Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

"bonnie" wrote in message
...
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

I'm not a big fan of CFL lamps to begin with. I find the color of virtually
every type I've tried, to be annoying. Having said that, they do cost a lot
less per lumen than incandescent lights. I use them in areas like the play
room where the kids aren't bothered by them, and the lights are practically
always on. They are pretty worthless in rooms such as closets, where you
are in and out in a hurry, simply because it takes a short time before they
come up to full brightness.

On Apr 27, 5:11*pm, "bonnie" wrote:
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

Mythbusters did a segment on that. The break-even point was something
like 6/10ths of a second.

The better question is, is this really a question considering that you
aren't going to be able to buy incandescent lights next year.

On Apr 27, 4:11*pm, "bonnie" wrote:
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

There is no Thought on if cfls are more efficent, they are in fact
75-80 % more. Replace them first where you save the most.

bonnie wrote:

Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

The turn-on energy difference is miniscule, but each start removes about
6 minutes (0.1 hours) from a CF's typical 6000 hour lifetime at a typical
$2 cost, vs a bulb's typical 750 hour lifetime at a typical 50 cent cost.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy savings.

You might better ask "How long would the CFL have to be left on per start
to save money over an incandescent bulb, with 1/4 the power consumption,
at 10 cents/kWh?"

Nick

In article , bonnie wrote:
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

That is absolutely false. It is a continuation of an old myth that
fluorescents have some big surge in power consumption when they are
turned on, supposedly amounting to a significant amount of energy
consumption. That is simply not true.

That is a mistranslation from advice to leave fluorescents on rather
than turn them off and back on, unless they will be off for a substantial
amount of time - due to starting-related-wear.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

This varies widely with lamp wattage, lamp cost, starting technology
used, and your electricity cost rate. I would say, as a
"one-size-fits-all" figure that is at best a ballpark, 5 minutes for
wattages at least 10 watts.

I consider closets, refrigerators and motion sensor lights to not be
candidates for CFLs.

There are cold cathode ones that do not experience starting-related
wear. However, they cost more, are less widely available, available only
in lower wattages mainly 8 watts and less, are less efficient than the
usual hot cathode ones, and still need to warm up to achieve full light
output. Cold cathode CFLs are best for frequent on-off use. They take
too long to achieve payback when they are off 98-99% of the time.

- Don Klipstein )

In ,
Pat wrote:

On Apr 27, 5:11*pm, "bonnie" wrote:
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

Mythbusters did a segment on that. The break-even point was something
like 6/10ths of a second.

The better question is, is this really a question considering that you
aren't going to be able to buy incandescent lights next year.

The ban does not kick in until 2012, and only affects general service
ones of a certain range of brightness. Even then, ones that achieve some
higher efficiency standard are exempt. I got just an hour ago a couple
that I believe will get around that ban by using "halogen infrared"
technology.

These are Philips Halogena Energy Saver. I got them from Home Depot.
They look like ordinary soft white incandescents, of the squarish shape
used by some Philips lightbulbs in North America (and Westinghouse before
they sold their lamp division to Philips).

There is a 70 watt one with light output fully on par with a 1500 hour
(double life) soft white 100 watt incandescent, and a 40 watt one with
light output fully on par with a 60 watt 1500 hour soft white
incandescent. Both of these are rated to last 3,000 hours and are rated
to be fully dimmable.

- Don Klipstein )

wrote:

The turn-on energy difference is miniscule, but each start removes
about 6 minutes (0.1 hours) from a CF's typical 6000 hour lifetime at
a typical $2 cost, vs a bulb's typical 750 hour lifetime at a typical
50 cent cost.

We went with CFLs a few years ago and have been somewhat disappointed in how
many we've had to replace far sooner than expected. I assume that poor
quality control at the factory could kill some bulbs with unusual speed, if
so we seem to have quite a run of back luck in that respect with different
designs from different companies, including a porch-light bulb that only
gets turned on and off once a day respectively. Still, we immediately
noticed a big drop in our electric bill, so the occasional
prematurely-expired CFL doesn't even begin to erode that.

