OT. Came across this

[harryagain]

Never heard of it before but seems a reasonable proposition.

[Brian Gaff]

Well seems logical to me.

After all look at how many cars there are about despite the increase in the cost of fuel?

Brian

[Andy Burns]

Have a few more to keep you busy ...

[Nightjar]

That is a far more complex equation, as fuel is not the only cost of running a car. RAC figures in 2008 showed that, compared to 1988, the cost of fuel was, corrected for inflation, 188% (petrol) or 209% (diesel) higher, but the total cost of motoring was only 83% of that in

1988. It is only in the past few years that costs have started to go up in real terms and not by that much.

Colin Bignell

[PeterC]

With CFL I encountered some 14W ones left on all night where a 60W GLS bulb had been switched as required. If the GLS was on for a couple of hours and the CFL for 10h... Think of all that energy the CFL has saved by taking 140Wh instead of 120Wh

- I wonder where it 'saves' the 20Wh.

[harryagain]

The paradox is more on the lines of you buy a car that does twice the MPG of your previous one. So you drive twice as far instead of saving money/fuel.

[harryagain]

I'll have a look at those.

[Nightjar]

Which is more or less why I traded in my 5 litre V8 4x4 for a 2 litre diesel estate car.

Colin Bignell

[dennis]

No, you decide you need to drive twice as far so you buy a car that does twice the mpg. Its another case of statistics getting it wrong because they don't ask the right questions. It the reason the greens think everyone agrees with climate change, they ask the wrong questions.

[bert]

Philistine