Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

The Light Bulb That Can Change the World

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Aug 29, 2006 03:49 PM
from the little-lightbulb-that-could dept.
An anonymous reader writes to tell us FastCompany is reporting on the latest and greatest version of the compact fluorescent light bulb (CFL). While CFLs of the past may have been efficient, they certainly were not effective. However, according to the article, CFLs have come as far as cell phones have since the mid 80s while still maintaining that high efficiency. From the article: "if every one of 110 million American households bought just one [CFL], took it home, and screwed it in the place of an ordinary 60-watt bulb, the energy saved would be enough to power a city of 1.5 million people. One bulb swapped out, enough electricity saved to power all the homes in Delaware and Rhode Island. In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • How many... (Score:5, Funny)

    by gEvil (beta) (945888) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:51PM (#16002359)
    How many light bulbs does it take to change the world? No wait, that's not right...
    • by ackthpt (218170) * on Tuesday August 29 2006, @06:11PM (#16003540) Homepage Journal

      How many light bulbs does it take to change the world? No wait, that's not right...

      The problem is people use these little efficient doodads to feel good about doing something green. Then they go out and buy a power-sucking plasma TV.

      Electrical use is way up since the 80's. Possibly because we all have tonnes more electronics bits to plug in and nearly everyone has a PC which adds a certain minimum for the hours its on. If you had a few lamps burning around the house which added up to the energy consumption of most desktop PCs you'd notice it right away and wonder why it's necessary. Alas, we sit at our keyboards and type merrily away (there's that batsard, ackthpt again, oi if only I had the mod points to bury him.) oblivious to the power consumption of our tin box full of CPU, DDR-RAM, HD, Whizzo Video Card De-Luxe, etc. Quite possibly we even have a reading lamp going beside us in the evening (I don't know about you, but at my age I get a headache looking at a glowing screen in the dark.) Plus there's all these little black plastic cubes and rectangles to run all manner of gizmo, which all add up.

      On another thought. I've got these wicked little LED flashlights which run for 130 hours on a battery the size of an aspirin. When will I see these in my house, rather than a fluorescent lamp?

      • by Ex-MislTech (557759) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @06:07PM (#16003510)
        Flourescents have a small amount of mercury in them.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_l amp#Environmental_issues [wikipedia.org]

        LED lights last up to 11 yrs with continuous use.

        And use 1/30th the power of a regular light bulb, vs. 1/4 with a CFL.

        http://www.thinkgeek.com/clearance/7aa8/ [thinkgeek.com]

        Only thing really holding it back right now is price and the fact they
        wouldnt sell many to repeat customers with an 11 year always on lifespan, lol.

        The ones featured here on thinkgeek don't put off quite as much light,
        but with 2 lights vs. one you can get there.

        The price is the only real thing hindering it, but if you consider long term
        energy savings, its awesome.

        • by tap (18562) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @07:30PM (#16003916) Homepage
          Don't believe the advertising copy, they play fast and loose with facts!

          If you look at the effeciency of one of the best high-power white LEDs, the Luxeon K2 [luxeon.com], it produces 60 lumens at 1.197 watts, for about 50 lumens/watt. A typical CF bulb (reading off the package) is 900 lumens and 14 watts, for 64 lumens/watt. If you look at a higher power verison of the Luxeon K2, it's 120 lumens in 3.72 watts for only 32 lumens/watt.

          White LEDs are NOT seven times more efficient than flourescent bulbs, they are LESS efficient.

          Consider the price too. I bought those 900 lumen CF bulbs at Home Depot for about $1.75 each. The white Luxeon K2 is $3.45 each for a less efficient (45 lumens) binning, you would need 20 of them to make a 900 lumen light bulb. And that's just for the LEDs, you'd still need electronics (which are not 100% efficient themselves!) to make an actual bulb. For example, that clearance bulb at ThinkGeek is $25 for a bulb with the power of one 60 lumen K2 LED. 15 of those $25 ThinkGeek bulbs would cost $375 and have the light output of just one $1.75 CF bulb!

          The only advantage of LEDs is that they are more efficient the less powerfull they are. CF is more efficient the more powerfull it is. If you look at normal lightbulbs in the 900 lumen range, CF wins by a lot. If you look at something small like a one watt flashlight, there are no 1 watt CF bulbs, so LEDs are best.

