snipped-for-privacy@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Hey dumbs ass, .45c a piece, 9 yr warranty, 75% electric use reduction, and if you think HD, GE, Phillips etc etc will go broke then a cave is your best home option. You dont think.
ransley wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@u31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
If CFLs were truly that much of an improvement over incandescents, it would have been unnecessary for lobbyists all over the First World to talk government employees into forcing the peple into using them.
innews: snipped-for-privacy@b33g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
Sorry, lying is not thinking.
The "half as much" applies to a small outside temperature band where less heat is actually needed. Yes, that drops the cost of the "wasted" incandescent electricity by "50%" instead of 100% and a similar amount with other heat sources. Something the CFL idiots never take into account. That still doesn't get us to "ransley's" 50% electricity savings he's trying to tell us that is somehow "normal".
It's time for you to try thinking, Don. Heat pumps are not only used in heating season.
Use a proper sig separator.
Insignificant.
Duh! You have a command of the obvious, anyway.
Either you aren't reading or your biases are making you blind. No one is advocating incandescent bulbs because they save electricity. CFLs are ugly, the light is ugly, are slow to start, can't be used in many fixtures, and are expensive, no matter what "ransley" says.
Right. With your stupid comment about heat pumps only being used in heating season and your blindness to the real argument, you've joined that club.
e>
t =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0
Hide quoted text -
You are Ignorance at it best
In a well dsigned house with reasonable window area in most of the country, if you use natural gas for heat and hot water and electricity for everything else, how much power is consumed by lighting on an average day? Say 3 lights for 4 hours, and a couple more for an hour each. Say they are 100 watt bulbs. That's 1400 watt hours - or 1.4kw hours per day for essential lighting. If you have kids at home, and they are in differnt rooms, double it. Add a bit to be fair, and you have 3KWh of lighting consumption.
You make a pot of coffee with your 1500 watt tea kettle. It takes 3 minutes? That's 75 watt hours Yout toast is another 125? Your Bacon and eggs another 500. Then there is your refrigerator, and your circulating fan on your furnace (2.4KwH minimum) So your lighting is already less than half your electrical consumption
- meaning that if you turned ALL your lights OFF you would save roughly half of your electricity. So even if your CFLs consume 1/4 the power your incandescents do, you are only saving about 35% of your power consumption. In reality you usually use electricity for a lot more non-lighting purposes than just breakfast so the returns drop even more - even if you also use more lights.
CFLs definitely save money - but I'll never believe 50% of the electrical bill unless they are like mine and don't work at all after several months to a year - and I've NEVER bought cfls for half a buck, or even a buck.
In my opinion the only CFL worth wasting much time on is the one that plays on the "big" field - and I don't even waste time or TV power on them these days.
Ok, $.30.
Sounds light by two or three, but...
Now add for to six hours of TV (or twelve), for another 2-3kWh (double).
Yep. Lighting really is small potatoes. CFLs are a (lousy) solution without a problem.
I haven't even watched the 'N' version for a couple of years. ;-)
Hide quoted text -
You lost the argument. No problem, you can admit it.
No, the statement is not that well punctuated but he did mean 11 of these, not one.
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
What's so bad about shifting home heating energy consumption from the home lighting to something likely having greater cost effectiveness, such as many home heating systems? Often, the home heating system delivers more BTU per $ due to energy source being other than electricity.
Increasing energy efficiency of the home lighting also reduces cost of any home air conditioning pumping out the heat from whatever lighting needs to be used when A/C needs to be used (and in USA that is far above zero).
That was typo-ed - the one who stated this appeared to me to be typo-ing a claim that for most of US natural gas costs about half as much for home heating as electricity does, possibly qualifiable for electric heat being resistive as opposed to from a heat pump.
Not the water heater in any home owned by any homeowner I know,
Not most oven energy usage in the experience of my entire life,
And plasma TVs still only exist in a minority of homes even in mid-2010 due to high cost and after that high energy consumption per square foot of screen area being second-worst second to CRT.
And it appears to me that electric heat pumps are disproportionately used where electricity cost is below-average and/or where winters are chilly to the particular extent where electric heat pumps are more advantageous (as in requirement of major home heating while most of the time during winter the outdoor temperature is low enough to require major home heating but high/consistent enough to make an electric heat pump to be the way to go, with consideration to local cost of electrical energy).
How about Philadelphia at 9 PM to 11 PM in most summer days? Or Memphis or Houston or New Orleans for that matter?
Every CFL in my home is close to fully warmed up in 1 minute or less. Most of my home-use CFLs are almost fully warmed up in half a minute. My bathroom is bright enough for me to use (or more-still) within 1 second after I turn the switch on - when I dare. (At times I find the need to take a leak when the fractional-watt LED nightlight there gives me all the light I want and then-some.)
Also, do you believe that most people go to bed for the night as soon as it gets dark even during cooling season? Especially at lower latitudes where cooling needs are greater, sunset time varies less with time of year, and where USA has population shift towards? Such as in/near Houston or Phoenix?
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
Rob Budd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
If I save 10%, that amounts to ten dollars a month. I am not going to bother with CFLs if the hassle means only ten dollars a month.
I should have been clearer: By "all the time", I meant "all the time after it starts to get dark outside". And that I see absolutely everywhere. I walk a lot, and thus have lots of time to observe people's lighting behavior. I'd say that, comparing outside-lighting left on all the time, CFLs outnumber incandescents at /least/ ten-to-one.
That's fine if you are a completely self-absorbed, greedy, selfish person who cares about no one but himself.
How about doing something simply because it's the right thing to do?
Nothing as long as you're not lying about it. Count it all. Let the consumer make the choice. Stop watermelons, dead.
