http://www.dealerscope.com/article/f...wsletter/today

bob

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.

Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is waste --
not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating lower power
consumption for electronic devices will have only a small effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

Hi!

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

Except it wouldn't. There are many applications where CFLs will not
work well or at all...and my "dim bulb tester" is one of those. The
way things are going, I may have to buy a lifetime supply of
incandescent bulbs for it, and hope that I got enough.

Fridge, oven and quite possibly microwave oven bulbs are another,
along with chandeliers. My oven light went out recently, and I really
wondered about putting a CFL in there--but it occured to me that
potentially toxic decomposition of the bulb's casing could occur in
that kind of heat, and it would do the electronics no good at all.

William

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.

Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is
waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating
lower power consumption for electronic devices will have only a small
effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.


actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being involved.
(one of many....)
If consumers want to use incandescents,it's their business,not the gov'ts.
Who wants government to tell them how to live?
You want that,MOVE somewhere else.

besides,in some apps,incandescents are the best choice.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

Hi William,

William Sommerwerck wrote:
From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.

Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is waste --
not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating lower power

I'm not sure of that. I think many devices can't *conveniently*
be turned off. E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
use a fair bit of power).

Granted, there is progress made towards cutting this consumption
but there are still a lot of little "leaches" sucking up power
that needn't. E.g., why can't switchmode wall warts be designed
to shut down (completely) until they sense some miniscule demand
from the load? Of course, old fashioned (xformer) wall warts
just act as small heaters even when they are supplying no load.

I've had to install power switches in many of my devices just
because the manufacturer opted to economize by *not* doing so
("Oh, it goes into low power mode when not in use". "Really?
And how does that differ from NO POWER mode?"). Do I *really*
need my network switch to run 24/7 when I am asleep or away
from the computer for much of that time?

consumption for electronic devices will have only a small effect on usage.

I think the more significant issue is change of mindset. If people
start thinking about the little things, they will eventually
discover the big things. : E.g., 30 years ago, no one recycled
anything. Now, everyone on my street puts out a "trash barrel"
full of recyclables as often as they put out the trash.

(though how effective this effort actually is can be debated : )

I think we all get used to wasting energy and think nothing of it.
Whether its leaving the TV on while you are in another room
("Oh, I'm still *listening* to it") or replacing your two year
old computer because it is *suddenly* "way too slow" (gee, I guess
there must have been a distortion in space-time since it was
"wicked fast" TWO YEARS AGO! : )

I still lament the loss of the heated butter compartment in the
refrigerator! :

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs. incandescent?
Including manufacturing and disposal costs? Our experience with them
has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we have
replaced 5 already). Granted, during operation, they use less
energy. But, if replacements have to be produced more often,
then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the replacement
costs the customer "nothing")

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.
Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is
waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating
lower power consumption for electronic devices will have only a small
effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being involved.
(one of many....)
If consumers want to use incandescents, it's their business, not the
gov'ts.
Who wants government to tell them how to live?
You want that, MOVE somewhere else.

Where would you have moved during WWII when there was rationing?

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as well as
practical reasons.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

Except it wouldn't. There are many applications where CFLs will not
work well or at all...and my "dim bulb tester" is one of those. The
way things are going, I may have to buy a lifetime supply of
incandescent bulbs for it, and hope that I got enough.

Fridge, oven and quite possibly microwave oven bulbs are another,
along with chandeliers. My oven light went out recently, and I really
wondered about putting a CFL in there--but it occured to me that
potentially toxic decomposition of the bulb's casing could occur in
that kind of heat, and it would do the electronics no good at all.

Most of the proposed legislation acknowledges that incandescent lamps are
required for certain uses.

Hi!

I'm not sure of that. *I think many devices can't *conveniently*
be turned off. *E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
use a fair bit of power).

Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when
on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing
nothing" and use 50 watts!

Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs.
incandescent?

I'm not aware of one.

Including manufacturing and disposal costs? *Our experience with
them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we
have replaced 5 already). *Granted, during operation, they use
less energy. *But, if replacements have to be produced more
often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the
replacement costs the customer "nothing")

I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically
WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of
throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the
reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out
before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics
(sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!

If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it
right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The
lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put
almost any CFL to shame.

There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started
hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was
either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb
has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all
that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to
the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was
frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.

Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania
bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the
price paid!

William

In article , "William R. Walsh" wrote:
Hi!

I'm not sure of that. =A0I think many devices can't *conveniently*
be turned off. =A0E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
use a fair bit of power).

Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when
on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing
nothing" and use 50 watts!

Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs.
incandescent?

I'm not aware of one.

