All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...

Page 1 of 4  
I just had a thought...
Pushing everyone over to CFLs from incandecent bulbs is supposed to save a lot of electricity, right?
Well, how much power does it take to cook a roast for a family of five in your average electric oven? Bet we'd save a lot more money if we forced everyone over to microwave/convection systems.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What a stupid suggestion. Please do not have children.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Maybe you should put the children YOU have in foster care.
Noozer is absolutely correct. Electric convection/microwave requires no venting, which is an *immediate* energy savings, and convection is really (or should be) an inexpensive option, cuz all it is is a g-d *fan*. And electric ovens should not be compared with electric cook tops, which *are* miserable, from all povs. Europe digs induction cook tops, not just from culinary snobbery, which is important unto itself, but also from efficiency povs, as was explained to me.
Ultimately it is difficult to compare gas with electricity, except from a pure dollar pov. The best solution overall is hydroelectric power. Then, electricity wins, hands down.
--
------
Mr. P.V.\'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The comparisons only make sense if you get equivalent or better results from the device in question. Since that's not the case, the suggestion is pure fluff.
message

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You have a very narrow view of "what makes sense". Noozer, and a cupla others in this thread, were right on the money.
The fact that you can't see it is but another reason you might want to consider putting your kids in foster care.
--
------
Mr. P.V.\'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

<snip>
We get BETTER results with a convection oven. So your argument is specious.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And some people say the opposite. The point is that Noozer's off the cuff idea was nonsense unless heavily qualified, which it was not. And certainly, the idea of a microwave...never mind.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jun 13, 11:35 am, "Proctologically Violated"

So, how much hydroelectric power can you ship to the extremely flat Midwest?
Oh, and microwaves are not an adequate replacement for real ovens. Bleah!
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Proctologically Violated wrote:

Nope. More people, by far, and more property has been destroyed by the use of hydroelectric power than by other forms of electricity generation.
Just one dam failure (Banqaio) resulted in 85,000 deaths in 1975. It created a wall of water 6 meters high and 12 kilometers wide moving 600,000,000 cubic meters of water.
Dams don't often fail, but when they do the result is, um, spectacular.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It's not an either/or thing. Plus, microwave/convection ovens don't cook meats well, in my opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IMO, they don't cook them at all. OTOH, nothing heats a cup of cold coffee as fast.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think ANY step you can take to save electricity is a good one, whether it be to save the earth, or simply to reduce your electric bill. But convenience and practicality play a big part. Most people won't change their lifestyles just to save electricity.
Switching from an incandescent to a CFL costs less than $5, the bulb will last years, and the light output is usually the same or greater than the incandescent. There's very little negative effect to the consumer. Of course, a CFL isn't the right alternative for all applications, but in most cases it's a win-win situation.
On the other hand, a microwave doesn't work well for cooking many foods (baking a cake, making cookies, etc.). And upgrading to a convection oven means hundreds of dollars (and I don't think a convection uses any less electricity, it just cooks faster and more evenly). Either option would mean a major change in behavior for the average consumer.
Our local electric utility has charts of most household appliances and their average monthly costs (All one line, watch the line-wrap):
http://www.clarkpublicutilities.com/Residential/billControl/appliances/co stOfUse
It's interesting reading, but you have to factor your own usage patterns into the equation. If you do a lot of baking, the electric usage of your oven is going to be much more significant than it is for a person who rarely uses their oven. We probably use our oven less than 5 hours a month, so it's not a big part of our total electrical consumption.
Finally, in many areas, people use gas for their cooking and heating needs. So, based on the overall population, the electric use of an oven probably isn't as significant as lighting, which is electrically operated for all homes (I don't think many people use gas lights or candles as their primary lighting source these days?).
Anthony
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the disposal problem, and fast.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

The Mercury in a CFL is a non-issue. Use of CFL actually releases LESS Mercury into the environment than the extra generation necessary to power incandescent bulbs.
In other words, if we've already made the decision that the Mercury released into the environment from coal-powered plants is acceptable to power our incandescent bulbs, the amount of Mercury in CFLs is more than offset by the reduced power generation.
We can put all that "saved" Mercury into vaccines.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Newsgroups: alt.home.repair Subject: Re: All the hoopla over incandecent bulbs...
Organization: SDF Public Access UNIX System, est. 1987 - sdf.lonestar.org X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test76 (Apr 2, 2001)

What you state makes good sense, however, our laws and regulations require disposal of lamps containing mercury and certain other materials under the "universal waste" rules. I'm not certain that a residential consumer is bound by these regulations but business or industrial users are. As it stands now, the end user can use all the electricty he or she wants; If that user chooses to save electricity by using CFL or standard florescent lamps, though, then the rules on disposing of those lamps must be followed.
--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In most jurisdictions, household fluorescent bulbs can be disposed of in regular trash.
However, where there is need or when there is desire to do better, there is www.lamprecycle.org
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:

They are not supposed to be. EPA suggests recycling or taking to municipal hazardous materials disposal it at all possible. States may restrict your ability to put these with regular trash. EPA and others also suggest a whole different method of disposal (starting with clearing and sealing the room for 15 minutes while the Hg dissipates) than with regular lights. All revolves around the mercury.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No they don't, they recommend you open a window. http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"We" have not decided that a certain level of mercury from power plants is OK. That was decided in meetings with attendees whose identity has been CLASSIFIED by Dick Cheney. They decided what mercury levels they could afford to release or control.
I'm surprised you either didn't know this, or that you're pretending it's acceptable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think you need to renew the lining in your tinfoil hat, Kanter.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.