Re: the light bulb police are coming

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 12:02:03 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <45f7e0a9.1866152781@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14light.html?ref=science
>
>The article uses figures for the percentage of electricity used for lighting
>that are about 7.5 times the figures given by DOE web sites. Either the DOE
>is incompetent or the people hoping to profit by forcing everyone to switch
>to CFLs are cutting their figures from whole cloth.
>
>I've cited this page before.
>
>    http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>
>Table 2 indicates that lighting represents 8.8% of 2001 US residential
>electricity use. From other DOE statistics, residences use about 1/3 of
>total electricity with industry and commercial sites using approximately the
>same 1/3 fractions. That means residential lighting uses 8.8/3 or 2.933% of
>total electricity, not the 22% claimed in the article.

The claim and premise of this post that the cited New York Times article says
that "residential lighting uses  [22%] of total electricity" is utterly and
patently false.

It says nothing of the sort. Just more self-serving pollution of the
newsgroup for others to clean up.

And talk about "old news"! ;-)

"[T]he light bulb police are[n't] coming"  -- they have been here since 1992
with the passage of the US Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486) that ended
the production of the very fluorescent lamps that the OP thinks are still the
standard.

Whatta hoot!

Reminds me of the SLN skits featuring "the crotchety news commentator Emily
Litella"  www.answers.com/topic/gilda-radner  in which Gilda Radner (GRHS)
would go on a nonsensical rant based on a false premise. Emily wasn't afraid
to say the punch line but our news commentator is. So we'll do it for him:

"Never mind ... " ;-)

...Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org