Look at your question this way, you have an incandescent in a spare room
that you energize for a total of 60 minutes per year. If it is a 100 watt
bulb and you pay 15 cents per kilowatt hour, you use 1 1/2 cents worth of
electricity per year. Not much of a savings to be had.

OTOH if you have a bulb you burn for 6-8 hours per day, CFL wins hands down.

--

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.


"bonnie" wrote in message
...
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

On Apr 27, 6:23*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote:
The turn-on energy difference is miniscule, but each start removes
about 6 minutes (0.1 hours) from a CF's typical 6000 hour lifetime at
a typical $2 cost, vs a bulb's typical 750 hour lifetime at a typical
50 cent cost.

We went with CFLs a few years ago and have been somewhat disappointed in how
many we've had to replace far sooner than expected. *I assume that poor
quality control at the factory could kill some bulbs with unusual speed, if
so we seem to have quite a run of back luck in that respect with different
designs from different companies, including a porch-light bulb that only
gets turned on and off once a day respectively. *Still, we immediately
noticed a big drop in our electric bill, so the occasional
prematurely-expired CFL doesn't even begin to erode that.

Look at HDs bulbs they have a 9 year warranty and are about 2$ each

On 4/27/2008 2:11 PM bonnie spake thus:

Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

The initial inrush (or surge, if you prefer) current that you're talking
about is pretty small. Leave the CFL on a minute and any energy cost
from turning it on is negligible.


--
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute
conversation with the average voter.

- Attributed to Winston Churchill

On Apr 27, 6:23*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
wrote:

We went with CFLs a few years ago and have been somewhat disappointed in how
many we've had to replace far sooner than expected. *I assume that poor
quality control at the factory could kill some bulbs with unusual speed, if
so we seem to have quite a run of back luck in that respect with different
designs from different companies, including a porch-light bulb that only
gets turned on and off once a day respectively. *Still, we immediately
noticed a big drop in our electric bill, so the occasional
prematurely-expired CFL doesn't even begin to erode that.

So far we have had two of about 20 or so to quit working. We figured
these two were burn't out even though they were only a year or two
old. But instead of throwing them out right away, I held onto them
for awhile or until we could bring them to a recycling or collection
place. Then, for some reason, I tried both of them in another fixture
for one last try. At my amazement, they both worked again! I just
rubbed off the end that goes into the socket really good with a
cleaning rag and that's all it took. So before you throw one out that
has quit working, give it a good rub on the end and give it a last
try! :-)
Steve

Joseph Meehan wrote:

I remember one college project was to figure out how long you needed
to turn out a standard the old 4 foot tubes before you would save money.
Factoring in the cost of electricity lamps and the labor for maintenance
to replace them, it turned out to be about 20 minutes. We had a fun
statistics class back 35 years ago. The CF's would be far less. That
start up surge is like 1/30 of a second and is about 10 times or less of
the rated lamp consumption.

"bonnie" wrote in message
...

Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie




Hmmm,
For start up normal ilament lamps creates surge current at the moment
it's on. Most any electrical load being inductive will do same.

Steve wrote:

So far we have had two of about 20 or so to quit working. We figured
these two were burn't out even though they were only a year or two
old. But instead of throwing them out right away, I held onto them
for awhile or until we could bring them to a recycling or collection
place. Then, for some reason, I tried both of them in another fixture
for one last try. At my amazement, they both worked again! I just
rubbed off the end that goes into the socket really good with a
cleaning rag and that's all it took. So before you throw one out that
has quit working, give it a good rub on the end and give it a last
try! :-)
Steve

I've noticed something like that too, sometimes the bulb then works fine for
a long time, sometimes not. But it's certainly worth trying in any case.
Cleaning the contacts is also something worth trying with batteries and the
gear that uses them BTW.

Any idea that there's a big surge when turning on fluorescent bulbs
can be refuted simply by realizing that if the surge were more than 15
X the power consumed by a regular 100 watt bulb it'd trip your circuit
breaker.