          • by Technician (215283) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @10:21PM (#16004704)
            If you look at something small like a one watt flashlight, there are no 1 watt CF bulbs, so LEDs are best.

            CF's would make a lousy flashlight bulb for the simple reason they are also not used in spotlights. They are not a point source light that can be focused into a beam. A 1 watt LED makes a great flashlight. I have one.
          • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2006, @06:35PM (#16003657)
            Elemental mercury really isn't a problem; combinded to form a organic-mercury compound it's very toxic and most people confuse the two.

            It's not a problem to you when it's sealed in the bulb, but it damn sure can't go into the landfill. Once it gets into groundwater, it very easily becomes methylated to become that nasty toxic stuff.

            Long-term, elemental mercury is pretty damn toxic too. I'd mostly be worried about it being around kids. Still, if everyone burned CF's, there'd be a lot less mercury released from coal plants.
      • Re:How many... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Eccles (932) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @06:35PM (#16003656) Journal
        that's really funny. Unfortunately nothing would really change, only the prices would go up to reflect the loss of revenue.

        I remember paying $2000 for a new, mid-range computer. What has gone up because computers are cheaper now?

        The cost of living doesn't go down, perhaps, but that's just because we get more. My parents didn't have central air until I was 14; I haven't lived in a place without it since. I remember my dad showing the power locks on his new car; can you buy a car without them now? Or, would you rather have a like-new '79 Rabbit, or a like-new Honda Fit? Homes are larger now with fewer people living in them. etc. etc.

  • by prockcore (543967) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:53PM (#16002373)
    "Nah, that's just too much work, let's just start daylight saving time earlier!"

    (Lives in AZ, uses CFLs everywhere)
      • Re:Too much work (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Tiger4 (840741) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @05:19PM (#16003221)
        I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing. But I later learned there is real scientific evidence that full-spectrum light will put you in a better mood.

        The mistake you make here is replacing like-for-like wattage bulbs. I went through my home and replaced the high usage bulbs with CFLs. And as the low usage ones die I replace them. But I replace them with CFLs of a higher equivalent strength. 60w incandescents get replaced with 75w equivalent CFLs, 75w are replaced with 100w. They only draw about 1/4 the juice of incandescents, so I still save big. But now I have more light in the same area, and the picket fence spectrum problem is reduced. Plus, when I can, I mix Cool White, Warm White and Daylight color temperatures. Looks odd, but only if you look at the fixtures and not the room.

        I think it is worth the cost to my pocket and the Earth.

        Thank you for consuming more than your share. The rest of us apprciate it.

      • by Lord Apathy (584315) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @05:26PM (#16003269)

        Yeah, I feel that way too. I got those big ass 75 watt incandesent bulbs in all my shit too. I used to give a ratts ass about the environment too but realized that I turn 40 real soon. By the time the environment changes so much that I care I'll be dead.

        Now excuse me while I go out an price a big ass SUV and I need to pick up some old fashon CFC for my A/C.

      • But I later learned there is real scientific evidence that full-spectrum light will put you in a better mood

        There are full spectrum CFLs, check here: TrueSun.com [truesun.com]

        Falcon
      • by rs79 (71822) <hostmaster@open-rsc.org> on Tuesday August 29 2006, @08:05PM (#16004054) Homepage
        "I used to do the CFL bulb in every socket thing. But I later learned there is real scientific evidence that full-spectrum light will put you in a better mood. Since then, I replaced all bulbs in my house with GE Reveal incandesent bulbs."

        Oh help.

        A certain component of sunlight in the near-UV region has been shown to affect seasonal depression. There are receptors in the top of your head that when near-uv hits it are stimulated to synthesize serotonin. That's whay you feel better when you go outside into the blue room and get some sunlight and why many people get depressed in mid winter (which is also why we have "march break").

        You are NOT going to create this near-UV from an incandescent bulb, period. What you're getting with the GE bulb is a more bluish, less yellowish light. It has zero effect on your mood.

        Vita-Lite (tm) is a full spectrum tube that does have this important UV component. Flourescent tubes work by creating UV when an arc excites mercury vapour. This UV then zaps the phosphour coating on the inside of the tube which converts it to visable light and the makup of the phosphour is what determines what kind of visible light the tube emits.

