Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



  #2   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



What a stupid suggestion. Please do not have children.


  #3   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
Abe Abe is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.

It's not an either/or thing. Plus, microwave/convection ovens don't
cook meats well, in my opinion.
  #4   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,270
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.

On the other hand, a microwave doesn't work well for cooking many foods
(baking a cake, making cookies, etc.). And upgrading to a convection oven
means hundreds of dollars (and I don't think a convection uses any less
electricity, it just cooks faster and more evenly). Either option would
mean a major change in behavior for the average consumer.

Our local electric utility has charts of most household appliances and
their average monthly costs (All one line, watch the line-wrap):


http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/.../appliances/co
stOfUse

It's interesting reading, but you have to factor your own usage patterns
into the equation. If you do a lot of baking, the electric usage of your
oven is going to be much more significant than it is for a person who
rarely uses their oven. We probably use our oven less than 5 hours a
month, so it's not a big part of our total electrical consumption.

Finally, in many areas, people use gas for their cooking and heating
needs. So, based on the overall population, the electric use of an oven
probably isn't as significant as lighting, which is electrically operated
for all homes (I don't think many people use gas lights or candles as
their primary lighting source these days?).

Anthony
  #5   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 651
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

On Jun 13, 9:23 am, "Noozer" wrote:
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


You would save a lot of greenhouse emissions by excluding
conventionally produced meat from your diet. Tremendous amounts of
land and energy is used to grow food for livestock. Conventional corn/
beans agriculture also erodes the soil and introduces harmful ag
chemicals into the ground water. Wild game and grass fed livestock
excluded of course.



  #6   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"HerHusband" wrote in message
...
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.



.....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the disposal
problem, and fast.


  #7   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...



"Lawrence" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jun 13, 9:23 am, "Noozer" wrote:
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save
a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


You would save a lot of greenhouse emissions by excluding
conventionally produced meat from your diet. Tremendous amounts of
land and energy is used to grow food for livestock. Conventional corn/
beans agriculture also erodes the soil and introduces harmful ag
chemicals into the ground water. Wild game and grass fed livestock
excluded of course.


You are absolutely correct.
The "efficiency" of of growing animals is about the same as that of a
gasoline engine: 33%.
Which means you lose, from the gitgo, about 2/3 of the food calories the
land can produce in grains etc.
A very very important issue, that will never make through the media.
Not to mention the absolute barbarism of slaughter houses, the
Hitler/Stalin/Saddam-esque cruelty involved in livestock raising, etc.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs





  #8   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Maybe you should put the children YOU have in foster care.

Noozer is absolutely correct.
Electric convection/microwave requires no venting, which is an *immediate*
energy savings, and convection is really (or should be) an inexpensive
option, cuz all it is is a g-d *fan*.
And electric ovens should not be compared with electric cook tops, which
*are* miserable, from all povs.
Europe digs induction cook tops, not just from culinary snobbery, which is
important unto itself, but also from efficiency povs, as was explained to
me.

Ultimately it is difficult to compare gas with electricity, except from a
pure dollar pov.
The best solution overall is hydroelectric power. Then, electricity wins,
hands down.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save
a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



What a stupid suggestion. Please do not have children.



  #9   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

The comparisons only make sense if you get equivalent or better results from
the device in question. Since that's not the case, the suggestion is pure
fluff.


"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in
message ...
Maybe you should put the children YOU have in foster care.

Noozer is absolutely correct.
Electric convection/microwave requires no venting, which is an *immediate*
energy savings, and convection is really (or should be) an inexpensive
option, cuz all it is is a g-d *fan*.
And electric ovens should not be compared with electric cook tops, which
*are* miserable, from all povs.
Europe digs induction cook tops, not just from culinary snobbery, which is
important unto itself, but also from efficiency povs, as was explained to
me.

Ultimately it is difficult to compare gas with electricity, except from a
pure dollar pov.
The best solution overall is hydroelectric power. Then, electricity wins,
hands down.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save
a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.



What a stupid suggestion. Please do not have children.





  #10   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

You have a very narrow view of "what makes sense".
Noozer, and a cupla others in this thread, were right on the money.

The fact that you can't see it is but another reason you might want to
consider putting your kids in foster care.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
The comparisons only make sense if you get equivalent or better results
from the device in question. Since that's not the case, the suggestion is
pure fluff.


"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote
in message ...
Maybe you should put the children YOU have in foster care.

