"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light bulbs we
use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no incandescent
bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again. Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

Bob wrote:


Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light
bulbs we use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.


Similar to putting corncobs in a Lexus.

But it makes those who influence the lawmakers feel good.

wrote in message
...
With these new compact florescent bulbs, we may as well all go
back to
candle light. I have lived with these damn CF bulbs in my garage
for
several years. I go in to get a tool, and have to stand for 5
minutes
waiting to be able to see what I'm doing. I started carrying a
flashlight to use while these damn bulbs got up to full
brightness.
That's when I realized I may as well just use the flashlight, or a
candle. By the time these bulbs are bright enough to see anything
I
am shutting them back off and leaving with my tools. The other
night
I finally had enough. I replaced them with standard light bulbs.
Now
I am no longer living in the dark and wasting my life away waiting
to
see. Those CF bulbs might save energy, and might save me a few
cents,
but the aggravation is not worth it. Except for lights that
remain on
for long periods of time, I will not be using CF bulbs any longer.

One other thing, these bulbs are advertised to outlast standard
bulbs.
I have not found that to be correct. None of them last any
longer,
and many burn out sooner. I did find that those that take the
longest
to get up to normal brightness seem to last longer than those that
get
bright sooner. Either way, they are not practical except for
security
lights that stay on for long periods of time, and their cost
savings
are quickly used to replace these bulbs that cost 10 or more times
the
cost of a standard bulb.


Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light
bulbs we use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

On Apr 19, 9:42*am, "Bob" wrote:
wrote in message

...





With these new compact florescent bulbs, we may as well all go
back to
candle light. *I have lived with these damn CF bulbs in my garage
for
several years. *I go in to get a tool, and have to stand for 5
minutes
waiting to be able to see what I'm doing. *I started carrying a
flashlight to use while these damn bulbs got up to full
brightness.
That's when I realized I may as well just use the flashlight, or a
candle. *By the time these bulbs are bright enough to see anything
I
am shutting them back off and leaving with my tools. *The other
night
I finally had enough. *I replaced them with standard light bulbs.
Now
I am no longer living in the dark and wasting my life away waiting
to
see. *Those CF bulbs might save energy, and might save me a few
cents,
but the aggravation is not worth it. *Except for lights that
remain on
for long periods of time, I will not be using CF bulbs any longer.

One other thing, these bulbs are advertised to outlast standard
bulbs.
I have not found that to be correct. *None of them last any
longer,
and many burn out sooner. *I did find that those that take the
longest
to get up to normal brightness seem to last longer than those that
get
bright sooner. *Either way, they are not practical except for
security
lights that stay on for long periods of time, and their cost
savings
are quickly used to replace these bulbs that cost 10 or more times
the
cost of a standard bulb.

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light
bulbs we use in our homes. *It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The day should be now that incandesants are taxed and cfls get a
rebate so their use increases.

On Apr 19, 10:04*am, "Joseph Meehan"
wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message

...



"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light bulbs
we use in our homes. *It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again. *Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

* * I will and I will vote for the one who is working to conserver energy
and our environment.

--
Joseph Meehan

*Dia 's Muire duit

Who is, who has, who will? Maybe Nader.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light bulbs
we use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again. Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

I will and I will vote for the one who is working to conserver energy
and our environment.

Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. The energy savings from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that go
anywhere else. The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense for
everyone else.

Marissa Payton wrote:

Joseph Meehan wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light bulbs
we use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again. Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

I will and I will vote for the one who is working to conserver energy
and our environment.

Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. The energy savings from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that go
anywhere else. The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense for
everyone else.

Correction: The above sentence should read "didn't think this out too
thoroughly..."

On Apr 19, 12:29*pm, Marissa Payton wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light bulbs
we use in our homes. *It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again. *Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

* * I will and I will vote for the one who is working to conserver energy
and our environment.

Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? *Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. *The energy savings from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that go
anywhere else. *The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense for
everyone else.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Did you know to operate a 100w incandesant bulb, a coal plant releases
twice as much Mercury to generate that 100 watts over the lifetime of
the bulb, than a cfl contains? Thats airborn from the coal plant you
breathe everyday. The Mercury is miniscule in amount. I guess
incandesant bulb manufacturers like to point out the bulb part, but
not the coal burning part.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:31:00 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. The energy savings from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that go
anywhere else. The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense for
everyone else.

Hi Marissa,

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances. A 70-watt high-efficiency
incandescent (HEI) provides the same amount of light as a conventional
100-watt lamp but uses 30 per cent less energy. Philips offers HEI
lamps that exceed these new standards and they're now available at
Home Depot.

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances.

Not today, but the idea has been brought up on both local and federal
levels.

On Apr 19, 2:16*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:31:00 -0400, Marissa Payton

wrote:
Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? *Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. *The energy savings from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that go
anywhere else. *The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense for
everyone else.

Hi Marissa,

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances. *A 70-watt high-efficiency
incandescent (HEI) provides the same amount of light as a conventional
100-watt lamp but uses 30 per cent less energy. *Philips offers HEI
lamps that exceed these new standards and they're now available at
Home Depot.

Cheers,
Paul

So a new HEI 70 watt incandesant = 100w in conventional incandesant
output, a 25w cfl = 100w in conventional incandesant output, there is
still no comparison in savings, And new models of CFLs out now do 70+
LPW, vs 60-65 LPW of what we see now in most stores. An incandesant
bulb is esentialy a heater outputting light in limited visable
spectrum. A 100 watt incandesant outputs no more than 4-8% of its
consumed energy in light we see and benefit from, the rest is in heat.
In winter its not so bad, you get a big benefit of extra heat, in
summer, incandesants even HEI, are a big load on your AC bill. Now if
for most of the US electric costs were as cheap as Ng per Btu it would
not be so bad, but for me electricity is still much more expensive per
BTU than NG and my company is raising it again. Electricity costs will
be above fossil fuels cost, since most electricity is made from them.
And at what true cost in hours life does this HEI give? All higher
output bulbs Ive seen last less in hours, from Thinner filaments. We
should Tax the incandesant and rebate the CFL. Think what you will pay
extra this summer for AC cooling your home, to offset the lightbulbs
heating your house this summer. You will complain about those high AC
bills near to come, and they are for me to. 10 regular 100 watt
incandesants will be dumping at least 920 watts of heat inside, heat
you then pay to remove, how smart we are.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:45:20 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances.

