Re: CFL database

["Enigma" <liberaltrash@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

"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.
>
> --

And some of you, the liberal village idiots just don't think at all.
Tell the group Bass, what are we to do with all of the mercury contained in
CFL's?
I know, Owl gWhore can SELL Mercurey Offsets to the little people beneath
him while he tools around the world in his private jet.
Morons...et al...nobody ever accused a liberal of smart.