Noozer is absolutely correct.
Electric convection/microwave requires no venting, which is an
*immediate* energy savings, and convection is really (or should be) an
inexpensive option, cuz all it is is a g-d *fan*.
And electric ovens should not be compared with electric cook tops, which
*are* miserable, from all povs.
Europe digs induction cook tops, not just from culinary snobbery, which
is important unto itself, but also from efficiency povs, as was explained
to me.

Ultimately it is difficult to compare gas with electricity, except from a
pure dollar pov.
The best solution overall is hydroelectric power. Then, electricity
wins, hands down.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to
reply--ie, all d'numbuhs

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


What a stupid suggestion. Please do not have children.









  #11   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,500
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

On Jun 13, 11:11 am, HerHusband wrote:
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.


How about:

The CFL light is harsher and not nearly as pleasing as the light
available from an incandescent.

The ones that I've tried that are screw in replacements take a long
time to warm up. I just bought 2 at HD for the kitchen. At night,
it takes at least a couple of mins for them to get to anywhere near
acceptable output. For the first minute+ they are like a night
light. Oh, and btw, you wouldn't know how fast they reach any light
output, because it's never specd.

And the ones mentioned above were indoor flood type. When I tried to
screw them into the existing ceiling cans, they would not fit because
while the bulb is the right size, the neck near the base is wider to
accomodate the electronics. I had to go buy extenders, which now
leaves them sticking slightly out of the fixture.

Plus most can't be dimmed, and those that can are only dimmable over a
narrow range.

So, I'm not so sure the observation about conventional electric ovens
vs microwave is so far off. I'm not saying they can't be a good fit
for certain applications. But I think there is plenty that is
negative about them, including that they contain mercury, which
creates more hazardous waste. And instead of telling people the
truth, there are nuts running around like those in California that
want to pass laws that ban incandescents. It also doesn't do much
good to claim they are peachy keen, and have folks try a couple
thinking they are just like regular light bulbs, then give up on them
because they don't work well in the particular application. It
would be far better to be honest about their shortcomings, so people
can use them where they make sense. In my case, so far, that's the
garage, basement and closets.








On the other hand, a microwave doesn't work well for cooking many foods
(baking a cake, making cookies, etc.). And upgrading to a convection oven
means hundreds of dollars (and I don't think a convection uses any less
electricity, it just cooks faster and more evenly). Either option would
mean a major change in behavior for the average consumer.

Our local electric utility has charts of most household appliances and
their average monthly costs (All one line, watch the line-wrap):

http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/...trol/appliance...
stOfUse

It's interesting reading, but you have to factor your own usage patterns
into the equation. If you do a lot of baking, the electric usage of your
oven is going to be much more significant than it is for a person who
rarely uses their oven. We probably use our oven less than 5 hours a
month, so it's not a big part of our total electrical consumption.

Finally, in many areas, people use gas for their cooking and heating
needs. So, based on the overall population, the electric use of an oven
probably isn't as significant as lighting, which is electrically operated
for all homes (I don't think many people use gas lights or candles as
their primary lighting source these days?).


Don't see why whether you use gas or electric oven makes any real
difference. The energy still has to come from somewhere.


  #12   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Yeah, that short neck thing is a pita.
Really very little forethought.
Sodium lamps I think are just as efficient. Wonder why they can't compact
those, and dispense with the Hg.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 13, 11:11 am, HerHusband wrote:
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.


How about:

The CFL light is harsher and not nearly as pleasing as the light
available from an incandescent.

The ones that I've tried that are screw in replacements take a long
time to warm up. I just bought 2 at HD for the kitchen. At night,
it takes at least a couple of mins for them to get to anywhere near
acceptable output. For the first minute+ they are like a night
light. Oh, and btw, you wouldn't know how fast they reach any light
output, because it's never specd.

And the ones mentioned above were indoor flood type. When I tried to
screw them into the existing ceiling cans, they would not fit because
while the bulb is the right size, the neck near the base is wider to
accomodate the electronics. I had to go buy extenders, which now
leaves them sticking slightly out of the fixture.

Plus most can't be dimmed, and those that can are only dimmable over a
narrow range.

So, I'm not so sure the observation about conventional electric ovens
vs microwave is so far off. I'm not saying they can't be a good fit
for certain applications. But I think there is plenty that is
negative about them, including that they contain mercury, which
creates more hazardous waste. And instead of telling people the
truth, there are nuts running around like those in California that
want to pass laws that ban incandescents. It also doesn't do much
good to claim they are peachy keen, and have folks try a couple
thinking they are just like regular light bulbs, then give up on them
because they don't work well in the particular application. It
would be far better to be honest about their shortcomings, so people
can use them where they make sense. In my case, so far, that's the
garage, basement and closets.