Not today, but the idea has been brought up on both local and federal
levels.

Hi Edwin,

Maybe so. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't predict the future,
but I can correct falsehoods. The claim was made that Congress had
already passed legislation outlawing these lamps (or is intending to
do so) and that's simply not the case.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

So a new HEI 70 watt incandesant = 100w in conventional incandesant
output, a 25w cfl = 100w in conventional incandesant output, there is
still no comparison in savings, And new models of CFLs out now do 70+
LPW, vs 60-65 LPW of what we see now in most stores. An incandesant
bulb is esentialy a heater outputting light in limited visable
spectrum. A 100 watt incandesant outputs no more than 4-8% of its
consumed energy in light we see and benefit from, the rest is in heat.
In winter its not so bad, you get a big benefit of extra heat, in
summer, incandesants even HEI, are a big load on your AC bill. Now if
for most of the US electric costs were as cheap as Ng per Btu it would
not be so bad, but for me electricity is still much more expensive per
BTU than NG and my company is raising it again. Electricity costs will
be above fossil fuels cost, since most electricity is made from them.
And at what true cost in hours life does this HEI give? All higher
output bulbs Ive seen last less in hours, from Thinner filaments. We
should Tax the incandesant and rebate the CFL. Think what you will pay
extra this summer for AC cooling your home, to offset the lightbulbs
heating your house this summer. You will complain about those high AC
bills near to come, and they are for me to. 10 regular 100 watt
incandesants will be dumping at least 920 watts of heat inside, heat
you then pay to remove, how smart we are.

Hi Mark,

I never suggested HEI lamps are technically superior to CFLs or a more
economical alternative, although there are no doubt applications where
they could prove to be a better choice.

The claim was made that incandescent lamps will be banned and I
pointed out that's not the case. As I stated in my original post,
there are incandescent lamps available now that meet these new minimum
standards, so anyone who wants to use an incandescent light source can
continue to do so, if that is indeed their preference.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

So a new HEI 70 watt incandesant = 100w in conventional incandesant
output, a 25w cfl = 100w in conventional incandesant output, there is
still no comparison in savings, And new models of CFLs out now do 70+
LPW, vs 60-65 LPW of what we see now in most stores. An incandesant
bulb is esentialy a heater outputting light in limited visable
spectrum. A 100 watt incandesant outputs no more than 4-8% of its
consumed energy in light we see and benefit from, the rest is in heat.
In winter its not so bad, you get a big benefit of extra heat, in
summer, incandesants even HEI, are a big load on your AC bill. Now if
for most of the US electric costs were as cheap as Ng per Btu it would
not be so bad, but for me electricity is still much more expensive per
BTU than NG and my company is raising it again. Electricity costs will
be above fossil fuels cost, since most electricity is made from them.
And at what true cost in hours life does this HEI give? All higher
output bulbs Ive seen last less in hours, from Thinner filaments. We
should Tax the incandesant and rebate the CFL. Think what you will pay
extra this summer for AC cooling your home, to offset the lightbulbs
heating your house this summer. You will complain about those high AC
bills near to come, and they are for me to. 10 regular 100 watt
incandesants will be dumping at least 920 watts of heat inside, heat
you then pay to remove, how smart we are.

Hi Mark,

Sorry, you had asked me about their service life. These HEI lamps are
rated at 3,000 hours -- a standard, 120-volt 100-watt A19 incandescent
is 750 hours, so we're looking at a four-fold improvement.

As a side note, to make it easier for readers to digest what you want
to say, I'd recommend formatting your text into smaller paragraphs.

Cheers,
Paul

On Apr 20, 12:59*am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:00:45 -0700 (PDT), ransley





wrote:
On Apr 19, 5:34*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), ransley

wrote:
So a new HEI 70 watt incandesant = 100w in conventional incandesant
output, a 25w cfl = 100w in conventional incandesant output, there is
still no comparison in savings, And new models of CFLs out now do 70+
LPW, vs 60-65 LPW of what we see now in most stores. An incandesant
bulb is esentialy a heater outputting light in limited visable
spectrum. A 100 watt incandesant outputs no more than 4-8% of its
consumed energy in light we see and benefit from, the rest is in heat.
In winter its not so bad, you get a big benefit of extra heat, in
summer, incandesants even HEI, are a big load on your AC bill. Now if
for most of the US electric costs were as cheap as Ng per Btu it would
not be so bad, but for me electricity is still much more expensive per
BTU than NG and my company is raising it again. Electricity costs will
be above fossil fuels cost, since most electricity is made from them.
And at what true cost in hours life does this HEI give? All higher
output bulbs Ive seen last less in hours, from Thinner filaments. We
should Tax the incandesant and rebate the CFL. Think what you will pay
extra this summer for AC cooling your home, to offset the lightbulbs
heating *your house this summer. You will complain about those high AC
bills near to come, and they are for me to. 10 regular 100 watt
incandesants will be dumping at least 920 watts of heat inside, heat
you then pay to remove, how smart we are.

Hi Mark,

Sorry, you had asked me about their service life. *These HEI lamps are
rated at 3,000 hours -- a standard, 120-volt 100-watt A19 incandescent
is 750 hours, so we're looking at a four-fold improvement.

As a side note, to make it easier for readers to digest what you want
to say, I'd recommend formatting your text into smaller paragraphs.

Cheers,
Paul

I wonder if the HEI *have a waranty like HDs 9 year on their cfls, no
of course they dont, and cant, since they doztnt last as long.

* *They still consume *66% more energy, and , every second, then
Flourescent lights, they are not *bs, considering T8 can go to 110
LPW *, incandesant are , and always * will *not be a waste of money
and energy. A T8 *goes to 110 Lumen Per Watt, a Incandesant Bulb-
heater goes to 17 -19 Lumen per watt, so you go figure, you are smart
enough, *you will save alot of money switching *to * *cfls

Hi Mark,

To answer your question, they have a two-year warranty, which is based
on an average usage of 4 hours per day.

