Re: d-day

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

You like to argue with straw men. I never said nor implied that switching to
CFLs would cause generating plants to close. I merely said that you could
close all of the coal-fired plants without a significant reduction in
mercury. But you chose to distort that into something entirely different.

And I never said that conservation is bad or that CFLs do not conserve
energy. I've merely said (and provided mountains of supporting evidence)
that the figures promulgated by the proponents of CFLs are total BS.

You might want to look into lumens per watt for the long familiar linear
fluorescent tubes. With high-efficiency electronic ballasts (not allowed for
residential use due to EMI), they can achieve more than 100 lumens per watt
while CFLs only get 50-60. They last 30,000 hours, can be turned on/off
frequently, and work with 90-280VAC. These improvements have been ongoing
for about 20 years. They are mandated for new construction in many states
and there are tax incentives for relamping in others. Most of the other
types of lights used in the commercial and industrial sectors have LPW
figures that compare favorably with CFLs so why should a business owner or
manager spend enormous sums on new fixtures to adopt CFLs? If CFLs can't
make big gains in the commercial and industrial sector, it's difficult (at
least for me) to see how the claimed 22% and higher overall savings can come
from the residential sector where lighting only accounts for 9% of the 33%
residential share of total US electricity use. Turning off all residential
lights forever will only save 3% of the US total. The industrial uses 1/3 ot
total electricity and 6% of that is for lighting. The commercial sector uses
the remaining 1/3 of electricity and about 18% of that is for lighting.
Turning off all the lights in all sectors saves 11% of total electricity.

BTW, most of the coal-fired generating plants in the Ohio Valley affect
those states that lie to the east so I'm much less affected by them than I
am by the emissions coming from plants to my west (or even from China and
India).

Since you cannot refute the evidence, you resort to nit-picking about typos,
distortion and outright lies. It's long past time to killfile you.

Lewis Gardner <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>You have made a big part of your argument that the change from
>incandescent to CFLs won't make a big difference in power consumption.
>If so how will a switch to CFLs effect the price of electricity?

>Conservation is good and CFLs conserve energy PERIOD.


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