Are CFLs really "greener"?

[Furcifer]

Yep, there are a lot of ways to cloud and confuse issues if you tangent off into indirect irrelevencies instead of focussing on simple direct comparisons of relevence.

lol, life's like that.

In real life people don't all have clean power and it spikes once and a while. Instead of a $0.50 bulb every few months it's a $6 bulb, and instead of saving money you lose money and dump 40 micrograms of mercury into the landfill.

Or you leave it on because it doesn't matter anyways, and at the end of the month it was on 4 times longer than an incandescent.

[excaza]

TShaitanaku, here's the study I remember, I can't for the life of me find an actual publication other than this fact sheet. I may shoot them an e-mail at some point.

http://www.lrc.rpiscrews.us/programs/pearl/index.asp

[Furcifer]

Your standards for evidence are... inconsistent. To put it charitably.

You have 0 consistently. I'm pretty sure that's not better.


It's hardly extraordinary to assume that most of my lightbulbs will last about as long as their rated lifetime.

You said "anticipate". Don't be dull.


While we're on the subject of Randi's million dollars, what do you think my age is, and how did you figure it out?

lol


Going from summer into fall. So the light change would have led to increased usage. But I still saved overall.

Cool story bro.


Oh, so you do believe in a massive fraud and conspiracy to completely mislabel the wattages of CFL's. Or at least you think this is a plausible scenario. Good to know.

I have no idea what this is about. I think you're trying to be coy or something but it's failing miserably. Is that about right?


You know what else I assume? I assume that Obama is not an invisible lesbian Israeli robot.

:confused:


I do: you're trying desperately to come up for reasons why using CFL's wouldn't reduce my power consumption, based on absolutely no evidence, and despite the fact that they use less power.

I'm saying you've got a vivid imagination. You're going on about the time you switched to CFL's and how much money you saved and how lovely the weather was. It's been a great story, but it's all been imagined.


It's really kind of sad at this point. The fact that lower-power appliances use less power shouldn't be controversial.

Just because your appliances use less power doesn't mean you do.

I'm just asking for evidence of your claims. I know you can't produce it, you know you can't produce it. It's just something you should think about before you start making claims you can't substantiate.

It works on paper, but in real life all we have is mercury, arsenic and lead being spread around the planet evenly. I'm not sure that's "green", even if you are saving money like you say you do.

[Ziggurat]

I'm saying you've got a vivid imagination. You're going on about the time you switched to CFL's and how much money you saved and how lovely the weather was. It's been a great story, but it's all been imagined.

And you know this because you're psychic, and can use your abilities to determine that I hallucinated it all.

Just because your appliances use less power doesn't mean you do.

It means that appliance used less power.

If my usage of other appliances increased, well, why would CFL's have anything to do with that? Why wouldn't that increase have happened even without the switch to CFL's? So woudn't I still be using less power with CFL's than I would without? Of course I would.

The only scenario under which CFL's wouldn't be saving me energy would be if I kept them on more than four times as long. Which I don't do.

It works on paper, but in real life all we have is mercury, arsenic and lead being spread around the planet evenly. I'm not sure that's "green", even if you are saving money like you say you do.

So mercury placed inside a sealed container, which can be and often are recycled to avoid release, somehow constitutes "being spread around the planet evenly". But mercury being released directly into the atmosphere... is not.

Yeah, that argument will really fly.

[Pulvinar]

There's no disputing this. I'm just questioning if people actually conserve energy. I have a study that suggests people don't. There are constantly people saying "I saved money on my electric bill" but how many of them actually know? For most people their usage changes month to month more than they would save switching to CFL's. Plus people don't usually switch them all at once.
You got me curious so I went and checked my electric bill records from the last 6 years. A graph of them shows two groups of values separated by $10/month. Strangely enough, the groups separate into pre and post mid-2007 when I bought CFLs. A typical month was $50, now $40, at $0.10/kWh.

BTW, my electricity comes mostly from coal.

[ben m]

The only scenario under which CFL's wouldn't be saving me energy would be if I kept them on more than four times as long. Which I don't do.

In my office and my main living spaces, the only way I could quadruple my energy usage would be to leave the lights on 36 hours a day.

[Furcifer]

You got me curious so I went and checked my electric bill records from the last 6 years. A graph of them shows two groups of values separated by $10/month. Strangely enough, the groups separate into pre and post mid-2007 when I bought CFLs. A typical month was $50, now $40, at $0.10/kWh.

BTW, my electricity comes mostly from coal.

See Zig?
This guy got all of his bills for the last 6 years and graphed them in less than 2 hours, no problem!

Granted you probably didn't pay exactly $0.10/kWh for 6 years running, and you may have to work backwards because of service charges and delivery fees, but it shouldn't take you very long. And I'm sure you'd post the graph if you had it after doing all of this work, and you might mention just how many light bulbs you changed, but obviously it can be done.

I hope I got you curious...

[Ziggurat]

See Zig?
This guy got all of his bills for the last 6 years and graphed them in less than 2 hours, no problem!

Considering that I'm a few miles away from where my bills are, that IS a problem for me. And no, I'm not going to bother doing it to satisfy your curiosity. You've been given plenty of evidence now, you don't need my electric bills.

And what evidence have you provided? Well, none, really.

[Furcifer]

You've been given plenty of evidence now, you don't need my electric bills.


Anecdotal evidence.

I did my bills for the last 10 years and noticed a sharp increase in 2008, when my average bill went up from 225 kWh to 401 kWh per month. It stabilized at 353.856 kWh a month @ 0.065 / kWh. Or something. I guess that's proof they don't work. ;)

[Ziggurat]

Anecdotal evidence.