On the other hand, a microwave doesn't work well for cooking many foods
(baking a cake, making cookies, etc.). And upgrading to a convection oven
means hundreds of dollars (and I don't think a convection uses any less
electricity, it just cooks faster and more evenly). Either option would
mean a major change in behavior for the average consumer.

Our local electric utility has charts of most household appliances and
their average monthly costs (All one line, watch the line-wrap):

http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/...trol/appliance...
stOfUse

It's interesting reading, but you have to factor your own usage patterns
into the equation. If you do a lot of baking, the electric usage of your
oven is going to be much more significant than it is for a person who
rarely uses their oven. We probably use our oven less than 5 hours a
month, so it's not a big part of our total electrical consumption.

Finally, in many areas, people use gas for their cooking and heating
needs. So, based on the overall population, the electric use of an oven
probably isn't as significant as lighting, which is electrically operated
for all homes (I don't think many people use gas lights or candles as
their primary lighting source these days?).


Don't see why whether you use gas or electric oven makes any real
difference. The energy still has to come from somewhere.




  #14   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,823
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...


wrote in message

The CFL light is harsher and not nearly as pleasing as the light
available from an incandescent.

The ones that I've tried that are screw in replacements take a long
time to warm up. I just bought 2 at HD for the kitchen. At night,
it takes at least a couple of mins for them to get to anywhere near
acceptable output. For the first minute+ they are like a night
light. Oh, and btw, you wouldn't know how fast they reach any light
output, because it's never specd.

Plus most can't be dimmed, and those that can are only dimmable over a
narrow range.

So, I'm not so sure the observation about conventional electric ovens
vs microwave is so far off. I'm not saying they can't be a good fit
for certain applications.



I just replaced the two most often used bulbs in my house with them. Warm
up is not an issue as the lights are on timers and we are often not in the
room when they go on. I'll replace one more bulb.

In the past, the color rendition was plain UGLY green. That has been
overcome. The bedroom, where we often use a dimmer, will remain
incandescent. Like most things, they have a place but no every place.


  #15   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 238
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
You are absolutely correct.
The "efficiency" of of growing animals is about the same as that of a
gasoline engine: 33%.
Which means you lose, from the gitgo, about 2/3 of the food calories
the land can produce in grains etc.


Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing that would
not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food production where
none would exist......There are many more millions of acres used for hay,
alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for other food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain production
as the world has never been as dependably well fed.....optimum calorie
production is really only significant at the sustenance existence
level.....thankfully we are not. Rod











  #16   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...



"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
You are absolutely correct.
The "efficiency" of of growing animals is about the same as that of a
gasoline engine: 33%.
Which means you lose, from the gitgo, about 2/3 of the food calories
the land can produce in grains etc.


Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing that
would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food
production where none would exist......There are many more millions of
acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for other
food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain
production as the world has never been as dependably well fed.....optimum
calorie production is really only significant at the sustenance existence
level.....thankfully we are not. Rod


I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs, much too
lengthy to go into on ahr.
Two points, however.
1. There are myriads of other problems with cattle production.
2. You choose to ignore efficiency issues simply because they are not
problems *now*?

How Bush-ian. Think.... oil??????

AND,
That assumes they are NOT problems now, which I also disagree with.
Chemical fertilizers are about as good a long term solution for crops as
Lunesta is for sleep disorder.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs














  #17   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 99
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

On Jun 13, 11:35 am, "Proctologically Violated©®"
The best solution overall is hydroelectric power. Then, electricity wins,
hands down.


So, how much hydroelectric power can you ship to the extremely flat
Midwest?

Oh, and microwaves are not an adequate replacement for real ovens.
Bleah!

Cindy Hamilton

  #18   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 326
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...


"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


FYI... I wasn't literally meaning that we should switch cooking
technologies. I was just trying to make the point that lightbulbs aren't the
only thing we could be doing.

Personally, banning incandecents is dumb. As long as electricity is cheap,
folks will waste it. That's the real problem. People aren't paying enough
for it.



  #19   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Yes, that is true.
You only have to look at large apartment buildings in NYC that have common
electric, vs. those that have individual meters for each apt.
At night, the common metered buildings look like the Empire State building
on July 4th, whilst the individually metered buildings look almost
abandoned.

But, the problem with your solution is that the people who can afford it
least will be hit hardest--as usual.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:HiXbi.21437$1i1.7551@pd7urf3no...

"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save
a lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


FYI... I wasn't literally meaning that we should switch cooking
technologies. I was just trying to make the point that lightbulbs aren't
the only thing we could be doing.

