the light bulb police are coming
Dave Houston
The article uses figures for the percentage of electricity used for lighting
that are about 7.5 times the figures given by DOE web sites. Either the DOE
is incompetent or the people hoping to profit by forcing everyone to switch
to CFLs are cutting their figures from whole cloth.
I've cited this page before.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
Table 2 indicates that lighting represents 8.8% of 2001 US residential
electricity use. From other DOE statistics, residences use about 1/3 of
total electricity with industry and commercial sites using approximately the
same 1/3 fractions. That means residential lighting uses 8.8/3 or 2.933% of
total electricity, not the 22% claimed in the article.
http://davehouston.net
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/roZetta/
roZetta-...@yahoogroups.com
Robert L Bass
> 8.8/3 or 2.933% of total electricity,
Regardless what percentage of the total
is used for lighting, each incremental
step we take to reduce energy usage
reduces pollution and reduces our
dependence on foreign oil. Since both
of those are (IMO) worthwhile objectives
I believe it's a good idea to use more
efficient lighting. That includes CFLs.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
Marc_F_Hult
message <45f7e0a9....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14light.html?ref=science
>
>The article uses figures for the percentage of electricity used for lighting
>that are about 7.5 times the figures given by DOE web sites. Either the DOE
>is incompetent or the people hoping to profit by forcing everyone to switch
>to CFLs are cutting their figures from whole cloth.
>
>I've cited this page before.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>
>Table 2 indicates that lighting represents 8.8% of 2001 US residential
>electricity use. From other DOE statistics, residences use about 1/3 of
>total electricity with industry and commercial sites using approximately the
>same 1/3 fractions. That means residential lighting uses 8.8/3 or 2.933% of
>total electricity, not the 22% claimed in the article.
Wrong.
The article does *not* say that _residential_ lighting uses 22% of
electricity. Dave simply makes this up.
It is not that "the DOE is incompetent" or that " the people hoping to profit
by forcing everyone to switch to CFLs are cutting their figures from whole
cloth" but rather that Dave makes stuff up because he painted himself into a
corner years ago and is getting even more frantic, and more careless, and
more insulting, and more contemptuous of the actual work of others to
actually deal with real issues.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Dave Houston
do not recall seeing anything. Here's a URL with a few details.
If they can deliver on their projected efficiency, it really alters things.
Efficiency that matches CFLs, fitting the same fixtures as today's
incandescents, no hazardous waste disposal issue (speculation, as I don't
know what their magical new materials are), no PLC noise, priced below CFLs.
Dave Houston
what GE is doing.
http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN05-03-02/key05-03-02_stories.html#lattice
Dave Harper
While this looks interesting, the article also states that it will be 2010
before they're ready for market and initially it will only be a 2X improvement
over current incandescent bulbs. Given the rate of development in LED
technology, I wonder if the market will still be there at that time.
Dave
Marc_F_Hult
message <45f80b73....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>I first posted about this a couple of years ago. I wonder whether this is
>what GE is doing.
>
>
>http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/LN05-03-02/key05-03-02_stories.html#lattice
ROTFL ;-) The article describes approaches to "greatly reduce the world's
most vexing power problem -- excess electrical generating capacity and costs
to homeowners caused by inefficient lighting " .
This is the very assertion that Dave tries endlessly to refute with biased
and botched analyses.
IMO, Dave's flat-out misrepresentation of the New York Times article in the
original post in this thread and its entirely bogus 'rithmetic is but another
in a long series of self-serving misrepresentations and disservice to this
newsgroup on this topic.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc_F_Hult
message <45f807f9....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>GE announced their HEI (High Efficiency Incandescent) a few weeks ago but I
>do not recall seeing anything. Here's a URL with a few details.
>
>http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/ge/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070223005120&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1001109&vnsId=681
>
>If they can deliver on their projected efficiency, it really alters things.
>Efficiency that matches CFLs, fitting the same fixtures as today's
>incandescents, no hazardous waste disposal issue (speculation, as I don't
>know what their magical new materials are), no PLC noise, priced below CFLs.
On a trip to my local Home depot, I recently bought some of their new line of
n:Vision Compact fluorescent lamps ( CFL ).
The 60-watt equivalents are $1.70 each.
They are available in a about 15 different color temperatures, wattages, and
designs (pars. lamp, flood, candelabra, bug,etc) They are available in
daylight, white and warm white -- all of which I like for different purposes.
I have put up to six on a single INSTEON circuit with no visible/noticeable
effect on INSTEON performance. They are not rated for dimming but do dim just
fine to at least 12% of output. They are warranted with the 800 number of
where to get satisfaction permanently marked on the base. They are
significantly smaller in height and diameter than the 60-watt bulb they
replace..
Let me repeat:
-- Readily available (not a specialty item)
-- Various styles (floods, pars, bulbs, candelabra, etc)
-- Cheap $1.70 each for 60 watt equivalent
-- INSTEON/PLC friendly
-- Better choice of light color than incandescents (daylight, white, warm)
-- Dimmable (but not to zero and not officially)
-- 800 number on lamp for warranty
-- Smaller than the 60 watt incandescent they replace
What's left to complain about and misrepresent besides hazardous waste
(another topic for another day)?
Of *course* there are and will be other improvements to CFLs and other
lighting technologies, and of *course* CFLs are not a panacea. but these were
available yesterday -- not maybe in 2010.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Dave Houston
>While this looks interesting, the article also states that it will be 2010
>before they're ready for market and initially it will only be a 2X improvement
>over current incandescent bulbs. Given the rate of development in LED
>technology, I wonder if the market will still be there at that time.
And they don't indicate when they think they will hit the 4X figure.
I think the impetus for this is the plant & equipment that GE (and others)
have that can be switched from making today's incandescent to the HEIs in a
minimum amount of time and with minimal investment. CFLs (which GE also
makes) and LEDs require different methods and will likely require new
investment in plant and equipment. Thus, HEIs will probably have a price
advantage and will have the same form factor as today's incandescents.
