Search the forums

Loading
Home › Forums › Breaktime › Energy, Heating & Insulation

Americans Harbor Misconceptions About How To Save Energy

Tim's picture

Americans Harbor Misconceptions About How To Save Energy (post #192826)

Tim on Thu, 08/26/2010 - 09:22
in

Americans Harbor Misconceptions About How To Save Energy
NEW YORK—Many Americans believe they can conserve energy by taking relatively inconsequential steps, such as turning off lights, while ignoring more impactful measures, according to a new survey. Only 2%–3% of respondents to the online survey by Columbia University cited major energy-saving steps, such as purchasing energy-efficient cars and appliances, and weatherizing homes, as being important in reducing energy consumption. Nearly 20% of respondents cited turning off lights as the best approach to conserving energy. For a sample of 15 activities, respondents underestimated energy use and savings by a factor of 2.8 on average, with small overestimates for low-energy activities and large underestimates for high-energy activities.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/greenhouse/post/2010/08/survey-many-americans-clueless-on-how-to-save-energy/1

‹ Make any sense to use a used (free) central A/C unit? A late reply to Vince G2's 3/15/10 post RE: Crawlspace insulation, etc... ›
-A +A

Generally, I agree. But I (post #192826, reply #1 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to Tim [original] on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 16:38

Generally, I agree. But I tend to be skeptical of survey results that really don't publish the results or more importantly, the survey itself. Survey's are often poorly constructed to really gain a good sampling of what they are trying to find. I could see a survey on this topic ripe for poorly worded questions that really don't glean good responses.

People talk green and efficiency and then they build a MacMansion ... go figure. I knew this guy once ... wife and two kids. Wanted to have his new house 'efficient' ... so he did a buried GSHP system to heat his 6700 sqft house!! His master shower was like 8 x 10!

People and organizations want to give you the sense they are 'environmental' or 'efficient', but then they really don't understand it.

Energy is science and most people don't understand the science of efficiency ... and more particularly, the economics. Without the economics, the science has much less meaning. I've been in the energy business for almost 30 years. I understand that people don't understand energy enough to make good decisions. There is often so much hype and hard sells going on that people get confused about energy. I respect that.

That's why we need even more energy awareness. People generally understand the importance, but they don't understand ... 'do I do this or do I do that'. Just like me trying to understand the science of medicine to take care of myself. I don't begin to really understand it ... so I make a lot of the wrong decisions (or make no decisions at all).

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

You want the details (post #192826, reply #6 of 49)

by Tim in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:49

take a look here. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/08/06/1001509107.full.pdf+html

More than you can stand.

Well I finally went to the (post #192826, reply #28 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to Tim [original] on Fri, 09/17/2010 - 06:47

Well I finally went to the site ... and you're right ... more than I can stand. WOW!!!!!  A lot of scientists and/or statisticians doing a lot of analysis on ... what? They presented one of the questions and IMO even that question wasn't very well structured. That's the problem w/ scientists/statisticians compiling a survey. Heck a lot of professional survey companies can't compile a survey that isn't biased IMO.

All that fancy analysis ... the paper on your link is obviously meant not really for the casual readers like myself, but only for other scientists.

Don't know if I/we really need to have this survey to tell us what we kind of already know. The same survey on many other topics (e.g. personal medical or financial prowess) would likely get similar rsults.

You can't really ask the average person .... what would you do to save energy ... A) change your light bulbs or B) change your furnace (or dishwasher)?  They aren't the same animal at all. They both have their time and place. It's not about just 'where are your biggest energy savings' ... A) light bulbs or B) furnace (or dishwasher)? 

You implied ... that your biggest savings is e.g. the furnace (vs. the light bulbs) ... and generally, you are absolutely right. But it isn't simple like that ... good energy decisions and management is more than just Btus of energy ... it is about economics and many other factors that affect whether you can (or should) take action to save those Btus. Renters will change light bulbs, not furnaces. Minimum wage people often can't change furnaces (maybe due to poor money management, but that is not for me to judge).

