wrote:

My experience with CFL's has not been very good either and I agree
that the govt banning incandescent bulbs is the wrong approach. And
the advice to use halogen, sodium or neon makes no sense. How is JR
supposed to screw a sodium light into a simple outside decorative door
light fixture? Plus, I'm not sure what the legislation passed
actually says, but I'd consider a halogen to be a type of incandescent
bulb, as it relies on a simple hot filament that uses about the same
amount of energy.


You're right about the Halogen. What I'm planning is to go totally
renewable.

I'm trying to find a lamp that uses whale oil.

wrote:

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of
months, and replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to
be doing that!

Surely you're not thinking of SONY!

After what the *******s did with their root-kit DRM scheme.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools
who have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical
characteristics of SUVs, but they bought them anyway because
advertising told them to. "The market" made some pretty lousy
decisions.

"Need" is not the determining factor, "want" is.


In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.

It's not a mistake - it's called 'freedom.'

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:


OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before
finding out that market-driven forces are not going to solve a
problem? A year? 20 years? Two generations?


Forever. The market is not always right, but it is right far more often than
any other technique.

If you disapprove of someone buying an SUV or an incandescent light bulb or
pampering a pet, then YOU are the one with the problem, not the SUV owner.

The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry,
kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric
lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on
the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF
lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world
cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. Conservation alone is
NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. We have adequate stores of
fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or
warm and productive. Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby,
do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our
land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact
YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do it because of
some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're
wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Jim Redelfs wrote:
The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

Look at this as an opportunity, not a problem.

One could invent a bulb heater that kept the CFL at operating temperature
even when "off." I bet one could be made available for, oh, $35.00.

Find a market and fill it, I always say.

As a stop-gap, use Halogen or Sodium or Neon. Filaments are so quaint.

"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas
Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent
lamp
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for
a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't,
over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

I agree with the lighting outside. Until a better light comes along, I'm
sticking with incandescent for fast light, but I've switched a couple of
night lights already with good results. They last longer too, a bit plus.

OTOH, I'm all for changing over now. The quality of light is now good, not
the greenish color it once was. I see no reason not to save my money and
use something that operates cheaper. To do otherwise is kind of dumb. I'm
looking forward to the LED lights in our future.

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:


Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

On Dec 23, 8:49*am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
"Jim Redelfs" wrote in message
Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. *(Thomas
Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).
I rarely use exterior lighting. *Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent
lamp
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for
a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't,
over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. *Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case..

I agree with the lighting outside. *Until a better light comes along, I'm
sticking with incandescent for fast light, but I've switched a couple of
night lights already with good results. *They last longer too, a bit plus.

OTOH, I'm all for changing over now. *The quality of light is now good, not
the greenish color it once was. *I see no reason not to save my money and
use something that operates cheaper. *To do otherwise is kind of dumb. *I'm
looking forward to the LED lights in our future.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

My experience with CFL's has not been very good either and I agree
that the govt banning incandescent bulbs is the wrong approach. And
the advice to use halogen, sodium or neon makes no sense. How is JR
supposed to screw a sodium light into a simple outside decorative door
light fixture? Plus, I'm not sure what the legislation passed
actually says, but I'd consider a halogen to be a type of incandescent
bulb, as it relies on a simple hot filament that uses about the same
amount of energy.

There are some apps where CFL's work well. There are others where
they do not. I've put them in my garage and can put up with the slow
light up time. I tried them in the kitchen with some FEIT indoor
floods. First, they won't even fit because of the wider neck, so I
had to buy an extender. Then they take a good couple mins to reach
any reasonable brightness. Come into the kitchen at night and you
can barely see for 2 mins. And then, despite the claims of how long
they last, I've had 3 now fail after about 3 months of normal use.
And yes, they are installed in and rated for the ceiling cans they are
intended for.

So, I pay a lot more for them, yet they last a fraction of the time of
a cheap incandescent. And they have a warning on them about
containing mercury and to dispose of properly. Which means in the
majority of cases, they are going straight into the landfill with the
rest of the trash.

If the govt wanted to do something positive to get people to use them,
they should require that manufacturers spec out the time they take to
get to say 70% brightness. And stop pretending that they can be used
anywhere.

