Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

[Lewis Gardner <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Robert Green wrote:

> I still think it's critical to reduce, in any way we can, the noxious
> material that coal produces.

True and this is the point of most of the sane responses to this thread.

That is why CFLs are an important part of any conservation solution.
They are simple to install and reduce electrical demand allowing both
base load and peaking plants to use less fuel. Since most base load
plants in the US use coal then less "noxious material" is created along
the entire coal process. Will the substitution of CFLs "fix" the coal
problem? For course not. But they are a simple step that could shave a
few percentage points off of the coal problem.

My problem is with those that introduce doubt that CFLs are a useful
technology for retrofitting the millions of Edison base light fixtures
that exist across the world. Fear mongering about light quality, mercury
and other quibbles will keep thousands from adopting this simple method
of reducing man's footprint on Earth.

A penny saved is a penny saved. Therefore a kw/h saved is an average of
8 cents saved AND less pollution created. There is no amount of rhetoric
that will change this fact.