Not to mention that in the summer, we use even more electricity to pump the
heat generated by the lights out of the house, so the energy savings by
switching to CF is even greater. In the winter, the extra heat is put to
good use warming the house, but in many parts of the country, we have
heating fuels that cost less than electricity. So by heating less with
electricity, and more with our other fuels, we still save by switching to
more energy efficient lights.
The real problem people have in this thread I believe is more tied to
simply not liking government interference. I have no problem with people
trying to stop government interference in our lives. I'm all for smaller
government. But I do have a problem when people misdirect there
frustration with the government at the "evils" of converting to energy
saving lighting technology.
Trying to get people to reduce their energy usage by converting to a
technology which will actually save them money at the same time it does
more good, than harm to the environment, is not something anyone should be
making fun of or resisting. Man is having some serious global effects on
the world and it's something we can't ignore any longer. This is the one
thing we can all do without having to make any big changes to our
One then assumes that the Martians are NOT using CFs, as Mars is also
undergoing "global warming"
Or do you think its all the SUVs on Mars? Lots of greenhouse gases on
Mars. All that water vapor and so forth.
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it
- James Burnham
I was replacing 40 watt incandescent bulbs in my always on front porch
light about every 3 months. The 18 watt twister has been in about
5-1/2 years. I figure the break even point was at about 4 years.
Don't be an idiot. Read the facts. Global warming is very real.
There isn't any doubt about whether it exists or what it has done. (unless
you listen to the oil company lobbyist). What's unknown, is the full
extent of the damage it will cause in the future and how fast it will
happen. No one can really predict it with any accuracy since it's never
happened to the earth before. What they are tracking with great accuracy
is the damage it's already done and how fast it's getting worse (at
If the damage is reversible, then we aren't in a real danger. As things
get worse, things will be done, and in the end, man's effect on the
environment will be regulated to a workable level. A few million animal
and plant species will probably be lost, and millions of people will be
displaced from their coastal homes (NY city might be under water), millions
might die, but man will survive and life will continue much as it always
has. The greater danger, is the potential for a chaotic shift in the
climate which could take many thousands of years of ice age to "fix" - such
as a major change in the ocean conveyor belt. If it changes, we won't have
the power to fix it. That would likely lead to a major ice age causing
large parts of the earth (like most of Europe) to become a waste land
within a year of the switch. This will create major disruption of our most
basic economic needs - like food, and we will see a disaster unlike
anything man has had to deal with in modern times. It's happened in the
past in the history of the earth many times and it's likely to happen
again. We are really pushing our luck by running head-long into this
without trying to slow down man's impact on the climate. Major changes
will happen to the environment if nothing is done - there just aren't any
doubts about this anymore. WE just don't know how how major, or how fast.
But the risks are very real.
Switching the lights are not going to have a big effect, but it's something
that will have a real effect that we can do without having to make any real
change our lifestyles. It actually saves us all money by switching the
lights. People should be doing it just to save money even if they don't
give a shit about what's happening to the earth.
As I just wrote in my other post. Don't mix up your concerns about
government regulation with the issues of global warming. I'm not all that
happy about the government forcing anyone to do anything (other than the
obvious like forcing people not to harm others). I'm a big believer in
motivating people by hanging carrots rather than locking doors.
There are no big money interest groups with an "agenda" pushing to get
people to switch to cheaper energy saving light bulbs. Only the little
groups with the agenda of slowing down the impact man is having on the
earth so that we will have more time to study, and deal with the changes we
are creating. In fact, most of the "agenda" at work, are the ones fighting
the facts of global warming.
If every American home switched their five most-used light fittings to
energy-saving bulbs, they would save $6bn (£3.2bn) and reduce greenhouse
gases by nearly half a million tons.
The average American generates about 15,000 pounds of carbon dioxide
every year from personal transportation, home energy use and from the
energy used to produce all of the products and services we consume ...
Replace a regular incandescent light bulb with a compact fluorescent
light bulb (cfl) CFLs use 60% less energy than a regular bulb. This
simple switch will save about 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year. If
every family in the U.S. made the switch, we?d reduce carbon dioxide by
more than 90 billion pounds!
That's 300 pounds of carbon dioxide a year saved by switching one bulb
(probably a 60w I would guess). Switch 5 of them, and you save 1,500
pounds of saving per year. That would be a reduction in the total
personal contribution by 10%. Reducing the total amount of CO2 put into
the atmosphere every year by Americans by 10% is substantial enough that
it's absurd not to do it - even more absurd when you add to it that it
saves money for everyone that does it.