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

On Dec 23, 7:59*am, Phisherman wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs

wrote:
Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. *(Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils. *

Incandesants should be history, they are effectivly heaters that put
out light, for every 100 watts consumed you get 92-94 watts of heat,
real smart to use in summer when you run your AC to cool your home.
CFLs will get better in cold starting, my cfl floods are bad needing 2
minutes at 25f to get bright, but that will change and color rendition
is on par with incandesants. A ratings test at Popular Mechanics even
put one brand better in rendition.

A quote from ComEd Ill. " If every home nationaly would replace one
light bulb with CFLs this simple action would save more than $600
million in energy costs annualy and remove the equivalent amount of
green house gases from the atmosphere that is created by 800,000
cars". And if 95% of incandesants were replaced utility companies
would not need to upgrade power supplies for maybe 15 years saving
everyone more.

And you say ""hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry"
Have you seen the new 20-21 mpg in CITY hybrid 4wd full size Chevys,
and the 34mpg in CITY Ford SUV, what a better way to revive the
industry by putting out a better Hybrid system that neither Toyota,
Honda, or anyone else has, we should not be driving 12 mpg 4wd SUVs
where nobody ever needs the 4wd option.

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Dec 23, 8:25*am, ransley wrote:
On Dec 23, 7:59*am, Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs

wrote:
Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. *(Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils. *

*Incandesants should be history, they are effectivly heaters that put
out light, for every 100 watts consumed you get 92-94 watts of heat,
real smart to use in summer when you run your AC to cool your home.
CFLs will get better in cold starting, my cfl floods are bad needing 2
minutes at 25f to get bright, but that will change and color rendition
is on par with incandesants. A ratings test at Popular Mechanics even
put one brand better in rendition.

*A quote from ComEd Ill. " If every home nationaly would replace one
light bulb with CFLs this simple action would save more than $600
million in energy costs annualy and remove the equivalent amount of
green house gases from the atmosphere that is created by 800,000
cars". And if 95% of incandesants were replaced utility companies
would not need to upgrade power supplies for maybe 15 years saving
everyone more.

*And you say ""hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry"
Have you seen the new 20-21 mpg in CITY *hybrid 4wd full size Chevys,
and the 34mpg in CITY Ford SUV, what a better way to revive the
industry by putting out a better Hybrid system that neither Toyota,
Honda, or anyone else has, we should not be driving 12 mpg 4wd SUVs
where nobody ever needs the 4wd option.

Consumer Reports and Popular Mechanics magazine recently revieved
CFLs with color rendition and start up times, I think Popular
mechanics rated HDs brand very well, at the top , every year here
ComEd subsides CFLs in Nov so you only pay 1$ a bulb I got quit a few.
In can lights there are some special retrofits that work well but
Halogens I agree are best.

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in
the long run, I save money.


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't
mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have
absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but
they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made
some pretty lousy decisions.

In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.

wrote in message
There are some apps where CFL's work well. There are others where
they do not. I've put them in my garage and can put up with the slow
light up time. I tried them in the kitchen with some FEIT indoor
floods. First, they won't even fit because of the wider neck, so I
had to buy an extender. Then they take a good couple mins to reach
any reasonable brightness. Come into the kitchen at night and you
can barely see for 2 mins. And then, despite the claims of how long
they last, I've had 3 now fail after about 3 months of normal use.
And yes, they are installed in and rated for the ceiling cans they are
intended for.


Try a better brand. IMO, FEIT is pretty crappy compared to the others.

On Dec 23, 10:02*am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message

. ..





Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. *I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in
the long run, I save money.

You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't
mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have
absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but
they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made
some pretty lousy decisions.


I could also say that people have "no need" to waste energy going to
Disneyland or any
amusement park. And no need to waste gas driving to beaches to enjoy
themselves in the summer. And no need to waste energy flying
somewhere on vacation. So, let's condemn them and a thousand other
things too, just like SUV's.






In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote in message
...
On Dec 23, 10:02 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message

. ..





Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in
the long run, I save money.

You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't
mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have
absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but
they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market"
made
some pretty lousy decisions.


I could also say that people have "no need" to waste energy going to
Disneyland or any
amusement park. And no need to waste gas driving to beaches to enjoy
themselves in the summer. And no need to waste energy flying
somewhere on vacation. So, let's condemn them and a thousand other
things too, just like SUV's.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Your analogies are pretty weak. You were fully aware of that when you wrote
them.

wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:


Frank wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:


Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)


Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!



you have to figure out the break-even point for yourself of doing
something like that. More fuel efficient cars are often touted as a
necessity (our own Congress seems to agree with that) but if you figure
in the energy cost of making a new car, you'd still have to drive your
new car quite a few miles a year for many years to realize a "savings"
over just maintaining your old one.

