Re: energy conservation

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>There were some eye-openers in there for me:
>
>"[A CFL] uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces
>450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30
>over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a
>traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.
>As a result, the bulbs have languished on store shelves for a quarter
>century; only 6 percent of households use the bulbs today."
>
>That's far less penetration than I would have ever imagined.

It's hard to get trustworthy data. I've seen a 0.9% figure for CFL
penetration but it wasn't clear whether that was just the US or covered a
wider realm.

The problem is that residential lighting represents a small part of total
energy use. HVAC and hot water represent more than 80% of the energy used in
the typical home. That leaves lights and appliances to share less than 20%
and I suspect appliances use the majority share of that. Transportation and
retail shops use a far, far larger share of the total. So, even if everyone
switched to CFLs it would make almost no difference overall. A few flights
to Europe or South America will dwarf the energy saved by the folks touting
CFLs.

Using glow-in-the-dark pigs for lighting makes more sense than CFLs. At
least, when the price of corn gets too high (from subsidized ethanol
demand), you can convert the pigs to bacon.

Read George Monbiot's "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning" if you
want to get an idea of how much trouble is coming - soon.


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