At 12:35 AM -0400 1/28/2009, MJ wrote: >>>Who uses 100w lightbulbs any more? >> >>I do. And if anyone touches 'em, puts those @#$% CF bulbs in my >>lamps, there will be liver ripping. > >why the opposition to CFs.
1. The color is off. Besides making the room look wrong, they cause you to do horrible things when balancing the colors in a photograph. heh. Don't even think of adjusting your display when using one. 2. They flicker. Some people cannot see it, but I sure can. It's like having a constant strobe in the room; far worse than regular florescents. After a few minutes the headache gets so bad I cannot work. 3. They DON'T last x years. In fact, their life span seems to be only slightly longer than incandescents - for x times the cost. 4. They cost MORE to run than incandescents. Yea, they really do. You see... if you turn them on/off frequently they die fast (see #3). So you have to leave them on longer. Heck, it's only 28 or 34w, not 60 or 100. But a 34w light left on for hours uses more electricity than a 60w left on for 15 mins. Multiply that by x CF lights... 5. Bad safety issue for outside use because it takes them about 10 minutes to come up to full brightness in cold weather. That means you have to turn them on way in advance (see #4, #3), and if you don't, you end up with sprained ankles etc. >Surely not for the minuscule mercury content? Minuscule? My understanding is that they contain so much that if one breaks you're supposed to call your local poison control center. It's a hazardous clean-up issue. They ran a story about this on the news a while ago - towns are issuing cautions to people etc. My town - we're not allowed to throw them out in the normal trash! We're not allowed to put them in the normal recycling stream! We have to take them to the hazardous materials facility for disposal! .... so add to the cost of the light, the cost of our gas and time. >Incandescents are outlawed for future sales in Calif and likely will >be elsewhere. That's quite a coup for the CF lobby and its PR firm! What's next? Giving the big 3 auto companies xtra bail-out money because they say they'll go bankrupt if they have to upgrade their whole fleets to meet CA's emissions laws? >It's changes in the energy usage of computers that's puzzling us at the >moment since some of our local energy engineers have become adamantly >opposed to our desktops in future planning. But we find the desktops to be >vitally important to our plans to be DIY maintainers as much as possible. >So desktops vs laptops is an LEM issue that's tied to the CF-trends. The big power savings comes from sleeping your monitor/display and the HD. Sleeping the rest is moot by comparison. One place I worked, a 3 story building full of engineers, was spending $80 to $100,000 per month on electricity alone. By shutting off lights at night they saved a few thou. By turning off or sleeping monitors & displays, they saved almost $9,000. Shutting down the 200+ desktops entirely bumped that up by only another thou. WRT shutting down desktops vs sleeping them... balance the power savings with the employee down-time while they wait for the computer to boot. A minute or so vs a few seconds. Doesn't seem like much, but when multiplied by 200+, that's 3.3 man-hours lost per day, 160 hrs per year. YMMV. FWIW, - Dan. -- - Psychoceramic Emeritus; South Jersey, USA, Earth --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to Low End Mac's iMac List, a group for those using G3, G4, G5, and Intel Core iMacs as well as Apple eMacs. The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/imac/list.shtml and our netiquette guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/imaclist?hl=en Low End Mac RSS feed at feed://lowendmac.com/feed.xml -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