        GE Chroma 50 and GE Chroma 75 are a (much!) cheaper replacement for Vita-Lite full spectrum tubes. The GE tubes will be marked "C50" or "C75" respectivly and are marketing these days in stores as "super sunshine" or something like that. Philips Colortone 50 is also equivalent. I think Osram/Sylvania makes one too but the name escapes me. These are the "big three" in fluorescent tube makers are make tubes for other companies to resell. Some of the Asian companies that make CFL's do such a poor job there was a recall on them as they were a fire hazard and I've watched ones not subject to the recall burst into flame. Stick with the "big three". They work.

        Vita-lite makes one in a CFL. Not cheap (like all vita-lite products). The other GE/Philips/Sylvaina ones are available as 4' fluorescents pretty easily in stores. They do make them in other (smaller) sizes but they're special order, hard to come by and not cheap - 90% of all tubes are 4' and there's economy of scale.

  • I've converted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neonprimetime (528653) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:55PM (#16002393)
    Earlier last year, I started buying those Wal-Mart swirl bulbs and haven't looked back. I have replaced nearly every old light bulb with one of the swirls in my house now. It's an awesome idea, and I wish I could convince others to do the same. The savings on your energy bill is nice too! I have since given away to relatives my extra pre-purchased packs of old light bulbs, and I will never buy one of those oldies again. Swirl bulbs it is!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:59PM (#16002442)
      I have since given away to relatives my extra pre-purchased packs of old light bulbs, and I will never buy one of those oldies again.

      What did your relatives do to you?
  • If this is true... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thatguywhoiam (524290) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:55PM (#16002395)
    In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

    Setting aside the debate over that statement - if it is even remotely true, then these bulbs are not just simply a 'good idea'.
    They are a moral imperative.

    Remember where those $100 bills that Hezbollah is handing out come from. Hint: they do not originate in Iran.

    • by DerekLyons (302214) <[fairwater] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:10PM (#16002566) Homepage
      In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.

      Setting aside the debate over that statement - if it is even remotely true, then these bulbs are not just simply a 'good idea'. They are a moral imperative.
       
      Remember where those $100 bills that Hezbollah is handing out come from. Hint: they do not originate in Iran.

      They are a moral imperative only if you are deluded enough to believe that reducing electrical consumption means significantly fewer dollars flowing to the Middle East from the US. Hint: Imported oil makes up a vanishingly small percentage of the already tiny percentage of electricity that comes from oil. Don't be misled by the analogy you quote.
      • by soft_guy (534437) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:15PM (#16002610)
        Very little of the electricity in the US is generated by oil. Most of the electricity in the US that is generated by oil is backup generators and other specialty uses.

        About half is generated by coal which contributes to pollution. The other big chunks are hydro, nuclear, and natural gas. Natural gas does produce CO2, but by far natural gas is the easiest type of power plant to get the permits to build.

        It is really hard to build new Hydro plants because people are concerned about the environmental impact. When I livedin the northwest, I heard lots of talk about people wanting to get rid of the hydro dams because they believe it would be beneficial to salmon. (This seems NUTS to me.)

        A lot of nuclear plants have actually been shut down. Still, the US gets lots of its energy from nuclear.

        A huge chunk of the electricity used in the US is actually wasted by AC to DC power adaptors for electronics and also for standby mode in other types of electronics (TVs, VCRs, etc.)

        If I could do whatever I wanted with energy policy, I would give serious consideration to re-starting existing nuclear plants that are unused and I would try to get as many people as possible to put solar panels on their roofs. I would also ban standby mode and try to find ways for consumer electronics to generate DC power more efficiently. More hydro plants would be good, but we are close to having as many as can be built. So, I'd look into building a few more, trying to reduce demand, and trying to close as many of the coal plants as possible.

          • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 29 2006, @11:37PM (#16005013)
            Tacoma, Washington recently decided to add another span to their overloaded Tacoma Narrows suspension bridge. (You might remember the original one was Galloping Gurdy... yeah, it's that bridge.) The designer who created the new bridge came up with a great idea... the Tacoma Narrows is known for having insanely-fast currents while the tide is coming in and going out. His idea was to put turbines in the base of the bridge tower to generate power during the tide shifts. Selling the generated power would, over the course of a few dozen years, pay for the construction of the bridge while at the same time providing clean energy to everyone nearby. Win-win!


            But of course, this is Washington Wacko-Environmentalist State. Instead, his plan was cancelled because the Wacko-Environmentalist movement decided that turbines, even covered with safety grilles, would kill fish-- and God knows that the lives of 3 fish a year is more important than tons of clean power! So now the bridge has a conventional base with no turbines and, as an added bonus, all of us non-wackos have to pay TOLLS to cross it!