Including manufacturing and disposal costs? =A0Our experience with
them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we
have replaced 5 already). =A0Granted, during operation, they use
less energy. =A0But, if replacements have to be produced more
often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the
replacement costs the customer "nothing")

I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically
WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of
throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the
reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out
before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics
(sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!

If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it
right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The
lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put
almost any CFL to shame.

There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started
hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was
either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb
has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all
that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to
the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was
frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.


When CFL's hit the market in 1990,,,, I started to use them.
I love them. Thats 20 years experiance.


greg
Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania
bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the
price paid!

William

William R. Walsh wrote:
Hi!

I'm not sure of that. I think many devices can't *conveniently*
be turned off. E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
use a fair bit of power).

Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when
on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing
nothing" and use 50 watts!

Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs.
incandescent?

I'm not aware of one.

Including manufacturing and disposal costs? Our experience with
them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we
have replaced 5 already). Granted, during operation, they use
less energy. But, if replacements have to be produced more
often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the
replacement costs the customer "nothing")

I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically
WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of
throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the
reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out
before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics
(sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!

If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it
right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The
lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put
almost any CFL to shame.

There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started
hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was
either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb
has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all
that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to
the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was
frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.

Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania
bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the
price paid!

William

The CCFL juggernaut is just a "political green type" wet dream.

For the most part, whats on the market now as "affordable" is Chinese
junk that does NOT live up to the promise of long life.
Why are many so cheap? because they use as CHEAP of components as they
can. Kind of like the capacitor fiasco with the stolen formula.
Cheap components don't last.

I bought one cheap 11 watt CCFL and it blew up with a pop days after
installation (caps inside blew apart). Just more toxic mercury in the
landfill sooner now. People can make better CCFL's, they just don't want
to pay the price of what it cost to make them.

The home electronics industry and appliance industry already is doing
the energy star thing. With guidance, this should go forward without
some green Al Gore type demanding it do 90% less power when they don't
have a clue.

We have a local utility here in Nebraska that had to raise its rates
due to DECREASED demand. So we bought into the lie and got charged more.
Go figure.

And when that new plug in hybrid car gets in your driveway, how many
TV's will it take to equal there power draw? But i guess thats ok.
The TV deal is kind of a SIN tax i guess. Driving is NOT a sin i guess.

In the future, LED lighting may be some of the solution. But its not
perfected and cheap enough for the time being.

bob

For the most part, whats on the market now as "affordable" is Chinese
junk that does NOT live up to the promise of long life.
Why are many so cheap? because they use as CHEAP of components as they
can. Kind of like the capacitor fiasco with the stolen formula.
Cheap components don't last.

True. But they draw a heck of a lot less power.

I used cheap CFL from Home Despot, and I would never go back to tungsten
lighting. They come on "instantly" (faster than tungsten), have a pleasing
color balance, and last about 2000 hours. For around $2 a lamp. Not bad.

"William R. Walsh" wrote:

Hi!

I'm not sure of that. I think many devices can't *conveniently*
be turned off. E.g., all these devices with their own wall warts,
TV's, computers and LCD's that "pretend" to be sleeping (but still
use a fair bit of power).

Some devices like that consume a shockingly high amount of power when
on "standby". I've heard of devices that can sit around "doing
nothing" and use 50 watts!

Has anyone done a study to determine the TCO of CF's vs.
incandescent?

I'm not aware of one.

Including manufacturing and disposal costs? Our experience with
them has been abysmal -- often less than a year or two (I think we
have replaced 5 already). Granted, during operation, they use
less energy. But, if replacements have to be produced more
often, then the savings aren't what they seem (even if the
replacement costs the customer "nothing")

I find most of their lifetimes to be poor...sometimes dramatically
WORSE than incandescent bulbs. While at first I hated the idea of
throwing away a perfectly good set of bulb-driving electronics, the
reality seems to be more along the lines of the electronics going out
before the bulb does--or bulb failure toasting the electronics
(sometimes quite dramatically). I just love the smell of burnt parts!

If you're going to do fluorescent lighting, you might as well do it
right. Put up a purpose built fixture if possible and use that. The
lifetime of tubes--even in the cheap and nasty fixtures--would put
almost any CFL to shame.

There has been one exception to this: back when CFLs first started
hitting the market, we put one in an outside porch socket. That was
either very late 2001 or early-2002. Since that time, that one bulb
has been baked, frozen, covered in bugs, wetted with rain and all
that. We had to cut the outer plastic diffuser off when it yellowed to
the point where light could no longer be seen through it. It was
frequently forgotten about and left to burn 24/7.


