Re: Long Live the Incandescent!

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:04:48 GMT, nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston) wrote in
message  <4a553bcc.55344406@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

>I've never denied that CFLs save money

Yes you have.

>- I've only objected to the
>propaganda that grossly over promised that they would save enough energy to
>"save the world".

No. You said that they were " a bad idea"

The assertion that others have claimed that CFLs would literally "save the
world" is a false straw man you created to distract from your intemperate and
disproved assertions and poor predictions.

>If the 7% figure is accurate it means residential lighting
>uses less than 3% of total US energy.

There are at least four major energy sectors, residential being  the second
smallest.  There will need to be reductions in each.

>(Interestingly, a study done in
>Cambridge in the UK came up with the same figure.) Saving even half of that
>3% isn't very significant,

Using Dave's broken logic, there is nothing worth doing because any given use
which in turn is only a fraction of the total usage within any of four major
energy sectors. There are very roughly 16 use-sector subdivisions so  each
accounting for ~~6%  -- EACH ONE OF WHICH  needs to be reduced for global
efforts to be successful.

>especially when most of the CFLs have low power
>factors so the actual savings on the generation side ends up at much less
>than 1%.

Dave Keeps repeating this despite the fact that he now knows that current
CFLs (at least those in my house) have power factors > 0.93 measured (with a
Kill-a-watt).

[rest deleted]   And like that. We've been through all this before.

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org