            This should be modded "-1: making shit up". There are currently ideas to install dozens to hundreds of underwater turbines near the Tacoma Narrows bridges, but it would be a huge, very complex, and very costly project. Currently it's only an idea being studied (or planned on being studied). No turbine project was canceled to save 3 fish, but of course slandering environmentalists and liberals is far more important than truth or facts (which is why Republicans can no longer be trusted).


            http://www.djc.com/news/en/11180913.html [djc.com]
            http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/story/508 2737p-4630866c.html [thenewstribune.com]

            None of this is really relevant to the article, but since this got modded +5 I had to respond.

  • White light? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rackhamh (217889) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:55PM (#16002396)
    From TFA: "The bulbs come on quickly; their light is bright, white, steady, and silent."

    In my experience, the problem with non-traditional lightbulbs isn't that they're weak -- it's that they cast a harsh light. Many people I know would refuse to place even the most efficient light bulb in their living room if they didn't find the light warm and pleasing. When TFA says the light is "white," this makes me think that there is at least one problem remaining to be solved -- though perhaps it would be as simple as using lightly tinted glass for the bulb.
    • Re:White light? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fruity_pebbles (568822) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:01PM (#16002463)
      The ones I've been buying recently have been marked "soft white". They're not the same as an incandescent bulb, but they're close enough that my wife doesn't complain about them (like she did with older CFLs).
    • Re:White light? (Score:5, Informative)

      by tgd (2822) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:07PM (#16002534)
      Look on the package for the color temperature of the bulb. You want 2700 degree ones (which match incandescent bulbs so closely, if you didn't know it was CFL you wouldn't guess it).

      Up until recently (ie, the last six months or so) most of the bulbs you'd find in the typical discount stores were 4000-5000 degree.
      • by MegaThawt (672826) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:33PM (#16002792)
        Up until recently (ie, the last six months or so) most of the bulbs you'd find in the typical discount stores were 4000-5000 degree.

        Great ... since I installed CFL's over the last two years, I have to wait only about 8 years before I can start replacing them with the 2700 degree ones.
  • Oil != electricity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by flanksteak (69032) * on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:56PM (#16002401) Homepage
    In terms of oil not burned, or greenhouse gases not exhausted into the atmosphere, one bulb is equivalent to taking 1.3 million cars off the roads.
    While I'm glad to see that WalMart is making an effort to promote energy efficiency, everyone in the article kept tying more efficient light bulbs to our dependence on foreign oil. The last time I checked, the US generates very little electricity from oil. It's coal and nuclear these days. Can't we get people to try more compact cars to go with their compact bulbs, or at least straighten out the details on our energy generation story?
  • by tgd (2822) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:56PM (#16002402)
    Is for the big box stores to start carrying the dimmable CFL bulbs.

    My house is almost entirely on dimmers. Its a ten year old rennovation of a 70 year old house. Modern McMansions are almost entirely on dimmers as well.

    With all these dimmers out there, you'd think you'd be able to get dimmable CFL bulbs places other than the very occasional lighting shop or online.

    I've switched essentially everything else in my house over at this point, except for the ones on dimmers.
  • by rayde (738949) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:56PM (#16002404) Homepage
    i think this is great, the only issue is that people go to the store when a bulb is dead, see a pack of 2 for under a dollar at walmart, and will buy that. sure, those fancy flouresent bulbs are there, but they cost $6 or more a piece... and the average person is probably just going to grab the cheap one.

    flourescent light bulbs are an investment. and for normal people, light bulbs are not exactly the type of thing you think of investing in.

    • You don't change it, you replace it. The bulb itself stays the same
    • lightbulb is one word
    • no it isn't
    • in Soviet Russia, light bulb changes you
    • all your light R belong to us!
    • 1
    • I'd like to see Natalie Portman change it while I'm eating hot grits
    • Dupe!
  • by pickyouupatnine (901260) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:57PM (#16002422) Homepage
    Honestly - since these bulbs are so efficient, shouldn't there be a government sponsorship / subsidization to make them as widely available (read: cheap) as regular bulbs? One would hope that it was be a no-brainer to include this in the energy plan - especially if we're funding experimental stuff like hydrogen powered fuelcells.
        • Re:Say what? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Quadraginta (902985) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @07:03PM (#16003784)
          Everyone pays taxes, but not everyone pays them in equal amounts. If poor people pay little in taxes, but have high energy bills because they can't afford the up-front costs of CFLs, then that segment of the population will only benefit.

