Or we can't eat fish too much.

Adrianspeeder

 

The thread name is changing...

 

I'm not doubting your numbers but it wasn't the lightbulbs alone. It would take you switching 30 100-watt bulbs to 20 watt versions that run 24/7 to save $147 a month. Now if you were actually burning 30 100 watt bulbs 24/7 you have bigger issues.

http://www.goodmart.com/light_bulb_e...alculator.aspx


I like them for certain areas but I like my dimmers, I like the color of the Incandescents and I sure ain't recycling the Fluros...

 

TCP makes dimmable CFL's:

http://www.tcpi.com/fileuploads/cont...5B0%5D.pdf#CFL

page 6 in catalog
page 10 of 90 listwise

 

Sorry RP... :o

Now, I wonder how much the dimmables are. Something tells me it will cost me more than $500 to upgrade the bulbs in my house.

 

Hi Wittom,
Perhaps you (et al) should look outside the box...eerrrr...Planet Earth.

A strange phenomena is happening that is being totally ignored. I can't understand the reasoning behind it except for monetary or political gain. The last 15-17 years NASA, yes, NASA, has it in it's logs that Mars has been warming at the same rate as Earth. It is an unpopular seach so the search engines' don't pop it up readily due to the search engine's algorithm's function.

I am not ******* anyone concerning "Global Warming".

It is real but the cause and effect, media style, I find highly biased. I am 50 years young and I have been totally enamored with anything to do with space and Astronomy. So much so, I have made it my career to be involved with anything to do with outer-space. I have helped develop a few space vehicles and their operations.

When I hear the media hype and compare the data, then I realize there is an agenda that someone is trying to promote for gain. I don't dis-respect anyone for touting what they have "learned" from their available resources. I only ask they do their homework, thoroughly, and then sum up the equation.

My only question to anyone is.......

Does the Sun have weather patterns or does it put out constant heat?

This is the "Only" ignored factor that I find in any popular "Global Warming" equation. Why? Because we have not had the the sensor technology until lately. Our Solar history facts have been severely lacking in any aspect except Sunspots.

The Great Debate has started...............

"A one-eyed man is King in the land of the blind"

Let the fun begin!!!!

 

Since this thread is being derailed, I'll contribute in the GD manner. .

I saw a show about how when all air travel was grounded that the hole in the O-Zone layer closed up and that the pollutants that cars put off do not affect the O-Zone.

 

Here's a VERY good read on global warming and the reasons that many scientists believe that it's a cyclic issue and not so much of a problem.

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4

I tend to be somewhere in the grey area between black and white on this subject. While I believe that it's cyclic, the correlation between certain chemical constituents in ice cores and ozone depletion certainly deserves some merit.

 

Then i go into and drive my F-150 400 miles at 15mpg,,,

 

Interesting. I've heard that particular factoid, but I've never experienced it. I use tube FL's in my kitchen, and CFL's in my bedroom nightstand lights and living room light. The kitchen lamps are 6 months old, the bedroom and living room lamps are well over 18 months. I have no reduction of output from any of them, and the nightstand lights get turned on for very brief cycles. The lr lamp is a 3-way, again no problems, but it is the one left on the most.

It does take about 45 seconds for the CFL's to reach max, but that doesn't bother me. I don't even notice anymore.

Oh, and no this isn't a SOTP, er.. eyeball, measure. Radio Shack sells light meters for about $10-$20. In my profession, they come in handy for answering questions from customers, like, "are my fluorescent lights burning out?"

Jus' me two bits...

 

My hippocrisy knows no bounds.

That's why I like my new sig.

 

thread accomplished what it needed to already, so to continue the thread jack...global warming is a farce. If you ask REAL scientists what makes the scientific "go round" and they will tell you money. Ask them what makes money appear, and they will answer fear, or the hope for more money.

Does proving global warming is fake help to bring either of those?

 

You and I may believe that it's a farce, but if the people who are in the position to spend our tax dollars believe that we have caused the earth to have a fever:

GOVERNOR PATRICK SETS AMBITIOUS NEW ENERGY STANDARDS FOR STATE BUILDINGS

To keep this on topic:

I wonder how much of our tax dollars are going to be invested to "mean $15,000 in savings"?

I'm all for conservation. Really, I am. I drive a behemouth SUV that gets around 14mpg. The thing is, I drive it, on average, under one hundred miles a week. I get poor fuel economy but consume less fuel than someone who drives an econobox to work every day. I actually do a lot of conserving. I might even be considered earthy crunchy to some. I am very much apposed to governments, wether local or federal, spending huge amounts of money to stop something that is a natural phenominom.

Here in ultra liberal MA, they are all for putting the cart before the horse. It's gonna cost us dearly.

 

In any business case, one should ask "What is the Return on Investment?".

The Lumens per watt/hour winner will be flourescent, hands down. Reliability in an area of high on/off cycles, incandescent will win for durability. This opinion is based on empirical knowledge of 3+ years.

Wittom,
I am glad we can agree on something. How much is each "bulb" going to cost? Before and after labor? Energy cost savings? It is quite the CHECK and [balance] system.....

Later,

 

I've tried them and they dont seem to be as bright as regular bulbs.