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

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:464c5235.236716125@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >Even if you were to find a published, vetted study that showed the
figures
> >were questionable, the result would still be the same.  It's the new
> >America, where people are conditioned from birth not to be responsible
for
> >their words or actions.  See the nearby alarm contract thread for
details.
> >(-:
>
> Inflated energy figures seem to be ubiquitous. One has to wonder whether
> they are being deliberately duplicitous or are just stupid to understand
> technical stuff.
>
> For example, Monday's Slate had this article...
>
>      http://www.slate.com/id/2164136/
>
> which included this...
>
> "Cable and video-game boxes, DVD players, and other electronics can use as
> much energy in standby mode as a 75-watt light bulb that's left on."
>
> I doubt there are any devices that use 75W in standby - even my 15 year
old
> stereo receiver draws less than 1W in standby. Even if they mean that as
the
> total for all devices that draw phantom power, I think the 75W figure is
> still badly inflated for the typical home.

If only I drew a measly 75 watts in standby mode.  But then again, I'm not
typical.  CCTV eats at least that much, X-10 gear, nearly as much.  Most
low-tech homes don't come near that, I agree, but there are exceptions.  (-:

Their statement isn't untrue, it's merely misleading.  It just depends on
what and how many "other electronics" you're talking about.  Old PC's with
fairly stupid power management draw a lot.  I'm beginning to wonder if it
doesn't pay to move some of the stuff I have on old PIII's to newer boxes
that consume far more juice when running but far less in standby.  It's a
tough call because of all the collateral, hard to quantify expenses.

As for recycling, I watched this morning as the four 48" fluorescent bulbs I
had packaged and left out in the bright yellow recycling bucket got thrown
in the back of a garbage truck and pulverized.  It's clear if I want it done
right, I have to do it myself, and that adds even more cost to bulbs because
it means a trip to the recycling center that I wouldn't have taken
otherwise.

> They certainly should know better because treehugger.com has this on their
> website...
>
>      http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/killawatt.php
>
> You almost have to conclude it's a case of deliberate disinformation.

It's Disraeli's law: "There are lies . . . damned lies . . . and
*statistics.*"

I would imagine that taking the two extremes, say from coal and oil company
PR on the one hand and the total eco-enthusiasts (you know that
'tree-huggers' is not [ahem]100% politically correct, I assume <g> and will
make greenies see red!) on the other would reveal the actual rates.

That is if anyone really knows the answer to how much electricity is used
for lighting.

I would be suspicious of any poll that presumed to know how my particular
electric dollar is spent.  I'd be hard pressed to calculate it myself with
any degree of accuracy.  Any number you read in the press is likely to be
wrong.  I recall seeing an article that said bloggers were far more accurate
than traditional news sources in calling winners of last year's election.
Of course, since I read it in a newspaper . . . (-:

What's that old joke?

"Everything I say is a lie.  I'm lying!"

--
Bobby G.