Economic considerations often (but not always) lead you to the same
conclusions as considering energy use.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

On Dec 23, 1:28*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:
The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry,
kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric
lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. *(Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. *They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on
the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF
lamps. *I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. *Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light. *

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp *
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. *Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world
cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. *Conservation alone is
NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. *We have adequate stores of
fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or
warm and productive. *Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby,
do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our
land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact
YEARS ago. *But that's not good enough now. *We simply CAN'T do it because of
some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. *That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. *But, Shazam! *The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. *They were WRONG. *They're
wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. *Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. *Let's go get it. *-Jim Redelfs


To summarize your post.

"Those measures won't cure the problem. Why do anything, just
continue as we are"

"as we are" = raping the planet.

Yes, there is overpopulation which needs attention also but advocating
doing nothing about conservation is stupid.

Harry K

On Dec 23, 10:44*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light..
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. *I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

you have to figure out the break-even point for yourself of doing
something like that. *More fuel efficient cars are often touted as a
necessity (our own Congress seems to agree with that) but if you figure
in the energy cost of making a new car, you'd still have to drive your
new car quite a few miles a year for many years to realize a "savings"
over just maintaining your old one.

Economic considerations often (but not always) lead you to the same
conclusions as considering energy use.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep and thats exactly how it should work.

When the combined lifecycle energy, material and labor costs, (which
are all included in the economic cost) of any new technology becomes
better than the life cycle cost of the older technology, then you
won't have to force people to use them.

Mark

In a year or two, all of your CFL complaints and CFLs will
be history too. In the past two months, I've seen a big
rise in local office space being finished out in ALL LED
lighting. It's instant on, it dims, it can change color
from red to violet, and it makes CF look like a real energy
hog.

LED's aren't at CFL prices, yet, unless you average in the
10-20 year life. Lighting designers are acting like kids in
a candy store.

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

No reason to retire it, run it 'til it dies, converter boxes
for Analog tuner TVs are starting to show up now.

-- larry / dallas

On Dec 23, 3:28*am, Jim Redelfs wrote:

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. *Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.


I agree, especially in areas where electricity is produced by
hydroelectric plants. It takes just as much water to turn the turbine
whether the generator is producing 1 megawatt or 150 megawatts.

Politicians want us, the ones who care, to assume all the guilt and do
something. Yet to you think for a minute that Las Vegas will ever
change out their lights for more efficient ones? Or any government
limit each family to only one car? Or the airlines cut back on the
number of flights? No, instead they'll all keep on doing business as
usual and ask us to change out a light bulb or two.

Red

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

s


"larry" wrote in message
...
No reason to retire it, run it 'til it dies, converter boxes for Analog
tuner TVs are starting to show up now.

-- larry / dallas

Jim Redelfs wrote:
The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition to
putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck industry,
kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally DEVASTATING electric
lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15 years on
the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow" fixtures to CF
lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch light
when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.

However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact fluorescent lamp
outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable light worth a damn for a
minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps won't, over
the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our ever-increasing energy
consumption. Although that implies that our ever-increasing energy
consumption needs relief, I am adamantly UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the world
cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs. Conservation alone is
NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem. We have adequate stores of
fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's grandchildren's grandchildren cool or
warm and productive. Whether we can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby,
do-gooders that think they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our
land "off limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental impact
YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do it because of
some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact. That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when vast
miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska Pipeline
was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the environment and
wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened. They were WRONG. They're
wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if there
was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs
Hmmm,
I am waiting for LED bulbs.

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you may well
find there is little difference between them.

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:31:54 -0500, Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet
wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I switched over almost every light in my house to CFL last spring. There were a
few that were just unworkable, such as the candelabra in the dining room that
had "electric candles. I just unscrew most of the lamps in that rather than
using the dimmer. Results? My electric consumption compared to the previous year
averaged 14.1% lower. The power company added to that by rewarding me 10% off
my bill for the acheivement.

I'll be even happier when the price of LED's drops. That will happen as demand
increases. a few years ago, CFL's were $15-20 each. Now I'm buying them for
under $2.

Price isn't the only factor, functionality is a bigger one.

The early CFLs were crap - slow start, long warm-up, hideous color
temperature, too bulky to fit in many fixtures, etc. The current CFLs
are vastly better than the early ones and that is the primary factor in
people adopting them, not price. Since the early units were so bad, a
lot of people were turned off to CFLs and waited well past the time CFLs
got good (or are still waiting) to adopt them.

