Interesting article in the Sunday DMN about a new energy bill signed into law by President Bush last month that "encourages" the use of the now ubiquitous CFLs (curly-Q fluorescent light bulbs) at the expense of the tried-and-true (and supposedly energy-sucking) incandescent bulbs. I’m no expert on this issue, which is why I waded into the story, but here are a interesting points from the story:
1) CFLs do save energy costs over time and last longer, despite their higher initial cost, but since they have mercury in them, they’re must more dangerous to the environment if disposed of inappropriately (like, in the trash).
2) Most CFLs are about 25% longer than traditional incandescents, creating all kinds of havoc with existing fixtures. I can personally attest to this, having tried in vain to fit a few CFLs into lamps and fixtures in our house.
3) Since they’re fluorescent, they don’t respond well to dimmers, are vulnerable to temperature extremes, take a few minutes to reach full brightness and in order to make them last 5-10 times longer than incandescents, you have to leave them on for 15 minutes after you turn them on (even if you don’t plan to be in the room).
There are quite a few other interesting tidbits in the story, which is (be forewarned) clearly slanted against the CFL industry and questions the wisdom of the energy bill. I’m taking no stance here other than to recommend that you read the story and draw your own conclusions.
