On Nov 17, 11:00*am, wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2011 07:46:51 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:
On Nov 16, 7:10*pm, "Tomsic" wrote:
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?
CFLs started selling because they got cheap enough for the numbers to
look reasonable. If they are three times more efficient (using Harry's
number) a 60w equivalent bulb saves you *about .67 cents an hour at a
15 cent a kwh rate (about as high as it gets in the US, some places
are less than a dime). If the bulb costs 5 bucks you break even at
around 1000 hours.
Well, since my kwh rate is just a little over half that the payout has
been a lot longer in useful hours and none of the bulbs has lasted
that long anyway.
Since CFLs draw a lot more current when you turn
them on this may not really work out that well and if the bulb is
cycling a lot and it won't last as long.
You sure have that right.
CFLs also have a problem being mounted base up, particularly in a
recessed can.
I only have three lamps that are in use with upward mounted bulbs.
The house uses recessed lighting throughout and the CFL's don't last
nearly as long as advertised.
LEDs are an interesting product without he mercury problem but they
still have the early end of life problem that plagued CFLs when they
were new.
They still do as far as I can determine.
Some of this can be blamed on power line surge problems. Harry
probably does not see as many thunderstorms as we have in Florida. I
know the UK people who come here in the summer are usually hiding
under the bed the first time they are in one of those summer squalls
with a couple of "flash/bang" lightning strikes a minute for a half
hour or so. They think the bloody bosch are bombing them again.
That sure paints a very funny picture in the mind. Same holds for
here in Texas where the tornado sirens help things along.
My neighbor lived here for 20 years and never really got used to it.
Not only used to them but in my own warped insane way, I enjoy them.
The power of nature is something to watch, not fear.
If you don't have extensive surge protection lots of stuff gets blown
up, including your CFLs.
Been lucky on that point thus far...knock on wood.