So even if there were a surge and it lasted an entire second then the
break-even would have to be less than 15 seconds.

But it's irrelevant since it's only a myth anyway.

Shaun Eli
http://www.BrainChampagne.com

bonnie wrote:
Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie


If you hardly ever turn them on, they'll never pay for themselves.

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form .

Joseph Meehan wrote:

I remember one college project was to figure out how long you
needed to turn out a standard the old 4 foot tubes before you would
save money. Factoring in the cost of electricity lamps and the labor
for maintenance to replace them, it turned out to be about 20
minutes. We had a fun statistics class back 35 years ago. The CF's
would be far less. That start up surge is like 1/30 of a second and
is about 10 times or less of the rated lamp consumption.

I just read something recently that said FL lights are best suited to spaces
where the lights will be on for at least thirty minutes, so that seems to
fit.

In article , Joseph Meehan wrote:
I remember one college project was to figure out how long you needed to
turn out a standard the old 4 foot tubes before you would save money.
Factoring in the cost of electricity lamps and the labor for maintenance to
replace them, it turned out to be about 20 minutes. We had a fun statistics
class back 35 years ago. The CF's would be far less. That start up surge
is like 1/30 of a second and is about 10 times or less of the rated lamp
consumption.

I remember doing calculations on 4-footers of 32-40 watt range also.

One more thing: There are older figures going around as to life lost
per start that date back to 1970's-1950's, and/or are based on "glow
switch" starters (which typically blink the lamp a few times before
getting it on to stay on). 4-footers since the early 1970's at least
have mostly not needed glow switch starters, due to use of ballasts that
have starting means.

It appears to me now that a 4-footer can gain savings by being turned
off for as little as a minute in comparison to being left on. It
appears to me that this explains why I have seen a few instances of motion
sensor switches to turn off the lights in rooms illuminated by 4-footers
if nobody is there - even in a government building restroom!

As for CFLs - they cost more than 4-footers and consume less power than
4-footers, as well as not being as durable as 4-footers! Therefore CFLs
often are better being left on rather than being turned off and back on 5
maybe 10 minutes later, while 4-footers are more in the category of turn
'em off when you leave the room!

As for effects of labor costs - I still see it being worth turning off
4-footers if they will probably stay off for at least 3 minutes, and CFLs
if they will stay off at least 10-36 minutes or so (depending on CFL type
and wattage, electricity cost rate, and labor cost).

- Don Klipstein )

never use spray polish anywhere near a CF.

I did a little of the mist must of entered the base vent holes, lamp
has wood.

anyhow the ballast part erupted in a flame......

i now spray the rag and wipe the wood area.....

i was exciting

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

The ban does not kick in until 2012,

We have many recessed floods on dimmers.
Dimmable CFL's are WAY too expensive right now.
I sure hope that changes before anyt kind of ban on them.

And I hope something improves with the "warmup" time.
I now have all CFL floods in my kitchen. When I'm ready to make
dinner, I have to pre-heat the lights and the oven at the same time.

On Apr 27, 9:06*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
Steve wrote:
So far we have had two of about 20 or so to quit working. *We figured
these two were burn't out even though they were only a year or two
old. *But instead of throwing them out right away, I held onto them
for awhile or until we could bring them to a recycling or collection
place. *Then, for some reason, I tried both of them in another fixture
for one last try. *At my amazement, they both worked again! *I just
rubbed off the end that goes into the socket really good with a
cleaning rag and that's all it took. *So before you throw one out that
has quit working, give it a good rub on the end and give it a last
try! *:-)
Steve

I've noticed something like that too, sometimes the bulb then works fine for
a long time, sometimes not. *But it's certainly worth trying in any case..
Cleaning the contacts is also something worth trying with batteries and the
gear that uses them BTW.

I'll have to give Steve's idea a try. I've have several indoor flood
type CFL's go bad within a few months and am not at all impressed with
them. On the other hand, I have some of the spiral types in my
garage and they have worked fine.