Secondly, let me say AGAIN that I'm not recommending these lamps as a
replacement for CFLs -- nothing I've said here even remotely suggests
that. *I'm simply pointing out that there is no ban on incandescent
lamps; rather, that Congress will require incandescent lamps meet a
minimum standard of performance and that for those who, for whatever
reason, want to continue using incandescent sources, there are HEI
lamps available from Philips and Osram Sylvania that already meet this
standard.

Frankly, whether someone wants to use CFLs, incandescents, T8
fluorescents or even candles as the OP suggests is really of no
concern to me. *For the record, I've been using CFLs almost
exclusively since 1983 and I don't expect this will change unless
something else comes along that offers better overall value. *So you
don't have to convince me I can save a lot of money by switching to
CFLs; I was smart enough to figure that out on my own some twenty-five
years ago.

Cheers,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, Home Depot has a NINE year warranty on cfls, you get an HD charge
and they keep the reciept, popular Mechanics Magazines review of CFLs
to incandesants has HDs N:Vision home brand of soft white even Better
than Incandesant at skin rendition, the wife will like that. They dont
Dimm yet, but soon thay will. So you buy a HD bulb and loose the
reciept in 3 yaers, buy another one and return the old one. And save
75% in lighting. In Oct 07 I bought about 50 at 50$ at HD. enough for
I hope a few years at my many locations. Theft is my issue, But my
electric bill is down 50%. A 4 pack of 9w = 40 watt are about 8$ ,
and only 4$ in October. I still say Tax Incandesants and Rebate
Flourescents Today , not Buches 2010 BS of phoney improvements and no
real policy.

ransley wrote:
I still say Tax Incandesants and Rebate
Flourescents Today , not Buches 2010 BS of phoney improvements and no
real policy.

When you use tax policy to influence or control consumer behavior, you are
interfering with the "general marketplace," or the "invisible hand" of Adam
Smith.

Virtually all such interference is counter-productive.

Look at the cost of food as more and more people - with government
encouragement - put corn cobs in their Lexus.

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

On Apr 20, 12:59*am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:

Hi Mark,

To answer your question, they have a two-year warranty, which is based
on an average usage of 4 hours per day.

Secondly, let me say AGAIN that I'm not recommending these lamps as a
replacement for CFLs -- nothing I've said here even remotely suggests
that. *I'm simply pointing out that there is no ban on incandescent
lamps; rather, that Congress will require incandescent lamps meet a
minimum standard of performance and that for those who, for whatever
reason, want to continue using incandescent sources, there are HEI
lamps available from Philips and Osram Sylvania that already meet this
standard.

Frankly, whether someone wants to use CFLs, incandescents, T8
fluorescents or even candles as the OP suggests is really of no
concern to me. *For the record, I've been using CFLs almost
exclusively since 1983 and I don't expect this will change unless
something else comes along that offers better overall value. *So you
don't have to convince me I can save a lot of money by switching to
CFLs; I was smart enough to figure that out on my own some twenty-five
years ago.

Cheers,
Paul

OK, Home Depot has a NINE year warranty on cfls, you get an HD charge
and they keep the reciept, popular Mechanics Magazines review of CFLs
to incandesants has HDs N:Vision home brand of soft white even Better
than Incandesant at skin rendition, the wife will like that. They dont
Dimm yet, but soon thay will. So you buy a HD bulb and loose the
reciept in 3 yaers, buy another one and return the old one. And save
75% in lighting. In Oct 07 I bought about 50 at 50$ at HD. enough for
I hope a few years at my many locations. Theft is my issue, But my
electric bill is down 50%. A 4 pack of 9w = 40 watt are about 8$ ,
and only 4$ in October. I still say Tax Incandesants and Rebate
Flourescents Today , not Buches 2010 BS of phoney improvements and no
real policy.

Hi Mark,

Just with respect to colour rendering, there are no CFLs that can
outperform incandescents in terms of their colour accuracy; the best
available for residential applications top out at 84 to 86 CRI versus
incandescents that have a CRI of 97 to 100. You can have CFLs that
are rich in pink that might arguably enhance skin tones, but they will
end up distorting other colours and, frankly, may God rest her soul, I
don't want my lighting to look like it came out of Barbara Cartland's
boudoir.

FWIW, I'm in favour of setting minimum efficiency standards for
incandescent lamps as opposed to banning them outright. When you set
the bar high enough, you achieve the same desired results and
potentially spur-on new, creative solutions that may very well surpass
the performance of the alternative(s) you had initially deemed more
appropriate.

For example, GE is spending tens of millions of dollars developing a
new generation of incandescent lamps that will initially produce 30
lumens per Watt (lpW) by 2010, then doubling to 60 lpW two years
thereafter; at this higher efficacy, they will produce about the same
amount of light per watt as a CFL [by point of comparison, the Philips
HEI lamps I mentioned earlier operate at a little less than 23 lumens
per Watt].

In addition, Scania Labs (DOE) is working on an even more advanced
design (lattice emitters) that promises to be TWELVE times more
efficient than what we have now -- that would be a three-fold
improvement over CFLs or presumably something in the order of 200 or
more lpW. There is another report of someone who has developed a
wide-spectrum IR coating that supposedly recycles 80 per cent of the
waste heat back to the filament which, if true, represents a huge leap
over the performance of today's halogen-IR coated lamps.

As the Energy Star programme has demonstrated for us, carrots can work
just as well as sticks -- possibly even better -- and they don't
inflict pain.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:19:10 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

When you use tax policy to influence or control consumer behavior, you are
interfering with the "general marketplace," or the "invisible hand" of Adam
Smith.

Virtually all such interference is counter-productive.

True, but there have been times when I've been bitch slapped by that
"invisible hand". ;-)

Cheers,
Paul

On Apr 20, 7:35*am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 23:39:04 -0700 (PDT), ransley





wrote:
On Apr 20, 12:59*am, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
Hi Mark,

To answer your question, they have a two-year warranty, which is based
on an average usage of 4 hours per day.

