Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490

Next up - candle power as in real candles. :)

To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or
leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We
tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into
the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk
the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their
peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed.

Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated
several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them
twice every time you use them to get them clean.

Keith Nuttle wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490


Next up - candle power as in real candles. :)

To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or
leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We
tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into
the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk
the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their
peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed.

Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated
several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them
twice every time you use them to get them clean.

Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

In article ,
says...

Keith Nuttle wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490


Next up - candle power as in real candles. :)

To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or
leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We
tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into
the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk
the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their
peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed.

Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated
several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them
twice every time you use them to get them clean.

Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?

--
Wafa free since 2009

"JustWait" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?


Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 2, 1:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message

...

In article ,
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?

Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.

As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is
produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to
confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks!

"Jack" wrote in message
...

Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones.
If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for
everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.






--
Nom=de=Plume

On Sep 2, 4:41*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
As usual, I'm not confused. Fossil fuels have mercury as a by-product. It is
produced in the manufacture not used, my bad. Then, I see you went on to
confirm, exactly my argument. Thanks!

Then you went on to prove my point... your "bad" indeed. You wrote
"It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new
ones." Nothing ambiguous there... you were dead wrong.

However, if you're now trying to spin it to say that mercury is
produced in the manufacturing process while making incandescents, that
won't fly either. Mercury is likewise produced during the
manufacturing of CFBs. No savings there.

The mercury savings, as I pointed out, is in the *use* of the two
types of bulbs. As I already noted, the savings is due to less energy
being used by the CFB, but that only is when the energy is produced by
coal. Take that away, and the CFB, because it *contains* mercury, is
the worst polluter.

Hope that helps!




"Jack" wrote in message

...



Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones.
If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for
everything.

--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. *Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. *Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. *If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. *As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.

--
Nom=de=Plume

In article 1f2312f5-99cd-44b3-a261-3b1a07d523c9
@o9g2000yqj.googlegroups.com, says...

On Sep 2, 1:44*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"JustWait" wrote in message

...

In article ,
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?

Yet again, there are those pesky facts getting in the way. It takes much
more mercury to make the standard light bulb than the is in the new ones. If
you don't believe me, look it up. The new ones are a win-win for everything.


??? WHAT??? Uh, no... That's all, just no...


--
Nom=de=Plume

As usual, you're confused; that's completely false. Mercury is not
used in the manufacturing of incandescent bulbs.

There have been studies that suggest that using CFBs saves enough
energy to offset the amount of mercury they contain... but that
depends on ALL the energy being consumed as having been produced by
coal-burning power plants. Burning coal releases mercury, so the
power saved (and mercury not released) by using CFBs is supposed to
offset the mercury content of the CFB. If some of your power comes
from another source (nuclear, hydro) then this argument goes away. As
the maximum saving is around 7%, it doesn't take much to wipe that
away.



--
Wafa free since 2009

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
Keith Nuttle wrote:
Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar....html?ITO=1490


Next up - candle power as in real candles. :)
To get the same output you will have to increase the number of bulbs or
leave them on all of the time in both cases using more electricity. We
tried to use the florescent bulbs but abandon them. You would come into
the kitchen for a glass of milk and cookies. By the time you had drunk
the milk and finished the cookies the florescent bulbs would be at their
peak brightness, just in time to turn them off and go back to bed.

Florescent bulbs are like the double flush toilets, that were legislated
several years ago. They take less water but you have to flush them
twice every time you use them to get them clean.
Not if you buy a good one. And CFB's have come a long way. AND they last
forever!

Yeah, just like the Mercury in the land fills.. Have you read about the
area of China surrounding the plants where they make these things?


Well, if their government gave a **** that wouldn't be a problem.
There's been mercury in landfills from many sources for many years.