That plastic is there to prevent the lamp from spewing broken glass
and mercury if it breaks. Someone could be hurt pretty bad if it
exploded. As far as I'm concerned, it failed when the light output
dropped by 50%.


Only about a week or so ago did it finally die. It was a Sylvania
bulb...and I cannot say that it failed to deliver good value for the
price paid!

William


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Jim Yanik wrote:

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.

Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is
waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating
lower power consumption for electronic devices will have only a small
effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being involved.
(one of many....)
If consumers want to use incandescents,it's their business,not the gov'ts.
Who wants government to tell them how to live?
You want that,MOVE somewhere else.

I certainly hope that you're not referring to the U.S. government. One of
the major responsibilities of the U.S. federal government is to protect the
nation against foreign threats. The dependence on foreign oil can be viewed
as a threat to this country. In a high percentage of uses, the inefficiency
of incandescent bulbs increases our use of foreign oil. In that respect, it
is the U.S. federal government's business being involved.

I suppose you believe drugs such as heroin and/or crystal meth should be
legalized, as nobody wants the government telling us how to live, eh?

Hi!

That plastic is there to prevent the lamp from spewing broken
glass and mercury if it breaks.

I don't fully agree with that. Speaking as someone who has dropped or
otherwise broken both regular fluorescent tubes and CFLs, I can say
that a CFL really doesn't put off all that good of a show. The glass
shatters and that's the end of it.

The tubes, on the other end, come across as loud as a gun going off if
you're not expecting it (and it will still take you by surprise even
if you knew it was going to break). I've actually seen the glass from
tubes being thrown quite far--and yet they operate in free air without
people being concerned at least some of the time.

Mercury? Well, that's hazardous for sure, but the amount is miniscule.
I certainly make sure to clean up the area where the tube or CFL
broke, but I don't worry about it much afterwards. I'm not overly
concerned about this problem.

Nearly all CFLs in this part of the world are sold as bare "squiggle"
tubes. A diffuser or covering is rare. This lamp had one, for whatever
reason. This plastic cover was far from being sealed--the lamp and its
electronics had to get cool air somehow.

Someone could be hurt pretty bad if it exploded.

The fixture in question was fully enclosed, with only a few places
where the fit and finish didn't quite work out being open.

As far as I'm concerned, it failed when the light output
dropped by 50%.

I disagree with that too. :-) The actual lighting part was still
working *fine*. Damage from the sun--and maybe even the emissions of
the bulb--caused the clear plastic to become dark brown.

Now I'm a resourceful sort (although usually not in any way that would
result in anyone being in any sort of danger) and I hate to throw away
anything that still works and can repaired to be useful again. When
you look at most CFLs and see that they have no protection between
user and bulb, it stands to reason that this bulb wouldn't strictly
require that plastic cover. And it didn't.

William

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.
Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is
waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used. Mandating
lower power consumption for electronic devices will have only a small
effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being involved.
(one of many....)
If consumers want to use incandescents, it's their business, not the
gov'ts.
Who wants government to tell them how to live?
You want that, MOVE somewhere else.

Where would you have moved during WWII when there was rationing?

there was good reason for rationing during WW2.
there is no good reason now.Shortage of electric power now is solely due to
bad management. Political restrictions and red tape.
Politically Correct CRAP.

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as well as
practical reasons.


Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very practical,too.
However,if you want to install your own wind turbines,or to invest in a
business venture,fine. No need for gov't to mandate anything.

If you want a government-controlled economy,MOVE elsewhere.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William R. Walsh" wrote:

Hi!

That plastic is there to prevent the lamp from spewing broken
glass and mercury if it breaks.

I don't fully agree with that. Speaking as someone who has dropped or
otherwise broken both regular fluorescent tubes and CFLs, I can say
that a CFL really doesn't put off all that good of a show. The glass
shatters and that's the end of it.

The tubes, on the other end, come across as loud as a gun going off if
you're not expecting it (and it will still take you by surprise even
if you knew it was going to break). I've actually seen the glass from
tubes being thrown quite far--and yet they operate in free air without
people being concerned at least some of the time.

Mercury? Well, that's hazardous for sure, but the amount is miniscule.
I certainly make sure to clean up the area where the tube or CFL
broke, but I don't worry about it much afterwards. I'm not overly
concerned about this problem.


Let the ecofreaks find out that you've spilled any mercury from a
broken lamp and you'll have a hazmat cleanup expense.


Nearly all CFLs in this part of the world are sold as bare "squiggle"
tubes. A diffuser or covering is rare. This lamp had one, for whatever
reason. This plastic cover was far from being sealed--the lamp and its
electronics had to get cool air somehow.

