Whats with the lighting issue?

They'll reach adequate production scale - and, thus, a lower price - not long after incandescent bulbs are phased out. So, I would say that depends a lot on what happens 23 days before Thanksgiving.

CFLs are also not compatible with conventional dimmers many people have, and the dimmable CFLs that are available are very expensive and work poorly compared with conventional bulbs.

There is also that mercury issue when CFLs break or are disposed.

That said, I do use CFLs in a variety of applications and they seem to work well. But, they are not a universal replacement for incandescent bulbs and I'm mainly using them to determine lifetime compared to purchase cost and energy savings to see if they do my wallet any good.

Say it with me...

"ell... eee... dee's"
:)

Have you checked the specs on LED bulbs? A screw in LED bulb I've seen costs $29.95 and produces only 60 lumens. A typical 60 watt incandescent bulb produces about 850 lumens. LEDs are not practical for run of the mill home lighting.

^ It's true, I bought one. The light it gives off sucks, even for a small desk lamp.

Now, in under-cabinet "rope" lighting, and in cabinetry etc... they've progressed nicely. For now, I'll stick with my CFLs.

Anyone who is arguing that a CFL isn't cost effective obviously hasn't been to IKEA. :) A 3-pack of CFL's will run you $5.97.

^ a 6 pack 60 watt frosted lamps will cost you 1.69 out the door. and they'll last just as long as the 3 pack of CFL's and you can use that dimmer you have on the wall.

LEDs aren't needed for "run of the mill home lighting". That's where you use CFLs.

Unless you're trying to light a fridge..... That's when good ol incandescent comes in.

JTaylor said:
^ a 6 pack 60 watt frosted lamps will cost you 1.69 out the door. and they'll last just as long as the 3 pack of CFL's and you can use that dimmer you have on the wall.

Then, once you go do the math and see what it costs to run a 60 watt frosted bulb for an hour vs. an 11 watt (the equivalent) CFL - you'll realize where the cost savings come into play. Don't try and tell me that an incandescent bulb will last as long as a CFL, either. I've got CFL's that I was using over 3 years ago and they're still burning bright.

Anyone making a case for standard bulbs using your fridge or cost as a talking point miss the point entirely.

Apparently wanting to be able to see what is in your fridge is missing the point entirely. What point Jeff is trying to make, I don't know, but I guess I missed it.

I'm saying pegging your entire argument on one use is silly. If you're not implying that it somehow invalidates the use of florescents in general, why even bring it into the discussion? It's like arguing that a parka rules because it's cold in Alaska, but it doesn't make it appropriate for use everywhere else.

No, it was brought up in this thread that there is no uses for an incandescent, and I was arguing saying there is.

There's also uses for LED's and florescent as well.

Hey! Parkas do rule and the next time I take a trip to Alaska I will bring mine. :)

OK, so there's one special use case where CFL bulbs wouldn't work. And, as luck would have it, such a case would be a perfect situation where an LED would be ideal. Think about it - you buy one of them with your appliance, and never replace it. Ever. You wouldn't even know the difference.

I've converted our household almost completely to CFLs. I've had to replace a few dimmer switches with standard switches, but it's worth the immense savings over time. Most of the time we never used the dimmers for that purpose anyway. I mean, how often do you need mood lighting in the bathroom? Our electric bill is now 10 - 15% less than it used to be. Works for me.

Jeff wrote--

'm saying pegging your entire argument on one use is silly. If you're not implying that it somehow invalidates the use of florescents in general, why even bring it into the discussion? It's like arguing that a parka rules because it's cold in Alaska, but it doesn't make it appropriate for use everywhere else.

Actually, that would make you the United States Congress, which has mandated the use of low-flow toilets and shower heads even in places where it makes very little sense to do so. And arguing for the abolition of any particular technology (in this case incandescent lighting) just because alternatives exist for many or most applications is just as wrong-headed.

A couple of real-world examples:
ENERGY SAVINGS:
CFL: 19 watts
Incandescent: 100 watts
Room actually used: 5 minutes/day

With the incandescent light, that is a total power consumption of 150 minutes/month, or 250 watt/hours, which is 0.25 kWh. My electric rate recently went up to $0.11/kWh, so the incandescent light costs me about $0.03/month to operate.

I switched that light to a 19-watt CFL, not because I wanted to save energy so much as because changing it was a PITA. But it takes that light longer to come up to full brightness than the time the light is normally required. So as a practical matter the light just gets left on all the time. That's 13,680 watt/hours per month, or 13.68 kWh, which costs me about $1.50.

I'm switching that light back to an incandescent the next time I feel like getting up on a ladder.

But while that is a real-world example, it doesn't tell the whole story. After all, we can all switch over to CFLs and waste electricity by leaving lights on all the time, in the same way that we take longer showers and flush the toilet two or three times to compensate for the "water saving" toilets and showers.

(Tip, by the way; If you have an old house, flush twice even if it looks like it worked the first time. Those drain lines are designed to operate on a higher fluid volume than the modern toilets produce, so you need to flush again to make sure the pipe is actually clear.)

But CFLs and LEDs do not produce clean point-source light. LEDs are DC devices, and so do not work with SCR-type dimmers, and CFLs don't really dim properly at all. And while either is fine for applications where you need light up a zone, they are both useless if you need a point source...if you need a focused beam or if you are doing projection. And while the CFLs have improved, the color and quality of light still leaves a lot to be desired. Finally, in any decorative fixture in which the lamp is exposed, they don't look right, and in many cases they simply won't fit (as in my porch lights). Also, dimmers are not the only problem: electronic switching circuits will also cause problems (as with the LED Christmas lights I put up last winter that I could not turn *off* because of the electronic switches).

In general, every technology has its appropriate use, and most of us need to use an appropriate mix of technologies. When people start talking about prohibiting certain technologies, I start to get a little cranky. :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

With all due respect (and I have a TON of it for you), I'll not take energy saving advice from someone who leaves even one light on all the time. That's disgusting.

Would you leave a faucet running all the time? Hell, at least water is, more or less, renewable.

Well, if it took the faucet 5 minutes before a useable amount of water started coming out, I'd think about it.

Or, I'd replace it with a faucet that doesn't take forever to start dispensing water. That is if they hadn't been outlawed by Congress for being "inefficient".

Completely and totally not a valid comparison. The moment you turn on the electricity "spigot", its flowing.

A better analogy would be if you were to leave the hot water on all the time, so you'd never have to wait for it to heat up. But people don't do that, because it costs an awful lot of money.

If people, mostly here in the US, would just start looking past the end of their own noses and 5 minutes ahead in time, mandates could be avoided. But, as evidenced by this very thread, we're simply too narcissistic and/or stupid. We're like kids - telling them the "right" thing to do isn't enough - it takes rules with consequences. How pathetic is that?