There are indications that future LEDs will be even more efficient than
either CFLs or HEIs but they really cost and arm and a leg today. There's a
Japanese plant due to come on line this year (?) that promises highly
efficient, cheap LEDs but it's not clear whether these lend themselves to
residential lighting.
http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=181503227
Wouldn't it be ironic if GE hits their goal and the decision is made to
replace all fluorescents with HEIs because of the hazardous waste issue? ;)
It's already a problem for commerce and industry where the volume is so much
higher than for a single family residence.
Marc_F_Hult
<MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
<dt7gv2llvj5nd1cse...@4ax.com>:
>On Wed, 14 Mar 2007 14:44:53 GMT, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote
in
>message <45f807f9....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>
>>GE announced their HEI (High Efficiency Incandescent) a few weeks ago but I
>>do not recall seeing anything. Here's a URL with a few details.
>>
>>http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/ge/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070223005120&newsLang=en&ndmConfigId=1001109&vnsId=681
>>
>>If they can deliver on their projected efficiency, it really alters things.
>>Efficiency that matches CFLs, fitting the same fixtures as today's
>>incandescents, no hazardous waste disposal issue
[snip]
>
>Let me repeat:
>
>-- Readily available (not a specialty item)
>-- Various styles (floods, pars, bulbs, candelabra, etc)
>-- Cheap $1.70 each for 60 watt equivalent
>-- INSTEON/PLC friendly
>-- Better choice of light color than incandescents (daylight, white, warm)
>-- Dimmable (but not to zero and not officially)
>-- 800 number on lamp for warranty
>-- Smaller than the 60 watt incandescent they replace
>
>What's left to complain about and misrepresent besides hazardous waste
>(another topic for another day)?
>
[snip}
Heck. Let's do it now:
Even if disposed of improperly, CFLs reportedly put _less_ mercury in the
environment than the mercury in the coal used to make the electricity for
equivalent incandescent use. (Burning of coal is by far the largest source of
mercury pollution in the Northern Hemisphere.)
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
What's more, if the CFLs are _improperly disposed_ of (not recycled) they are
typically disposed of in landfills (at same volume cost as incandescent
lamps) so the mercury is much less mobile in the environment than the mercury
sewn in the air by coal-fired power plants.
(I proposed and designed and lead the first National Research Project on
hazardous waste in ground water for the US's leading water resources research
agency. I have decades of real experience in this field).
And if CFLs are properly recycled, as ALL fluorescent and other mercury vapor
lamps should be -- not jist CFLs -- they effectively contribute *far* less
mercury in the environment than incandescent lamps.
So the hazardous waste / mercury 'issue' is but another misrepresentation by
folks who have no expertise and even less objectivity.
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc_F_Hult
message <45f823a4....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>Wouldn't it be ironic if GE hits their goal and the decision is made to
>replace all fluorescents with HEIs because of the hazardous waste issue? ;)
>It's already a problem for commerce and industry where the volume is so much
>higher than for a single family residence.
The use of CFL and other fluorescents can and does _reduce_ the amount of
mercury released to the environment because they contain less mercury than is
in the coal that they save from being burned to light incandescents.
And the mercury that they do contain is far less mobile in the environment
even when (improperly) disposed of in landfills than the atmospheric
discharge of mercury by coal-fired plants.
That they can _also_ be recycled, reducing the total discharge to near zero
is an added environmental _benefit_ not a liability.
Some folks jist don't know how to stop digging their hole.
Read US EPA's authoritative fact sheet here:
http://www.nema.org/lamprecycle/epafactsheet-cfl.pdf
... Marc ((who has 35 years of experience in hazardous waste hydrology).
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
BruceR
Robert L Bass wrote:
>> That means residential lighting uses
>> 8.8/3 or 2.933% of total electricity,
>> not the 22% claimed in the article...
>
> Regardless what percentage of the total
> is used for lighting, each incremental
> step we take to reduce energy usage
> reduces pollution and reduces our
> dependence on foreign oil. Since both
> of those are (IMO) worthwhile objectives
> I believe it's a good idea to use more
> efficient lighting. That includes CFLs.
While every little bit does help, does it really make sense to spend
$2.50 for a CFL instead of a quarter for a bulb? I use a lot of CFL's
but only in locations that are either a PITA to change a bulb or where I
want to reduce heat buildup. Some disadvantages of CFL floods is their
warm up time. It can take a full minute before the light comes up to a
useable intensity. That's fine for the outdoor lights but doesn't cut it
for a closet or workshop.
Robert L Bass
> it really make sense to spend $2.50
> for a CFL instead of a quarter for a
> bulb?
I guess it depends on how much you
value the future of the planet. While
we're on the subject though, where
do you get light bulbs for $0.25 and
CFLs for $2.50?
> I use a lot of CFL's but only in
> locations that are either a PITA to
> change a bulb or where I want to
> reduce heat buildup...
Understandable.
> Some disadvantages of CFL floods
> is their warm up time. It can take a
> full minute before the light comes
> up to a useable intensity...
We have them in our condo in Brazil.
You're right. That's annoying but I'm
willing to live with it. The strange
thing is the color temperature.
> That's fine for the outdoor lights but
> doesn't cut it for a closet or workshop.
My workbench has conventional
fluorescents over it. They were there
when I bought the house. I think CFLs
would be OK there. I don't mind if
it takes a minute or so. Closet lights
are on for such a short time that CFLs
would be impractical so those will remain
conventional for the foreseeable future.
Steve
"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
news:tM-dncDLzO-A4mXY...@comcast.com...
>> While every little bit does help, does
>> it really make sense to spend $2.50
>> for a CFL instead of a quarter for a
>> bulb?
>
> I guess it depends on how much you
> value the future of the planet. While
> we're on the subject though, where
> do you get light bulbs for $0.25 and
> CFLs for $2.50?
That sounds about right to me...look at the local WalMart or Home Depot
>
>> I use a lot of CFL's but only in
>> locations that are either a PITA to
>> change a bulb or where I want to
>> reduce heat buildup...
>
> Understandable.
>
>> Some disadvantages of CFL floods
>> is their warm up time. It can take a
>> full minute before the light comes
>> up to a useable intensity...