Someone could be hurt pretty bad if it exploded.

The fixture in question was fully enclosed, with only a few places
where the fit and finish didn't quite work out being open.


I'm talking about if the bulb is struck or dropped.


As far as I'm concerned, it failed when the light output
dropped by 50%.

I disagree with that too. :-) The actual lighting part was still
working *fine*. Damage from the sun--and maybe even the emissions of
the bulb--caused the clear plastic to become dark brown.


So, paying for twice the electric for the light you get is OK? If
it's OK to strip that cover you might as well use the uncoated, clear UV
lamps.


Now I'm a resourceful sort (although usually not in any way that would
result in anyone being in any sort of danger) and I hate to throw away
anything that still works and can repaired to be useful again. When
you look at most CFLs and see that they have no protection between
user and bulb, it stands to reason that this bulb wouldn't strictly
require that plastic cover. And it didn't.


If you say so. Do whatever you want but I won't put up with useless
crap, or eliminate safeguards.


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

Jim Yanik wrote in
4:

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

From a practical point of view, I'm not sure this makes much sense.
Most (but not all) electronic products are fairly energy-efficient.
Furthermore, the biggest single "use" of electricity in a home is
waste -- not turning things off when they aren't being used.
Mandating lower power consumption for electronic devices will have
only a small effect on usage.

It would make more sense to outlaw incandescent lamps.

actually,that's something in which gov't has no business being
involved. (one of many....)
If consumers want to use incandescents, it's their business, not the
gov'ts.
Who wants government to tell them how to live?
You want that, MOVE somewhere else.

Where would you have moved during WWII when there was rationing?

there was good reason for rationing during WW2.
there is no good reason now.Shortage of electric power now is solely
due to bad management. Political restrictions and red tape.
Politically Correct CRAP.

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as
well as practical reasons.


Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very
practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind
turbines,or to invest in a business venture,fine. No need for gov't to
mandate anything.

If you want a government-controlled economy,MOVE elsewhere.


there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and other places.
and building new refineries and pipelines.
That's where our energy-independence falls down.

ethanol is bad news both in food production and soil depletion.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as
well as practical reasons.

Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very
practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind
to turbines,or to invest in a business venture, fine. No need for gov't
mandate anything.
If you want a government-controlled economy, MOVE elsewhere.

And what if private industry doesn't make the right decisions -- those that
benefit society as a whole, rather than the stockholders? Do you really
believe that individual selfishness always produces the best results?


there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and
other places. and building new refineries and pipelines.
That's where our energy-independence falls down.

Big Oil and Big Coal are doing everything it can to delay alternate energy,
so that it can reap the most profits.

I've never understood the "logic" of allowing private interests to exploit
public resources for private gain.

Hi!

Let the ecofreaks find out that you've spilled any mercury
from a broken lamp and you'll have a hazmat cleanup
expense.

Is that what it's come to these days? Sometimes I forget that people
used to be sensible. (Yes, I know that mercury is not a nice thing,
but I also know that there are only trace amounts in these bulbs. And
I don't make a habit of breaking them, but accidents happen. I very
seriously doubt that anyone has been worse for the wear outside of the
bulb. I've broken two CFLs, both several years apart.)

*I'm talking about if the bulb is struck or dropped.

Neither circumstance would have been likely in a fully enclosed
fixture. If it had been broken while being transported to or from the
fixture, it would have been no worse (or better) than an unsheilded
CFL.

*So, paying for twice the electric for the light you get is OK?

Hmm? What light was I paying twice for? I don't understand what you're
saying.

*If it's OK to strip that cover you might as well use the uncoated,
clear UV lamps.

Barring a Rather Serious Scientific Examination, I came to the
conclusion that the cover was not a required part. The underlying tube
is nothing more than a frosted white fluorescent bulb. The cover was
clear plastic with no special attributes. It's *not* a clear tube.
(You don't seriously think I'd knowingly expose a tube that was clear,
do you? I know full good and well what "germicidal bulbs" are.)

*If you say so. Do whatever you want but I won't put up with
useless crap, or eliminate safeguards.

It was an easy (conceptually speaking) task to repair the bulb. (Isn't
that the point of this newsgroup?) I didn't mind doing it in the
slightest. But then again, I'm not above fixing almost anything unless
it was total crap to start with.

I'm not in the habit of eliminating safeguards from equipment. That's
a very bad idea. If I don't understand a safeguard's function, it
stays in place, because I know full good and well that I can't think
of everything. A clear plastic sheild on a lightbulb operating in a
fully enclosed fixture wasn't going to be missed.

