Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
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 | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...
|
#14
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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
Posted to alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bulbs? | UK diy | |||
Comparison of Low Energy bulbs (was Compulsory low-energy light-bulbs) | UK diy | |||
Bulbs | Home Repair | |||
OT - Bulbs | Metalworking | |||
Bulbs | UK diy |