>
> We have them in our condo in Brazil.
> You're right. That's annoying but I'm
> willing to live with it. The strange
> thing is the color temperature.
You need to find a purveyor with more selection. Local Home Depot has
multiple color temps for both PAR 30 and conventional bulb replacements
Beamer Smith
>> That means residential lighting uses
>> 8.8/3 or 2.933% of total electricity,
>> not the 22% claimed in the article...
>
>Regardless what percentage of the total
>is used for lighting, each incremental
>step we take to reduce energy usage
>reduces pollution and reduces our
>dependence on foreign oil. Since both
>of those are (IMO) worthwhile objectives
>I believe it's a good idea to use more
>efficient lighting. That includes CFLs.
Here in Canada we tend not to use oil to create electricity.
That said.. I'm more interested in the logevity of CFLs.. I bought a
whole house full of them 2 years ago and each and every one of them is
now kaput. Different brands, some even from Ikea.
At this rate I'd rather pay a little each month than about $150 every
year or so
Beamer Smith
BruceR
$10.
Bottom line on "saving the planet" is that we could do a LOT more by not
eating beef than by switching to CFLs.
Robert L Bass
> look at the local WalMart or
> Home Depot
Will do. Home Depot is my favorite
boutique. I don't shop at Walmart.
>> We have them in our condo in Brazil.
>> You're right. That's annoying but I'm
>> willing to live with it. The strange
>> thing is the color temperature.
>
> You need to find a purveyor with more
> selection. Local Home Depot has multiple color temps for both PAR 30
> and conventional bulb replacements
There's no Home Depot in Bahia yet. :^)
Robert L Bass
Same here, but the less energy we use
for one thing the more we have left for
others.
> That said.. I'm more interested in the
> longevity of CFLs.. I bought a whole
> house full of them 2 years ago and
> each and every one of them is now
> kaput. Different brands, some even
> from Ikea.
That stinks. I wonder how long the
LED lamps will last once they become
economical to manufacture / purchase.
One hopes they'll last a very long time.
Robert L Bass
The truth is my wife does most of the
shopping. She probably knows the
best prices. I recall when they first came
out CFL's were expensive.
> Bottom line on "saving the planet"
> is that we could do a LOT more by not eating beef than by switching to CFLs.
How about if we do both?
ken
>
> On a trip to my local Home depot, I recently bought some of their new line of
> n:Vision Compact fluorescent lamps ( CFL ).
>
> -- Dimmable (but not to zero and not officially)
be interested in hearing any observed lifespan issues.
dimming may "work", but what does it do to life expectency of either the
electronics or the bulb chemistry? any weird RF interference when dimmed?
why wouldn't they advertise dimmable if they were dimmable?
-ken, pretty much waiting for dimmable cfc to appear in local stores
ken
> Local 99 cent store sells 4 bulbs for a buck and Costco sells 4 CFLs for
> $10.
my own experience with "budget" incadescents is that they dont last as
long as i would normally expect from an incadescent. while one could
argue several budget bulbs is cheaper than (n-1) normal priced ones,
i find it annoying having to replace bulbs at all.
and more annoyingly, the budget ones are way more prone to
filament audible buzz when dimmed.
-ken
Marc_F_Hult
message <45F89C11...@kitwat.dhs.org>:
The 'officially' dimmable CFLs that I have will dim to about 6% of full
output (= 4 'stops' in photo parlance) as measured by a Zone-VI-modified
Pentax spot meter and(or) Nikon D200 spot meter. They exhibit no untoward
behavior when the light extinguishes -- it just goes out.
The 'non-dimmable' n:Visions CFLs I measured will dim about 3 stops (12% of
original) perfectly normally and usefully and then begin to flicker, first
almost imperceptibly, then irritatingly, then on-off like the flash to 100%
of an incandescent that is under X-10 dimmer control before it dims. (You
know what I mean if you've dimmed X-10 WS-467s.
With a lighting system with a user-definable dimmer curve (eg DMX512), one
could simply exclude the 0-15% power range and have a perfectly useful dimmer
(with lifetime issues unknown). With _dependable_ preset dim (in my case,
DMX512 and INSTEON), you could use them usefully dimmed (again, without
addressing the issue of lifetime).
I did let one go over light in a distinctly irritating (to me) flicker and
buzz mode (~ 10% INSTEON dim level) with no apparent ill effects to the lamp.
Not a very rigorous test, but as they say, one data point is infinitely more
than no data points ;-)
4 stops is equivalent to being able to turn on any number between 1 and 16
lamps (1:16). 3 stops is a range of 1:8. I suppose that some folks might feel
shorted if the lamps were designed to extinguish to zero at 1/8 power instead
of 1:16th.
At first blush, the CFLs I tried have a fairly linear ratio of watts consumed
:light output. In contrast, incandescent lamps have notoriously low
efficacy when dimmed. The perennial CFL basher in this news group has said
that he gets years of life from incandescent bulbs because he keeps them
dimmed. Saving a few pennies on the lamps costs him many dollars in wasted
electricity. With incandescents, if you want less output, the best course
from an efficacy standpoint is to replace a the lamp with a lower wattage
one.
CFLs come in a much wider array of nominal color temperatures than
incandescent lamps. A high CRI (Color Rendition Index) 'daylight' fluorescent
is much preferable to any incandescent for critical work involving color
evaluation. The n:Vision Compact fluorescent lamps at Home Depot come in
daylight (nominal 5500K) , bright white (3500K) and warm (2700K). Geezers
may like me may remember that the bluest conventional incandescent
photofloods (type A) are 3400K. Conventional high-wattage halogens are
3200-3000 IIRC.
Compared to incandescents which change greatly in color temperature when
dimmed, CFLs seem to maintain a very constant color. When you dim them they
just get dimmer instead of turning a yellow/orange that is undesirable for
many purposes -- and desirable or at least expected for others.
HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Dave Houston
>> Regardless what percentage of the total
>> is used for lighting, each incremental
>> step we take to reduce energy usage
>> reduces pollution and reduces our
>> dependence on foreign oil. Since both
>> of those are (IMO) worthwhile objectives
>> I believe it's a good idea to use more
>> efficient lighting. That includes CFLs.
