I want some of those.

Tomsic- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Well, if the EPA says it is so then it is the gospel truth and you
better believe it.
I think I am going to puke on that statement.

It would have been nice of you to consider the full statement. EPA's
number
was only one of several estimates that I saw -- all in the same 10-15%
range, so the EPA is probably right. Yes, I get it that you don't like the
EPA, but why turn every statement that refers to the EPA, even when
correct,
into a biased political rant?

Tomsic
The EPA was the only site that you quoted while making vague
references to others. *My first question to each would be who paid for
the study? *Its been my experience that most of the studies have a
predetermined figure that they then go out and find support to justify
while ignoring everthing else.

Good comment. *But there's not much incentive to fake such a number as home
energy use by category since it's so easy to check. *Lots of data come from
the California Energy Commission (it's paid for by the CA ratepayers on
their utility bills). *It's all on line for anyone to look at and critique.
In other areas, utilities, energy offices and environmental advocates do
studies. *Sure, consultants do some of the work - but there are good
consultants. *The DOE did a massive lighting energy use report in 2002.
It's being updated, but still a good reference for such things. *It's on
line hehttp://www.cee1.org/eval/db_pdf_es/275es.pdf

Tomsic-

Quite the contrary, how much of an inroad to the lighting market do
you believe the CFL's would have made if not for these studies and the
resulting big nanny government mandate on incadecent bulbs?
Seriously, you want to quote anything that comes out of the biggest
nanny state in the country...California or the DOE, a department
established Carter to end our dependence on foreign oil?

I hate to Ass-U-Me anything but assuming that the studies are correct
does that justify the government throwing out the millions of dollars
that manufacturers have invested in manufacturing facilities to make
good quality and inexpensive lighting products in favor of new,
unproven and very expensive alternatives that may or may not prove
better over the long haul. Has the governments actions been to the
consumer's benefit or has their passing laws that favor one product at
the expense of another guaranteed the consumer will pay far higher
prices for the CFL's that might have occured if they had to actually
compete for market share?