Personally, banning incandecents is dumb. As long as electricity is cheap,
folks will waste it. That's the real problem. People aren't paying enough
for it.





  #20   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,845
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

On 13 Jun, 15:10, "Noozer" wrote:
"Noozer" wrote in message

Personally, banning incandecents is dumb. As long as electricity is cheap,
folks will waste it. That's the real problem. People aren't paying enough
for it.


Doesn't that sign say "Please don't feed the trolls"?



  #21   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:

Ultimately it is difficult to compare gas with electricity, except
from a pure dollar pov.
The best solution overall is hydroelectric power. Then, electricity
wins, hands down.


Nope. More people, by far, and more property has been destroyed by the use
of hydroelectric power than by other forms of electricity generation.

Just one dam failure (Banqaio) resulted in 85,000 deaths in 1975. It created
a wall of water 6 meters high and 12 kilometers wide moving 600,000,000
cubic meters of water.

Dams don't often fail, but when they do the result is, um, spectacular.


  #22   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.


The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases LESS
Mercury into the environment than the extra generation necessary to power
incandescent bulbs.

In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the
reduced power generation.

We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.


  #23   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing
that would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food
production where none would exist......There are many more millions
of acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for
other food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain
production as the world has never been as dependably well
fed.....optimum calorie production is really only significant at the
sustenance existence level.....thankfully we are not. Rod


I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs,
much too lengthy to go into on ahr.
Two points, however.
1. There are myriads of other problems with cattle production.
2. You choose to ignore efficiency issues simply because they are not
problems *now*?

How Bush-ian. Think.... oil??????

AND,
That assumes they are NOT problems now, which I also disagree with.
Chemical fertilizers are about as good a long term solution for crops
as Lunesta is for sleep disorder.


Balderdash! I'm in Texas and in some cattle-grazing areas you can't grow
dirt! Even the lizards are stunted.

Do you think cattle are feeding in places similar to Kentucky horse farms?
Bah! There's ten feet between each pitiful clump of vegetation! Watch your
next "Western" closely - are the cowboys standing in fields of clover? Are
they having shoot-outs in the strawberry patch? Do the cattle stampede
through forests of mighty redwoods?

IT'S DIRT!

Raw, dry, sterile, DIRT. And not very good dirt, either.

But to the basic question: Vegetables are not food. Vegetables are what food
eats.


  #24   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,012
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Newsgroups: alt.home.repair
Subject: All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...
References: i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no
Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System, est. 1987 - sdf.lonestar.org
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)

....In article ,
....HeyBub wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.


The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases LESS
Mercury into the environment than the extra generation necessary to power
incandescent bulbs.

In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released
into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our
incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the
reduced power generation.

We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.



What you state makes good sense, however, our laws and regulations
require disposal of lamps containing mercury and certain other materials
under the "universal waste" rules. I'm not certain that a residential
consumer is bound by these regulations but business or industrial
users are. As it stands now, the end user can use all the electricty he
or she wants; If that user chooses to save electricity by using CFL or
standard florescent lamps, though, then the rules on disposing of
those lamps must be followed.

--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  #25   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 289
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Yeah, and if god dint want us to eat animals, he wouldna made them taste so
good, right?

Fukn Texans don't know **** except the roster of who's being executed this
week.

No doubt some land is less arable than others, and in fact some might only
be good for cattle grazing.

But are you the agronomist who's done research on what can/cannot be grown
on less arable lands?
Does that mean that cattle STILL should be bred, even if grass/hay etc is
all that can be grown?

Well, yeah, iffin yer a texan.

Think soy protein.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY

Stop Corruption in Congress & Send the Ultimate Message:
Absolutely Vote, but NOT for a Democrat or a Republican.
Ending Corruption in Congress is the *Single Best Way*
to Materially Improve Your Family's Life.
The Solution is so simple--and inexpensive!

entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
Proctologically Violated©® wrote:
Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing
that would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food
production where none would exist......There are many more millions
of acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for
other food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain
production as the world has never been as dependably well
fed.....optimum calorie production is really only significant at the
sustenance existence level.....thankfully we are not. Rod


I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs,
much too lengthy to go into on ahr.
Two points, however.
1. There are myriads of other problems with cattle production.
2. You choose to ignore efficiency issues simply because they are not
problems *now*?

How Bush-ian. Think.... oil??????

AND,
That assumes they are NOT problems now, which I also disagree with.
Chemical fertilizers are about as good a long term solution for crops
as Lunesta is for sleep disorder.