>
>While every little bit does help, does it really make sense to spend
>$2.50 for a CFL instead of a quarter for a bulb? I use a lot of CFL's
>but only in locations that are either a PITA to change a bulb or where I
>want to reduce heat buildup. Some disadvantages of CFL floods is their
>warm up time. It can take a full minute before the light comes up to a
>useable intensity. That's fine for the outdoor lights but doesn't cut it
>for a closet or workshop.
Bruce,
They make more sense for you than for most everybody else in the US.
Hawaii's electric rates are much higher than the rest of the US. CFLs are
3-4 times as efficient as today's incandescents (I've never said otherwise.)
and the more you pay per kWh, the faster you pay back the higher cost. Until
recently I had the lowest rate in the country ($0.06/kWh) but after Duke
bought out Cinergy, my rates increased. Duke no longer states the rate on my
bill but charges/kWh=$0.10 for my latest bill. I think the actual rate is
lower but I get hit with a minimum charge for not using "enough" electricity
- Cinergy used to state that on my bill. 30% of my lights are fluorescent.
If I replaced more with CFLs my "penalty" for not using "enough" electricity
would be even bigger. ;)
Anyone using triac dimmers is sacrificing efficiency even at full
brightness.
Standard fluorescents (around since 1938) are about twice as efficient as
incandescent (about half as efficient as CFLs). There's not likely to be
further improvements of any significance. GE's HEI will be competivive with
standard fluorescents when introduced and with CFLs when (if) they reach the
projected 4X figure. According to an NBC News report last night, the time
frame for outlawing incandescents is 2017 so GE has time to prove it's a
foolish move.
Your use of incandescents does far less damage to the environment than
transcontinental flights whether in a commercial airliner or private plane.
What I have repeatedly objected to is the false information and phony
statistics being used by the CFIs trying to push CFLs down our throats. The
picture is not nearly as pretty as the one the CFL proponents paint.
You've noted some drawbacks, others have noted that premature failure is
still an issue (after 30 years experience), they should not be used with
motion sensors as they use more energy at startup, some brands/models output
noise that requires filters (changing the economics), the color of the light
is bothersome to many people, they are a poor choice in can lights because
of heat build up leading to early failure, etc., etc., etc. For you, they
work outside, in cold climates they never start. And, even if a particular
brand of CFL has a good warranty, there are still costs associated with
warranty replacement that alter the economics. Of course, when they fail you
can always take them to your friendly neighborhood CFL recycling center.
The DOE publishes periodic surveys of energy use in various sectors. There's
a nice pie chart I referenced recently in another thread showing these 2001
figures for total electricity use...
Residential 34%
Commercial 30%
Industry 28%
Other 8%
The surveys themselves are...
Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/
Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/
Residential Energy Consumption Survey
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/
I've already noted that lighting represents 8.8% of residential electricity
use. Given that residential use is 34% of total electricity use, that means
residential lighting represents .34 x .088 = .02992 or 3% of total
electricity use.
They do not break out the others in the same way but I found one for
industry from the latest survey published...
ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/industry/taba39a.pdf
It shows 820,286 million kWh used with 51,443 million kWh going to facility
lighting. 51,443 / 820,286 = .0627 or 6.25%. And .28 x .0627 = .0175 or
1.75% of total electricity use.
I could not find similar figures withinin the tons of reports for commercial
use but we can make some conclusions based on the others.
I'm not sure what "Other" is composed of but one possibility is government
and other public facilities which probably have lighting profiles that are
somewhat similar to commercial buildings. Adding these categories together
they represent 38% of total electricity use. If the figure given in the NYT
article (22% of total electricity is used for lighting) is accurate then
these categories must account for the remainder .22 - .02992 - .0175 =
.17258 or 17.25% of the total and .17258 / .38 = .45415 which means that 45%
of the electricty used in these categories must go for lighting. I think
most everyone will agree that such a figure borders on the preposterous and
the numbers being bandied about by CFL proponents are poppycock.
Furthermore, most of the industrial and commercial lighting already uses
fluorescents or other high efficiency lighting so the lion's share of any
savings from CFLs is likely to have to come from the miniscule amount now
used for residential lighting. I doubt it's enough to save even a small
asteroid, let alone a planet.
As I've said before, most of our electricity comes from coal and that is
certain to increase as it's both cheap and plentiful. To save the planet we
need these coal fired plants to improve their conversion efficiency as well
as capture and sequester carbon dioxide (and there's proven technology for
capturing 90% of the mercury as well). BTW, this has to be done worldwide.
As for beef, ethanol from corn gets a $0.51/gal subsidy while imported
ethanol (mostly from sugar cane) has a $0.54/gal tariff (I may have those
reversed). Beef will have to be grass-fed and studies have shown there's not
enough arable land to grow all the corn and switchgrass, etc. for celluosic
ethanol so there won't be any cattle (or humans) around and the problem
takes care of itself. :(
BTW, ethanol from corn has low conversion efficiency and worsens the global
warming problem but is super efficient at buying votes.
There is one other semi-plausible way to interpret the numbers. If we assume
that lighting uses about 1/3 of commercial electricity (still quite high but
more reasonable), that takes care of 9% of total electricity leaving 8% to
be accounted for by "Other". If all of this is in endoscopes being used to
search for the heads of the CFIs pushing CFLs, we've accounted for all of
the missing electricity. ;)
Dave Houston
category but here's a chart for the major categories showing more recent
figures for electricity use.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mer/pdf/pages/sec7_19.pdf
Maybe the missing electricty is being used at Cheney's undisclosed location.
Dave Houston
>As I've said before, most of our electricity comes from coal and that is
>certain to increase as it's both cheap and plentiful. To save the planet we
>need these coal fired plants to improve their conversion efficiency as well
>as capture and sequester carbon dioxide (and there's proven technology for
>capturing 90% of the mercury as well). BTW, this has to be done worldwide.
