If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Josepi on November 6, 2009, 2:04 pm
Well, since we are totally changing the topic of this thread. LOL
CFLs may not be the perfect answer but perhaps you can subsidize the
electrical power generators for us and keep with the incandescents? My
energy comnsumption was about 27kWh per day until I started using CFLs.
LEDs are too expensive, too dim, from what I have seen so far and not much
more efficient than incandescents. On top of all that they are current
sensitive devices and require a ballast that consumes power and makes heat.
This shortens the life of an LED andf makes maintainence more costly.
The new phosphour types may be a btter answer, if you don't mind glowing in
the dark.
>A Dell Dimension 2400 reads 0 watts on my Kill A Watt and 2VA with PF=0.6.
> Under power it uses 33-36W.
> Anyone concerned about the standby power has succumbed to the mumbo-jumbo
> disinformation from nitwits like Bass & Hult. According to the DOE, 9% of
> residential electricity went for lighting (a couple of years back).
> Residential use is about 1/3 of total use so that means residential
> lighting
> uses about 3% of the total. In the USA, coal accounts for about 50% of
> that.
> So the reduction in mercury in the atmosphere is minimal from switching to
> CFLs while the danger of mercury in your kid's bedroom has increased
> enormously. The reduction in carbon dioxide from switching to CFLs is
> little
> more than a rounding error - it's not likely to keep the Maldives afloat.
> Recent figures show TVs now use 8-9% of residential electricity as a
> result
> of the proliferation of big, flat-screen TVs. So all those folks who
> installed CFLs have been on a fool's errand - subsidizing the carbon
> budget
> those who have bought new TVs. Of course, Wall Mart made money on both the
> CFLs and the TVs.
> er in sleep mode requires very little power with the modern
>>efficient switching power supplies and no mechanical parts turning. I
>>would
>>have to measure one to get actual figures.
|
|
Posted by Robert L Bass on November 7, 2009, 2:02 am
"Josepi" wrote:
> Well, since we are totally changing the topic of this thread. LOL
> CFLs may not be the perfect answer but perhaps you can subsidize the
> electrical power generators for us and keep with the incandescents? My energy
> comnsumption was about 27kWh per day until I started using CFLs.
Be careful, friend. Disagreeing with Mr. Houston, even playfully, can cause him
to think bad things about you. He's been known to get very angry and... and...
and say mean things. :^)
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
==============================>
Bass Home Electronics
DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
Sales & Service 941-870-2310
Fax 941-870-3252
==============================>
|
|
Posted by Josepi on November 7, 2009, 10:18 am
Will it be worse than what you just said about him?
I know. I've been around since ftp Usenet
> Be careful, friend. Disagreeing with Mr. Houston, even playfully, can
> cause him to think bad things about you. He's been known to get very
> angry and... and... and say mean things. :^)
> --
> Regards,
> Robert L Bastard
> Bastard Home Electronics
> DIY Alarm and Home Automation Store
> http://www.bastardarms.com
> "Josepi" wrote:
>> Well, since we are totally changing the topic of this thread. LOL
>> CFLs may not be the perfect answer but perhaps you can subsidize the
>> electrical power generators for us and keep with the incandescents? My
>> energy comnsumption was about 27kWh per day until I started using CFLs.
|
|
Posted by B Fuhrmann on November 8, 2009, 9:17 am
> Be careful, friend. Disagreeing with Mr. Houston, even playfully, can
> cause him to think bad things about you. He's been known to get very
> angry and... and... and say mean things. :^)
You mean like that one?
|
|
Posted by Robert L Bass on November 8, 2009, 1:00 pm
"B Fuhrmann" wrote:
> You mean like that one?
No, more like the one he posted prior to my tongue-in-cheek "warning".
|
Page 7 of 16 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | OT: an efficient AC controller | June 6, 2006, 10:10 pm |
| Electronic Controller Repair | October 10, 2005, 10:16 pm |
| Richdel 476 Irrigation controller | November 5, 2005, 8:26 am |
| Smart attic fan controller ? | August 27, 2006, 2:24 pm |
| OT How to connect a Brake Controller | March 17, 2007, 4:08 am |
| Looking for a hot-water tank controller | June 22, 2007, 12:08 am |
| Oil burner controller system | January 18, 2008, 7:14 pm |
| Furnaced controller problem | October 15, 2009, 10:44 pm |
| Resetting controller on Ariston dishwasher | February 6, 2005, 6:54 am |
| Landscape Lighting Controller Installation | November 9, 2005, 2:27 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> Under power it uses 33-36W.
> Anyone concerned about the standby power has succumbed to the mumbo-jumbo
> disinformation from nitwits like Bass & Hult. According to the DOE, 9% of
> residential electricity went for lighting (a couple of years back).
> Residential use is about 1/3 of total use so that means residential
> lighting
> uses about 3% of the total. In the USA, coal accounts for about 50% of
> that.
> So the reduction in mercury in the atmosphere is minimal from switching to
> CFLs while the danger of mercury in your kid's bedroom has increased
> enormously. The reduction in carbon dioxide from switching to CFLs is
> little
> more than a rounding error - it's not likely to keep the Maldives afloat.
> Recent figures show TVs now use 8-9% of residential electricity as a
> result
> of the proliferation of big, flat-screen TVs. So all those folks who
> installed CFLs have been on a fool's errand - subsidizing the carbon
> budget
> those who have bought new TVs. Of course, Wall Mart made money on both the
> CFLs and the TVs.