Secondly, let me say AGAIN that I'm not recommending these lamps as a
replacement for CFLs -- nothing I've said here even remotely suggests
that. *I'm simply pointing out that there is no ban on incandescent
lamps; rather, that Congress will require incandescent lamps meet a
minimum standard of performance and that for those who, for whatever
reason, want to continue using incandescent sources, there are HEI
lamps available from Philips and Osram Sylvania that already meet this
standard.

Frankly, whether someone wants to use CFLs, incandescents, T8
fluorescents or even candles as the OP suggests is really of no
concern to me. *For the record, I've been using CFLs almost
exclusively since 1983 and I don't expect this will change unless
something else comes along that offers better overall value. *So you
don't have to convince me I can save a lot of money by switching to
CFLs; I was smart enough to figure that out on my own some twenty-five
years ago.

Cheers,
Paul

OK, Home Depot has a NINE year warranty on cfls, you get an *HD charge
and they keep the reciept, popular Mechanics Magazines review of CFLs
to incandesants has HDs N:Vision home brand of soft white even Better
than Incandesant at skin rendition, the wife will like that. They dont
Dimm yet, but soon thay will. So you buy a HD bulb and loose the
reciept in 3 yaers, buy another one and return the old one. And save
75% in lighting. In Oct 07 I bought *about 50 at 50$ at HD. enough for
I hope a few years at my many locations. Theft is my issue, But my
electric bill is down 50%. *A 4 pack of 9w = 40 watt are about 8$ *,
and only 4$ in October. I still say Tax Incandesants and Rebate
Flourescents Today , not Buches 2010 BS of phoney improvements and no
real policy.

Hi Mark,

Just with respect to colour rendering, there are no CFLs that can
outperform incandescents in terms of their colour accuracy; the best
available for residential applications top out at 84 to 86 CRI versus
incandescents that have a CRI of 97 to 100. *You can have CFLs that
are rich in pink that might arguably enhance skin tones, but they will
end up distorting other colours and, frankly, may God rest her soul, I
don't want my lighting to look like it came out of Barbara Cartland's
boudoir.

FWIW, I'm in favour of setting minimum efficiency standards for
incandescent lamps as opposed to banning them outright. *When you set
the bar high enough, you achieve the same desired results and
potentially spur-on new, creative solutions that may very well surpass
the performance of the alternative(s) you had initially deemed more
appropriate.

For example, GE is spending tens of millions of dollars developing a
new generation of incandescent lamps that will initially produce 30
lumens per Watt (lpW) by 2010, then doubling to 60 lpW two years
thereafter; at this higher efficacy, they will produce about the same
amount of light per watt as a CFL [by point of comparison, the Philips
HEI lamps I mentioned earlier operate at a little less than 23 lumens
per Watt].

In addition, Scania Labs (DOE) is working on an even more advanced
design (lattice emitters) that promises to be TWELVE times more
efficient than what we have now -- that would be a three-fold
improvement over CFLs or presumably something in the order of 200 or
more lpW. *There is another report of someone who has developed a
wide-spectrum IR coating that supposedly recycles 80 per cent of the
waste heat back to the filament which, if true, represents a huge leap
over the performance of today's halogen-IR coated lamps.

As the Energy Star programme has demonstrated for us, carrots can work
just as well as sticks -- possibly even better -- and they don't
inflict pain.

Cheers,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Check out a cfl vs incandesant test at Popular Mechanics, the HD
Ivision bulb rated the highest and at a par on skin tone to incandesant

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 07:38:58 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

Check out a cfl vs incandesant test at Popular Mechanics, the HD
Ivision bulb rated the highest and at a par on skin tone to incandesant

Hi Mark,

I have read it and, again, in terms of colour rendering, no CFL can
match the performance of an incandescent or halogen light source.
That's basically the only reason why halogen still dominates the
retail industry given its enormous energy and cooling demands (in
fact, most retail stores are air conditioned twelve months of the year
in large part due to these high lighting loads). You won't find a CFL
within a gunshot of a high-end clothing or jewellery store and there's
good reason for that.

Cheers,
Paul

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:45:20 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances.

Not today, but the idea has been brought up on both local and federal
levels.

Hi Edwin,

Maybe so. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't predict the future,
but I can correct falsehoods. The claim was made that Congress had
already passed legislation outlawing these lamps (or is intending to
do so) and that's simply not the case.

Around December 2007, US Congress passed an energy bill that, inter alia,
included the phase out of incandescent 100 Watt light bulbs by 2012. I
expect, but can't predict with absolute certainty, that more flavors of
incandescent bulbs will be phased out in the relatively near future.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin...e-know-it.html

ransley wrote:

On Apr 19, 4:59 pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 13:57:07 -0700 (PDT), ransley





wrote:
So a new HEI 70 watt incandesant = 100w in conventional incandesant
output, a 25w cfl = 100w in conventional incandesant output, there is
still no comparison in savings, And new models of CFLs out now do 70+
LPW, vs 60-65 LPW of what we see now in most stores. An incandesant
bulb is esentialy a heater outputting light in limited visable
spectrum. A 100 watt incandesant outputs no more than 4-8% of its
consumed energy in light we see and benefit from, the rest is in heat.
In winter its not so bad, you get a big benefit of extra heat, in
summer, incandesants even HEI, are a big load on your AC bill. Now if
for most of the US electric costs were as cheap as Ng per Btu it would
not be so bad, but for me electricity is still much more expensive per
BTU than NG and my company is raising it again. Electricity costs will
be above fossil fuels cost, since most electricity is made from them.
And at what true cost in hours life does this HEI give? All higher
output bulbs Ive seen last less in hours, from Thinner filaments. We
should Tax the incandesant and rebate the CFL. Think what you will pay
extra this summer for AC cooling your home, to offset the lightbulbs
heating your house this summer. You will complain about those high AC
bills near to come, and they are for me to. 10 regular 100 watt
incandesants will be dumping at least 920 watts of heat inside, heat
you then pay to remove, how smart we are.