Today's NYT has a timely article on the first large scale test of carbon
sequestration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15carbon.html?ref=science
If it works and if overall conversion efficiency can be improved at least
enough to cover the added costs of sequestration, those Iowa farmers may
have to drink their corn squeezin's and Mexicans can again afford tortillas
(at least until the coal runs out in a few hundred years).
And Alstom might be able to sell the same generating equipment to China and
Australia.
Marc_F_Hult
message <45f91a25...@nntp.fuse.net>:
>Bruce,
>
>They make more sense for you than for most everybody else in the US.
>Hawaii's electric rates are much higher than the rest of the US. CFLs are
>3-4 times as efficient as today's incandescents (I've never said otherwise.)
>and the more you pay per kWh, the faster you pay back the higher cost.
Once again, as always, Dave shirks from actually computing, preferring
instead to make vague statements where the simple arithmetic, if presented,
shows the bankruptcy of his overall argument.
The actual "higher cost" at the Home Depot near Dave's apartment is about
$1.70-0.50 = $1.20
The efficacy (not "efficiency" ) of the n:vision fluorescent lamps I use and
cited is about 4.2X (not 3-4x) that of incandescents as per my actual
measurement and the manufacturers specs .
So used 8 hours/day the n:vision 60watt CFLs pay back their initial higher
purchase price in ONE MONTH at $.10/kWh. After one year (~three years before
their 'warranty' expires) the consumer will have saved ~$13. With Bruce's
rates, the savings are likely to be closer to $30 per year per lamp assuming
that they fail after one year at 8 hour/day (but they are warranted for three
times that with the 800-number indelibly marked on the base).
>Anyone using triac dimmers is sacrificing efficiency even at full
>brightness.
Don't let this purpose fully vague comment distract. It is about ~2v/120v
*100% = 1.7% loss. Provision for relay contacts across the solid state relays
to eliminate this loss is my design criteria # 11 posted at
www.econtrol.org\design_criteria.htm since about 1999.
>Standard fluorescents (around since 1938) are about twice as efficient as
>incandescent (about half as efficient as CFLs). There's not likely to be
>further improvements of any significance.
If you define "standard fluorescent" as those that have efficacy of twice
that of incandescents, this statement is circular and meaningless. If you
don't, it is wrong. Pre-1990 "standard fluorescents" were effectively banned
in the US by Energy Policy Act of 1992 (more below).
>GE's HEI will be competivive with
>standard fluorescents when introduced and with CFLs when (if) they reach the
>projected 4X figure. According to an NBC News report last night, the time
>frame for outlawing incandescents is 2017 so GE has time to prove it's a
>foolish move.
This is a misleading statement that makes the writer -- not those actually
working to solve the issues -- look foolish.
New Federal legislation would likely follow similar legislation regulating
lighting efficiency that has been in effect in the US since Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (Public Law 102-486).
This Act eliminated the manufacturing of then-standard fluorescent lamps that
didn't meet new efficacy standards. The approach is to require an efficacy
standard to be met, which old fashioned incandescents would not meet but more
efficient incandescents or other lamps including CFLs could. So just as new
fluorescent replaced old fluorescents, new incandescents could replace old
incandescents.
>Your use of incandescents does far less damage to the environment than
>transcontinental flights whether in a commercial airliner or private plane.
So now we lurch away from personal economics to environmental issues with
mind-numbing stupidity? Any one individual's action involving virtually
anything is less significant economically and environmentally than collective
global actions. Duh.
>What I have repeatedly objected to is the false information and phony
>statistics being used by the CFIs trying to push CFLs down our throats. The
>picture is not nearly as pretty as the one the CFL proponents paint.
Straw man alert! Who? Where? When? I for one don't paint no rosy posies. I
have repeated posted actual calculations based on actual prices and studies
and rates in my house and in Dave's neighbor that refute the generalities
that Dave slips and slides on.
The first post in this thread was itself a straw-man premise based on
flat-out falsehood and fundamentally flawed premise that the NY Times article
claimed that residential lighting uses 22% of total electricity. This was IMO
purposeful misstatement. That Dave continues to defend this dishonest post is
testament to intellectual bankruptcy.
>You've noted some drawbacks, others have noted that premature failure is
>still an issue (after 30 years experience),
So cars are a bother because the carburetors foul and the points have to be
adjusted every 3000 miles? Just as the cars of thirty years ago are not the
cars of today, the CFLs of 30 years ago are not the CFLs of today.
Technology moves quickly. .
>they should not be used with
>motion sensors as they use more energy at startup,
Misleading statement and bad advice. The combination of occupancy detectors
and fluorescent lighting is ubiquitous in industrial lighting. Depends on the
duty cycle.
>some brands/models output
>noise that requires filters (changing the economics)
Don't use noisy fluorescent where noise can't be tolerated I have used up to
8 (eight) of the 60-watt-equivalent $1.70 n:vision CFLs on a circuit with
an INSTEON switch at each end (one master, one slave) with no apparent effect
on INSTEON performance.
Chose the right lamp, not the wrong one.
>the color of the light is bothersome to many people,
Yet another obsolete comment. The CFLs at the Home Depot near Dave's house
come in three _different_ color temperatures. The warm ones are almost
indistinguishable from incandescents to my trained and experience eyes.
>they are a poor choice in can lights because
>of heat build up leading to early failure,
"They" ? There are now CFLs _designed_ to go into cans. Cans are typically
designed to use lamps with built-in reflectors regardless of whether they are
standard incandescent, halogen or fluorescent. Don't use lamps that are not
designed to go into cans in cans. Duh. CFLs designed for cans are now
available at (eg) Home Depot among many other places. www.1000bulbs.com sells
~70 different CFLs in a wide range of shapes, bases, lamp style, wattages,
color temperatures, and so on., Choose the right bulb.
> etc., etc., etc.
Indeed. Obsolete after misleading after straw-man argument.
>For you, they
>work outside, in cold climates they never start.
More misstatements. The $1.70 n:vision lamps I cite are rated for -20F =/
-29C !
>And, even if a particular
>brand of CFL has a good warranty, there are still costs associated with
>warranty replacement that alter the economics.
Duh
Of course, when they fail you
>can always take them to your friendly neighborhood CFL recycling center.