LED lamps are in a similar position to the early CFLs, they just aren't
ready for the mainstream yet due in large part to issues with light
distribution and color temperature. CFLs were an easier fit for light
distribution as they are an omni directional source like an incandescent
is. LEDs are very directional and getting an even omnidirectional
distribution with them hasn't really been worked out from what I've
seen. LED color temperatures are also terrible as is their spectrum.

When they get LEDs that either individually or in a group can achieve
the relatively warm color temperature that most people want (vs. the
harsh bluish high color temp of most), and have good, even
omnidirectional light coverage then the mainstream will consider them.
Given the pace of LED technology lately, I don't expect it will take
that long for these issues to be resolved, but I haven't seen any LED
lighting that would be remotely acceptable to me for general residential
use so far.

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you may well
find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing LCD with
Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not that
different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger CRTs and
LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

"S. Barker" wrote in news:Z8-
:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

people who can't afford cable or dish TV.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On 23 Dec 2007 17:47:17 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:

"S. Barker" wrote in news:Z8-
:

Not to mention, WHO's on an antenna anyway?

people who can't afford cable or dish TV.

I have an antenna--that's all I need to watch PBS which is the only
programs I watch anyway. And, I get high definition (from the
antenna) on my 50" plasma screen. Not a question of cost, just don't
need cable nor an ugly dish.

Tony Hwang wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote:

The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.
However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps
won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our
ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our
ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly
UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the
world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs.
Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem.
We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's
grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we
can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think
they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off
limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental
impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do
it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact.
That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when
vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska
Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the
environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened.
They were WRONG. They're wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if
there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Hmmm,
I am waiting for LED bulbs.
Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner.
LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down.
I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.
You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because in
the long run, I save money.


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you didn't
mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who have
absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of SUVs, but
they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The market" made
some pretty lousy decisions.

In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.


Here's a quote to ponder from Walter Williams:

"I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with
hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of
government to impose their preferences on others."

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:20:50 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:31:54 -0500, Frank frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet
wrote:

Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.

You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I switched over almost every light in my house to CFL last spring. There were a
few that were just unworkable, such as the candelabra in the dining room that
had "electric candles. I just unscrew most of the lamps in that rather than
using the dimmer. Results? My electric consumption compared to the previous year
averaged 14.1% lower. The power company added to that by rewarding me 10% off
my bill for the acheivement.

I'll be even happier when the price of LED's drops. That will happen as demand
increases. a few years ago, CFL's were $15-20 each. Now I'm buying them for
under $2.

Price isn't the only factor, functionality is a bigger one.

The early CFLs were crap - slow start, long warm-up, hideous color
temperature, too bulky to fit in many fixtures, etc. The current CFLs
are vastly better than the early ones and that is the primary factor in
people adopting them, not price. Since the early units were so bad, a
lot of people were turned off to CFLs and waited well past the time CFLs
got good (or are still waiting) to adopt them.


Sorry, I disagree strongly. When you add up the cost of replacing all of the
lamps at once in an average sized home at $15 a pop, versus $2 a pop, it's a
radical difference. Cost was a monumental hurdle, which both manufacturers and
retailers have acknowleged. Adoption of CFL's was slowed more by price than
anything else. Once the price came down drastically was when you started seeing
them everywhere.

Cost is certainly a factor, however you could give the CFLs away for
free and people would still not use them if they had not progressed and
fixed all the faults of the early ones.


LED lamps are in a similar position to the early CFLs, they just aren't
ready for the mainstream yet due in large part to issues with light
distribution and color temperature. CFLs were an easier fit for light
distribution as they are an omni directional source like an incandescent
is. LEDs are very directional and getting an even omnidirectional
distribution with them hasn't really been worked out from what I've
seen. LED color temperatures are also terrible as is their spectrum.


I have a few LED's, and they are great. I don't have any incandesent lights an
my sailboat, either and if you shop around you can get LED's with very pleasant
characteristics now. It will only get better. They are going through the same
thing as many new technologies. They start out with very high prices early on,
before they have really been perfected. Lack of sales during that period slows
development. At some point they hit critical mass and then prices plummet and
the technolgy improves rapidly.

It takes both price and performance for general adoption to begin.