Hi Mark,

I never suggested HEI lamps are technically superior to CFLs or a more
economical alternative, although there are no doubt applications where
they could prove to be a better choice.

The claim was made that incandescent lamps will be banned and I
pointed out that's not the case. As I stated in my original post,
there are incandescent lamps available now that meet these new minimum
standards, so anyone who wants to use an incandescent light source can
continue to do so, if that is indeed their preference.

Cheers,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The minimums are a total joke, Bush BS, they do Nada, Nothing, to
help reduce US consumption of energy. Taxing Incandesant now, and
Rebate Cfls would help Now

. Isnt it interesting Germany may be 30% solar in 15 years, or Iceland
be fossil fuel free, and the US will be ****ed by the Mid East and our
greed. Even England bans non condensing heating units, thats a 10%
savings in heating, we do NOTHING, in the US nada. What BS we US folks
are.

Iceland is blessed with an abundant supply of readily available geo thermal
energy right from the ground. They use it extensively for electricity
generation and direct heating of buildings. It is also a country of only
350,000 people so its energy needs are significantly different than say, the
United States.

The United States *could* be making most of its electricity from nuclear (as
France now does), but has chosen not to. Instead more and more US
electricity is coming from Natural Gas, which consumes an important resource
that can be used for other uses (including heating, vehicles, making liquid
fuel, etc.). Unlike the rest of the world, the US does not separate its
nuclear waste, so the entire fuel bundle (plus the entire reactor when
replaced) are treated as one package to toss away...somewhere. The rest of
the world separates the various items, including the most radioactive
isotopes (which stay hot for hundreds of years) from the less radioactive
(but still dangerous) isotopes that stay "hot" for tens of thousands of
years, from the much lower radioactive fuel assemblies, etc.

By the way, France has one of the lowest per capita oil consumption of modern
developed countries, makes about 82% of its electricity from nuclear, with
most of the balance coming from hydroelectric. Wind power production is also
increasing. France is now developing and building its third generation of
reactors, which will be more efficient than ever. The second generation came
from the (former) United States's Westinghouse Company, before the US all but
through in the towel in researching/building nuclear electricity generation.

The national energy strategy for the United States could look radically
different, but public policy for decades has set stage for the current mess,
and it will continue to get much worse.

ransley wrote:

On Apr 19, 12:29 pm, Marissa Payton wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .

"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light bulbs
we use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again. Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

I will and I will vote for the one who is working to conserver energy
and our environment.

Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. The energy savings from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that go
anywhere else. The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense for
everyone else.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Did you know to operate a 100w incandesant bulb, a coal plant releases
twice as much Mercury to generate that 100 watts over the lifetime of
the bulb, than a cfl contains? Thats airborn from the coal plant you
breathe everyday. The Mercury is miniscule in amount. I guess
incandesant bulb manufacturers like to point out the bulb part, but
not the coal burning part.r

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release Mercury!!
Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc. goes into the
environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator releases. That's
assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including dropped on your kitchen floor.

Joseph Meehan wrote:

"Marissa Payton" wrote in message
...


Joseph Meehan wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Bob" wrote in message

Thank our government for controlling our lives down to what light
bulbs
we use in our homes. It won't be long before there will be no
incandescent bulbs to be bought.
Bob-tx

Thank the voters that keep electing these morons again and again.
Think
about that before you pull the lever in November.

I will and I will vote for the one who is working to conserver energy
and our environment.

Do you think that mandating light bulbs containing MERCURY helps the
environment? Sure, a few people might even attempt to dispose of them
'properly' (whatever happens to them then), but most won't even do that.

I use 100 W light bulbs in a shed, in the garage, and a few places in the
basement where they might be on a few hours per year. The energy savings
from
replacing these with the Mercury bulbs are nil, but the environment damage
from producing/handling/disposing Mercury will be the same as bulbs that
go
anywhere else. The Congresspeople really didn't think this out to
thoroughly
(shocking, I know) but I guess it "feels" better to mandate this nonsense
for
everyone else.


With a few exceptions (at least some areas in California) there are not
mandates in the US for CFs.

That's because the law just passed by Congress doesn't kick in the first
incandescent bans until 2012 (just 4 years from now), although manufacturers may
start phasing out sooner.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin...e-know-it.html

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:53:43 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:45:20 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances.

Not today, but the idea has been brought up on both local and federal
levels.

Hi Edwin,

Maybe so. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't predict the future,
but I can correct falsehoods. The claim was made that Congress had
already passed legislation outlawing these lamps (or is intending to
do so) and that's simply not the case.

Around December 2007, US Congress passed an energy bill that, inter alia,
included the phase out of incandescent 100 Watt light bulbs by 2012. I
expect, but can't predict with absolute certainty, that more flavors of
incandescent bulbs will be phased out in the relatively near future.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin...e-know-it.html

Hi Marissa,

I would normally expect U.S. News and World Report to get the story
right, but in this case the facts don't support the claim. Here's
what I wrote earlier in this news forum to response to someone else
who was told (incorrectly) that incandescent lamps were going the way
of the dodo bird:

--- Begin Quote ---

The provisions related to incandescent lamps within the "Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (HR6)" are limited to "general
service" only -- basically your standard A19 household lamp. "General
service" is defined as:

1) having a medium (E27) screw-base;
2) a light output of between 310 and 2600 lumens;
3) an operating voltage of between 110 and130V; and
4) a standard or "modified" light spectrum (e.g.., GE's "Reveal").

Incandescent lamps that are explicitly EXCLUDED from this regulation
include the following:

appliance
black light
bug
coloured
infrared
left-hand thread (used where lamps may be stolen)
marine / marine signal
mine service
plant light
reflector
rough service / shatter-resistant / vibration service
sign
silver bowl
showcase
3-way
traffic signal
G & T shape
AB, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S and M-14

When these regulations are phased-in starting in 2012, general service
lamps that produce approximately the same amount of light as a
traditional 100-watt incandescent will use no more than 72-watts; a
lamp with the output of a 75-watt incandescent will be capped at
53-watts, a 60-watt bulb at 43-watts and a 40-watt bulb at 29-watts.