As one should all fluorescent lamps.
But even if you throw them in the trash, the amount of mercury mobile in the
environment is _less_ that the mercury in the coal spewed out by the
coal-fired plants used to power equivalent watt-hours of incandescents and
that provide the power for Dave's apartment.
Mercury in the environment is the single most common cause for inland fish
consumption advisories, so this is an important problem. Reality is that CFLs
are another incremental part of the _solution_ to that _different_
environmental problem both from a public awareness and behaviour perspective
and by reducing the total amount of mercury mobile in the environment. Don't
let ignorant comments from the uninformed mislead you.
Reduce (the amount of electricity)
Reuse (1 CFL instead of 5 incandescents)
Recycle (instead of landfilling )
[Rest deleted]
"The bookful blockhead, ignorantly [Googled], With loads of learned lumber in
his head.” -- apologies to Alexander Pope
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Bill Kearney
> You need to find a purveyor with more selection. Local Home Depot has
> multiple color temps for both PAR 30 and conventional bulb replacements
Tried them, wife hated the color. Thus I've got CFLs in the shed, closets
and other places less affected by the light color temp. But then I've had
flourescents in those sorts of places for ages. Along with making sure the
wattage in the other lamps doesn't exceed the amount of useful light needed.
No point it putting in 100w when 60w (or even 40w) will suffice.
Bill Kearney
> transcontinental flights whether in a commercial airliner or private
plane.
Yes, but *every* little bit helps. It's not a matter of ignoring the small
stuff because there's bigger stuff making a larger mess. That's why you
find such argument against your positions Dave.
Marc_F_Hult
message <45f7e0a9....@nntp.fuse.net>:
>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14light.html?ref=science
>
>The article uses figures for the percentage of electricity used for lighting
>that are about 7.5 times the figures given by DOE web sites. Either the DOE
>is incompetent or the people hoping to profit by forcing everyone to switch
>to CFLs are cutting their figures from whole cloth.
>
>I've cited this page before.
>
> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>
>Table 2 indicates that lighting represents 8.8% of 2001 US residential
>electricity use. From other DOE statistics, residences use about 1/3 of
>total electricity with industry and commercial sites using approximately the
>same 1/3 fractions. That means residential lighting uses 8.8/3 or 2.933% of
>total electricity, not the 22% claimed in the article.
The claim and premise of this post that the cited New York Times article says
that "residential lighting uses [22%] of total electricity" is utterly and
patently false.
It says nothing of the sort. Just more self-serving pollution of the
newsgroup for others to clean up.
And talk about "old news"! ;-)
"[T]he light bulb police are[n't] coming" -- they have been here since 1992
with the passage of the US Energy Policy Act (Public Law 102-486) that ended
the production of the very fluorescent lamps that the OP thinks are still the
standard.
Whatta hoot!
Reminds me of the SLN skits featuring "the crotchety news commentator Emily
Litella" www.answers.com/topic/gilda-radner in which Gilda Radner (GRHS)
would go on a nonsensical rant based on a false premise. Emily wasn't afraid
to say the punch line but our news commentator is. So we'll do it for him:
"Never mind ... " ;-)
...Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Marc_F_Hult
message <cX%Jh.16726$y92.3166@attbi_s22>:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 15:47:28 -0400, "Bill Kearney" <wkearney-99@hot-mail-com>
wrote in message <a5idndTGpatNP2TY...@speakeasy.net>:
Did you know that the Home Depot n:vision lamps cited are on the shelves and
available in Daylight (5700K) Bright White (3500K) and Warm (2700K)? What
color does your wife like? Bug lamps? Black lamps? Grow lamps ? There aren't
many choices much left ;-)
<joke intended> ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.NeuralHome.info
Robert Green
Here's what I read (and copied, pursuant to common law fair use doctrine!):
"Replacing incandescent lamps could slow the growth in greenhouse-gas
emissions, but not radically. About 22 percent of electricity is used for
lighting, and about 42 percent of that is now generated by incandescent
bulbs, according to the organizers. That means that a little over 9 percent
of all electricity is used in incandescent bulbs. If that figure were cut by
half, it would be equivalent to two or three years of growth in electric
demand. Replacing older fluorescent lamps with newer, more efficient ones
would help, too."
Bear in mind those statistics are attributed to Noah Horowitz, a scientist
at the Natural Resources Defense Council, not quite as neutral-sounding
organization as the DOE in this particular debate. It wouldn't be the first
time the NYTimes published numbers that were in error, either. It's also
not clear from the context, since they started out talking about residential
consumers only, whether that number only applies to them or to the entire
universe of electric customers.
The last time I called a reporter to correct some statistics I knew to be
feloniously in error, she shrugged it off, saying "that's what they told me"
as if it absolved her from looking any further into the matter. The problem
I see is that now 1,000's of readers disassociated the quote from its
dubious source and believe the number to be true since it appeared in a
newspaper article. Sort of a credibility transfer.
So what IS the portion of the yearly average US electrical consumption
devoted to residential lighting? Do we also figure in that some commericial
and industrial establishments also use incandescents? Are the DOE figures
correct? The Federal government is now nearly totally outsourced and is
being run by the lowest bid independent contractors they could find, so I
have about as much reason to trust their numbers as I do the NYTimes. (-:
--
Bobby G.
Bill Kearney
Incandescent, soft whites. In the scheme of things I've got better things
to argue about than light bulbs. But this only ends up being in a couple of
places. Everywhere else already has CFLs
> Black lamps? Grow lamps?
Heh, with tinfoil on the windows man!
Bill Kearney
and
> available in Daylight (5700K) Bright White (3500K) and Warm (2700K)?
How recently have these been carried there? I've completely forgotten which
ones I tried but it was sometime around last August.
I'll say this, however, I picked up an outdoor spotlight CFL and it does a
fine job. Much better than I expected. I tried using the same thing in a
can above the kitchen sink (where there's an incandescent) and it just
didn't cut it.
But if those n:vision are new then I'll have to pickup a few and give them a
try.
-Bill
Bill Kearney
> devoted to residential lighting?
But does it really matter anyway?