Balderdash! I'm in Texas and in some cattle-grazing areas you can't grow
dirt! Even the lizards are stunted.

Do you think cattle are feeding in places similar to Kentucky horse farms?
Bah! There's ten feet between each pitiful clump of vegetation! Watch your
next "Western" closely - are the cowboys standing in fields of clover? Are
they having shoot-outs in the strawberry patch? Do the cattle stampede
through forests of mighty redwoods?

IT'S DIRT!

Raw, dry, sterile, DIRT. And not very good dirt, either.

But to the basic question: Vegetables are not food. Vegetables are what
food eats.





  #26   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

In article , "Proctologically Violated©®" wrote:
"Rod & Betty Jo" wrote in message
...


Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing that
would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food
production where none would exist......There are many more millions of
acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for other
food production.

We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain
production as the world has never been as dependably well fed.....optimum
calorie production is really only significant at the sustenance existence
level.....thankfully we are not. Rod


I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs, much too
lengthy to go into on ahr.
Two points, however.
1. There are myriads of other problems with cattle production.


Who said "cattle"?

*Goats* can be raised on land that's practically useless for any other
purpose, and in fact are *far* more efficient than cattle at converting
vegetable matter into meat.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #27   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.


The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases LESS
Mercury into the environment than the extra generation necessary to power
incandescent bulbs.

In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to
power our incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than
offset by the reduced power generation.

We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.


"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.

I'm surprised you either didn't know this, or that you're pretending it's
acceptable.


  #28   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.


I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
  #29   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.


I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



You still don't read much.

One of many articles on the issue:

"The Cheney case centered on whether the GAO could demand to know who met
with the interagency task force, chaired by Cheney, that wrote Bush's energy
policy. Democrats had argued that Big Business was having too much influence
in the process. When Cheney refused to cooperate, the GAO went to court for
the first time in its 81-year history."
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...eneynat7p7.asp


  #30   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.


I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



I think you need to have the nursing home staff bring you the newspapers
more often.

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/st...513661022.html

July 02, 2002

Cheney energy papers may have Yucca policy answers
LAS VEGAS SUN
WASHINGTON -- Energy policy documents that Vice President Cheney has kept
under wraps may indicate why the Bush administration switched its position
on Yucca Mountain, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday as he joined a legal
effort to unlock the documents.

Nevada lawmakers have voiced concern that a White House task force led by
Cheney met privately last year with nuclear industry officials -- but sought
little input from Yucca critics -- as they developed a national energy
policy. Those meetings may have led Bush to abandon a promise to allow
"sound science" guide his decision about the planned high-level nuclear
waste dump at Yucca Mountain, Reid said.

Bush broke his promise when he approved Yucca in February, before important
scientific studies were complete, Nevada lawmakers say.

"The administration needs to stop hiding the truth," Reid said. "They should
tell the public which executives the Vice President met with and when he met
with them."

Reid on Monday filed an amicus "friend of the court" brief in federal court
in support of the General Accounting Office's lawsuit to make certain energy
documents public. Many lawmakers want to know who White House officials met
with as they drafted the administration's sweeping energy policy released in
May 2001. The policy endorsed a national nuclear waste dump amid other
far-reaching proposals.

White House officials have declined to release the documents because they
say they have a right to solicit information in the protected confines of a
private meeting. Bush wants the ability to get candid views outside the
government, aides say.

The GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. The White House's position of
hiding information about U.S. policy threatens the ability of Congress to do
its job, Reid said.

"This administration is systematically pursing a policy of hiding this
information from the people -- something which should not be tolerated in a
democracy," Reid said.




  #31   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.


I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



News, carefully hidden from fools like you, Miller. All based on facts. Next
time there's a moth in your house, ask it to read the newspaper aloud for
you.


The New York Times

December 23, 2005

Editorial

Mr. Cheney's Imperial Presidency



George W. Bush has quipped several times during his political career that it
would be so much easier to govern in a dictatorship. Apparently he never
told his vice president that this was a joke.



Virtually from the time he chose himself to be Mr. Bush's running mate in
2000, Dick Cheney has spearheaded an extraordinary expansion of the powers
of the presidency - from writing energy policy behind closed doors with oil
executives to abrogating longstanding treaties and using the 9/11 attacks as
a pretext to invade Iraq, scrap the Geneva Conventions and spy on American
citizens.



It was a chance Mr. Cheney seems to have been dreaming about for decades.
Most Americans looked at wrenching events like the Vietnam War, the
Watergate scandal and the Iran-contra debacle and worried that the
presidency had become too powerful, secretive and dismissive. Mr. Cheney
looked at the same events and fretted that the presidency was not powerful
enough, and too vulnerable to inspection and calls for accountability.



