Reply With Quote
Had you limited yourself to this reasonable kernel, this thread would not exist or would shortly perish.
Oh, and thanx for the link, TB.
Had you limited yourself to this reasonable kernel, this thread would not exist or would shortly perish.
In other words, you were proven demonstrably wrong. Again.
Nothing new with the inclusion that you simply cannot admit it.
That's ok, Darrinbot. We'll admit it for you.
Reasonable don't have a chair at his table.
(bad)
Last edited by Winehole23; 07-14-2011 at 01:19 AM.
I laughed. Many times.
Thread delivers.
Maybe it comes like a thief in the night, struggling at yr window casement?
Quien sabe?
And the next page of reference #23, used in that wiki article that you think supports your erroneous conclusion:
http://homerepair.about.com/od/elect...ergybill_4.htm
You have, once again, failed.One major point of consumer confusion is the misconception that all existing incandescent bulbs will go away in 2012.
Post the law, with reference to where the LED lights are "mandated", or post not. There is no try.
From the description, all it does is simply mandate a certain amount of energy efficiency per watt and provides a rather long list of excemptions.
Also posted by myself a page or two back, but unaddressed, as of yet by the OP:
--------------------------------------------------
Just to get some hard facts:
Cost of a 100W incandescent equivalent (assume they are measuring lumens, the measurement of light): $47.89, life span 50,000 hours.
I found a cost comparison here:
http://eartheasy.com/live_led_bulbs_comparison.html
Given they have an obvious viewpoint, I decided to do some verification of their assumptions and found their 20 cents per kWh to be waaay too much.
But to be more realisitic I looked up the actual cost of electricity in San Antonio:
http://www.cpsenergy.com/files/Rate_...tric030110.pdf
6 cents plus a bit for peak usage. Call it 6.2 cents to be fair.
The cost comparison assumption of the price of electricity is the most critical assumption.
Re-running their analysis, using San Antonio rates means that running the same 50,000 hours of illumination gets the following costs for a 100w equivalent:
LED:Bulbs: $48
Electricity: $40.30
Total cost: $88.30
Florescent:
Bulbs: $20
Electricity: $62
Total cost: $82
Incandescant:
Bulbs: $52.08
Electricity: $310
Total cost: $362.08
(edit)
Incandescant - LED = $273.78
Most houses have more than one light bulb. Our little house has about 14, by my mental count.
If you have just ten in your house, then that is a total difference of some $2,737.80 over that time period.
(end)
Given electricity rates rise over time, that differential will certainly be more, making that figure somewhat conservative.
Currently Florescents seem to be cheapest by a smidge.
Halve the cost of an LED, and that edge disappears, especially given the fragility and mercury contents of the florescents.
Darrin has every right to keep spending 10 times the electricity on lighting his house.
Did I mention that the LED bulb only gives out 5% of the heat that incandescants do?
Any one bulb or even five probably don't put out that much heat, but when you are paying to cool your house most of the year, that extra heat isn't all that welcome from an efficiency standpoint. My gut says the difference probably isn't all that much money-wise, just to be fair. Still it is a minor consideration.
---------------------------------------------
Just so it is here too.
Lastly by the way Darrin:
The thing that created this soupcon of sillyness:
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
Please quote the act and how exactly it supports a federal "mandate" for $50 LED lightbulbs. I would even settle for a fair implied mandate.
I haven't read it, but I'm not doing your work for you. Bull has been called.
I've already admitted this. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...&postcount=196
I UNDERSTAND that the choices will be halogen incandescents, CFLs, and LEDs. CFLs and LEDs are non-starters (for me, at least). I'll go with halogens.
So you aren't hoarding inefficient incandescents? OP is a LIE LIE LIE!
So, we can now establish that incadescents are not banned. Finally.
No no, Darrin wasn't saying that at all. Just the opposite, the way I scan it. Scoffing dismissal.
So after nine pages of talking point regurgitation and ignorant ing, Darrin admits that his federally mandated incandescent bulbs will cost $3 each.
Closer to $2 each if he buys in bulk to hoard them.
Anyway, ing is free. Darrin seems to consider it a virtue to lie and cheat for the right side and an omission of conscience to fail to.
Right?
You so virtuous.
It's still a political forum, no?
He has the ability to be wrong....a critical piece of intellectual honesty you seem to lack.
I already admitted my mistake. Your failure to recognize that is not my problem.
Just barely. Thanks for sharing.
Interesting. Halogen. I will get you a cost comparison on that. Not that I think you might care, but it interests me to know how they stack up. I'll get it back in a few.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