There's an opportunity to use CFLs as a way to consume less electricity.
That it's not some humongous percentage really doesn't matter. As my
grandmother used to say "take care of your pennies and the dollars will take
care of themselves". So it only kicks the "numbers" down by some small
percentage, that's better than nothing. Yeah, there's always larger
consequences and I'm sure someone can dredge up all sorts of reasons it's
"better" to continue using the simpler, but more wasteful, incandescent.
Penny-wise, pound-foolish more likely.
There's always issues of payback cycle, trust me when I say I'm familiar
with the concept. I'd much rather have diesels in my boat but not at the
SIXTY THOUSAND dollar premium they gouge for them. A 17yr payback cycle
just makes no economic sense.
Apropos of nothing, this reminded me of the old joke about running stop
signs. When the motorist responds "I slowed down and looked, what's the
difference?". So the cop pulls him outta the car and starts beating him
mercilessly. In the process saying, would you prefer I stop or just "slow
down"?
Marc_F_Hult
message <45fb4561...@nntp.fuse.net>:
>nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
>
>>As I've said before,
ROTFL And therefore it was. Because Dave said so ;_)
This is profoundly pertinent to comp.home automation?
>> most of our electricity comes from coal and that is
>>certain to increase as it's both cheap and plentiful. To save the planet we
>>need these coal fired plants to improve their conversion efficiency as well
>>as capture and sequester carbon dioxide (and there's proven technology for
>>capturing 90% of the mercury as well). BTW, this has to be done worldwide.
>
>Today's NYT has a timely article on the first large scale test of carbon
>sequestration.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/business/15carbon.html?ref=science
One of the joys of watching kids grow up is experiencing their naïveté and
wonderment, and thinking that they are the first to discover things.
In the mid 1970's we mused about using plate tectonics to sequester carbon in
order to reduce CO2 accumulation.
And good scientists, including those from the OP's home state, of the sort
that the OP slanders with glee, have been earnestly working on this area of
earth science for decades. Indeed, they were greatly disappointed last year
IIRC when their strong proposal for a national geologic sequestration
demonstration project didn't make it.
Here's what I wrote about four years ago in sci.engr.lighting:
On Thu, 04 Sep 2003 15:27:38 GMT, MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com wrote in
message <ojmelvk5dlj7u29b4...@4ax.com>:
" It helps to remember that the great majority of carbon in the
earth's crust(limestone, dolomite, marble, coal, oil, natural
gas, etc ) is a storage term not directly available to the biosphere.
And that this carbon has been cycled at least once by biological
and physical processes driven by solar radiation (there's that
pesky source/sink again).
The mass of carbon in storage in rocks is vastly greater than
the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and surface water which
is in dynamic equilibrium with organic and inorganic carbon in
the biosphere (vegetation, plankton, peat, marl, etc).
So "sequestration" is not an obscure or rare process. Natural
"sequestration" is what has kept the earth from 'overheating' for
the last billion years or so.
In an ideal 'hydrogen economy' folks what insisted on disturbing
naturally'sequestered" hydrocarbons (HC's) would return the
unwanted C to a comparably isolated part of the crust or form and
use the H ad libitum.
Smart folks will omit this unnecessary step and use solar radiation\
directly to make H2 from H20 knowing that if they don't change the
earth's albedo in the process, at least this part of their activity
will not contribute to global energy imbalance (AKA "global
warming").
(Is it possible to get more off topic for s.e.l. ? "
IMO, it is even more off-topic for a comp.* newsgroup than a sci[ence].*
newsgroup !
... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.EControl.org
Dave Harper
Marc_F_Hult <MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:17:31 GMT, nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote in
>message <45fb4561...@nntp.fuse.net>:
>
>>nob...@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:
>>
>>>As I've said before,
>
>ROTFL And therefore it was. Because Dave said so ;_)
>
>This is profoundly pertinent to comp.home automation?
Is sniping profoundly pertinent to comp.home automation?
Here's a really radical thought; let's pick one day - just one day - where
nobody denigrates anyone else, regardless of how much they might disagree with
that person and we simply focus on home automation issues. If it works, we
could even extend it for another day. My God, who knows where it could go
from there? My $0.02.
Robert L Bass
>
> Is sniping profoundly pertinent to comp.home automation?
Marc does the newsgroup a service by pointing out
deliberate misrepresentations on the part of this poster.
Dave Harper
Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms> wrote:
>>> This is profoundly pertinent to comp.home.automation?
>>
>> Is sniping profoundly pertinent to comp.home automation?
>
>Marc does the newsgroup a service by pointing out
>deliberate misrepresentations on the part of this poster.
How about those that post disparaging remarks about you, as you are also a
frequent target? Are they also doing the newsgroup a service? My point is
that there will always be diasgreements but they can be handled in a much more
civil manner than allowing postings to degenerate into personal attacks on
individuals. I see what I feel is a disturbing trend; many people seem quite
willing to say something in a post that they would be reluctant to say face to
face. It's seems similar to the way that climbing behind the wheel of a car
seems to bring out the worst in some people. Regardless of whether we sign
our postings with our name or not, newsgroups bring a level of anonymity since
most posters likely have not, and never will, meet each other. That is hardly
justification to suspend politeness and respect for the views of others,
whether you happen to agree with them or not.
Dave Harper
Marc_F_Hult
in message <eteb7h$s...@hueco.rsn.hp.com>:
>In article <QbKdnbSfGpt0P2fY...@comcast.com>,
>Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms> wrote:
>>>> This is profoundly pertinent to comp.home.automation?
>>>
>>> Is sniping profoundly pertinent to comp.home automation?
>>
>>Marc does the newsgroup a service by pointing out
>>deliberate misrepresentations on the part of this poster.
>
> My point is that there will always be diasgreements but they can be
>handled in a much more civil manner than allowing postings to degenerate
>into personal attacks on individuals. I see what I feel is a disturbing
>trend; many people seem quite willing to say something in a post that
>they would be reluctant to say face to face. It's seems similar to the
>way that climbing behind the wheel of a car seems to bring out the worst
>in some people. Regardless of whether we sign our postings with our name
>or not, newsgroups bring a level of anonymity since most posters likely
>have not, and never will, meet each other. That is hardly
>justification to suspend politeness and respect for the views of others,
>whether you happen to agree with them or not.