Have people here not looked at the math for what these CFLs do for you?
I don't have accurate numbers at my finger tips, but let me try to do it
from memory. A standard 100 watt incandescent costs about 50 cents I think
and lasts for about 750 hours. A 23 watt CF which gives off the same
amount of light, costs about $8.00, but the new ones have an average life
of 10,000 hours (a money back guarantee of 10,000 hours).
So, to start, the cheap incandescent costs .50/750 * 1000 or 66 cents per K
The CF costs 800/10000 * 1000 = 80 cents per K hour.
So even without the electricity savings, the CF is only 20% more expensive.
In other words, for one CF, at $8, you will have to buy 13.3 of those 50
cent bulbs for a cost of $6.65 (no counting the trouble and energy you
waste replacing the bulb 13 times). So while the sticker price makes the
CF look way more expensive, it's really not that much more - and when you
buy them in bulk for sale, they can actually be cheaper. The CFs are
getting cheaper all the time - and as more people using them, they will
continue to drop in price.
But the CF is using 23 watts instead of 100. So that's a 77% reduction in
electricity used for this CF. Electricity costs around 10 cents per
kilowatt hour. So over the life of the CF (10,000 hours) the incandescent
lights will use up 100*10,000 or 1,000,000 watt hours or 1,000 Kilowatt
hours, or about $100. Of electricity. The CF on the other hand, will use
So, for the life of the CF, we see the bulb costs $8, and the electricity
cost $23 for a total of $31. For the incandescent, the 13.3 bulbs you
would have to use to equal it, cost you $6.65 for the bulbs, and about $100
for the electricity for a total of $106.65. For 5 hours per day of use,
that's about 5 years.
Switching to CFs ends up reducing your total lighting costs (price of bulbs
plus price of electricity) by 71%. And that's before you count the reduced
cooling costs by not having to pay twice by running your air conditioner to
take all that heat out of your home. (all the electricity used in the bulb
ends up being converted to heat in case anyone doesn't understand that).
Ignoring the global warming issues, it's just stupid for the most part for
people not to make the switch and reduce their costs like this.
The issue of course, is that because of the high up-front cost of the CF
bulbs, it takes a bit of time before the conversion will actually create a
savings. That time, on average, is from 1 to 2 years. It depends of
course on how much you use the lights and how much electricity costs you.
And there's always the risk that you might break the CF early in it's life
- or that it just fails for some other reason to last as long as it should.
If it fails after only 1000 hours, you will have lost more than you were
expecting to save (the bulbs I bought all came with money back guarantees
so you can protect yourself that way if it's important to you).
If you don't use much light to start with, or you only switch one or two
lights, then the odds of not seeing the savings is much higher, than if you
are like me, and have a large house full of lights and you can switch out
about 30 of them like I did. If 5 of them fail to last, I will still see a
At the same time, not only will people save money, many of us end up buying
some CFs that produce more light than the bulbs they were replacing, and we
end up getting more light, for less money, and helping do something for
global warning all at the same time. It a triple win.
But none of that should be as important to people right now as what it can
do to help reduce our personal contribution to CO2 emissions. We can see
as much as a 10% reduction in personal CO2 if everyone would just switch
their their highest used lights.
I'm not happy to see governments forcing people to switch by banning
incandescent lights, but if you know the facts of what is happening to the
earth and the potential dangers we are facing, and the facts of how much
impact this simple act of switching to new bulbs can have, it's wrong that
more people aren't already switching without the government having to try
and force it to happen. People are switching, just not fast enough.
I watch many of those shows (love them) but haven't seen that one. What
was the result? No extra wasted energy at start up (or not significant
Like I said, what I was reporting seems to all be rumor.
Odd..which facts are you talking about? The propaganda from the global
warming crowd, or the data from the climate scientists who say there is
no "global warming", but a slight increase due to increased activity of
the sun, part of the natural climate cycle.
One should note, that at one time the US as an example, was covered in a
mile thick sheet of ice. What caused that ice to melt? SUVs and CFCs?
When Greenland was much warmer, to the point it, along with the UK and
other northern climes, growing grapes for wine was common and easily
done..was it warmer or colder than today? Oh oh...if the ice sheet
melted..and it was semi tropical in Vineland....what caused those
Suvs..right? Mars one supposes is also undergoing a warming trend. This
beause of all the Martian SUVs, right?
