Re: energy conservation

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 02:57:27 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote
in message  <45baba0d.571022000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>"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.

Yes, it *is* hard to get trustworthy data from some folks ...  Perhaps Dave
saw "a 0.9% figure" in 1887 -- this would at least be consistent with his
curmudgeonly claim in this newsgroup that nothing had changed with CFLs in
20 years ;-)

>The problem is that residential lighting represents a small part of total
>energy use.

How is this a problem? On the contrary, it is good news if the objective is
to reduce overall consumption.

>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.

See below.

>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.

ROTFL. And if everybody driving Humvees "switched to [walking] it would
make almost no difference overall". And if I throw my dollars away one at a
time, "it would make almost no difference overall". Them's Houstonian
economics worthy of thet thar Houston energy-voodoo jailbait crowd.

No single substitution or reduction can provide a quick fix. Panglosses and
curmudgeons that think otherwise aren't very informed, or very bright or
painted themselves into a corner years ago.

>A few flights to Europe or South America will dwarf the energy saved by
the >folks touting CFLs.

LOL  My first two Atlantic crossings were by ocean liner. So it wasn't
until the third --  on a Super Constellation, also more than 50 years ago
-- that the future of the world was doomed ?

>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.

This statement epitomizes the quality of the OP's contributions to this
topic.

>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.

Monbiot repeats the goal of 90% reduction by 2030. Folks,  who -- unlike
like the OP -- have not proven themselves numerically illiterate by making
false claims or by the repeated inability to rebut measured quantitative
data other than by trashing all PhD's and researchers,  might consider
this:

If one somehow eliminates (reduces to 0 percent) the 80% that Dave ascribes
to non-lighting household energy use, one *still* has to cut in half the
20% that is lighting and electronic to meet the goal in the pop article
that Dave urges us to read. So think of it this way: each fluorescent lamp
(compact or otherwise) that replaces an incandescent lamp of equal light
output meets the (whatever you may think of it) "90% reduction by 2030
goal"  TODAY.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECONtrol.org