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.
What a stupid suggestion. Please do not have children.
It's not an either/or thing. Plus, microwave/convection ovens don't cook meats well, in my opinion.
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):
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
You would save a lot of greenhouse emissions by excluding conventionally produced meat from your diet. Tremendous amounts of land and energy is used to grow food for livestock. Conventional corn/ beans agriculture also erodes the soil and introduces harmful ag chemicals into the ground water. Wild game and grass fed livestock excluded of course.
....except for the mercury in CFL bulbs. We need a solution to the disposal problem, and fast.
You are absolutely correct. The "efficiency" of of growing animals is about the same as that of a gasoline engine: 33%. Which means you lose, from the gitgo, about 2/3 of the food calories the land can produce in grains etc. A very very important issue, that will never make through the media. Not to mention the absolute barbarism of slaughter houses, the Hitler/Stalin/Saddam-esque cruelty involved in livestock raising, etc.
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.
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.
"Proctologically Violated©®" wrote in message news:89Ubi.7$ snipped-for-privacy@newsfe12.lga...
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.
How about:
The CFL light is harsher and not nearly as pleasing as the light available from an incandescent.
The ones that I've tried that are screw in replacements take a long time to warm up. I just bought 2 at HD for the kitchen. At night, it takes at least a couple of mins for them to get to anywhere near acceptable output. For the first minute+ they are like a night light. Oh, and btw, you wouldn't know how fast they reach any light output, because it's never specd.
And the ones mentioned above were indoor flood type. When I tried to screw them into the existing ceiling cans, they would not fit because while the bulb is the right size, the neck near the base is wider to accomodate the electronics. I had to go buy extenders, which now leaves them sticking slightly out of the fixture.
Plus most can't be dimmed, and those that can are only dimmable over a narrow range.
So, I'm not so sure the observation about conventional electric ovens vs microwave is so far off. I'm not saying they can't be a good fit for certain applications. But I think there is plenty that is negative about them, including that they contain mercury, which creates more hazardous waste. And instead of telling people the truth, there are nuts running around like those in California that want to pass laws that ban incandescents. It also doesn't do much good to claim they are peachy keen, and have folks try a couple thinking they are just like regular light bulbs, then give up on them because they don't work well in the particular application. It would be far better to be honest about their shortcomings, so people can use them where they make sense. In my case, so far, that's the garage, basement and closets.
Don't see why whether you use gas or electric oven makes any real difference. The energy still has to come from somewhere.
Yeah, that short neck thing is a pita. Really very little forethought. Sodium lamps I think are just as efficient. Wonder why they can't compact those, and dispense with the Hg.
You can get a wide range of colours and colour accuracy from CFL bulbs. Like everything else, the good ones are expensive. BlueMax bulbs, for instance, are about $12 each but have a CRI of 94. Typical big-box bulbs have a CRI in the low 80s.
This is brand-dependent. Some of our bulbs take a long time, others are bright within a fraction of a second and then get slightly brighter over the next minute or so. The name brands aren't always best, either.
While I agree that people need to be aware of their shortcomings, the ideal place to use CFL is where the lights will tend to be switched infrequently and will be left on for long periods of time. This maximizes electrical savings and bulb life.
Chris
I just replaced the two most often used bulbs in my house with them. Warm up is not an issue as the lights are on timers and we are often not in the room when they go on. I'll replace one more bulb.
In the past, the color rendition was plain UGLY green. That has been overcome. The bedroom, where we often use a dimmer, will remain incandescent. Like most things, they have a place but no every place.
Except there are millions upon millions of acres used for grazing that would not or could not be used for grain......thus allowing food production where none would exist......There are many more millions of acres used for hay, alfalfa etc. that are not ideal or useful for other food production.
We as well have no significant or appreciable need for more grain production as the world has never been as dependably well fed.....optimum calorie production is really only significant at the sustenance existence level.....thankfully we are not. Rod
I disagree with *all* of these assertions, from a variety of povs, much too lengthy to go into on ahr. Two points, however.
How Bush-ian. Think.... oil??????
AND, That assumes they are NOT problems now, which I also disagree with. Chemical fertilizers are about as good a long term solution for crops as Lunesta is for sleep disorder.
On Jun 13, 11:35 am, "Proctologically Violated=A9=AE"
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
FYI... I wasn't literally meaning that we should switch cooking technologies. I was just trying to make the point that lightbulbs aren't the only thing we could be doing.
Personally, banning incandecents is dumb. As long as electricity is cheap, folks will waste it. That's the real problem. People aren't paying enough for it.
Yes, that is true. You only have to look at large apartment buildings in NYC that have common electric, vs. those that have individual meters for each apt. At night, the common metered buildings look like the Empire State building on July 4th, whilst the individually metered buildings look almost abandoned.
But, the problem with your solution is that the people who can afford it least will be hit hardest--as usual.
Doesn't that sign say "Please don't feed the trolls"?
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.