I don't consider the rated wattage to be anecdotal.

Furthermore, you've been provided with exactly the sort of evidence that you asked for. Pulvinar provided it instead of me, but that should make no difference. So why haven't you accepted the evidence that you requested? Was your request dishonest to begin with?

[Furcifer]

I don't consider the rated wattage to be anecdotal.

Good for you. Was it a laborious decision or did you come to that conclusion on a whim. Tell me more. :rolleyes:


Furthermore, you've been provided with exactly the sort of evidence that you asked for.

Maybe you didn't understand, I want real evidence, not something made up. You made up plenty of phony evidence on your own.


Pulvinar provided it instead of me, but that should make no difference.

No I asked you because I know you're lying. That was my point, people such as yourself tend to lie to themselves and others about how much electricity they are saving. They have no problem telling you about it, but when you ask to see this evidence suddenly it's in another state. You wouldn't believe the yarns people will spin on the internet.


So why haven't you accepted the evidence that you requested?

I thought I was being direct. You said you had evidence, I would like to see that evidence and question you on it.


Was your request dishonest to begin with?

No, it was quite honest and direct. You've got evidence, I would like to see it. You seem particularly confident of your claim, proud in fact. You just aren't being very forthcoming with your evidence, which makes me wonder. Perhaps you and Pulvinar and tshaitanaku could all post your evidence, what you're comfortable with, and I could look at it and come to a decision. (what luck 3 people in 1 thread with all of this information, excellent)

[Pulvinar]

Maybe you didn't understand, I want real evidence, not something made up. You made up plenty of phony evidence on your own.
My bill data wasn't made up. But I don't care if you don't believe it-- it's not your money that's being saved.

[Ziggurat]

No I asked you because I know you're lying.

Because you're psychic.

Go for the million, 3body!

[Furcifer]

Because you're psychic.
Go for the million, 3body!

I don't think it takes a psychic to figure out who's exaggerating around here.

[Roboramma]

Anecdotal evidence.


What I'm curious about is how you consider it physically possible that Zig's bills did not go down.

I can see a few possibilities:
1. His usage of electric heating went up to compensate. ([i]but he doesn't have electric heating[/i).
2. His total time with lights on went up. (Possible, but as he says it would have had to have quadrupled. He's unlikely not to have noticed that.)
3. He spent more time awake or more time at home because the CFL light is so wonderful, and thus had other things on for longer. (Okay, now I'm just grasping at straws).

I don't find any of those things likely. Furthermore, I find them far less likely than that he is simply telling the truth.

[Furcifer]

What I'm curious about is how you consider it physically possible that Zig's bills did not go down.

They probably did. They should have in fact. However, based on his admitted habits, the amount his bill went down probably wasn't an appreciable amount. Especially if the change wasn't at the very beginning of the billing cycle.
Given this, and the fact that normal usage changes from month to month, in order to properly determine if they've had a verifiable reduction you need to track it closely over several months, maybe a year. Otherwise he's assuming things and that's not the best way of determining if they are actually "greener". A lot of these calculations rely on assumptions that never manifest themselves. If he's really saving $10 a month they're obviously cheaper and almost certainly greener. I think I'd change my mind entirely if I saw it actually documented by someone instead of this almost automated "I know by looking at my bill" answer. Maybe it's just me but I can't keep track of my usage that closely to know for sure. My lights aren't on for 12 hours per day

[Ziggurat]

They probably did. They should have in fact. However, based on his admitted habits, the amount his bill went down probably wasn't an appreciable amount.

How would you know? Have you tried to figure out how much it should have dropped? How CAN you figure that out, given how little information about my house you actually have?

And don't think I haven't noticed that you've moved the goalpost from no savings to no "appreciable" savings.

Given this, and the fact that normal usage changes from month to month, in order to properly determine if they've had a verifiable reduction you need to track it closely over several months, maybe a year.

Like Pulvinar did. Yet you ignore him. How... convenient.

A lot of these calculations rely on assumptions that never manifest themselves.

You mean like assuming electric power generation is 100% efficient? Yeah, that's a pretty big false assumption.

Oh, sorry, that was you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6865183#post6865183).

Maybe it's just me but I can't keep track of my usage that closely to know for sure. My lights aren't on for 12 hours per day

Then buy one of those Kill-a-watt things. Plug a lamp that you use into it. See how much energy you use with it, and you can figure out directly how much you'd save if you replaced it with a CFL. You don't have to trust us, you can figure it out on your own, if you actually care.

But it's clear you don't actually care. Because you're doing nothing to try to figure out how much you might be able to save.

[Furcifer]

How would you know? Have you tried to figure out how much it should have dropped? How CAN you figure that out, given how little information about my house you actually have?

So you admit to being deliberately vague. That the first honest thing you've said in this thread I believe.


And don't think I haven't noticed that you've moved the goalpost from no savings to no "appreciable" savings.

OK, no savings then. Where's your data at? Still on the road a million miles from your energy audit?

Less lies, more evidence. Stop before you dig a hole you can't possibly get out of.

[Trakar]

...BTW, my electricity comes mostly from coal.

This might be something you could impact!

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/clean_energy_101/where-does-our-electricity.html

(Union of Concerned Scientists slide show,...be sure to click on the "take action" button to get suggestions on steps you can take and encourage others to take to address that problem,...sometimes its the cumulative small steps taken by many that actually move us forward!.)