          Ah, so you're talking about a wealth-transfer program. Because I'm in a high tax bracket I'll help folks further down pay for their light bulbs. Should I also help them pay for their food and clothes? Maybe they should just move in? Ha ha, no thanks. Having to pay for your own stuff is the best possible incentive to stay in school, get a job, save a little, stick to a sensible budget -- i.e. to grow up. Who am I to deny the benefit of learning life's most important lessons to my fellow man?

          In fact, most every tax bracket would benefit. There are long-term cost savings for the consumer, and those savings should more than counterbalance the taxes for the vast majority of taxpayers.

          Sounds like doubletalk to me. Joe Poorboy, who would otherwise buy a $1 incandescent, buys a $3 swirlie instead because he gets $2 back from the government. Joe also enjoys a $20 reduction in his electricity costs over the life of the bulb (which you'd think would be enough to get him to buy the bulb directly, but I guess we're assuming poor people are irrational here). Nice for Joe. Richie Rich, investment banker, being no fool, also buys a $3 swirlie, and also enjoys a $20 reduction in his electricity cost. But he also needs to pay more taxes to cover the subsidy to Joe. How much? Hmm, well, the program is pointless unless it induces lots of people to switch bulbs, and of course by definition there are lots more poor people than rich, so Rich clearly must get whacked for a lot more than the price of one extra swirlie for Joe. Say he needs to cover the subsidy on 10 bulbs. That's $20 extra in taxes. So how does Rich see any net gain from the program?

          Maybe you're thinking Rich and everyone would benefit from reduced general electricity costs, leading to less CO2 emissions, a cleaner environment, et cetera. Could be. But if that's your goal, how about attacking it directly, instead of in this weird indirect way? Tax the use of fossil fuels in power plants. Zone lots of land so it can't be used for power plants. Pass laws mandating scrubbers on power plant stacks. The problem with clever, indirect approaches to a problem is they have unexpected side effects. Just for example, you are aware, I assume, that the swirlies (unlike incandescents) contain 5-20 mg of mercury, an exceedingly nasty environmental toxin. What if the people you encourage to buy swirlies happen to be exactly the type that don't bother to recycle the bulbs? Ugh, now you've reduced electricity use but increase the amount of mercury in landfills. Maybe it works out on balance, but maybe it doesn't. That's the problem with complex mechanisms. The side effects are by definition hard to know before you begin.

          The size of the bureaucracy has very little to do with the amount of money being spent.

          Well, that depends, doesn't it? If the purpose of your bureaucracy is to build a fusion reactor, then maybe not. But if the purpose of your bureaucracy is to sort out which citizens get a $2/bulb benefit, and which others must pay for it, then I'd say, yeah, roughly speaking the size of the bureaucracy would scale with the number of people eligible for the benefit. I suspect the size of the Social Security Administration does indeed scale with the number of people applying for benefits, receiving benefits, dying and needing to have their benefits canceled, et cetera.

          Subsidies early on could jump-start demand for CFLs, increasing production capacity, improving manufacturing techniques, and enabling them to compete more successfully in the market when the subsidies are eventually removed.

          Come on. We're not talking about a market where no private party will enter because of the risks. Or some cottage industry where people are han
  • But what about RFI? (Score:5, Informative)

    by dwm (151474) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:58PM (#16002433)
    One of the big problems with fluorescent lights is that they produce a lot more radio frequency interference (RFI) than incandescents. While they are more efficient energy-wise, the RFI issue is a show-stopper for anyone sensitive to such things (radio amateurs and other odd folk).

    Has any progress been made in reducing fluorescent light RFI -- or is even feasable/possible?
  • I'd been kicking around the 'replace lights when they burn out with CF lights' idea, and then I sat down and did the math and figured that within a year they would pay for themselves in energy savings. I did a write up [nomorestars.com] about it on my boring ass personal blog just to document when I did it so that I could come back and see what power savings I saw.

    I would say that I replaced 18 65W bulbs in regular light fixtures, 20 65W 'globe' lights in three bathrooms, 5 chandalier 45W bulbs, four outdoor 150W Spotlights, not including about 8 - 10 bulbs already installed in the 'light burned out' category since we moved into this home in May 2003.

