Re: d-day

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

Charles Sullivan <cwsulliv@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>If candelabra-base and low voltage landscape lighting bulbs are
>included in the ban, it'll probably cost $5K to $8K to replace
>fixtures in the house I'm occupying.

There's a story in this morning's NYT that, while short on specifics,
implies that GE (and probably others) are working on replacements for
various types of specialty lights.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/business/22light.html?ref=us

And GE had earlier annpunced it would have incandescents that will meet the
efficiency standard (30% increase in efficiency - which by a mysterious
coincidence is what Philips new Halogena bulbs offer) by the time the law
takes effect. What's not known is what the efficient incandescents will cost
but, unless they cost an arm and a leg, it will make more sense to use them
rather than replace fixtures.

>> Of course, any reduction will affect the utilities' bottom lines so they
>> will find ways (service fees, minimum bills, etc.) to recoup their
>> losses.
>
>They won't have to do anything creative, just apply for a rate
>hike on the grounds of maintaining their return on investment.

Another factor is "power factor". I may have missed it but don't recall
seeing anything that mandates a minimum PF for CFLs. If uncorrected, most
have PF around 60% which means the utility has to supply 1.67x as much
current as is actually used by the light. This means the green benefits are
less than face value. The higher currents (and infrastructure) do constitute
a real cost to the utility. So while a CFL will use less current, it's not
as much of a reduction as is usually claimed.


http://davehouston.net  http://davehouston.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-subscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx