Comments on: AGW Today: Barry’s Forthcoming Green Job Losses And CFL’s

By: Reversing AGW Is Not The Point? » Pirate’s Cove

Reversing AGW Is Not The Point? » Pirate’s Cove — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 21:51:04 +0000

[...] the coming nationwide rolling blackouts, being forced to use compact florescent light-bulbs, losing 2 jobs for every 1 “green” created, etc and so on, are basically for [...]

By: William Teach

William Teach — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 12:08:36 +0000

One of the probs with CFLs was finding just the right type for a lamp. I spent too much money finding just the right ones for a ceiling fan, but, in that case, was worth it, for their low heat output.

By: manbearpig

manbearpig — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:29:16 +0000

As nice as the thought of the overall cost savings were when I tried them, I never saw much of a difference in the longevity of the bulbs. Plus, I just couldn’t get past that funky light. They gave me headaches, and I always felt as if I was straining to see when they were on.

What I would rather see time and energy spent on, is LED lights. They are brighter, and from what I have read, both more efficient and longer lasting than both regular light bulbs and CFLs. But again, they still have that funky light.

By: proof

proof — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:37:37 +0000

Initially, I bought CFLs for the cost savings, too! I didn’t want to pay the utilities any more than I had to. Now, with the prospect of calling in a Hazmat team every time a bulb breaks, coupled with the idea that the government wants to take away my choice in the matter, is causing me to stock up on Mr. Edison’s incandescent pride and joy!

By: William Teach

William Teach — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 15:52:41 +0000

I’ve probably mentioned that I have given them up in the comments before, but, look, I liked them. I would typically spend about $7 on one, a bit more for a 3 way, and they would last for years. I learned to like them when I lived in a 3rd floor apartment which had little in the way of insulation in the living room, which had a vaulted ceiling. Could get hot really fast, and, CFLs kept the heat output down. Plus, again, they lasted a long time.

Nowadays, not so much. There are still about 2 lamps that have them, but, when they burn out, regular lamp time. They were burning out in not much more time then regular bulbs, so, the higher cost wasn’t worth it.

What I would like to see is better use of regular flourescent types. I have one which has lasted 5 years. One of those floor lamps that shine up, and can change the output. I got it because it put out almost no heat, and provided excellent light.

Yeah, CFLs do have less mercury then a thermometer (have one of those, but, bought an electric one, too), but, they are more prone to be in a position to be broken if not disposed of correctly. That was another pain with the CFLs, because I will not throw them out in the garbage, instead, driving way up to the landfill disposal site, takes about 20 minutes to get there.

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 14:19:41 +0000

Teach how much MORE do you figure that you personally were spending on CFLs when compared to incandescent ? This is the first time that you have mentioned the adverse impact that CFLs have had on your life, even though you have been using them for “years” Also thanks for not again misstating the potential for toxic mercury being released by these bulbs. There is 100 times as much mercury in a thermometer as in a CFL