Re: the light bulb police are coming

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 12:00:28 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <45f91a25.10424828@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>Bruce,
>
>They make more sense for you than for most everybody else in the US.
>Hawaii's electric rates are much higher than the rest of the US. CFLs are
>3-4 times as efficient as today's incandescents (I've never said otherwise.)
>and the more you pay per kWh, the faster you pay back the higher cost.

Once again, as always, Dave shirks from actually computing, preferring
instead to make vague statements where the simple arithmetic, if presented,
shows the bankruptcy of his overall argument.

The actual "higher cost" at the Home Depot near Dave's apartment is about
$1.70-0.50 = $1.20

The efficacy (not "efficiency" ) of the n:vision fluorescent lamps I use and
cited  is about 4.2X (not 3-4x) that of incandescents as per my actual
measurement and the manufacturers specs .

So used 8 hours/day the n:vision 60watt CFLs pay back their initial higher
purchase price in ONE MONTH at $.10/kWh.  After one year (~three years before
their 'warranty' expires) the consumer will have saved ~$13. With Bruce's
rates, the savings are likely to be closer to $30 per year per lamp assuming
that they fail after one year at 8 hour/day (but they are warranted for three
times that with the 800-number indelibly marked on the base).

>Anyone using triac dimmers is sacrificing efficiency even at full
>brightness.

Don't let this purpose fully vague comment distract. It is about ~2v/120v
*100% = 1.7% loss. Provision for relay contacts across the solid state relays
to eliminate this loss is my design criteria # 11 posted at
www.econtrol.org\design_criteria.htm since about 1999.

>Standard fluorescents (around since 1938) are about twice as efficient as
>incandescent (about half as efficient as CFLs). There's not likely to be
>further improvements of any significance.

If you define "standard fluorescent" as those that have efficacy of twice
that of incandescents, this statement is circular and meaningless. If you
don't, it is wrong. Pre-1990 "standard fluorescents" were effectively  banned
in the US by   Energy Policy Act of 1992  (more below).

>GE's HEI will be competivive with
>standard fluorescents when introduced and with CFLs when (if) they reach the
>projected 4X figure. According to an NBC News report last night, the time
>frame for outlawing incandescents is 2017 so GE has time to prove it's a
>foolish move.

This is a misleading statement that makes the writer -- not those actually
working to solve the issues -- look foolish.

New Federal legislation would likely follow similar legislation regulating
lighting efficiency that has been in effect in the US since Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-486).

This Act eliminated the manufacturing of then-standard fluorescent lamps that
didn't meet new efficacy standards.   The approach is to require an efficacy
standard to be met, which old fashioned incandescents would not meet but more
efficient incandescents or other lamps including CFLs could. So just as new
fluorescent replaced old fluorescents, new incandescents could replace old
incandescents.

>Your use of incandescents does far less damage to the environment than
>transcontinental flights whether in a commercial airliner or private plane.

So now we lurch away from personal economics to environmental issues with
mind-numbing stupidity? Any one individual's action involving virtually
anything is less significant economically and environmentally than collective
global actions. Duh.

>What I have repeatedly objected to is the false information and phony
>statistics being used by the CFIs trying to push CFLs down our throats. The
>picture is not nearly as pretty as the one the CFL proponents paint.

Straw man alert! Who? Where? When? I for one don't paint no rosy posies. I
have repeated posted actual calculations based on actual prices and studies
and rates in my house and in Dave's neighbor that refute the generalities
that Dave slips and slides on.

The first post in this thread was itself a straw-man premise based on
flat-out falsehood and fundamentally flawed premise that the NY Times article
claimed that residential lighting uses 22% of total electricity. This was IMO
purposeful misstatement. That Dave continues to defend this dishonest post is
testament to intellectual bankruptcy.

>You've noted some drawbacks, others have noted that premature failure is
>still an issue (after 30 years experience),

So cars are a bother because the carburetors foul and the points have to be
adjusted every 3000 miles? Just as the cars of thirty years ago are not the
cars of today, the CFLs of 30 years ago are not the CFLs of today.
Technology moves quickly. .

>they should not be used with
>motion sensors as they use more energy at startup,

Misleading statement and bad advice. The combination of occupancy detectors
and fluorescent lighting is ubiquitous in industrial lighting. Depends on the
duty cycle.

>some brands/models output
>noise that requires filters (changing the economics)

Don't use noisy fluorescent where noise can't be tolerated I have used up to
8 (eight) of the 60-watt-equivalent $1.70 n:vision  CFLs on a  circuit with
an INSTEON switch at each end (one master, one slave) with no apparent effect
on INSTEON performance.

Chose the right lamp, not the wrong one.

>the color of the light is bothersome to many people,

Yet another obsolete comment. The CFLs at the Home Depot near Dave's house
come in three _different_ color temperatures. The warm ones are almost
indistinguishable from incandescents to my trained and experience eyes.

>they are a poor choice in can lights because
>of heat build up leading to early failure,

"They" ?  There are now CFLs _designed_ to go into cans. Cans are typically
designed to use lamps with built-in reflectors regardless of whether they are
standard incandescent, halogen or fluorescent. Don't use lamps that are not
designed to go into cans in cans. Duh.  CFLs designed for cans are now
available at (eg) Home Depot among many other places. www.1000bulbs.com sells
~70 different CFLs  in a wide range of shapes, bases, lamp style, wattages,
color temperatures, and so on., Choose the right bulb.


> etc., etc., etc.

Indeed. Obsolete after misleading after straw-man argument.

>For you, they
>work outside, in cold climates they never start.

More misstatements. The $1.70 n:vision lamps I cite are rated for -20F =/
-29C  !

>And, even if a particular
>brand of CFL has a good warranty, there are still costs associated with
>warranty replacement that alter the economics.

Duh

Of course, when they fail you
>can always take them to your friendly neighborhood CFL recycling center.

As one should all fluorescent lamps.

But even if you throw them in the trash, the amount of mercury mobile in the
environment is _less_ that the mercury in the coal spewed out by the
coal-fired plants used to power equivalent watt-hours of incandescents and
that provide the power for Dave's apartment.

Mercury in the environment is the single most common cause for inland fish
consumption advisories, so this is an important problem. Reality is that CFLs
are another incremental part of the _solution_ to that _different_
environmental problem both from a public awareness and behaviour perspective
and by reducing the total amount of mercury mobile in the environment. Don't
let ignorant comments from the uninformed mislead you.

Reduce (the amount of electricity)
Reuse (1 CFL instead of 5 incandescents)
Recycle (instead of landfilling )

[Rest deleted]

"The bookful blockhead, ignorantly [Googled], With loads of learned lumber in
his head.?  -- apologies to Alexander Pope

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org