On 12/18/2011 2:01 PM, Ernie wrote:

For once the nitwits in Kongress got it right. The omnibus bill passed
Fri killed the
stupid CFL bulb they were trying to cram down out throats.

Why is George Bush's CFL law "stupid"? (you do realize that the CFL bill
was signed into law by George W. Bush).

Next, you do realize that CFLs are are win-win-win situation.

1) They use one quarter the energy of incandescent bulbs, thus reducing
YOUR lighting bill to one quarter of what it was.

2) At the generating station end, CFL usage causes the power plants to
emit one quarter of the mercury into the atmosphere compared to
incandescent usage.

3) The CFLs use less electricity compared to incandescent, thus
significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil (if most lighting
was switched over to CFLs).

So, tell us again which of the above three points you are against.

You guys really bought it hook, line and sinker.

On 12/18/2011 6:26 PM, Ernie wrote:
You guys really bought it hook, line and sinker.

Well, maybe so...

....but you DID dodge the question.

Please try again to tell us which of the easily provable true statements
below you believe is incorrect.

1) They use one quarter the energy of incandescent bulbs, thus
reducing YOUR lighting bill to one quarter of what it was.

2) At the generating station end, CFL usage causes the power plants
to emit one quarter of the mercury into the atmosphere compared to
incandescent usage.

3) The CFLs use less electricity compared to incandescent, thus
significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil (if most
lighting was switched over to CFLs).

PUH-LEEZE don't use ANYTHING Bush did as any argument "in-favor." I could
list you MANY reasons if freedom of speech existed anymore.

If you are even able to see that much of a difference on your electric bill
YOU ARE LEAVING TOO DAMN MANY LIGHTS ON in your house. Why don't you turn a
light off when you leave the room?

You get the leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths about "going
green" to cut down on THEIR OWN usage and then we'll debate.


Well, maybe so...

...but you DID dodge the question

On 12/20/2011 7:00 AM, Ernie wrote:
PUH-LEEZE don't use ANYTHING Bush did as any argument "in-favor." I
could list you MANY reasons if freedom of speech existed anymore.

If you are even able to see that much of a difference on your electric
bill YOU ARE LEAVING TOO DAMN MANY LIGHTS ON in your house. Why don't
you turn a light off when you leave the room?

You get the leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths about
"going green" to cut down on THEIR OWN usage and then we'll debate.


Well, maybe so...

...but you DID dodge the question



Actually, you can buy a watt meter at lowes, homedepot or most any
hardware store near you, plug in a 100w incandescent, do your
measurements, plug in a fluorescent, do your measurements ... then
compute costs based on the price of electricity per/KW on your bill ...

We have also put everything on timers to avoid hitting peak times, we
basically "go dark" at peak and then back on after ... wife does
laundry, run dishwasher, showers, etc., always off peak times ...

If you don't think you can make one hell of a dent in your power bill,
think again, and fluorescent/LEDs are a part of that difference ...
unless you live in a tent and use but a single light bulb ...

Also, we have split our appliance between natural gas and electricity,
so we never exceed the allotted cubic feet and KW/hrs. Of course, if I
worked for the power company, I might advise others to use more. lol

Regards,
JS

John Smith wrote:

We have also put everything on timers to avoid hitting peak times, we
basically "go dark" at peak and then back on after ... wife does
laundry, run dishwasher, showers, etc., always off peak times ...

I use several CFLs in places that need to be on almost the entire day,
from 5am until 2am, for example in a windowless bathroom. I don't bother
with a timer, I just use an 8w CFL, which is enough to do most things
you would do in a bathroom. When you want more light, there is a two 40w
floursecent fixture which gets turned on and off as needed.

I also put two 28 watt warm CFLs in a hallway that was "dark and dirty" (or it
looked that way, it really was clean) because it was unlit. They are on
(manually) from around 6:30am until 1am. It really changes the look of the
place and since there is light I put some house plants on top of a cabinet
near one of the lights. I could of done the same thing with 2 100 Watt or
4 60 Watt incandescent bulbs, but the cost of the fixtures would of been
a lot higher, and the operating cost prohibative.

So instead of a dark "pit" which is ignored, it has become the center of
the apartment when you walk in the door and you see a warm, comforting
light and green plants.


If you don't think you can make one hell of a dent in your power bill,
think again, and fluorescent/LEDs are a part of that difference ...
unless you live in a tent and use but a single light bulb ...

If you need incandescent light for reading, you can always buy small
spot beams which don't light (and warm) the rest of the room up.

I do find that flourescent lights in general are not as good for close
work or reading, so I often have to use more of them than the usual
stated amounts. For example, I have two 2x40 Watt fixtures in the kitchen,
a 28 Watt fixture over the sink, and a 12 Watt CFL in the ceiling fan,
which is used to light the room when it is not in use (so you can see
how to get around).

That would be the equivalent of over 1KW of incandescent lighting, which
would not only be too expensive to run, but would produce enough heat
I could cook things right on the table. :-)

Also, we have split our appliance between natural gas and electricity,
so we never exceed the allotted cubic feet and KW/hrs. Of course, if I
worked for the power company, I might advise others to use more. lol

:-)

geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(

On 12/20/2011 10:44 AM, Geoffrey S. Mendelson wrote:
John Smith wrote:

We have also put everything on timers to avoid hitting peak times, we
basically "go dark" at peak and then back on after ... wife does
laundry, run dishwasher, showers, etc., always off peak times ...

I use several CFLs in places that need to be on almost the entire day,
from 5am until 2am, for example in a windowless bathroom. I don't bother
with a timer, I just use an 8w CFL, which is enough to do most things
you would do in a bathroom. When you want more light, there is a two 40w
floursecent fixture which gets turned on and off as needed.