One of the biggest problems is there is no std of labeling to help
anyone figure out what applications these are good for. They need a
std along the lines of they take X seconds to reach 60% of full
brightness. Right now, they vary all over the place. The flood
types I bought are a joke. In my kitchen they take about 2 mins to
get to any reasonable brightness. Now, if you knew that up front,
you could still use them in applications where that is not a
problem. But having consumers buy them and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

On Apr 27, 8:24*pm, Tony Hwang wrote:
Joseph Meehan wrote:
* *I remember one college project was to figure out how long you needed
to turn out a standard the old 4 foot tubes before you would save money.
Factoring in the cost of electricity lamps and the labor for maintenance
to replace them, it turned out to be about 20 minutes. *We had a fun
statistics class back 35 years ago. * The CF's would be far less. *That
start up surge is like 1/30 of a second and is about 10 times or less of
the rated lamp consumption.

"bonnie" wrote in message
...

Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent
bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on.

What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest
room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and
out of pretty quickly.

How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy
savings.

thanks for your input,
bonnie

Hmmm,
For start up normal ilament lamps creates surge current at the moment
it's on. Most any electrical load being inductive will do same.- Hide quoted text -


The inductance of a filament type bulb is negligible and doesn't cause
any surge. In fact, with an inductor the effect is exactly the
opposite. The faster the rise time of the incoming voltage waveform,
the higher the impedance, which restricts current flow.

The current being higher at start up is only due to the fact that the
filament resistance is lower when cold than when it's at operating
temperature.

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 05:53:02a, told us...

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

The ban does not kick in until 2012,

We have many recessed floods on dimmers.
Dimmable CFL's are WAY too expensive right now.
I sure hope that changes before anyt kind of ban on them.

And I hope something improves with the "warmup" time.
I now have all CFL floods in my kitchen. When I'm ready to make
dinner, I have to pre-heat the lights and the oven at the same time.


Mitch, the CFL floods I have in my kitchen take 5-7 seconds to reach full
brightness.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 16hrs
-------------------------------------------
For sale, Toilet-seat cover. Barely used.
-------------------------------------------

On Apr 28, 8:58*am, wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:06*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:





Steve wrote:
So far we have had two of about 20 or so to quit working. *We figured
these two were burn't out even though they were only a year or two
old. *But instead of throwing them out right away, I held onto them
for awhile or until we could bring them to a recycling or collection
place. *Then, for some reason, I tried both of them in another fixture
for one last try. *At my amazement, they both worked again! *I just
rubbed off the end that goes into the socket really good with a
cleaning rag and that's all it took. *So before you throw one out that
has quit working, give it a good rub on the end and give it a last
try! *:-)
Steve

I've noticed something like that too, sometimes the bulb then works fine for
a long time, sometimes not. *But it's certainly worth trying in any case.
Cleaning the contacts is also something worth trying with batteries and the
gear that uses them BTW.

I'll have to give Steve's idea a try. * I've have several indoor flood
type CFL's go bad within a few months and am not at all impressed with
them. * On the other hand, I have some of the spiral types in my
garage and they have worked fine.

One of the biggest problems is there is no std of labeling to help
anyone figure out what applications these are good for. * *They need a
std along the lines of they take X seconds to reach 60% of full
brightness. * Right now, they vary all over the place. * The flood
types I bought are a joke. *In my kitchen they take about 2 mins to
get to any reasonable brightness. * Now, if you knew that up front,
you could still use them in applications where that is not a
problem. * But having consumers buy them and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Floods are designed for outdoors where the unit will get real hot in
summer, time to get bright I think was designed in from overheating
issues and they all take a real long time. Popular mechanics magazine
and Consumer reports have tests you can read. I will bet all floods
take a long time,

Mitch, the CFL floods I have in my kitchen take 5-7 seconds to reach full
brightness.

What are you doing here? :-)

Mine take about 3-4 minutes! I have various brands (10 lights total),
and they all take that long.

What kind do you use? I want those!

