Re: CFL database

["Lon" <Lonnie@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <RobertLBass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:H%Uej.2283$Ug5.1995@xxxxxxxxxxx
> "Dave Houston" wrote:
>>
>> Note that the GE paper says, "Lighting has historically consumed 17% of
>> all electricity sold in the United States.", citing an EPA source. While
>> this is higher than the DOE figures I've cited, it's still difficult to
>> see how a switch to CFLs will save 22% or more as claimed by the
>> proponents. I'll stick with my figures.
>
> Your figures?  The truth is it's unlikely anyone knows precisely what
> percentage of electric energy in the US is consumed by lighting. I've seen
> various sites that quote anywhere from 17% to 22% and more. The issue
> isn't what percent is being consumed by lighting.  The concern here (at
> least among those of us who care at all) is to find ways to reduce demand.
> Using CFLs is one means of reducing demand since they generate more light
> per Watt.  Some of us think that reducing electrical use is a good thing.
> Some of us apparently don't think... so.

Dave is pointing out the obvious errors in claims being made, which are
indeed bogus.

Yes CFLs generate more light per watt, but have mercury issues.

LEDs may yet save the day, but they are not quite there yet in terms of cost
per watt



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com