    I'm keeping track of the power spent so far, and interested to see if there is a noticeable drop. Noticeable to me = $5 - $10 average. I'm not expecting a bill to go down by half, I do live in North Carolina and it's summer time so the AC is on full blast most of the time.

    My next venture is into a PV System to offset the amount of energy I need to buy every month vs. the sun could provide. I'm still investigating that system but it appears that I could invest about $10,000 in a decent system, and get about half back in tax breaks from my state & federal government programs. If I get it in before the end of 2007.

    Honestly with the Slyvania bulbs I used, I don't see a color temp difference. There is a slight delay from 'on' light output to full light output and even though they use a lot less power they are on average much bright light luminosity wise. But just in the last 5 years alone the delay you would see from light switch - light on has dropped to near instantaneous. There are several bulbs I put in 2003 that you can count out a second or so from switch on to light in the room. But these new ones come on when you turn em on.
  • Energy Savings (Score:5, Interesting)

    by laduran (998667) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:57PM (#16003043)
    I used to be on the board of an HOA for a small 12-unit condominium. The HOA was owner run and we were looking to cut our expenses. One major expense was electricity. In part this was because all the common hallways were lit 24/7/365 by old incandescent flood lights. Replacing about 36 60Watt floodlights with 15Watt CF bulbs saved the HOA over $1200/year. Not to mention that we haven't had to replace a single CF since they were installed in summer 2003. This cost savings meant that we didn't need to raise HOA dues when other condos across town were doing just that. We recup'ed our investment in the bulbs in less than three months.
  • by puppetman (131489) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @05:30PM (#16003304) Homepage
    We have about half a dozen in our 20-bulb house (I counted - it's a small house).

    I read some, "They whine and buzz" - might have been older versions.

    "They're dark" - ditto.

    "They have mercury in them" - true, but as TreeHugger.com put it: [treehugger.com]

    "Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don't contain any mercury. The highest source of mercury in America's air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity. Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent."

    But before you take all the wonderful things I've said about them at face value, there is something I learned the hard way: check the color of light the bulb produces.

    From the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org],

            * "Warm white" (2,700 K) provides a light extremely similar to that of an incandescent bulb, somewhat yellow in appearance;
            * "Soft white" (3,500 K) bulbs produce a yellowish-white light;
            * "Cool white" (4,100 K) bulbs emit more of a pure white tone; and
            * "Daylight" (6,400 K) is slightly bluish-white.

    I accidentally bought "Daylight" bulbs for the bathroom. It made the room a psychotic blue-ish tint (I imagined Jack was going to start chopping through the bathroom door with an axe - "Here's Johnny"). Warm white seems like the color to get. Unfortunately, I bought an 8-pack, but fine for utility lighting, etc.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bloggins02 (468782) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @03:59PM (#16002445)
      Why not?

      Because they:

      - are 3x-10x the cost of an ordinary light bulb
      - are a bit dimmer than their stated wattage equivalent standard bulbs
      - take a bit of time to warm up
      - don't have quite the same color temperature as standard bulbs
      - sometimes don't fit under (e.g.) ceiling fan light domes, especially the 100W equivalent models

      Now don't get me wrong, I love CFLs and have replaced every single bulb in my house with one, but I can imagine quite a few people resisting the idea based on the list above.

      That said, they are rapidly getting better (and cheaper!).
      • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:12PM (#16002583) Journal
        I just installed 100 cfl's at the school. They were all from donations so there was a variety of bulbs. Some of them are as you describe, but some were really awesome. SOme of them don't have a warm up time, and some are actually much, much, much brighter than the incadecent equivelent makred on the wrapper. I guess it depends on the brand. How many people at home really know or care about "color temperature"?
      • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Rorschach1 (174480) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:15PM (#16002608) Homepage
        I've replaced most of the bulbs in my house too, but what I don't see this article addressing is the total bulb lifecycle. These things have mercury in them, which will probably mean people screaming about disposal when they DO have to be replaced. Are there recycling programs in place? What's the environmental impact of making them in the first place, compared to incadescents?
        • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jgc7 (910200) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:49PM (#16002968) Homepage
          Another thing to consider is where you live. In hot climates, where the excess heat from incandesent bulb must be transferred outside, the total household consumption from a 60W bulb can be closer to 90W when including the A/C. Thus by switching to CF, one can save more than 60W by replacing one 60W bulb. The reverse is true in cold climates... The excess heat from an incandesent bulb serves to heat your house, there by lowering your gas/electricity/heating oil/etc. costs, and so the total power savings is less than the difference between comparable bulb power ratings.

