8 Apr
2011
8 Apr
'11
12:33 p.m.
On 8 Apr 2011 at 12:03, Dave McGuire wrote:
Surely you don't believe that's the only
reason. Heck, I'd
personally never even considered where or how they were made. I just
look at the "100W worth of light for 12W of energy" part, and it's a
no-brainer.
There's the ROI aspect. I could perhaps see replacing end-of-life
incandescent bulbs with similarly-priced CFLs if the lifetime and
price were comparable. But it's downright foolish to replace a lamp
in a closet or stairway with a CFL "just because" where the lamp sees
probably less than 10 hours use per year. In that case, replacing
with the cheapest source of illumination, regardless of efficiency
makes the most sense.
You can dispose of an incandescent by tossing it into the trash. Not
so for CFLs--and I suspect there are some government subsidies spent
dealing with that problem.
In an all-electric (we have no access to natural gas and I won't
allow propane into the house) household, lighting accounts for a
miniscule portion of the energy budget. You'll get far more bang for
your buck by replacing the water heater with a well-insulated energy-
efficient model--or by turning down the heating thermostat a few
degrees during wintertime. Or by using a fan instead of central air
conditioning during the summertime.
Or just get rid of your big-screen plasma TV...
--Chuck