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. If only they'd
had some
balls before they crammed the stupid digital tv system down our throats 2
years ago.

On 12/18/2011 11:01 AM, 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. If only
they'd had some
balls before they crammed the stupid digital tv system down our throats
2 years ago.

Hmmm, well, I am past caring, I went all cheap CFL's from the dollar
store and a couple of daylight quality ones in important places,
reading, plants, etc.

Now, going to LEDs ... my bill has dropped a noticeable amount ...

But, no law is really necessary, just the energy savings is going to
move people off of incandescent bulbs, quick enough ...

Regards,
JS

"Ernie" wrote in message
m...
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. If only they'd
had some
balls before they crammed the stupid digital tv system down our throats 2
years ago.
I don't believe the president has signed anything yet. Also, there were
differences in the Senate bill--will need to have a conference to 'iron-out'
differences.

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

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.

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. :-(