I also put two 28 watt warm CFLs in a hallway that was "dark and dirty" (or it
looked that way, it really was clean) because it was unlit. They are on
(manually) from around 6:30am until 1am. It really changes the look of the
place and since there is light I put some house plants on top of a cabinet
near one of the lights. I could of done the same thing with 2 100 Watt or
4 60 Watt incandescent bulbs, but the cost of the fixtures would of been
a lot higher, and the operating cost prohibative.

So instead of a dark "pit" which is ignored, it has become the center of
the apartment when you walk in the door and you see a warm, comforting
light and green plants.


If you don't think you can make one hell of a dent in your power bill,
think again, and fluorescent/LEDs are a part of that difference ...
unless you live in a tent and use but a single light bulb ...

If you need incandescent light for reading, you can always buy small
spot beams which don't light (and warm) the rest of the room up.

I do find that flourescent lights in general are not as good for close
work or reading, so I often have to use more of them than the usual
stated amounts. For example, I have two 2x40 Watt fixtures in the kitchen,
a 28 Watt fixture over the sink, and a 12 Watt CFL in the ceiling fan,
which is used to light the room when it is not in use (so you can see
how to get around).

That would be the equivalent of over 1KW of incandescent lighting, which
would not only be too expensive to run, but would produce enough heat
I could cook things right on the table. :-)

Also, we have split our appliance between natural gas and electricity,
so we never exceed the allotted cubic feet and KW/hrs. Of course, if I
worked for the power company, I might advise others to use more. lol

:-)

geoff.



I can tell you give some thought to use, purpose and goals. This type
of logic works well with light and ones power bill ... but, it is a good
model for all other endeavors in life ... I'll bet it has severed you well.

Yes, very much in agreement with you ... I have even switched out my
flashlight bulbs for tactical LED ones, of the type used in the modern
Maglites ... not only is battery life increased, but the light is
brighter and provides more detail of objects illuminated ...

Regards,
JS

On 12/20/2011 10:00 AM, Ernie wrote:
PUH-LEEZE don't use ANYTHING Bush did as any argument "in-favor." I
could list you MANY reasons if freedom of speech existed anymore.

Only reason I mentioned Bush is that many people here have been blaming
the "CFL law" on Obama, patently un-true. Just wanted to place credit
(or blame) where it is due -- on W.

If you are even able to see that much of a difference on your electric
bill YOU ARE LEAVING TOO DAMN MANY LIGHTS ON in your house. Why don't
you turn a light off when you leave the room?

First of all, I DO turn off lights when I leave the room. And the
bottom line is that CFLs use ONE QUARTER of the power that incandescent
uses. So, no matter how many or how few lights you use or turn off, your
lighting bill will STILL be one quarter.

You get the leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths about
"going green" to cut down on THEIR OWN usage and then we'll debate.

Huh? What's to "debate"? Why should what a "leader's" electric bill is
have anything at all to do with ME using one fourth of the electricity
on MY bill.

Congratulations! You're still doing a fine job of dodging and tap
dancing -- but still avoiding the undisputable fact that, for the same
light output, CFLs use ONE FOURTH the electricity (no matter what anyone
else does) and puts one fourth of the mercury into the air at the power
plant.

On 12/20/2011 11:26 AM, Joe from Kokomo wrote:
On 12/20/2011 10:00 AM, Ernie wrote:
PUH-LEEZE don't use ANYTHING Bush did as any argument "in-favor." I
could list you MANY reasons if freedom of speech existed anymore.

Only reason I mentioned Bush is that many people here have been blaming
the "CFL law" on Obama, patently un-true. Just wanted to place credit
(or blame) where it is due -- on W.

If you are even able to see that much of a difference on your electric
bill YOU ARE LEAVING TOO DAMN MANY LIGHTS ON in your house. Why don't
you turn a light off when you leave the room?

First of all, I DO turn off lights when I leave the room. And the bottom
line is that CFLs use ONE QUARTER of the power that incandescent uses.
So, no matter how many or how few lights you use or turn off, your
lighting bill will STILL be one quarter.

You get the leaders talking out of both sides of their mouths about
"going green" to cut down on THEIR OWN usage and then we'll debate.

Huh? What's to "debate"? Why should what a "leader's" electric bill is
have anything at all to do with ME using one fourth of the electricity
on MY bill.

Congratulations! You're still doing a fine job of dodging and tap
dancing -- but still avoiding the undisputable fact that, for the same
light output, CFLs use ONE FOURTH the electricity (no matter what anyone
else does) and puts one fourth of the mercury into the air at the power
plant.

Any of them proposing, passing or supporting illegal laws such as the
one on incandescent lighting should face a firing squad ... that is not
their jobs. They are public servants of the people ... from the
president right on down to your local dog catcher ...

Regards,
JS

Joe from Kokomo wrote:

3) The CFLs use less electricity compared to incandescent, thus
significantly reducing our dependence on foreign oil (if most lighting
was switched over to CFLs).

Actually, no. Almost all electricity in the US is provided by other means,
mostly coal.

Foreign oil is less than 25% of the oil consumed in the US, so because
more than 50% of the energy needs of the US are povided by coal, reducing
the amount of electricity used won't do much to about foreign oil.

If you want to reduce polution, CFLs would help there, but if you want to
reduce the foreign oil usage, drive less.

The next time a candidate for President says that if he is elected he
will bankrupt the coal industry, pay attention before you vote for him.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM
My high blood pressure medicine reduces my midichlorian count. :-(