A short lifed and inexpensive item like a light bulb ... I'd be more inclined to encourage replacement than I would a functioning furnace. That is a generalization as there are situations I would encourage the furnace option ... but not without a recommendation to replace the lamps as well.

Say I have a leaky dam. Many small leaks (say 15%) and a large leak (say40%). The small leaks I can readily fix w/ locally available materials/resources and with little effort. The large leak requires planning, funding aquisition, engineering, and bringing outside help and resources to fix. Do I ignore the small leaks and sit around waiting for the large leak to be fixed?

This is a good discussion, though ... and we need to promote better awareness and motivate people to do good things. The problem is ... it's a complex topic and there really is no silver bullet solution to energy problems. It's a lot like any trade ... a lot of well done details make up a good finished product. The general goal of the trade is moot w/out well executed details.

Dang ... I'm digressing and ranting a bit ... done for now.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

I waded through the article (post #192826, reply #29 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 07:44

I waded through the article over breakfast.  Certainly won't claim to have read and understood all the statistical gobbledygook, but got a general feel for what was being said.

First off, I think on initial reading one can get the impression that the list of "ways to save energy" is what was presented in the survey.  In fact, if you read closely that question was "open ended", meaning that the interviewees were asked how they could save energy, without providing a multiple-choice list, and then the answers were categorized after the fact.  And note that this was only a small part of the overall survey, and didn't really figure into the final results -- just a "teaser", so to speak.

The real "take-away" from the article is that the best (in fact, only) predictor of ones ability to judge effectiveness of  various energy-saving strategies (or judge the cost of various energy users) is "numeracy", the ability to reason with numbers (not simply do arithmetic but understand the meaning of numbers).  This (to me) was not at all surprising -- you find the same numeracy issues (and correlation) when people judge the likelihood of being struck by lightning, the likelyhood of ill effects from an immunization, the likelihood of a terrorist attack, etc.

Innumeracy is a major problem for the US -- it was a major contributor to the financial breakdown, affects how people purchase products, affects risky behaviors, affects political attitudes.  (It would be interesting to see a comparison of numeracy by country, but I can't find such a comparison.)


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

Some very interesting points. (post #192826, reply #30 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to DanH [original] on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 16:18

Some very interesting points. Such a technically based article, yet it really only tells a bit of the story; it's not comprehensive of the study. Sounds like someone had some money to spend on a bias and hired some statisticians to show they were right.

However, I don't at all disagree w/ the OP point ... just his narrow point of view and now his fairly limited reference to this 'objective' survey that proves his point. It don't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people tend to be ill informed about energy ... and as I said about all kinds of relevant things that will directly affect their lives and well being.

As dedicated as I am to this field and as much as I think everyone should understand energy ('cause I think energy affects every aspect of peoples' lives), I understand that people generally simply do not understand it.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

It gave quite a bit of (post #192826, reply #32 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 19:22

It gave quite a bit of information -- couldn't have crammed much more into an article of that length.  I didn't see any evidence of bias.

As you say, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that people tend to be ill-informed about energy (or any other aspect of public policy for that matter).  It was a little interesting to see why/how -- simple innumeracy vs political bias, etc.  In a way this was something of a "null result" -- not realy much new insight.  But that's the way it is for many scientific studies -- the "null result" is really the norm, and new insight something of the exception.  However, one must keep in mind that reproducibility is a core scientific principle -- until some experimental/survey result has been repeated several times it's not really trustworthy.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

Dude.... (post #192826, reply #31 of 49)

by davidmeiland in reply to DanH [original] on Sat, 09/18/2010 - 18:09

that's... deep... but I think you're on to something.

I tend to be skeptical of (post #192826, reply #2 of 49)

by junkhound in reply to Tim [original] on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 18:31

I tend to be skeptical of survey results that really don't publish the results

So true, if an energy survey does not include quantitative number i figure it is just politics, like global cooling, or is it warming, i forget now.   Would you believe my HP has been in HP mode more than AC during August even!

Would you believe my HP has (post #192826, reply #3 of 49)

by DanH in reply to junkhound [original] on Sun, 08/29/2010 - 19:15

Would you believe my HP has been in HP mode more than AC during August even!

