[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFI] CFL bulbs - NO WAY

To: <dhallam@rapidsys.com>, "Hisashi T Fujinaka" <htodd@twofifty.com>
Subject: Re: [RFI] CFL bulbs - NO WAY
From: "Tom Rauch" <w8ji@contesting.com>
Reply-to: Tom Rauch <w8ji@contesting.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:14:39 -0400
List-post: <mailto:rfi@contesting.com>
> Ahh, but then why don't the Al Gore's of the world come 
> out and say "Right
> now these hybrid cars emit more total pollution per unit 
> that do the
> conventional gasoline automobiles.  However, some day 
> technological
> improvements may change that."
> Another Inconvenient Truth

Just because a person claims the total birth to grave 
emissions are higher in an internet chatroom doesn't mean it 
is factual.

There is pretty much universal agreement all around the 
world that at least a significant part of global warming is 
caused by humans, but there is virtually nothing to be found 
showing the total impact of any vehicle from birth to grave.

People always have a tendency to accept what they want to 
hear without questioning the validity of it. That's why we 
are in so much trouble. We are easily manipulated to support 
people we would never support if we looked objectively at 
their history or actions because we believe what we want to 
regardless of fact.

CFL bulbs have a low reliability factor, but so do the light 
dimmers and everything else I buy from China. They have high 
power factor compared to the unity power factor of an 
incandescent lamp. They certainly cause more pollution in 
manufacture and disposal. The exact numbers vary widely, but 
in general they do save energy. They do NOT save money. They 
won't save the world.

Most of our energy waste is in needlessly large houses and 
vehicles and our habits. Not in light bulbs. A 100kW vehicle 
engine can't be corrected for by reducing the peak electric 
light demand by 500 watts.

73 tom

RFI mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>