The president "needs to have his constitutional powers unimpaired, if you
will, in terms of the conduct of national security policy," Mr. Cheney said
this week as he tried to stifle the outcry over a domestic spying program
that Mr. Bush authorized after the 9/11 attacks.



Before 9/11, Mr. Cheney was trying to undermine the institutional and legal
structure of multilateral foreign policy: he championed the abrogation of
the Antiballistic Missile Treaty with Moscow in order to build an
antimissile shield that doesn't work but makes military contractors rich.
Early in his tenure, Mr. Cheney, who quit as chief executive of Halliburton
to run with Mr. Bush in 2000, gathered his energy industry cronies at secret
meetings in Washington to rewrite energy policy to their specifications. Mr.
Cheney offered the usual excuses about the need to get candid advice on
important matters, and the courts, sadly, bought it. But the task force was
not an exercise in diverse views. Mr. Cheney gathered people who agreed with
him, and allowed them to write national policy for an industry in which he
had recently amassed a fortune.



The effort to expand presidential power accelerated after 9/11, taking
advantage of a national consensus that the president should have additional
powers to use judiciously against terrorists.



Mr. Cheney started agitating for an attack on Iraq immediately, pushing the
intelligence community to come up with evidence about a link between Iraq
and Al Qaeda that never existed. His team was central to writing the legal
briefs justifying the abuse and torture of prisoners, the idea that the
president can designate people to be "unlawful enemy combatants" and detain
them indefinitely, and a secret program allowing the National Security
Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without warrants. And when Senator
John McCain introduced a measure to reinstate the rule of law at American
military prisons, Mr. Cheney not only led the effort to stop the amendment,
but also tried to revise it to actually legalize torture at C.I.A. prisons.



There are finally signs that the democratic system is trying to rein in the
imperial presidency. Republicans in the Senate and House forced Mr. Bush to
back the McCain amendment, and Mr. Cheney's plan to legalize torture by
intelligence agents was rebuffed. Congress also agreed to extend the Patriot
Act for five weeks rather than doing the administration's bidding and
rushing to make it permanent.



On Wednesday, a federal appeals court refused to allow the administration to
transfer Jose Padilla, an American citizen who has been held by the military
for more than three years on suspicion of plotting terrorist attacks, from
military to civilian custody. After winning the same court's approval in
September to hold Mr. Padilla as an unlawful combatant, the administration
abruptly reversed course in November and charged him with civil crimes
unrelated to his arrest. That decision was an obvious attempt to avoid
having the Supreme Court review the legality of the detention powers that
Mr. Bush gave himself, and the appeals judges refused to go along.



Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have insisted that the secret eavesdropping program
is legal, but The Washington Post reported yesterday that the court created
to supervise this sort of activity is not so sure. It said that the
presiding judge was arranging a classified briefing for her fellow judges
and that several judges on the court wanted to know why the administration
believed eavesdropping on American citizens without warrants was legal when
the law specifically required such warrants.



Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are tenacious. They still control both houses of
Congress and are determined to pack the judiciary with like-minded
ideologues. Still, the recent developments are encouraging, especially since
the court ruling on Mr. Padilla was written by a staunch conservative
considered by President Bush for the Supreme Court.


  #32   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
et...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.


I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)



Poor Miller. Reads nothing, spews a lot.

http://www.haleakalatimes.com/news/story2525.aspx
Cheney hates sunshine (and puppies)
A preference for secrecy has long been a Cheney character trait, and he
showed it immediately after taking office. He formed the National Energy
Policy Development Group and used it to create a national energy policy, but
refused to name the members of the task force and claimed an executive
privilege to keep the nature of the discussions secret. In Nov. 2001, Bush
made Cheney the first vice-president in American history to hold the same
executive privilege to classify information as the president.

The policy that came out of the NEPDG focused on the need to establish new
sources of oil, to make “energy security a priority of U.S. trade and
foreign policy,” and to promote outside investment in oil and gas industries
of Middle East and Persian Gulf countries. The task force worked quickly by
Washington standards, meeting for less than 100 days to prepare a
comprehensive national policy regarding a complex and critical aspect of
modern life.
The Sierra Club, Judicial Watch and the Government Accounting Office filed
separate lawsuits against Cheney, seeking the release of all documents
related to the energy task force. Cheney had refused the GAO’s direct
agency-to-agency request, saying that it would compromise “the
confidentiality of communications among a President, a Vice-President, the
President’s other senior advisors and others.”