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 12:19:58 -0400, h wrote:



Yours must just be very old.

Not at all. My oldest are no more than 2 years old. The most recent
were purchased within the past 2 months.

On Apr 28, 11:19*am, h wrote:
wrote in message

...



Mitch, the CFL floods I have in my kitchen take 5-7 seconds to reach full
brightness.

What are you doing here? *:-)

Mine take about 3-4 minutes! *I have various brands (10 lights total),
and they all take that long.

What kind do you use? *I want those!

Yours must just be very old. I have lots of kinds and brands, and they all
come up to full strength in less than 10 seconds. The only one that takes
minutes is a bulb in a closet that's been there for more than 5 years.

I have new HDs that take minutes

In article , wrote:
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:57:41 +0000 (UTC), (Don
Klipstein) wrote:

The ban does not kick in until 2012,

We have many recessed floods on dimmers.
Dimmable CFL's are WAY too expensive right now.
I sure hope that changes before anyt kind of ban on them.

And I hope something improves with the "warmup" time.
I now have all CFL floods in my kitchen. When I'm ready to make
dinner, I have to pre-heat the lights and the oven at the same time.


You may try replacing some of the CFL floods with Philips Halogena
"Energy Saver" floods, available at Home Depot. Yesterday, I saw 40 watt
ones (60-65 watt equivalent) in 2 different sizes. The larger size is
BR30 (3.75 inch diameter).

They are not nearly as efficient as CFLs, but they are more efficient
than ordinary incandescents. And they are dimmable.

I somewhat remember (I hope correctly) that floods are not affected by
the upcoming ban.

- Don Klipstein )

In article , h wrote:

wrote in message
.. .

Mitch, the CFL floods I have in my kitchen take 5-7 seconds to reach full
brightness.

What are you doing here? :-)

Mine take about 3-4 minutes! I have various brands (10 lights total),
and they all take that long.

What kind do you use? I want those!

Yours must just be very old. I have lots of kinds and brands, and they all
come up to full strength in less than 10 seconds. The only one that takes
minutes is a bulb in a closet that's been there for more than 5 years.

Most CFLs that have outer bulbs have a serious need for warmup - often
starting at 1/4 of full brightness or less, and needing a good minute or
two to reach full brightness.

Ones with bare tubing usually start brighter and warm up more quickly.
But that generally excludes floodlight ones.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 10:31:19 -0700 (PDT), ransley
wrote:

I have new HDs that take minutes

It's kind of funny, because you can watch the light slowly spiral down
the tube.

In ,
wrote in part:

I'll have to give Steve's idea a try. I've have several indoor flood
type CFL's go bad within a few months and am not at all impressed with
them. On the other hand, I have some of the spiral types in my
garage and they have worked fine.

One of the biggest problems is there is no std of labeling to help
anyone figure out what applications these are good for. They need a
std along the lines of they take X seconds to reach 60% of full
brightness. Right now, they vary all over the place. The flood
types I bought are a joke. In my kitchen they take about 2 mins to
get to any reasonable brightness. Now, if you knew that up front,
you could still use them in applications where that is not a
problem. But having consumers buy them and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

By-and-large, CFLs are of higher quality if they have the "Energy Star"
logo and/or are of one of the "Big 3" brands (Sylvania, GE or Philips).

Getting better ones may help with getting them to last longer. CFLs
easily overheat in recessed ceiling fixtures, which may be the problem
with your floods burning out early.

As for starting dimmer and taking longer to warm up - that mainly occurs
in types with outer bulbs. A CFL only works well when the coldest point
on the tubing is in a specific temperature range. In CFLs where the
tubing normally gets hotter, the mercury amalgam formulation is optimized
for that higher temperature - and then the tubing needs to warm up to that
higher temperature.

- Don Klipstein )

On Mon 28 Apr 2008 09:06:06a, told us...


Mitch, the CFL floods I have in my kitchen take 5-7 seconds to reach full
brightness.

What are you doing here? :-)

Mine take about 3-4 minutes! I have various brands (10 lights total),
and they all take that long.

