Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It does take them time to "warm up". I've noticed it's pretty dim for a few minutes, then gets brighter. We were selling 4-packs of 60W incandescent bulbs for 25 cents, but that does me no good, since I'd rather keep my electric bill lower.
By the way, the NON-twisty flourescent bulbs also have a place in my home, particularly the kitchen. One built into the range, and another installed above the sink.
First of all, it's not a proven fact that CFL bulbs really save that much energy.
Second, what ever happened to people being allowed to have a choice?
What's next on the Environmental Police State Agenda?
come on now omaha, i generally agree with you on most issues, but the world needs more environmental awarness. think how much better off it would be if everyone used energy efficient bulbs?
and people can't litter or dump chemicals into rivers either - wheres the choice?
come on now omaha, i generally agree with you on most issues, but the world needs more environmental awarness. think how much better off it would be if everyone used energy efficient bulbs?
and people can't litter or dump chemicals into rivers either - wheres the choice?
I'm all for environmental awareness. And, as I've already said, I have CFL bulbs in virtually every single light socket in my house.
But there has NOT been a big savings, because residential light bulbs aren't where the majority of the energy is going in the first place. I've realized a savings of about $1 per month on a 4,000 sqf home. That means it takes me 6 months to cover the cost of 1 CFL bulb.
In addition, depending on the workmanship of the CFL bulbs, they come nowhere near the life expectancy they claim. I've had CFL bulbs last no longer than a week. Several haven't lasted a month. They seem to be extremely susceptible to any vibration, especially in ceiling applications that are below a floor where people walk.
But mostly, it is absurd to me that people think banning incandescents is a good idea. CFLs and LEDs are not the answer for all applications. In addition, if incandescents are illegal, the price of CFLs will likely double. And that is not good for anybody.
I replaced the majority of the light bulbs in my house with CFLs mostly due to the heat that incandescents generate. My house has 8 foot ceilings and you can really feel the heat coming off those things. Putting my clothes away in my closet was miserable until I changed the bulb. I would break into a sweat standing in that closet for more than a few minutes. Plus, you should not have a bare incandescent bulb in your closet anyway (due to heat, in some areas it is a code violation). The energy savings will be small, sure, but I think it is worth it. Plus a lot of CFLs are available in a "warm" finish that produce a pretty pleasant result. My boyfriend did not even notice that I had changed most of the light bulbs.
Virtually all of the bulbs at home are CFL's.
That stated: banning incandescent bulbs is flat stupid----------although; I would have no issue with a stiff tax on 'em to equal the cost of CFL's. Why I say that is there are a few applications that mandate incandescents-----------Lava Lamps as well as chicken incubators come to mind.
although; I would have no issue with a stiff tax on 'em to equal the cost of CFL's. .
<sigh>
Suppose you own an apple orchard and produce the best apples in the world and to meet the costs you need to sell them at $1. The guy across the street also sells apples but his aren't as good as yours because he hasn't invested as much money or time into them but he sell his for 75 cents.
Now the government decides they are going to impose a "Crappy Apple Tax" in the hopes of getting everyone to eat the best apples. Consumers will have a choice between two products that cost the same but one is clearly superior. Of course they are going to buy the better product. We've accomplished our goal right?
Not so fast.... Being a savvy businessman/woman since you have a better product that means you can charge more for it. You're going to raise the price of your apples 25 cents to take advantage of the tax imposed on the crappy apples. The only thing we have accomplished is raising the cost of apples across the board.
Now the other scenario is we don't impose the "Crappy Apple Tax". You the person with the superior product realizes many consumers make decisions based on cost and you're losing business although your product is clearly better. Your solution to this of course is to try and lower your costs and try and deliver your product at the same cost of the competitor.
The CFL's are actually prime example, as more of them are made they are slowly dropping in price and the product is improving. If someone makes a CFL at the same cost of incandescent that's a great goal isn't it? That won't happen if you start adding taxes to the competition as the incentive is no longer there.
The CFL's are actually prime example, as more of them are made they are slowly dropping in price and the product is improving. If someone makes a CFL at the same cost of incandescent that's a great goal isn't it? That won't happen if you start adding taxes to the competition as the incentive is no longer there.
Exactly!
Around here, CFLs used to cost about $8.00 per bulb - and they all had that crappy blue/green glow to them. Now you can get a 4-pack for that kind of money, and purchase them in just about any Kelvin rating you wish.
Here's a simple experiment: Get one incandescent and one CFL that are supposed to produce an equal amount of light, place them next to each other in lamps, turn them on, and compare the amount of light actually produced.
I think that's going to depend on the brand and what they're claiming. I have some Satco CFL that claimed to be the equivalent of 60 watts, and I put them in my bathroom vanity light (x2) and the lamp by my bed that I use to read at night (x2). Though naturally dimmer at first, once warmed up they appear to be almost identical to the 60w incandescents I replaced. If the ones by my bed had turned out to be dimmer, I would have had to replace them because that's the light I read by every night. But so far, I can't tell a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omaha Rocks
But lights aren't the principle source of electricity usage in any home.
I agree, especially in my house where there are rarely more than two lights on at the same time.
I've got tons of new incandescent bulbs at home and will buy more if they get banned here. I want the choice to use the type of bulb that best suits the application.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why I say that is there are a few applications that mandate incandescents-----------Lava Lamps as well as chicken incubators come to mind.