In July 2003, the Supreme Court denied Cheney’s bid for secrecy and ordered
the NEPDG to release its documents to the public, which showed that members
of the task force included Ken Lay, CEO of an already-troubled Enron, along
with six other Enron executives; ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond and others from
ExxonMobil, and representatives from the American Petroleum Institute.

Other documents described which countries and transnational companies had
agreements with Saddam Hussein to develop Iraq’s oil. There were maps and
charts detailing Iraqi oilfields, pipelines, refineries, terminals and gas
projects. There were also maps of all oil and gas development in Saudi
Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. The documents are dated March 2001, two
years before the invasion of Iraq.

Cheney’s personal insistence on secrecy didn’t interfere with his role in
leaking the identity of Valerie Plame, a covert CIA officer who had the
misfortune of being married to a man who became a target for what Gore Vidal
refers to as “the Cheney/Bush junta.” The perjury trial of Cheney’s former
Chief of Staff, Lewis Libby, has revealed that Cheney was deeply involved in
the attempt to discredit Plame’s husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson,
after he blew the whistle on Bush’s claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking
uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon.

According to Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, “Cheney enlisted Libby
to act as his surrogate and personally respond to reporters’ queries about
the veracity of Wilson’s allegations by authorizing his chief of staff to
leak classified information to journalists.

The classified information that was leaked may have included Plame’s covert
status,” Fitzgerald said, “In retaliation for her husband’s stinging rebukes
of the administration’s Iraq policies.”

“There is a cloud over the vice president. ... a cloud over the White House
over what happened,” Fitzgerald told the jury. “That cloud is something you
just can’t pretend isn’t there.”

It was Cheney’s office that wrote up the 2002 “torture memos” claiming the
Geneva Conventions don’t apply to “enemy combatants.” It was Cheney himself
who described Sen. John McCain’s legislation banning inhumane treatment of
detainees as a law that “would cost thousands of American lives.” Based on
that record, Admiral Stansfield Turner, a former director of the CIA,
referred to Cheney as “the Vice President for torture.”

“Cheney’s manner and authority of voice far outstrip his true abilities,”
according to Chas Freeman, who was an ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the
first Bush administration. “It was clear from the start that George W. Bush
required adult supervision – but it turns out Cheney has even worse
instincts. He does not understand that when you act recklessly, your
mistakes will come back and bite you on the ass.”

The Casper Star Tribune isn’t too pleased with Cheney these days either,
saying in a December 2006 editorial: “During Cheney’s tenure as VP, Wyoming
has seen a virtual takeover of our public lands by the oil and gas industry.
As the chief architect of the Bush energy policy, Cheney deserves much of
the credit (or blame) for the unplanned, uncontrolled sprawl of oil and gas
development across Wyoming’s open spaces. So far, it seems that the vice
president has brought little more than destruction and embarrassment to
Wyoming during his term in office.”

Cheney’s not even a true conservative, according to David Payne, a national
security expert and occasional Fox News commentator – a man so conservative
that he considers George W. Bush to be a “centrist” President.
“For a long time, I was willing to look past Cheney’s growing list of false
assertions and support for dubious and decidedly un-conservative policies,”
Payne wrote in July 2004. “For over three years, I observed his misguided
embrace of neo-conservatism and his record as chief propagandist for the
administration’s
unprovoked war against Iraq.”

Payne’s ultimate conclusion was that in order for the Republican party to
get back to “a Reaganite policy of conservative realism that puts America’s
national interests first,” the Vice President that he once supported “simply
has to go.”

Rob Lafferty


  #33   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
CJT CJT is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,155
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The comparisons only make sense if you get equivalent or better results from
the device in question. Since that's not the case, the suggestion is pure
fluff.

snip

We get BETTER results with a convection oven. So your argument is specious.


--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .
  #34   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"CJT" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The comparisons only make sense if you get equivalent or better results
from the device in question. Since that's not the case, the suggestion is
pure fluff.

snip

We get BETTER results with a convection oven. So your argument is
specious.



And some people say the opposite. The point is that Noozer's off the cuff
idea was nonsense unless heavily qualified, which it was not. And certainly,
the idea of a microwave...never mind.


  #35   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,743
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases
LESS Mercury into the environment than the extra generation
necessary to power incandescent bulbs.

In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury
released into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable
to power our incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is
more than offset by the reduced power generation.

We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.


"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power
plants is OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose
identity has been CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what
mercury levels they could afford to release or control.

I'm surprised you either didn't know this, or that you're pretending
it's acceptable.


It was the royal "We." I might have been in that meeting, but since the
attendance list is secret, I don't know.