During that time less lighting is needed, naturally. The point is that lighting is a *trivial* use of electricity, yet CFLs are presented as the savior. Just give up your incandescents and all will be well. YOU VILL GIVE THEM UP! Nope, not happening. I don't want CFLs.
Thanks, I read it five times and couldn't make any sense of it.
Your electric water heaters didn't use electricity?
You electric oven doesn't use electricity?
Ah, so they don't register on my electric bill?
Well, duh! Figure that, heat pumps are used where heat pumps work. BTW, they seem to be common in much of the US, now. They still *swamp* my lighting bills. The heat pumps are easily half my highest bills (about $100/mo in the coldest/warmest months).
My house isn't in Philadelphia, or Houston (but about 300 miles from NOLA). Between 9:00 and 11:00 I doubt that I ever have a light on for more than five minutes. Well, we leave the porch lights on (not candidates for CFLs, if I did like them) if we're gone.
Lucky you. That certainly *wasn't* the case in my VT home. They took a good fifteen minutes to come up to full light. Since I only wanted them on for
*maybe* two, they were a total loser.That's I use. Yes, I do like LED nightlights. I don't much care about the lousy color when all I want to do is save my toe, and the cat. We have several around the house.
We weren't talking about everyone. No I don't go to bed when it gets dark, but that's generally the time we relax in front of the 500W plasma television. It gives off enough light.
We're not paying your electric bill, no.
Because it's *NOT* The "right thing to do". Another watermelon patch uncovered.
Rob Budd wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
The "right thing" in /your/ opinion, or in /my/ opinion?
You call that temperature band small. That temperature band appears to me to include nearly all heating on the Pacific Coast from San Francisco to 49 degrees N latitude. It also appears to me to be wide enough to include both long-term year-round average temperature and long-term average temperature of January alone for all of USA's "Northeast Corrider" from Washington DC to Boston including the suburbs.
To me, use of home heating other than resistive electric heat increases the home heating cost of using energy-efficient lighting from 0% to 50% of the electricity savings.
Can you tell us how he claimed that was "normal" as opposed to "can be done"? I am aware that changing to energy-efficient lighting can reduce the electric bills of some homes by 50% (I have done that), and that in most homes the savings from doing so are smaller.
Do you mean how some of them can be "reversed" to be used for cooling to negate need for separate air conditioning units? Or are you talking about heating outside of "heating season"?
Can you tell me better how my thinking is insufficient for questioning lack of need for lighting for long outside of bathrooms in homes when heat is not needed?
OK, if you want to bitch me out about that...
Maybe a little unusually, I tank up on hot caffeinated beverages after I get to work at my "day job" and tank upon cold ready-to-drink caffeinated beverages at home as well as at times on the job. I use the time saved for getting in some sleep or getting done something else that I want to do (sometimes that's getting paying work done).
2.4 KWH per day minimum for a furnace circulating fan? How about days when I don't need heat much or at all? What about modern technology where effort is made to reduce the energy cost of such things? How about if the circulating fan is my landlord's problem? How about my *actual situation* where my heat is delivered without a circulating fan, and is not resistive electric heat?I did already admit that 50% is only achievable in some homes and most will save less. As I said before, for USA national average, lighting is
9% of residential electricity use. Even with the percentage being lower where electricity costs less and higher where electricity cost is more, I see 50% reduction of electric bill by changing the lighting to be doable in only some minority of homes. In most homes, the percentage is less, often a lot less, but still significant.I don't eat hot breakfast. Cold cereal with milk, some juice and caffeinated soda takes less time and costs me no utility bills unless the refrigerator costs me more to store milk in it.
What I claimed before is that in some but not most homes 50% is achievable, and in most homes a lesser but still-significant amount is doable.
Most CFLs that I have used lasted 4 years or more. I have mentioned brand of CFL or abusive application that in my experience accounts for most CFLs that don't.
Lowest I saw for ones other than dollar store 99%-stool-specimens is $9.99 for a 6-pack plus sales tax. That is still a lower ratio of cost-per-bulb to life expectancy (even if only CFL only averages
4,000-6,000 hours in real-world) than incandescents. Energy savings are in addition to bulb savings in that area.
Except that USA national average electricity cost is more than 10 cents per KWH - was 11 a couple years ago, probably closer to 12 now. Make that
35 cents *per day* for the amount of lighting mentioned, which appears to me below-average in modern USA homes unlike mine.The Philadelphia metro area is bracing itself for a big jump soon from the already-above-national-average rate.
(Except that I have cold breakfast to save time as well as energy, and my heat does not use a circulating fan)
That means the TV consumes 500 watts - sounds to me very high! My TV consumes slightly less than 100 watts! My boyfriend and I combined only have the TV on 2 hours per day on average!
One thing that I see is ROI.
My experience suggests otherwise, especially considering ROI.
My personal experience is ratio of cost of bulbs to life expectancy achieved in my experience hardly above that of incandescents - and add to that the electricity cost savings - ROI gets impressive. CFLs are not ugly to me, and I can easily enough get ones whose light is not ugly. (That part has gotten easier in recent years.) Every CFL I used in the past 3 years took anywhere from zero time to 1.5 seconds to start, with most taking less than half a second. I know which ones are worse at starting dim and needing time to warm up, and which ones are not - unlike opponents of energy efficiency. (CFLs with "outer bulbs" over the fluorescent tubing have a very high tendency to start dim and need to warm up - often mentioned as being useful in bathrooms.)
That means using energy-efficient lighting has its net energy cost savings merely halved on the few cold days outside heating season like the case of most days in heating season? As if outside "heating season", the heat from lower-energy-efficiency lighting is something that one would want to pay for, and even pay in addition for removal of such heat from one's home?
- Don Klipstein ( snipped-for-privacy@misty.com)
HomeOwnersHub website 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.