When they get LEDs that either individually or in a group can achieve
the relatively warm color temperature that most people want (vs. the
harsh bluish high color temp of most), and have good, even
omnidirectional light coverage then the mainstream will consider them.

Given the pace of LED technology lately, I don't expect it will take
that long for these issues to be resolved, but I haven't seen any LED
lighting that would be remotely acceptable to me for general residential
use so far.

Then you just haven't been looking hard enough. 8^)

I've not seen a single LED unit with either acceptable light
distribution or acceptable color temperature so far. Care to suggest a
unit I should look at that solves those problems?

My nephew works in maintenance
in an Atlantic City casino hotel.

Thousands of lights.... "on" 24X7
They switched to CFLs...
Significant savings on theri electric,
and measurable savings on A/C.

Their only prob. is the cheap *******
hotel tenants who steal the bulbs.....


rj

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you may well
find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing LCD with
Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not that
different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger CRTs and
LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably different
when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are including LCD
projectors, which are not part of this discussion at all.

I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and record
the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the new LCD.
Report back on the difference.

Phisherman wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 03:28:42 -0600, Jim Redelfs
wrote:

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb. (Thomas Alva
Edison will surely turn over in his grave).


And say "Hello" to additional mercury compounds (from fluorescent
tubes) seeping into our soils.

Supposedly the 75% power savings prevents more mercury emissions from
coal fired power plants than the mercury contained in the lamp.

Tony Hwang wrote:

Tony Hwang wrote:
Jim Redelfs wrote:

The Nanny Geniuses in D.C. just passed legislation that, in addition
to putting some serious "hurt" on our domestic car and light truck
industry, kills off those outmoded, wasteful and environmentally
DEVASTATING electric lamps we've all come to know and love.

Say "goodbye" to the venerable 100w and 75w, cheap, light bulb.
(Thomas Alva Edison will surely turn over in his grave).

Stock-up and horde 'em now, folks. They'll be worth a LOT in 10-15
years on the black market.

I just switched all my exterior entryways and garage "eyebrow"
fixtures to CF lamps. I am considering switching BACK the one beside
the front door.

I rarely use exterior lighting. Mostly, I switch-on the front porch
light when there is someone at the door - a rare occurrence.

On those occasions, I want IMMEDIATE light.
However, right now, it is 12F outside and that curly, compact
fluorescent lamp outside, by the front door, doesn't provide usable
light worth a damn for a minute or two.

With no apologies to anyone, I believe that switching to CF lamps
won't, over the LONG "haul", provide a bit of "relief" to our
ever-increasing energy consumption. Although that implies that our
ever-increasing energy consumption needs relief, I am adamantly
UNconvinced of that in any case.

The Energy Bill provided for NO new energy.

All the windmills, solar panels, methane plants and CF bulbs in the
world cannot, and never will, provide for our energy needs.
Conservation alone is NOT the answer, even IF there were a problem.
We have adequate stores of fossil fuels to keep our grandchildren's
grandchildren's grandchildren cool or warm and productive. Whether we
can overcome all the hand-wringing, crybaby, do-gooders that think
they're saving something by declaring wide swaths of our land "off
limits" to fossil fuel harvesting is another matter.

We learned how to do it cleanly, neatly and with minimal environmental
impact YEARS ago. But that's not good enough now. We simply CAN'T do
it because of some PERCEIVED, detrimental environmental impact.
That's B.S.

How about slashing the "red tape" and getting a few, new nuclear power
generating stations on-line within ten years?

We should drill for oil and gas in ANWR (Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge)?

Why do you think Seward talked Congress into buying Alaska?

Do you think he would have ever believed that there'd come a day when
vast miles of it would be virtually off-limits to any resource
harvesting?

Despite incessant impediments from environmentalists, the Tans-Alaska
Pipeline was finally built. But, Shazam! The devastation to the
environment and wildlife it was predicted to cause never happened.
They were WRONG. They're wrong now.

CF bulbs and set-back thermostats are NOT the final solution, even if
there was a problem. Heck, such measures aren't even a viable stop-gap.

We need more energy. Let's go get it. -Jim Redelfs

Hmmm,
I am waiting for LED bulbs.
Hi,
Nearby town of Banff installed LED street lights with solar panels.
Very cool looking light and it is cool running, no bugs get attracted
kep them clean. Cost a lot initially but for the long run, it's winner.
LED bulbs now are expensive but with time the price will come down.
I have a few small ones in the house, they use couple Watts per bulb.