That wouldn't be true here.  One of the hottest and most humid summers on record.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

Meanwhile in South America (post #192826, reply #4 of 49)

by JoeH in reply to Tim [original] on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 07:20

Record cold continues.

Must be Global Warming here & Global Cooling there?

Joe H

must be a cold winter there (post #192826, reply #9 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to JoeH [original] on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 19:51

must be a cold winter there ... after all ... it IS winter there.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

USA Today (post #192826, reply #5 of 49)

by Tim in reply to Tim [original] on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 10:44

is not really know for journalistic dillegence. They did perfect delivery the news to a populace of decreasing intelligence via the ubiquitous "pie graph story".

IF one wanted to find the details of the survey, I would check with Columbia University.

While I didn't author the story, I though it interesting in as much as population is relatively unsophisticated in energy. The "greenwashing" of the US now makes much more sense. A mindless populace can jump on the bandwagon and blindly "do green things" for the environment and feel good about nothing.

I recall a survey from over a decade ago, where in respondens were asked to indicate the manufacturer of the heating/air conditioning system. 70% said "Honeywell". Goodman used this for years to sell cheaper equipment to installers because no one knows or really cares who makes their systems.

  From the full text:   (post #192826, reply #7 of 49)

by junkhound in reply to Tim [original] on Mon, 08/30/2010 - 11:15

 

From the full text:  

Forty-seven percent self-identified as liberals (score = 1–3), 31% as moderates (score = 4), and 22% as conservatives (score = 5–7).

 AHA, no wonder the 'misconceptions' were so evident.  One could constur from the data that self-identified liberals spend more time looking for surveys to take via craigslist also <G> 

 

Or... (post #192826, reply #8 of 49)

by Tim in reply to junkhound [original] on Tue, 08/31/2010 - 05:27

simply more likely to need someone else think for them. Hence, the propensity for greater government control of everything, including personal decisions. <VBEG>

But they also harbor all (post #192826, reply #10 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to Tim [original] on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 20:01

But they also harbor all kinds of misconceptions about all kinds of other things: their health, their finances, their cars, their families and love lives, their houses ....

Biggest misconception ... e.g. my 10 x 10 bedroom is just too small for my wife and I ... build a new house and overcompensate by building a 20 x 20 bedroom.

Big misconception: architects are rich and you can't afford to hire them ... or there is no value in hiring one to do my house, so I'll pull a plan from a plan resource and proceed to screw w/ it until it is unrecognizable and then go build a mcmansion 'cause I've no real clue as to what design is all about. Yeah, my house is like 1,000 sqft too big, now ....  let me see at a nominal and conservative $100/sqft that is $100K for the excess, but I couldn't afford an architect that [should be able to] save that 1,000 sqft and still provide me with a very livable house ... and I'm guessing his fee will be far less than the $100K.

OK, done with sarcasm ....

I'm not disagreeing with you and I do think what you pointed out is both true and very important.

That's why this tirade is really a disguise for a shameless bump ... and an opportunity to rag on about similar topic.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

However, I'm thinking that (post #192826, reply #11 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Thu, 09/09/2010 - 20:09

However, I'm thinking that this thread is borderline Tavern already, and any further ranting should probably go there.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

I dunno ... have no idea (post #192826, reply #12 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to DanH [original] on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 06:09

I dunno ... have no idea 'what the tavern is all about'.  I'm clueless there.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

All politics aside, (post #192826, reply #13 of 49)

by Tim in reply to DanH [original] on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 06:31

I posted the story, not to deride the creators or the participants, but because as we move forward as a nation with incresingly more energy efficieny focused policies and practices, it is apparant that a great deal of education is necessary. How can we make informed decisions about what is real and what is "greenwashing" if the populace in generally is clueless?

We discuss things here as (somewhat) technically knowledgable people and still manage to disagree, but still have the basic understanding that a 100w light bulb uses relatively no energy compared to a 10 SEER AC in the south or an old 65% AFUE furnace in the Midwest. You have geniouses out the changing all their light bulbs to CF and have not the foggiest idea where the greatest energy usages, and therefore potentially saving, really are.

