“1. So the government knows better, who better to decide the best lighting choice for your home”
-Nope, just like I said in my first post, and this is now the 4th time on this thread alone, that I have said NO.
2. understand you work the swing shift, so you still think this would shift the average of 12 hours used in your calculations for a normal American household? I don’t agree
-I didn’t use 12 hours EVER, you’re still addressing the wrong poster.
3. Businesses using florescent lighting, this isn’t CFLs, this is florescent lighting which is perfect for businesses. Businesses made this decision on the merits.
-Yes, and the merits they used were that it saves them money.
CFL’s don’t make power, buy they use a lot less to generate light, and save even more by not having to cool that air back down. Light bulbs are night unto 100% efficient. Air conditioners are only a fraction of that. Therefore you spend much more money cooling down a room that has heat added due to a bulb that generates unwanted heat at 100% efficiency. I cannot explain it any more simply than I have, nor do I care to. This is my last response to you, especially considering you keep typing to me, but using a response to someone else.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2833134/posts?page=76#76
You replied to this thread, if you didn’t agree with the others posting, then you shouldn’t have joined in with positive affirmations.
So why did you bother. The point of this article was to articulate that the claims of energy savings that the government uses as justification are wildly inflated.
You are here defending these values as legit. I am here confirming that the article is correct and still is missing some of the reasons these figures are inflated.
Even the manufacturers own websites don’t make claims of savings many are claiming on this thread.
I am sure, there may be 1 or 2 fixtures in my house that get nearly the advertised savings and reliability, but you can’t take an out-liner and use it to justify these claims.
It is a scam.