As mentioned in my previous post, Philips currently sells general
service lamps that meet this new standard, and within the next few
years, GE expects to have lamps that will be four times more efficient
than the ones they sell now.

--- End Quote ---

Again, as noted above, I can walk into Home Depot today and buy
incandescent lamps that meet these forthcoming standards, so anyone
who wants to continue using incandescent lamps can do so.

Cheers,
Paul

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:09:29 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release Mercury!!
Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc. goes into the
environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator releases. That's
assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including dropped on your kitchen floor.

Hi Marissa,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you've just said. Are you
suggesting coal-fired generating plants do not release mercury into
the atmosphere, or are you saying that it's foolish for us to be
burning coal to generate electricity because of these emissions? Can
you clarify this for me?

Cheers,
Paul

Marissa Payton wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:
....
Maybe so. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't predict the future,
but I can correct falsehoods. The claim was made that Congress had
already passed legislation outlawing these lamps (or is intending to
do so) and that's simply not the case.

Around December 2007, US Congress passed an energy bill that, inter alia,
included the phase out of incandescent 100 Watt light bulbs by 2012. I
expect, but can't predict with absolute certainty, that more flavors of
incandescent bulbs will be phased out in the relatively near future.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin...e-know-it.html

That link is to a news story interpretation, not the text of the 2007
"Energy Independence and Security Act" itself.

As near as I can tell from reading the Act (and I haven't studied it in
absolute detail), Sec. 321 which is the section on residential lighting
only says incandescent bulbs shall meet stated energy efficiencies, not
that they are prohibited. The popular press has made the leap that this
will effectively ban the incandescent, but that isn't necessarily so,
and afaict it isn't the language or even the actual intent of the
legislation passed.

The full text is available here

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...6enr.txt .pdf

As is so often that case, I think this is another case where lack of
understanding by the writer leads to misinformation in the story.

--

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:09:29 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release Mercury!!
Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc. goes into the
environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator releases. That's
assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including dropped on your kitchen floor.

Hi Marissa,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you've just said. Are you
suggesting coal-fired generating plants do not release mercury into
the atmosphere, or are you saying that it's foolish for us to be
burning coal to generate electricity because of these emissions? Can
you clarify this for me?

Ideally it would make sense to follow the lead of countries such as France, who make
almost all of their electricity without burning any fossil fuels. But the US has
reversed its (temporary) earlier leadership in this area and continues to depend more
and more on fossil fuels, including coal.

Burning coal isn't optimal, but newer technologies can at least remove major
pollutants, including mercury. Unfortuanately a lot of plants are old and emit a lot
more mercury than newer technology plants. Public policy that permits these emissions
and does not discourage them to phase out is bad public policy. Unfortunately US
energy policy has been bad public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during
my lifetime.

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:53:43 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 16:45:20 -0400, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote in message

There is NO ban on incandescent lamps; the federal government has
simply established minimum efficiency standards similar to what it has
done with selected household appliances.

Not today, but the idea has been brought up on both local and federal
levels.

Hi Edwin,

Maybe so. I don't have a crystal ball so I can't predict the future,
but I can correct falsehoods. The claim was made that Congress had
already passed legislation outlawing these lamps (or is intending to
do so) and that's simply not the case.

Around December 2007, US Congress passed an energy bill that, inter alia,
included the phase out of incandescent 100 Watt light bulbs by 2012. I
expect, but can't predict with absolute certainty, that more flavors of
incandescent bulbs will be phased out in the relatively near future.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/busin...e-know-it.html

Hi Marissa,

I would normally expect U.S. News and World Report to get the story
right, but in this case the facts don't support the claim. Here's
what I wrote earlier in this news forum to response to someone else
who was told (incorrectly) that incandescent lamps were going the way
of the dodo bird:

--- Begin Quote ---

The provisions related to incandescent lamps within the "Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (HR6)" are limited to "general
service" only -- basically your standard A19 household lamp. "General
service" is defined as:

1) having a medium (E27) screw-base;
2) a light output of between 310 and 2600 lumens;
3) an operating voltage of between 110 and130V; and
4) a standard or "modified" light spectrum (e.g.., GE's "Reveal").

Incandescent lamps that are explicitly EXCLUDED from this regulation
include the following:

appliance
black light
bug
coloured
infrared
left-hand thread (used where lamps may be stolen)
marine / marine signal
mine service
plant light
reflector
rough service / shatter-resistant / vibration service
sign
silver bowl
showcase
3-way
traffic signal
G & T shape
AB, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S and M-14

When these regulations are phased-in starting in 2012, general service
lamps that produce approximately the same amount of light as a
traditional 100-watt incandescent will use no more than 72-watts; a
lamp with the output of a 75-watt incandescent will be capped at
53-watts, a 60-watt bulb at 43-watts and a 40-watt bulb at 29-watts.

As mentioned in my previous post, Philips currently sells general
service lamps that meet this new standard, and within the next few
years, GE expects to have lamps that will be four times more efficient
than the ones they sell now.

--- End Quote ---

Again, as noted above, I can walk into Home Depot today and buy
incandescent lamps that meet these forthcoming standards, so anyone
who wants to continue using incandescent lamps can do so.

I'm glad to hear that. I'm not surprised that media got portions of the story wrong, but I expected the
overview to be more fact-based than it apparently was. I will read the full law text as soon as I get the
chance. I find it ironic that traffic signal bulbs are exempt, especiallyy since they are easily replaced by
LEDs, which are very energy efficient and contain no mercury.

As LED technology improves, I expect we will see that type of lighting more and more throughout the home too.

Marissa Payton wrote:
....

Cogent summary of many valid points elided for briefness...

The national energy strategy for the United States could look radically
different, but public policy for decades has set stage for the current mess,
and it will continue to get much worse.

Thanks in large part to the former "nuclear technician" in the White
House who killed reprocessing and thus left US w/ the current open fuel
cycle debacle and failed nuclear proliferation policy to boot.