However, we changed our (post #192826, reply #14 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Tim [original] on Fri, 09/10/2010 - 15:11

However, we changed our lights to CFLs and changed the furnace to one with a DC blower, and it cut our electric bill in half.  Switching to CFLs can produce substantial savings.  Of course, we already had a 14 SEER AC (which most summers runs less than 10 days, but this summer ran maybe 30), and the furnace that came with the DC  blower was a 96% unit.

Note that the "greatest energy savings" isn't necessarily the most cost-effective way to save, and lots of small savings can add up.  It's not an either/or thing -- rather energy conservation should be a full court press.

CFLs, in particular, make a lot of sense just from a maintenance standpoint (which is why you hardly ever see incandescents in a commercial structure anymore) -- even though the lamps are several times more expensive than a regular lightbulb they last much, much longer.  This saves money even if the electricity is free, plus it's much more convenient (and $$ saving to the commercial property owner) to not be burning out a couple of lightbulbs every week and having to replace them.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

And I wasn't intending to (post #192826, reply #15 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to Tim [original] on Sat, 09/11/2010 - 08:41

And I wasn't intending to degrade your story ... simply add a perspective/point of view.

"if the populace in generally is clueless?"   Got that right.

I disagree w/ your example of lamps and furnaces/AC units, though. Yes, maybe a single CFL is 'small potatoes' compared to the AC unit, but it makes sense to change to it anyway. Often it makes less sense to toss a perfectly good functioning piece of equipment for a more energy efficient one. Plus people can afford to readily swap a lamp, but maybe not the furnace.

Economically it makes sense when you HAVE to swap the furnace/AC to go high efficiency, but is not economical to change a functioning unit for the same high efficiency model.

It's not always about a single 'greatest energy consumption component' thing. And yes, there are many differences of opinion in this field. Like everything, there are often many ways to achieve some success. Everyone has something to contribute.

Me, I like to think that insulation and air sealing are the first defenses against energy consumption, but I don't always tell people to gut their houses and install better insulation.

A single CFL isn't a big deal. A million of them is. And they are more readily available and installed easier than the furnaces/AC units.

Still not degrading the issue, here ... just adding food for thought. Energy in buildings is a complex topic, even though the concepts are fairly simple. And that in itself is part of the problem.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

My point is that in (post #192826, reply #16 of 49)

by Tim in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Mon, 09/13/2010 - 11:52

My point is that in residences (that is what this thread is about, commercial bulding are a whole other can of worms) lighting is an insignificant energy consumption. Changing to CFL bulbs that have the potential of giving the average home owner a decade payback make no economic sense. 10 times the cost, 30% the energy consumption. And you're right, a million CFLs, busted and dumped in the garbage and the landfills will make a HUGE difference. In the mercury pollution of your children's groundwater, that is.

Again, this is all a diversion and off point. We can debate the relative merits of various approaches to saving energy, but the point is that the voting public as a whole, cannot.

4 people, each using a 75 watt light bulb for 4 hours a day, everyday for an entire year (this is, I would speculate, many times more than the avaerga household uses lighting) is the equivalent of a 4 ton 13 SEER condensing unit operating for 60 hours or the average residential refrigerator/freezer operating for 3 weeks.

Energy Star states that lighting accounts for 20% of electric energy consumption in homes. This is sufficient evidence that they are a) staffed by non-techical idividuals that flunked science in high school (aka - morons) or b) have a vested, financial interest in pushing disinformation on an ignorant public.

By your logic, it makes sense to discard a perfectly good light bulb that will most likeley never pay you back, causes toxic polution, but not to replace a furnace when you can show a payback in three or four years?

CFLs pay for themselves in a (post #192826, reply #17 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Tim [original] on Mon, 09/13/2010 - 18:00

CFLs pay for themselves in a year or less.  And the mercury they contain is less than the mercury emissions they save from burning coal for electricity.

(And don't forget that if you use the AC a lot, you spend more for the AC to remove the heat from a light bulb than you spend lighting the bulb.)

Using CFLs (even if you're tossing out good incandescent bulbs to do so) is a no-brainer.