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western civilization as it
- James Burnham
Yep. As an Australian whose had this foisted on him, I say it sucks,
big time. As usual, its a cheap publicity grab - we are doing
SOMETHING, ANYTHING - but you, the poor saps at the bottom of the food
chain, have to pay for it.
5% of Australia's greenhouses gases come from light bulbs. Whoopee.
Huge amounts from grossly inefficient, outdated, obsolete coal fired
power stations. Any move to force the power companies to update the
stations - naw, thats anti-competition - our state government has
announced it will GIVE a huge subsidy to a PRIVATE power company to
keep a 25 year old brown coal fired power station running.
CFL's do have their place - if a light runs for long periods of time,
ideal. My experience is they dont like constant on/off cycles and have
a very short life if you do. Have a mixture here of em.
Buy a reputable brand - yeh, sure. Once upon a time the brand MEANT
something - now, its all made in China crap. And the Chinese do make
really good stuff - we don't see it as we cant afford it, so they will
happily sell us the crap.
some light fitting will not take the physical size of a CFL - who pays
for the new ones. I can do it myself, the average homeowner has to pay
a electrician. The incandescent bulb in the refrigerator, the oven,
the microwave - they CANNOT be replaced with CFL's due the harsh
environment. So, what is going to happen.
Its at times like this that Gunners views seem reasonable compared to
the idiocy thats foisted upon us....
BTW - they are lovely radio frequency interference generators,
supposed to be standards for these things, but hey, self regulation
and no Government inspectors or test labs means if the paperwork is
done properly, then it MUST be up to standard.
And have you ever, out of idle curiosity, pulled one of them to pieces
- full of electronics that will go to landfill. mercury as well - if
its small enough to throw in the rubbish bin when it fails, it will
Global man made warming fear based propaganda trying to make high cost dead
technology palatable to the ingnorant masses is the goal. Government
are the only way to prop up products and services that consumers deem
to high priced and unnecessary. Grandiose claims of the end is near being
preached by some politians should get them an accademy award.
this move is actually quite dangerous in a machine shop environment.
fluoro lights pulse light at the supply ac rate.
if you run a lathe at a speed which is a multiple of the ac rate the
strobing effect will cause the job in the lathe and the chuck to
the illusion that the job is stationary is quite convincing I can tell
if you must use fluoro lights above a spinning machine you actually
need 3 phase supply and you need a triple tube light set up so that
each light is supplied off a different phase. with this arrangement
you dont get the strobing effect.
one option I have been thinking of implementing to get around this,
and I think it is dangerous, is to use a solar panel to charge a 12
volt lead acid battery, and to use that to power a few 12volt dichroic
lamps above the lathe.
or to stock up on a lifetime supply of tungsten globes.
I am amazed that I can write this sincerely but I really do see
Gunners's views as reasonable. I've been agreeing with them for a
while now although he wouldnt know that :-)
'n he gets a pat on the back for a past life as a sniper.
When Eric the Red led the Norwegian Vikings to Greenland in the late
900s, it was an ice-free farm country--grass for sheep and cattle,
open water for fishing, a livable climate--so good a colony that by
1100 there were 3,000 people living there. Then came the Ice Age. By
1400, average temperatures had declined by 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, the
glaciers had crushed southward across the farmlands and harbors, and
the Vikings did not survive.
Such global temperature fluctuations are not surprising, for looking
back in history we see a regular pattern of warming and cooling. From
200 B.C. to A.D. 600 saw the Roman Warming period; from 600 to 900,
the cold period of the Dark Ages; from 900 to 1300 was the Medieval
warming period; and 1300 to 1850, the Little Ice Age.
During the 20th century the earth did indeed warm--by 1 degree
Fahrenheit. But a look at the data shows that within the century
temperatures varied with time: from 1900 to 1910 the world cooled;
from 1910 to 1940 it warmed; from 1940 to the late 1970s it cooled
again, and since then it has been warming. Today our climate is 1/20th
of a degree Fahrenheit warmer than it was in 2001.
Please explain how that fits into the global warming senario.
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 21:34:25 -0600, with neither quill nor qualm,
Ignoramus1582 quickly quoth:
I switched over to 23w CFLs a few months ago when they went on sale
for a buck a pop. I love them and they're brighter than 100w incans.
A friend is suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD.) Who has
a good and very inexpensive 5900k lightbox, or who makes good bulbs
and fixtures? I can make a box for her. She'd rather spend the $50 she
has than the $200 she doesn't.
If it weren't for jumping to conclusions, some of us wouldn't get any exercise.