What kind do you use? I want those!

I have twelve in my kitchen, all the same brand, as I ordered them online.
Unfortunately, I don't remember the brand, and I would need to drag out the
10 ft. ladder to check them.

--
Wayne Boatwright
-------------------------------------------
Monday, 04(IV)/28(XXVIII)/08(MMVIII)
-------------------------------------------
Countdown till Memorial Day
3wks 6dys 11hrs 50mins
-------------------------------------------
'More hay, Trigger?' 'No thanks, Roy,
I'm stuffed!'
-------------------------------------------

On Apr 28, 12:19*pm, h wrote:
wrote in message

...



Mitch, the CFL floods I have in my kitchen take 5-7 seconds to reach full
brightness.

What are you doing here? *:-)

Mine take about 3-4 minutes! *I have various brands (10 lights total),
and they all take that long.

What kind do you use? *I want those!

Yours must just be very old. I have lots of kinds and brands, and they all
come up to full strength in less than 10 seconds. The only one that takes
minutes is a bulb in a closet that's been there for more than 5 years.

My Sylvania floods are just a few weeks old and take up to 3 minutes
to reach full brightness. I'll still have the package and receipt.
They're going back and I'm gonna try the Philips Halogena "Energy
Saver" floods that Don mentioned.

In article
,
wrote:

having consumers buy and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

Why the urge to get[ing] CFLs adopted?

As a nation, we couldn't make the most obvious, most important
switch-over (metric), but we can sure shoot ourselves in the foot and
MANDATE a phase-out of the perfectly good, viable, affordable,
world-wide-user-based, CHEAP light bulb!!

Congress passed an "Energy" bill.

My President SIGNED the damned thing.

....to phase-out the cheap light bulb.

[muttering] Brilliant. Just flat-out BRILLIANT!!

Do you REALLY think the manufacturing and retail businesses are pushing
CFLs because of some etherial, warm and fuzzy, environmentalism
awareness?

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it. Compact Fluorescent
Lamps provide a higher profit margin since they CO$T more.

I saw the most amazing thing on the employee rag at Wal-Mart: A store
rooftop completely covered with solar panels; Except those numerous
locations occupied by a large sky light. And HUGE air conditioners
popping-up around the roof.

Just ONE of those air conditioners will consume more energy in one WEEK
than ALL the solar collectors accumulate in a month of Sundays.

What about the footprint of the battery and equipment to STORE the
power, the equipment to invert the DC to usable AC, and the arrangements
and efforts to get that collected power to ONE of the break room
refrigerator or some SIMILAR SINGLE device?

Don't get me wrong: I support the development of so-called ALTERNATIVE
energy. I am sure I am paying for it now in many ways.

Until that "breakthrough" discovery" we've all been waiting for (a
viable replacement for oil and wired electricity) we should NOT mandate
a conversion to alternate energy and technologies (illumination) based
on CO$T alone.
--

JR

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

having consumers buy and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

Why the urge to get[ing] CFLs adopted?

As a nation, we couldn't make the most obvious, most important
switch-over (metric), but we can sure shoot ourselves in the foot and
MANDATE a phase-out of the perfectly good, viable, affordable,
world-wide-user-based, CHEAP light bulb!!

Congress passed an "Energy" bill.

My President SIGNED the damned thing.

...to phase-out the cheap light bulb.

[muttering] Brilliant. Just flat-out BRILLIANT!!

Do you REALLY think the manufacturing and retail businesses are
pushing CFLs because of some etherial, warm and fuzzy,
environmentalism awareness?

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it. Compact Fluorescent
Lamps provide a higher profit margin since they CO$T more.

I saw the most amazing thing on the employee rag at Wal-Mart: A store
rooftop completely covered with solar panels; Except those numerous
locations occupied by a large sky light. And HUGE air conditioners
popping-up around the roof.

Just ONE of those air conditioners will consume more energy in one
WEEK than ALL the solar collectors accumulate in a month of Sundays.

