Re: d-day

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:47:41 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote
in message  <476ab8f0.191565812@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>D is for dumb.
>
>The energy bill now makes it official that the sale of traditional
>incandescent light bulbs will be illegal in the USA in a few years.

>This article in U.S. News & World Report is far more accurate that those
>that have appeared over the past several months in the NYT and other
>publications. It gives realistic figures on prices and CFL life and cites
>actual facts about limited warranties.


Actually, the few figures provided in the url are consistent with those of
others, and are in direct contradiction of Dave's misinformation in this
newsgroup.

To wit:

"Each cone-shaped spiral CFL costs about $3, compared with 50 cents for a
standard bulb. But a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and lasts five
years instead of a few months. A household that invested $90 in changing 30
fixtures to CFLs would save $440 to $1,500 over the five-year life of the
bulbs, depending on your cost of electricity. "

Dave is on record in this newsgroup that CFLs 'are a bad idea' and that the
savings others have actually realized somehow haven't happened. Now he is
confused enough to agree with an article that confirm the very facts that
he has contested over the years.


>http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/economy/2007/12/19/faq-the-end-of-the-light-bulb-as-we-know-it.html?PageNr=2
>
>It's figure for the potential energy savings from a 60-70% reduction in US
>energy used for lighting is very close to the back-of-the-envelope
>calculations I've posted previously on this topic.

Actually, the only mention in the url of that figure is cited as a goal,
articulated by ' Andrew deLaski, director of the Appliance Standards
Awareness Project. "It's hugely important," he says. "A 60 to 70 percent
reduction in light bulb energy use will save as much energy annually as
that used by all the homes in Texas last year." '

>Texas uses 12% of US energy which is far short of the 22% and higher
>numbers spouted by the NYT and certain eco-terrorists. And even the 12% is
>probably off by at least half because 2/3 of US energy is used by
>industrial and commercial facilities, most of which already use
>fluorescents or other >high-efficiency lighting, so there's little chance
of actually seeing a 60-70% reduction - 20-25% for lighting (6-8% overall
>and much less >worldwide) is probably overly optimistic. That won't save
>many polar bears >but the Philips lobbyists have certainly earned their
>fees.

The imbroglio that has become Dave Houston's mind spills onto usenet once
again. What Dave writes is intellectual and arithmetic gobbly-gook. It is
yet another attempt to wriggle out of the pit of confused distortions that
Dave has dug for himself over the years on the topic of compact
fluorescents (and his misrepresentation of information presented in the NY
Times).

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org