There is at least some hope on the horizon in this venue at least as
there have been bona fide licensing applications filed by several
nuclear utilities within the last six months or so...

--

Marissa Payton wrote:
....
...Unfortunately US
energy policy has been bad public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during
my lifetime.

Unless your lifetime is extremely short, there is at least _some_
prospect for relief in (moderately near) distant future...

http://www.nustartenergy.com/NewsCenter.aspx?Category=1

Closing the fuel cycle is still on the very far distant horizon it
seems, however.

--

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:44:13 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:09:29 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release Mercury!!
Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc. goes into the
environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator releases. That's
assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including dropped on your kitchen floor.

Hi Marissa,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you've just said. Are you
suggesting coal-fired generating plants do not release mercury into
the atmosphere, or are you saying that it's foolish for us to be
burning coal to generate electricity because of these emissions? Can
you clarify this for me?

Ideally it would make sense to follow the lead of countries such as France, who make
almost all of their electricity without burning any fossil fuels. But the US has
reversed its (temporary) earlier leadership in this area and continues to depend more
and more on fossil fuels, including coal.

Burning coal isn't optimal, but newer technologies can at least remove major
pollutants, including mercury. Unfortuanately a lot of plants are old and emit a lot
more mercury than newer technology plants. Public policy that permits these emissions
and does not discourage them to phase out is bad public policy. Unfortunately US
energy policy has been bad public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during
my lifetime.

Thanks. I agree with much of what you say but I would caution that
France's near total dependency upon nuclear power places that country
at enormous risk should a common fault emerge with their reactor
design. Ontario's experience with its CANDU reactors has been a
decidedly mixed bag and I'm trying hard to be kind here. As someone
who in a previous (half-)live worked in the regulatory field, I've
witnessed enough to convince me that nuclear does not always live up
to its promise.

Cheers,
Paul

On Apr 20, 12:14*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:44:13 -0400, Marissa Payton





wrote:
"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:09:29 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release Mercury!!
Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc. goes into the
environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator releases. *That's
assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including dropped on your kitchen floor.

Hi Marissa,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you've just said. *Are you
suggesting coal-fired generating plants do not release mercury into
the atmosphere, or are you saying that it's foolish for us to be
burning coal to generate electricity because of these emissions? *Can
you clarify this for me?

Ideally it would make sense to follow the lead of countries such as France, who make
almost all of their electricity without burning any fossil fuels. *But the US has
reversed its (temporary) earlier leadership in this area and continues to depend more
and more on fossil fuels, including coal.

Burning coal isn't optimal, but newer technologies can at least remove major
pollutants, including mercury. *Unfortuanately a lot of plants are old and emit a lot
more mercury than newer technology plants. *Public policy that permits these emissions
and does not discourage them to phase out is bad public policy. *Unfortunately US
energy policy has been bad public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during
my lifetime. *

Thanks. *I agree with much of what you say but I would caution that
France's near total dependency upon nuclear power places that country
at enormous risk should a common fault emerge with their reactor
design. *Ontario's experience with its CANDU reactors has been a
decidedly mixed bag and I'm trying hard to be kind here. *As someone
who in a previous (half-)live worked in the regulatory field, I've
witnessed enough to convince me that nuclear does not always live up
to its promise.

Cheers,
Paul- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Germany has a program that I believe pays .43 or so cents a kwh to
anyone installing Solar Panels, power is sold back to the grid.
Germanys goal is to generate 1/3rd of its electrical needs by maybe
2020, last I read they were ahead of schedule. We need something like
that. A goal to reduce fossil fuel needs.

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:44:13 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

"Paul M. Eldridge" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 12:09:29 -0400, Marissa Payton
wrote:

What a crazy idea, producing electricity from plants that release Mercury!!
Mercury from thermometers, CFLs, old thermostat switches, etc. goes into the
environment in the form of landfill leachate or incinerator releases. That's
assuming the bulbs are not broken first, including dropped on your kitchen floor.

Hi Marissa,

I'm not sure how to interpret what you've just said. Are you
suggesting coal-fired generating plants do not release mercury into
the atmosphere, or are you saying that it's foolish for us to be
burning coal to generate electricity because of these emissions? Can
you clarify this for me?

Ideally it would make sense to follow the lead of countries such as France, who make
almost all of their electricity without burning any fossil fuels. But the US has
reversed its (temporary) earlier leadership in this area and continues to depend more
and more on fossil fuels, including coal.

Burning coal isn't optimal, but newer technologies can at least remove major
pollutants, including mercury. Unfortuanately a lot of plants are old and emit a lot
more mercury than newer technology plants. Public policy that permits these emissions
and does not discourage them to phase out is bad public policy. Unfortunately US
energy policy has been bad public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during
my lifetime.

Thanks. I agree with much of what you say but I would caution that
France's near total dependency upon nuclear power places that country
at enormous risk should a common fault emerge with their reactor
design. Ontario's experience with its CANDU reactors has been a
decidedly mixed bag and I'm trying hard to be kind here. As someone
who in a previous (half-)live worked in the regulatory field, I've
witnessed enough to convince me that nuclear does not always live up
to its promise.

The common reactor design risk is certainly a good point. Originally France was designing
gas cooled reactors and built quite a few. The agressive design didn't meet the needs for
reliability and efficiency. Eventually they threw in the towel and started
hiring/licensing Westinghouse Company pressurized light water technology, which is the same
(darn close to) most PWRs in the United States.

The French engineers didn't just sit around after deploying the current generation, and
have been actively designing the next (third) generation of reactors using their
experience. They are building one now in Bretagne/Brittany and it will have much for
capacity and efficiency than the second generation. So I think the common design risk is
mitigated by usingn proven designs and learning from them before duplicating en masse.

The Canadian CANDU design is very interesting because it doesn't require uranium enrichment
for electricity generation (take that, Iran!) at the expense of using heavy water. India
was licensing the design/expertiese for a while before they just said thanks, we'll take
it from here.