What about the footprint of the battery and equipment to STORE the
power, the equipment to invert the DC to usable AC, and the
arrangements and efforts to get that collected power to ONE of the
break room refrigerator or some SIMILAR SINGLE device?

Don't get me wrong: I support the development of so-called
ALTERNATIVE energy. I am sure I am paying for it now in many ways.

Until that "breakthrough" discovery" we've all been waiting for (a
viable replacement for oil and wired electricity) we should NOT
mandate a conversion to alternate energy and technologies
(illumination) based on CO$T alone.

You're talking about two different things. In the case of Walmart, their
efforts are voluntary - not mandated by law. They've got a couple of
experimental stores where they do everything they can, including using
filtered waste water to irrigate plants. In my local Walmart Supercenter,
they busied themselves about a year ago cutting holes in the roof and
installing skylights. During the day, about half their interior lighting is
off. I'm sure some bean-counter ran the numbers before rolling out the
project nationwide.

HeyBub wrote:

Jim Redelfs wrote:
In article
,
wrote:

having consumers buy and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

Why the urge to get[ing] CFLs adopted?

As a nation, we couldn't make the most obvious, most important
switch-over (metric), but we can sure shoot ourselves in the foot and
MANDATE a phase-out of the perfectly good, viable, affordable,
world-wide-user-based, CHEAP light bulb!!

Congress passed an "Energy" bill.

My President SIGNED the damned thing.

...to phase-out the cheap light bulb.

[muttering] Brilliant. Just flat-out BRILLIANT!!

Do you REALLY think the manufacturing and retail businesses are
pushing CFLs because of some etherial, warm and fuzzy,
environmentalism awareness?

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it. Compact Fluorescent
Lamps provide a higher profit margin since they CO$T more.

I saw the most amazing thing on the employee rag at Wal-Mart: A store
rooftop completely covered with solar panels; Except those numerous
locations occupied by a large sky light. And HUGE air conditioners
popping-up around the roof.

Just ONE of those air conditioners will consume more energy in one
WEEK than ALL the solar collectors accumulate in a month of Sundays.

What about the footprint of the battery and equipment to STORE the
power, the equipment to invert the DC to usable AC, and the
arrangements and efforts to get that collected power to ONE of the
break room refrigerator or some SIMILAR SINGLE device?

Don't get me wrong: I support the development of so-called
ALTERNATIVE energy. I am sure I am paying for it now in many ways.

Until that "breakthrough" discovery" we've all been waiting for (a
viable replacement for oil and wired electricity) we should NOT
mandate a conversion to alternate energy and technologies
(illumination) based on CO$T alone.

You're talking about two different things. In the case of Walmart, their
efforts are voluntary - not mandated by law. They've got a couple of
experimental stores where they do everything they can, including using
filtered waste water to irrigate plants. In my local Walmart Supercenter,
they busied themselves about a year ago cutting holes in the roof and
installing skylights. During the day, about half their interior lighting is
off. I'm sure some bean-counter ran the numbers before rolling out the
project nationwide.

Much as I dislike Mal-Wart, it is good that they are experimenting with
various "green" technologies. One of their test stores with a big wind
generator tower in the parking lot isn't too far from me in McKinney,
TX. They are well positioned to be able to roll out the workable
technologies on a large scale throughout their evil empire and both have
an actual impact as well as drive the cost of those technologies down.
They also have the potential to bring more affordable RE components to
the retail market.

In , Jim
Redelfs wrote:

In article
,
wrote:

having consumers buy and find it out later sure
doesn't help getting them adopted.

Why the urge to get[ing] CFLs adopted?

As a nation, we couldn't make the most obvious, most important
switch-over (metric), but we can sure shoot ourselves in the foot and
MANDATE a phase-out of the perfectly good, viable, affordable,
world-wide-user-based, CHEAP light bulb!!

Cheap? How much does it cost to produce, say, 800 lumens for 5,000
hours?

Incandescent: $1-$5 for 5 60W lightbulbs, and maybe $36 for 300 KWH of
electricity.