>
>Dave Harper
Dave, Thank you for you helpful comments.
My home is often open to the public, and y'all are welcome to my living
room to hear me say this in person.
Although I dislike the "sniping" metaphor, because it has been already
introduced in this thread, let me use it by stating that the intention is
to shoot bad ideas humanely through the head, and not the messenger
through the heart.
Some folks in this newsgroup have apparently declared open season on
public servants, elected officials, scientists, academicians, researchers,
and environmental activists. (I wear or have worn all of those hats.) In
my opinion and experience, they do it in a way that is not only cowardly
but "unuseful" because they make false statements for their own
self-gratification knowing that they are protected from real
repercussions.
And hypocritically, some (not you, Dave) decry the newsgroup demeanor
while cavalierly smearing whole segments of society that have invested
their lives to address real problem that they now dabble with and babble
about. (My opinion, but firmly held.) Under erstwhile circumstances, these
folks would have been inconsequential. Unfortunately the internet gives
these folks an audience that they didn't have previously.
Trying to change the _behavior_ of such folks is usually a fool's errand
in my experience. The best that can be hoped for in most cases is to shoot
the bad _idea_ down cleanly.
I Hope This Helps ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org
Robert L Bass
> remarks about you, as you are also a
There's a difference between personal
attacks (of which Mr. Houston is also
guilty) and correcting misrepresentations.
Marc may not partiuclarly care for Dave
but he is careful to be accurate in his
posts.
> My point is that there will always be
> diasgreements but they can be handled
> in a much more civil manner than
> allowing postings to degenerate into
> personal attacks on individuals...
True. I feel that Marc's input has been
civil (though certainly not warm). Dave's
comments about me and several others
have included outright lies. His comments
about products and technology often
include deliberate misrepresentations.
Marc has for the most part ignored
Dave's attacks but he is right to correct
errors and misleading statements.
I really don't want to get into a flame war
so I think I'll drop this thread now.
Frank Olson
> There's a difference between personal
> attacks (of which Mr. Houston is also
> guilty) and correcting misrepresentations.
> Marc may not partiuclarly care for Dave
> but he is careful to be accurate in his
> posts.
My point exactly. It's interesting to see that if the "shoe is on the
other foot", you support the kind of response that attempts to "correct
misrepresentations". However, when they concern *you*, you're very
quick (as are a number of others here) to view that as a "personal
attack" (and then respond as if it were).
> True. I feel that Marc's input has been
> civil (though certainly not warm). Dave's
> comments about me and several others
> have included outright lies.
The same can be said of some of *your* comments.
> His comments
> about products and technology often
> include deliberate misrepresentations.
The same can be said of some of *your* comments.
> Marc has for the most part ignored
> Dave's attacks but he is right to correct
> errors and misleading statements.
So it's "OK" for Marc to do this, but not others... Interesting.
>
> I really don't want to get into a flame war
> so I think I'll drop this thread now.
Interesting tactic. I think it's called "hit and run". I also think
it's cowardly (and that's *not* a flame).
Bill Kearney
Gee, nothing like a completely off-topic discussion to bring Frank out from
under his rock.
Give it a rest, if you're not going to contribute to the content, don't just
use it as a leverage to bash Bass. While it hardly seems possible, it only
makes you look like more of a fool than ever.
John, SW Missouri
usage for lighting, but it is important to remember that residential
lighting is typically used at night, when commercial and industrial
consumption often hit their lowest levels. In the case of hydro or
nuclear power my opinion is that little energy savings will be made
from CFL in homes, but we may save some coal.
I do use a CFL lamps for outdoor lighting and in my recessed cans in
the family room - and they take more like 3 minutes to fully brighten
up. Still I like 'em, and they run a lot cooler which is good in the
warm months.
Mark - you're a hoot ;-)
John
Frank Olson
> Gee, nothing like a completely off-topic discussion to bring Frank out from
> under his rock.
Gee, there's nothing like a response to Robert (by me) to bring Bill out
from under his rock. :-)
>
> Give it a rest, if you're not going to contribute to the content, don't just
> use it as a leverage to bash Bass. While it hardly seems possible, it only
> makes you look like more of a fool than ever.
I wasn't "bashing Bass". I was merely pointing out that everything he
said about Dave could be said of him as well. I also don't agree with
his newest "tactic" which involves "hit and run" flames.
Marc_F_Hult
wrote in message <1174200528.8...@n76g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>:
>I do use a CFL lamps for outdoor lighting and in my recessed cans in
>the family room - and they take more like 3 minutes to fully brighten
>up. Still I like 'em, and they run a lot cooler which is good in the
>warm months.
I 'suspect', as we say around here, that some folks may soon be wishing
that their 3-year-old CFLs _would_ fail prematurely ;-)
Some inexpensive and widely available CFLs apparently improve on recent
predecessors in most areas of concern.
A $1.70 n:vision 2700K color temperature (incandescent-like) CFL from
Home Depot was cooled down to 0F (-18F) in the freezer and then turned on.
It went to within 1/3 stop of full brightness measured with a Zone
VII-modified Pentax spotmeter in about 50 seconds.
Starting at room temperature, they reach full brightness much more quickly
-- effectively right away as far as my perception is concerned. By the
time my pupils and other perceptual cues adjust, they are essentially up
to full brightness. The residual perceived increase in brightness is minor
(but the increase is still easily measurable with a light meter). If I
weren't attuned to the warm up, I probably would not have noticed. Faster
than my old four-foot T-12 shop fluorescents.
>Mark - you're a hoot ;-)
Did you mean to spell that with a "c" ?
If so, I'm afraid that you've mistaken me for someone else.
I am *not* the "coot" ;-)
<joke intended>... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
Marc_F_Hult
<MFH...@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote in message
<q1rrv2t23ign44ok3...@4ax.com>:
Should, of course, be (-18C) not "(-18F) ".
... Marc