You're illustrating the precise thing you're railing against -- allowing unverified misconceptions (and probably politics) to drive your opinions/actions about ecological concerns in general and energy saving in particluar.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

Well ... you're opening a bit (post #192826, reply #18 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to Tim [original] on Mon, 09/13/2010 - 20:39

Well ... you're opening a bit of a can of worms here. Dan is right. I ran some reasonable numbers. Incandescent lamps last a year or less (of course depending on their frequency of use). Based on the same frequency of use, CFLs will last over 13 times longer. You won't have to wait too long for the incandescent to burn out to replacement. And no, I wasn't necessarily advocating throwing away a perfectly good light bulb ... I think I was implying the opposite in my statement to you about throwing away a perfectly good furnace.

So CFLs (using my example) would save roughly 3 times a year what it cost to install them. Realizing that this value varies greatly with lots of variables like lamp cost and kwh cost, but I used some reasonable values. In addition, the CFLs save 13 lamp changes in the incandescent ... resulting in much more trash in the landfill and costing another $140 for replacements over the life of the CFLs.

Quality CFLs have little mercury, which is recovered when (if) the lamp is recycled.

Again, while I completely respect your general point, you seem to be anti lamp efficiency.

I would venture to say that we could save much more than both of these if most people building/designing new houses would do two simple things: 1) design a reasonable size house (i.e. minimize sqft) and 2) orient the house to accomodate the climate/weather. Both assumes they meet current energy codes/common practice for energy efficient construction. I never cease to be amazed at how people are still designing in the 50's. Design did better in the 20-40s.

Maybe you could use to get rid of some of your own misconceptions and be more well rounded when it comes to energy efficiency. It's not just about the kwh savings. It's about the economics and the owners ability to buy a lamp for a few bucks vs. replacing a furnace for several thousand dollars. I'm a strong advocate of Energ Star and all that, but for each application you need to fit the right technology and science and economics to the situation. I've never given all my clients the same advice ... always tailor it to their specific situation and needs. There is a time and place for just about everything. The skill is striking the right balance for each situation ... not applying misconceptions across the board.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

I fully agree (post #192826, reply #21 of 49)

by Tim in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 06:43

that building, working and living in more modest and well designed, well insulated, efficient homes and buildings is the best approach, by far. The point of the OP and of this thread is that we will not get there without educating a lot of people.

I am not against lamp efficiency. I have been involved in many relamping projects, saving local school districts thousands of dollars. I just don't believe all the the hype, unsubstantiated by fact and realtiy that you do. YOUR misconceptions include the life of incandescent bulbs (all of mine last much longer than 1 year), that people will keep a CFL for 13 years while the light output degrades to less that 50% of its new capacity and that people will diligently recyclye them. BTW, the 13 year life is a best case, highly speculative number, as well. All wishful thinking at best. Your example uses no numbers, so I cannot agree with any payback, as you have demonstarted none. How much is a bulb, how much is it used and how much does save.? IF you crunch numbers, you will find the misconceptions you have swallowed don't hold up to scrutiny. I don't deal in hype and speculation. The only way real results are achieved is by basing decisions on real, practical data, not generic advertising and hype.

You're the one that's doing (post #192826, reply #23 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Tim [original] on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:38

You're the one that's doing the wishful thinking.  Many different groups have run the numbers and arrived at essentially the same conclusion -- CFLs save money and energy.  (I challenge you to point to an authoritative analysis that proves otherwise.)

In our house it used to be that I would about monthly replace all the burned out bulbs in the house.  This would typically be 3-5 bulbs.  Now I replace the CFLs as they burn out, and it's maybe one every three months.

And, in terms of mercury, even if CFLs aren't "diligently recycled", there's still less mercury in the environment, since burning coal puts a lot of mercury into the air.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

Wow ... you're not related to (post #192826, reply #24 of 49)

by Clewless1 in reply to Tim [original] on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:28

Wow ... you're not related to Riversong are you? Run the numbers yourself on some lightbulbs. I put together a quick analysis with some plausible values (e.g. 7 cents/kwh, hours of use, etc.).