I'd have to see those to believe them, unless they are the purely
cosmetic kind. I've yet to see any LED source that can compare to a 400W
HID source.

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.
You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who
have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of
SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The
market" made some pretty lousy decisions.

In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.
Here's a quote to ponder from Walter Williams:

"I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with
hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of
government to impose their preferences on others."


OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before finding out
that market-driven forces are not going to solve a problem? A year? 20
years? Two generations?

How long?

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 13:13:01 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:39:55 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 11:09:13 -0600, "Pete C." wrote:

wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 09:35:43 -0500, Nate Nagel wrote:

Frank wrote:
Dan_Musicant wrote:

Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.


You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.

I've often found that being a cheap ******* and being ecologically
correct are two subsets of the population with significant overlap.

If nothing else, the philosophy of using equipment until it is well and
truly no longer usable and no longer repairable before purchasing a
replacement is one of the best things you can possibly do for the
environment.

nate

(cheap *******)

Not if the old piece of equipment is an energy hog. When I bought my primary
home, it had a 30 year old deep freezer in the basement. I paid someone $75 to
haul it away. When it was operating, the OUTSIDE of the unit was cold!

I'll be turning off my perfectly good CRT Sony TV in a couple of months, and
replacing it with an LCD Sony. Boo-Hoo! I'm Soooo sad to be doing that!

Check the power consumption of that new LCD vs. the CRT and you may well
find there is little difference between them.

Already checked. There's a huge difference. You may be confusing LCD with
Plasma, which uses a lot more energy.

No, I'm not. Plasma does indeed eat power, but many LCDs are not that
different from CRTs. The difference gets greater with larger CRTs and
LCDs, but for smaller stuff it can be surprisingly small.

Well of course, smaller TV's use less power. How silly of me to overlook that.

Meanwhile, you ARE confusing Plasma with LCD's. They are noticably different
when it comes to power consumption. Either that, or you are including LCD
projectors, which are not part of this discussion at all.

I spent some 15 years in the video world, I'm quite familiar with the
different technologies. Put a Kill-a-Watt on the current CRT and record
the kWh used over a normal week and then do the same with the new LCD.
Report back on the difference.

15 years? I've got underwear older than that!

Why does this statement not surprise me?

If you were really some sort of
technically proficient person, you would know that it's very easy to just look
up the specifications for almost all consumer electronics.

It's easy to look up the specifications and misinterpret them. Simply
looking up the nameplate Amp or Watt rating doesn't tell the whole story
as it is only the peak draw and more often than not is quite different
than the normal operating draw. That CRT TV may well draw the nameplate
1.2 Amps for a few milliseconds on startup, but operating is more like
..4 Amps. Perform the real world measurements on your old and new TV and
then see if you feel the difference is huge.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Frank" frankdotlogullo@comcastperiodnet wrote in message
. ..
Dan_Musicant wrote:
Fact is you can find CF's that don't take a minute to get usable light.
Some are nearly instant on. The only filament lamps I use at all are
maybe a couple I haven't bothered to change that I leave on for 5-10
minutes at a time only.

I find it grating to read posts which make fun of federal lawmakers. I
wouldn't want to spend more than 10 minutes of every year sitting in
the
halls of congress. I know it's a madhouse, but walk a mile in their
shoes before you paint them all with the same brush.

Believe it or not, letting people do what they damn well please doesn't
work in this country.
You must be in the 15% that thinks congress is doing a good job.
Let the market decide. I use CFL's not to save the planet but because
in the long run, I save money.


You said "Let the market decide". That's pretty funny, although you
didn't mean it to be funny. "The market" includes millions of fools who
have absolutely NO need for the special mechanical characteristics of
SUVs, but they bought them anyway because advertising told them to. "The
market" made some pretty lousy decisions.

In your next message, you will say that "the market" will correct this
mistake. Don't count on it.
Here's a quote to ponder from Walter Williams:

"I'm afraid most Americans view such a liberty-oriented solution with
hostility. They believe they have a right to enlist the brute forces of
government to impose their preferences on others."

OK, then. How long do you think it's appropriate to wait before finding out
that market-driven forces are not going to solve a problem? A year? 20
years? Two generations?

How long?

The governments purpose is to do our bidding and maintain our security
and infrastructure, not to preach to us what we should be doing or to
force the views of a minority on us. If the free market doesn't adopt
whatever is being preached it is a clear indication that the majority
simply doesn't want it.