Yes, I agree that a 100 watt incandescent is not a 20 watt CF bulb – this was the larger of the two numbers that Longman cited (he specifically said 15 or 20 watt CF bulbs were equivalent to 100 watt bulbs). I also agree that no one in their right mind is running 30, 100 watt bulbs 24/7 – again, that was Longman. Please read before commenting.

Regarding your numbers, it’s difficult to follow your derivation, but the numbers themselves are flat out wrong. If you have an electric heat pump, then your heating is more efficient than using electric resistive heaters. This means that you are using less electricity with a combination of CF bulbs and heat pump than if you are using electric bulbs. Halogen bulbs are better than regular incandescents, but still not as efficient as CF bulbs. Finally, please remember that (essentially) all of a CF bulb’s wattage is converted to heat. Even the light energy converts to heat when it strikes an opaque object in the house.

As to the global warming rants. Let’s see:

* natural gas is often piped to homes (at least where I live).

* no one’s talking about saving the world through CF bulbs, but every bit helps. moreover, this saves me money

* regarding the 1940s to 1970s cooling period. I’m not certain what the relevance is. Yes, there was a cooling period, yes CO2 was on the rise at that time. There are any number of factors involved in the temperature of the planet and CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are only some of them. Most scientists point to sulphate aerosols due as being the “culprit” of the cooling period. These aerosols scatter the incoming light, reflecting some of it back out of the atmosphere. Climate models that include such aerosols demonstrate the same 1940s to 1970s cooling period. Finally, temperature *lags* CO2 in every rational climate model, so what’s your point?

* regarding CO2 and ice cores. yes, there is a 200-1200 year lag in the historical ice cores (I’ve read the original research paper). But that’s completely irrelevant. We know that greenhouse gases hold in heat. If they didn’t, then the Earth would be significantly colder than it is now. We also know that green house gasses, specifically CO2, are rising right now and that the temperature is lagging the rise in CO2. Just b/c in past years, temperature preceded CO2 does not mean that’s the case here. Yes, when the planet heats, CO2 starts increasing in the atmosphere. Among other reasons, this is b/c a warmer ocean can absorb less CO2 (think of a warm coke). But the authors of the paper acknowledge that once CO2 started increasing, the temperature kept increasing.

Most people claim that Edison bulbs waste 90% on heat … so your heat number is off as well … plus cfl’s contribute almost no heat (that’s why they are so efficient at generating light) …

so to recap

equal light
inca bulbs = 72kwh = 96.5 pounds of CO2
cfl bulbs (26watt) = 18.7kwh = 25 pounds of CO2

equal heat I’ll assume 10 watts for the cfl (221,000 btu’s)
23 pounds of co2 if heated via natural gas …
86 pounds of co2 if heated via electricity …

so the totals in wintertime are:

with natural gas heat
CFL bulbs = 42 pounds per day
Inca bulb = 96 pounds per day

with electric heat
CFL bulbs = 111 pounds per day
Inca bulb = 96 pounds per day

gee … if I have electric heat maybe I should stick to inca bulbs …

or better yet maybe I should use halogen bulbs ?

100 watt inca = 65 watt halogen for equal light and heat …

so the Halogen totals in wintertime are:

with natural gas heat
CFL bulbs = 42 pounds per day
Halo bulb = 62 pounds per day

with electric heat
CFL bulbs = 111 pounds per day
Inca bulb = 62 pounds per day

yes the summer months mean more AC to counter the heat generated with either the inca or halo bulbs …

of course in the real world most of us have at least 6 months of winter heat vs 3 months of summer AC …

again if you have electric heat CFL is not the way to go …

again who is running 30 bulbs 24/7 ? horrid example made even worse with sloppy facts (20 watt cfl = 100 watt inca ???)

You are not saving the world by switching to cfl’s …
You may be saving Al Gores investment portfolio but not the world …

And all that natural gas that you are using which has to be TRUCKED to your house with a really nasty diesel engined truck … thats gotta count against your total CO2 output as well …

Since we are now at a 10 year point with no global warming maybe its time to look up some real science and see for yourself that you’ve been conned …

Facts are terrible things and correlation does not equal causation …

So why do the facts show that there is a horrible correlation between global temperatures and CO2 levels ?

In the last 100 years the largest long term drop in global temeratures (1940-1970) occured at the same time the largest increase in CO2 occured ???

How can it be that Al Gores famous IC Ice Core Sample charts shows temperatures rising 800 years BEFORE CO2 rose ?

You are being conned … wake up

And then, even more energy is lost traveling from the power plant.

However if you burn something (like gas) directly in your house a lot less heat is wasted. A gas powered water heater is said to be about 85% efficient (some heat escapes up the smokestack). A gas powered air heater, the kind you place in your living room, puts all the heat to proper use! Some heat is still wasted with the extra ventilation required for safe use. A fireplace is likely very inefficient… but the fuel is renewable (usually wood, a form of biomass), so no net CO2 added to the atmosphere.

So unless we start generating more than 66% of our electric power from Nuclear plants and renewable sources like wind and solar, electric heating is never going to be better in terms of CO2 emissions, and most likely cost as well. Currently the opposite is true. In the US more than 60% of power still comes from fossil fuels: http://carma.org/region/detail/5