Paul M. Eldridge wrote:
....
Thanks. I agree with much of what you say but I would caution that
France's near total dependency upon nuclear power places that country
at enormous risk should a common fault emerge with their reactor
design. Ontario's experience with its CANDU reactors has been a
decidedly mixed bag and I'm trying hard to be kind here. As someone
who in a previous (half-)live worked in the regulatory field, I've
witnessed enough to convince me that nuclear does not always live up
to its promise.

What common fault would you expect to emerge after 30-40 years (roughly)
operational experience that hasn't come to light hitherfore?

EDF is certainly one of (if not the) most competent nuclear utilities in
the world and certainly has not stood still in their designs and
operations since their initial reactors.

While there are and have been issues in nuclear generation, it would be
hard to find any similarly large-scale industrial endeavor w/ better (or
even equivalent) overall success.

CANDU is such a different beastie as to make its comparison to other
reactor types a completely useless comparison; hence I don't think it
has any bearing on judging France's position.

(As someone who in a previous (half-)live worked in the field.)

--

dpb wrote:

Marissa Payton wrote:
...
...Unfortunately US
energy policy has been bad public policy for decades and no relief is in sight during
my lifetime.

Unless your lifetime is extremely short, there is at least _some_
prospect for relief in (moderately near) distant future...

http://www.nustartenergy.com/NewsCenter.aspx?Category=1

Closing the fuel cycle is still on the very far distant horizon it
seems, however.

Oh I wish them success, but consider the obstacles and fear campaigns that they will need
to overcome to build just one plant, even one plant at an existinng nuclear generation
site.

ransley wrote:
....

Germany has a program that I believe pays .43 or so cents a kwh to
anyone installing Solar Panels, power is sold back to the grid.
Germanys goal is to generate 1/3rd of its electrical needs by maybe
2020, last I read they were ahead of schedule. We need something like
that. A goal to reduce fossil fuel needs.

We had it and were well on our way until a former chief executive
combined w/ other short-sighted zealots got their misguided hands on it...

--

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

Germany has a program that I believe pays .43 or so cents a kwh to
anyone installing Solar Panels, power is sold back to the grid.
Germanys goal is to generate 1/3rd of its electrical needs by maybe
2020, last I read they were ahead of schedule. We need something like
that. A goal to reduce fossil fuel needs.

Hi Mark,

There's so much waste and inefficiency baked into our current
electricity use that we could just about eliminate all of the
coal-fired power plants operating in North America if we simply tacked
that first.

Earlier, I mentioned how halogen lamps dominate the retail industry.
A conventional halogen lamp produces 11 to 16 lumens per watt. The
latest generation of 120-volt halogen-IR lamps from GE and Philips
crank out anywhere from 22 to 24 lumens/watt and a 12-volt MR16 IRC
can reach upwards of 26 lumens/watt, effectively slicing lighting
demands in half (and for every watt saved, you can typically tack on
another 0.3 watts in cooling).

Better yet, Philip's MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide lamps
have a CRI of 90, offer greatly extended long life (10,000+ hours),
outstanding lumen maintenance (nothing else comes even remotely close
to touching it) and generate up to 100 lumens per watt. Watt for
watt, a Philips 70-watt MasterColour Elite T4.5 will produce six to
seven times more light than the conventional halogen lamps they
replace. Imagine a large speciality retailer literally slashing its
lighting loads to just one-sixth of it previous levels; that's
possible now using today's off-the-shelf technology.

Cheers,
Paul

Marissa Payton wrote:
....
Oh I wish them success, but consider the obstacles and fear campaigns that they will need
to overcome to build just one plant, even one plant at an existinng nuclear generation
site.

There are at least three applications filed I'm aware of, not just the
leading TVA/NuStart for Bellefonte.

It will be, as you say, the acid test of the new "streamlined" licensing
process and a test of whether the C-sequestration people have any desire
whatsoever to actually accomplish something or are still, at heart, only
obstructionists.

--

On Apr 20, 1:00*pm, Paul M. Eldridge
wrote:
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:19:21 -0700 (PDT), ransley

wrote:
Germany has a program that I believe pays .43 or so cents a kwh to
anyone installing Solar Panels, power is sold back to the grid.
Germanys goal is to generate 1/3rd of its electrical needs by maybe
2020, last I read they were ahead of schedule. We need something like
that. A goal to reduce fossil fuel needs.

Hi Mark,

There's so much waste and inefficiency baked into our current
electricity use that we could just about eliminate all of the
coal-fired power plants operating in North America if we simply tacked
that first.

Earlier, I mentioned how halogen lamps dominate the retail industry.
A conventional halogen lamp produces 11 to 16 lumens per watt. *The
latest generation of 120-volt halogen-IR lamps from GE and Philips
crank out anywhere from 22 to 24 lumens/watt and a 12-volt MR16 IRC
can reach upwards of 26 lumens/watt, effectively slicing lighting
demands in half (and for every watt saved, you can typically tack on
another 0.3 watts in cooling).

Better yet, Philip's MasterColour Elite ceramic metal halide lamps
have a CRI of 90, offer greatly extended long life (10,000+ hours),
outstanding lumen maintenance (nothing else comes even remotely close
to touching it) and generate up to 100 lumens per watt. *Watt for
watt, a Philips 70-watt MasterColour Elite T4.5 will produce six to
seven times more light than the conventional halogen lamps they
replace. *Imagine a large speciality retailer literally slashing its
lighting loads to just one-sixth of it previous levels; that's
possible now using today's off-the-shelf technology.

Cheers,
Paul

Alot of waste yes, England an energy exporting country, in 2005 banned
non condensing gas heating boilers. England a country that sells its
excess energy, has a milder winter climate compared to the Norther
half of the US has insight. Savings of condensing boilers start at 9%
and go to 15% over modern non condensing units. And here we talk about
importing NG - LNG and shortages. Ng is up alot this last month. No
matter how high Ngas goes, if we build 83% non condensing units,
people will buy them. The same in bulbs, In refrigerators what the
gov did worked, it mandated changes in efficency, in water heaters no,
My tank has maybe R14, 2" of foam, but my attic is R 70. No wonder we
use more energy per person then other countries, we just waste most of
it. We need an energy policy to change everything