Still, the emission levels for coal-fired smokestacks haven't changed under
the Bush administration, Cheney's meeting notwithstanding (at least to my
knowledge). So, evidently, the "decision" didn't get out.




  #36   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

I dont understand the big push to convert over to CFLs. I did a little
googling and came up with this statement:

"Lighting accounted for 9.4 percent of all electricity consumption in
U.S. households in 1993, less than air conditioning, water heating,
space heating, or refrigeration (Figure ES4). [13] Residential
lighting thus represents three percent of total U.S. sales of
electricity to all sectors. [14] Because the end-use estimates do not
distinguish between indoor and outdoor lighting, this estimate of
lighting consumption includes both."

"Virtually 100 percent of households use electricity for lighting,
while less than 70 percent use it for air conditioning and less than
40 percent use it for space heating and water heating. However,
because space conditioning and water heating are more intensive users
of electricity than lighting, they account for a greater amount of the
total electricity consumption in the residential sector. In 1993, air
conditioning consumed 13.9 percent, water heating 10.2 percent and
space heating 12.3 percent. Lighting consumed 9.4 percent. "

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/lighting/chap2.html

Admittedly its from 1993 data, But sheesh, 3% for total electricity
usage in the US is due to residential lighting? So if we threw away
all our lightbulbs entirely, and went back to candles, all we'd save
is 3% of our total usage?

So why all the hype? I'm all for doing my part, but it hardly seems
worth it...

dickm


On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:11:06 -0500, HerHusband
wrote:

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to
save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five
in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we
forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether
it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But
convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change
their lifestyles just to save electricity.

Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will
last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the
incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of
course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in
most cases it's a win-win situation.

On the other hand, a microwave doesn't work well for cooking many foods
(baking a cake, making cookies, etc.). And upgrading to a convection oven
means hundreds of dollars (and I don't think a convection uses any less
electricity, it just cooks faster and more evenly). Either option would
mean a major change in behavior for the average consumer.

Our local electric utility has charts of most household appliances and
their average monthly costs (All one line, watch the line-wrap):


http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/.../appliances/co
stOfUse

It's interesting reading, but you have to factor your own usage patterns
into the equation. If you do a lot of baking, the electric usage of your
oven is going to be much more significant than it is for a person who
rarely uses their oven. We probably use our oven less than 5 hours a
month, so it's not a big part of our total electrical consumption.

Finally, in many areas, people use gas for their cooking and heating
needs. So, based on the overall population, the electric use of an oven
probably isn't as significant as lighting, which is electrically operated
for all homes (I don't think many people use gas lights or candles as
their primary lighting source these days?).

Anthony


  #37   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 766
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
...


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.


Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy that if
supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the plant is greater
than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit



  #38   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

"Joseph Meehan" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..


....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the
disposal problem, and fast.


Current CFL's have very little mercury and save enough energy that if
supplied by a coal fired plant, the mercury reduced at the plant is
greater than that in the lamp.

--
Joseph Meehan



Everybody's a comedian tonight.


Question for you: What is the sum of 2+2+2+2+2?


  #39   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,079
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...


"Noozer" wrote in message
news:i5Tbi.21246$xq1.10947@pd7urf1no...
I just had a thought...

Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a
lot of electricity, right?

Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in
your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced
everyone over to microwave/convection systems.


Well let us know how it works out okay?


  #40   Report Post  
Posted to alt.home.repair
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,375
Default All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

In article , "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. net...
In article , "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is
OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been
CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could
afford to release or control.


I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.


You still don't read much.


And you still don't understand *any* of what little you do read.

One of many articles on the issue:

"The Cheney case centered on whether the GAO could demand to know who met
with the interagency task force, chaired by Cheney, that wrote Bush's energy
policy. Democrats had argued that Big Business was having too much influence
in the process. When Cheney refused to cooperate, the GAO went to court for
the first time in its 81-year history."
http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/2...eneynat7p7.asp


Q: What does that have to do with mercury emissions from power plants?
A: Absolutely nothing, as is typical for Doug "Moving Target" Kanter.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Bulbs? The Medway Handyman UK diy 14 June 13th 07 12:49 AM
Comparison of Low Energy bulbs (was Compulsory low-energy light-bulbs) Derek Geldard UK diy 1 March 16th 07 05:52 PM
Bulbs [email protected] Home Repair 0 January 9th 07 07:32 PM
OT - Bulbs Sue Metalworking 0 October 5th 05 02:27 AM
Bulbs John UK diy 9 August 12th 04 01:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:19 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"