As for the life and the cost of the lamps ... The life I used is the tested rated 'official' average lamp life that lamp manufacturers have to use ... and assuming a reasonable quality, the CFL will last the 13 times longer. This is not a "HIGHLY SPECULATIVE" number ... it is the actual tested number for average lamp life. Yes, some last longer and some, shorter, but statistically the published value is a reasonable value. And have you priced CFLs lately? Man, you can get a 3-5 pack for 10 bucks these days. I assumed a lamp cost of $3 for CFL and 75 cents for incandescent. I think those are reasonable values.

As far as replacing my furnace/AC ... what do you think that might cost me for the "average" house? Maybe $5K? And what might I plan on saving on my annual energy bill? Maybe $200-$300? Not sure where you are getting that the A/C and furnace upgrade will pay for itself in ... what did you say ... 2-4 yrs?? Even at an installed cost of half that, I would see a payback of 10-15 yrs.

Lumen depreciation curves show that CFLs depreciate to roughly 73% over their life wile incandescents depreciate to about 82%. Again, these values are reasonable values you would find under the tested conditions. Yeah, tested conditions, but they all test under the same conditions, so they are reasonable values.

Well ... you were certainly right ... LOTS of misconceptions about energy. This does require a renewed effort in awareness ... but so does a lot of things as I previously pointed out. And it takes more than one concept to solve the miriad of problems out there.

But one thing seems to be certain the person with some of the biggest misconceptions and biases is the one you see in the mirror. I've never said your replacement furnace is necessarily a bad idea, but that other things also deserve attention as being very viable as well ... not just because of the shear energy savings, but because they are more readily accessible for immediate change and for many (particularly the renting community), more economically viable. While you imply you do, it doesn't seem that you respect my point of view.

There ain't NO free lunch. Not no how, not no where!

One minor point about the (post #192826, reply #25 of 49)

by DanH in reply to Clewless1 [original] on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 17:47

One minor point about the replacement furnace:  IF one gets one with a DC fan motor, and IF the "habit" in the household is to run the fan 24/7, the savings in electricity alone can amount to $200-300 a year.  But that still leaves the payback period for a new HE furnace at maybe 10 years, 5 at best.


This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in.  --Theodore Roosevelt

Well, you seem to be as (post #192826, reply #22 of 49)

by MarkH in reply to Tim [original] on Tue, 09/14/2010 - 14:34

Well, you seem to be as clueless about lighting as you complain about the general population.  First, CFL use about 25% the energy of incandescents, they absolutely do not cost ten times as much as the incandescents they replace, in fact, I believe they may be a saving in cost over purchasing incandescents.   Ten 60 wat bulbs running produce about 2000 btu, which may be a benefit or an additional cost.  These same 10 60 watt bulbs cost about  17.20 a month here at $.12/Kwh, 8 hours a day.  Equivalent cost for CFL would be $4.32 / month.  I don't know how many bulbs average homes use so the electrical savings could be considerably more.

Of course most people waste energy like it's free. 

 

 

http://www.efi.org/factoids/lumens.html

You're telling me (post #192826, reply #33 of 49)

by Tim in reply to MarkH [original] on Wed, 09/22/2010 - 06:28

I'm clueless, while in the same statement, acknowledging that "you don't know"?!? I agree with only the latter. What kind of an "engineer" are you?

I was yanking some chains to see if they could come up with valid reasoning for their blind acceptance of a heavily promoted idea. Simple math is too difficult to use as an example I guess. While they produced no sound arguments other than parroted marketing data, I do fully understand and realize the energy conservation and economic viability of compact flourescent lights and use them in my own home.

My own experience contradicts the common misstated life of the bulbs, but you can't (seriously) argue that a bulb that cost twice as much, lasts 5 times as long and produces 4 times the light for the same amount of energy, is not a wise choice.

Ok, I'll answer your question (post #192826, reply #34 of 49)

by MarkH in reply to Tim [original] on Wed, 09/22/2010 - 11:41

Ok, I'll answer your question if you can tell me what the average number of bulbs are used per houshold, it's rather simple.

 

Sucks to be you.

Home › Forums › Breaktime › Energy, Heating & Insulation