CFL: $2-$6 for one 13-15 watt CFL, and maybe $8-$9 for 65-75 KWH of
electricity.

Congress passed an "Energy" bill.

My President SIGNED the damned thing.

...to phase-out the cheap light bulb.

[muttering] Brilliant. Just flat-out BRILLIANT!!

Do you REALLY think the manufacturing and retail businesses are pushing
CFLs because of some etherial, warm and fuzzy, environmentalism
awareness?

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it. Compact Fluorescent
Lamps provide a higher profit margin since they CO$T more.

It appears to me that most stores have been reluctant to sell them,
since a $5-6 CFL can negate the need to buy a 4-pack or two of
incandescents that they sell for $3-$4 at very high markup. (Shop around,
and a good retail price for a 4-pack of incandescents is more like $1. A
couple days ago I saw incandescents at Home Depot for 77 cents. I saw
them at Lowes for 50 cents a 4-pack a couple years ago.)

- Don Klipstein )

"DGDevin" writes:

We went with CFLs a few years ago and have been somewhat disappointed in how
many we've had to replace far sooner than expected.

I've had a few CFLs die what I though was a premature death. Two of them were from IKEA,
and if you read the fine print on the package they're only rated for 2000 hours, instead of
the 6000 or 8000 hours of some of the more expensive CFLs. They were in daily use, so maybe
they did make it to 2000 hours after all.

On the other hand, some of the others refuse to die even when their light output had dropped
well below what they were when new. I've ended up throwing out some simply because they
were too dim to provide reasonable light, but they were still operating.

Dave

In article ,
wrote:

Heck, no! They know a CA$H COW when they see it.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps provide a higher profit
margin since they CO$T more.

Negated by the much longer service life.

The average service life of the average Compact Fluorescent Lamp is
nowhere near that claimed of the manufacturers. Makers are including a
multi-year guarantee in confidence that most owners of prematurely
failed lamps will not have the documentation required to avail
themselves of the warranty coverage or will simply not bother.

The industry is WAY too young to state, unequivocally, that CFLs are
superior to incandescent.

Without legislative strong-arm enactments, the 50-cent, incandescent
light bulb would never be replaced by another technology.

Those big stores have no windows to open. They HAVE to have
airconditioning to be habitable. Just because those solar panels
aren't a complete solution doesn't mean they are not a significant
improvement.

If CO$T is no concern, I can't argue with you.

Since CO$T is EVERYTHING in the real world, I will cheerfully argue with
you.

Given the current state of photovoltaic technology, the system I
mentioned would become unusable due to age or functional obsolescence
WELL before it ever paid for itself. It's just a "feel good", GREEN
thing to do. It makes for a good, feature photo, too.

Meanwhile, the gigantic Mall of America, depite it's location in
Minnesota, does not need boilers to heat it in the winter. All heat is
supplied by passive solar and human body heat. That's because it was
engineered that way from the ground up.

I was born in Minnesota. There is NO WAY in hades that passive solar
and body heat is the ONLY source of heat there. I'm not calling you a
liar, because I am quite sure you believe what you claimed. I will not
believe it until I research the claim beginning with a cite by you.

Perhaps you overlooked a geothermal system?

Feed the World (Again)

Ethanol Must Die.
--

JR

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

You're talking about two different things. In the case of Walmart, their
efforts are voluntary - not mandated by law.

That's an EXCELLENT point.

If Wal-Mart's stockholders wish to waste their dividends on such
frivolous corporate spending, so be it.

If a government forces them to do it, that's another matter entirely.

They've got a couple of
experimental stores where they do everything they can, including using
filtered waste water to irrigate plants. In my local Walmart Supercenter,
they busied themselves about a year ago cutting holes in the roof and
installing skylights. During the day, about half their interior lighting is
off. I'm sure some bean-counter ran the numbers before rolling out the
project nationwide.

I work at what I suspect is Omaha's first Supercenter. It had skylights
in it from day one (2001?) I believe.
--

JR