Well, it's been an interesting discussion anyway. :-)

William

"William Sommerwerck" wrote in
:

This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as
well as practical reasons.

Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very
practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind
to turbines,or to invest in a business venture, fine. No need for
gov't mandate anything.
If you want a government-controlled economy, MOVE elsewhere.

And what if private industry doesn't make the right decisions -- those
that benefit society as a whole, rather than the stockholders? Do you
really believe that individual selfishness always produces the best
results?


there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and
other places. and building new refineries and pipelines.
That's where our energy-independence falls down.

Big Oil and Big Coal are doing everything it can to delay alternate
energy, so that it can reap the most profits.

"Big Oil and Big Coal"...
conspiracy theory.
Perhaps you believe in the 100 MPG carburetor.

(BTW,it was the environutz who blocked building transmission lines for a
wind farm,and the Mass. Cape Cod wind farm project itself.)

And "alternate Energy" is NOT PRACTICAL.
If it were,somebody would be developing it.....without gov't subsidies.

I've never understood the "logic" of allowing private interests to
exploit public resources for private gain.



because they do it more efficiently than gov't.
Gov't can't even run the Senate and House lunchrooms,nor the US Post Office
or Amtrack.

Gov't would not even know about those "public resources" if it weren't for
private industry.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

"William R. Walsh" wrote:

Hi!

Let the ecofreaks find out that you've spilled any mercury
from a broken lamp and you'll have a hazmat cleanup
expense.

Is that what it's come to these days? Sometimes I forget that people
used to be sensible. (Yes, I know that mercury is not a nice thing,
but I also know that there are only trace amounts in these bulbs. And
I don't make a habit of breaking them, but accidents happen. I very
seriously doubt that anyone has been worse for the wear outside of the
bulb. I've broken two CFLs, both several years apart.)

I'm talking about if the bulb is struck or dropped.

Neither circumstance would have been likely in a fully enclosed
fixture. If it had been broken while being transported to or from the
fixture, it would have been no worse (or better) than an unsheilded
CFL.

So, paying for twice the electric for the light you get is OK?

Hmm? What light was I paying twice for? I don't understand what you're
saying.


You said that the plastic was blocking most of the light. At the
point that hits 50%, it's worn out.


If it's OK to strip that cover you might as well use the uncoated,
clear UV lamps.

Barring a Rather Serious Scientific Examination, I came to the
conclusion that the cover was not a required part. The underlying tube
is nothing more than a frosted white fluorescent bulb. The cover was
clear plastic with no special attributes. It's *not* a clear tube.
(You don't seriously think I'd knowingly expose a tube that was clear,
do you? I know full good and well what "germicidal bulbs" are.)

If you say so. Do whatever you want but I won't put up with
useless crap, or eliminate safeguards.

It was an easy (conceptually speaking) task to repair the bulb. (Isn't
that the point of this newsgroup?) I didn't mind doing it in the
slightest. But then again, I'm not above fixing almost anything unless
it was total crap to start with.

I'm not in the habit of eliminating safeguards from equipment. That's
a very bad idea. If I don't understand a safeguard's function, it
stays in place, because I know full good and well that I can't think
of everything. A clear plastic sheild on a lightbulb operating in a
fully enclosed fixture wasn't going to be missed.

Well, it's been an interesting discussion anyway. :-)

William


--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
This country needs to become energy-independent, for political as
well as practical reasons.

Build nukes. We know they work,reliably and 24/7/365.Very
practical,too. However,if you want to install your own wind
to turbines,or to invest in a business venture, fine. No need for gov't
mandate anything.
If you want a government-controlled economy, MOVE elsewhere.

And what if private industry doesn't make the right decisions -- those that
benefit society as a whole, rather than the stockholders? Do you really
believe that individual selfishness always produces the best results?

As opposed to say the government which always makes the politically right
decisions, ie which ever group contributes the most to their
re-election campaigns.
It's been tried, see the Soviet Union; look at the results.



there's also no reason we shouldn't be drilling in ANWR and
other places. and building new refineries and pipelines.
That's where our energy-independence falls down.

Big Oil and Big Coal are doing everything it can to delay alternate energy,
so that it can reap the most profits.

Because coal and oil make sense perhaps. Do some rough calculations
for wind turbines for example: 3-5 MW per turbine with a moderate
wind. The average coal/gas/oil fired power plant is ~1000 MW. Now add
in the "prairie preservationists", the Kennedys, and all of the
environuts who don't want to see turbines or power lines.
Not to mention *storing* the energy for when the wind isn't blowing.

Jerry


I've never understood the "logic" of allowing private interests to exploit
public resources for private gain.