          Personnally, every bulb in my NY apartment is CF, primarily because I am not charged for heat and electricity costs a ridiculous $0.20 per kW-hr

          • Re:So... (Score:5, Insightful)

            by PatrickThomson (712694) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:56PM (#16003041)
            Agreed, and insightful point, but remember that the cold climate caveat only applies when the house is heated solely by electricity. As far as generating heat goes, gas/oil/geothermal are much more efficient in terms of money per joule heat than electricity. It also increases the total entropy of the universe less.

            in conclusion, gas-supplied houses with electric hobs will hasten the inevitable heat death.
      • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Omega Hacker (6676) <omega@omegac s . n et> on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:19PM (#16002646)
        - are 3x-10x the cost of an ordinary light bulb

        I haven't ever bought regular bulbs so I can't be certain, but I would highly doubt that they are anywhere near the 10x range you imply.

        - are a bit dimmer than their stated wattage equivalent standard bulbs

        I haven't really found this to be the case, and even if it is true for a given brand of bulb, getting a higher wattage bulb to compensate still leaves you with 70+% energy headroom.

        - take a bit of time to warm up

        The latest bulbs I've purchased turn on instantly and are at 80-85% brightness right away. The warmup period is short, but long enough to not be visible.

        - don't have quite the same color temperature as standard bulbs

        You can find them in any number of colors, though granted most of them suck. A bit of experimenting would be in order, though I'm wondering this: where on earth has Consumer Reports been?? Maybe the light and color-measurement tools I'm slowly building up for LEDs should be put to use building a basic site with solid numbers for each of the bazillions of bulbs out there.

        - sometimes don't fit under (e.g.) ceiling fan light domes, especially the 100W equivalent models
        As stated in the article (a fundamental premise of which is that all of these concerns are now effectively solved...), "100W" bulbs are now getting compact enough for straight replacement. It just depends on the brand.

        However, the main beef I have with the assertions the article makes is that CFL bulbs last 10 years. Maybe this is a function of older designs, but we haven't found CFLs to effectively last any longer than standard incandescent. Either the electronics crap out early, or the bulb dims and radically changes color (purple is popular) fairly quickly. The latest round seems to be a lot better, but they still buzz well within my hearing range.

        FWIW, I've personally settled on Commercial Electric bulbs from Home Depot. They turn on instantly to very near full brightness, are bright and have a very nice color temperature (neither too sickly yellow/green, nor glaring "cool" blue). So far so good as far as lifetime...

      • Re:So... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DigitalRaptor (815681) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:20PM (#16002660) Homepage
        I have been very pleased with these CF bulbs [1000bulbs.com].

        - are 3x-10x the cost of an ordinary light bulb
        At less than $2 each, the ROI is VERY fast on a CF bulb. Unless you're very short sighted it doesn't make financial sense to use a normal bulb.

        - are a bit dimmer than their stated wattage equivalent standard bulbs
        With off-the-shelf CF bulbs I agree. With the ones linked above, using my preferred full-spectrum 5100K bulb, my experience has been just the opposite. I love the way they brighten up my home.

        - take a bit of time to warm up
        I haven't noticed this a bit. Instant on. They may get brighter after 30 seconds, but I've never noticed it, so if these ones do you'd need scientific instrumentation to pick it up.

        - don't have quite the same color temperature as standard bulbs
        With the full spectrum CF's linked above, that is a good thing! The few normal bulbs I have left put off a nasty yellow light compared to the full spectrum CF's. Gloomy and depressing. I just placed a $100 order before 1000Bulbs.com gets slashdotted so I can replace the rest of my normal, yuck-yellow bulbs.

        - sometimes don't fit under (e.g.) ceiling fan light domes, especially the 100W equivalent models
        OK, ok, size does matter. But they come in many different sizes and with a little planning I've had 100% success. I even rewired my kitchen chandelier to use these CF bulbs instead of those stupid tiny expensive candle ones. Couldn't be happier.

        As you can see I'm sold on good full-spectrum CF bulbs. I have no affiliation with 1000Bulbs.com, they just happened to be what I was looking for and have good prices, products, and service.

        • Re:So... (Score:5, Informative)

          by QuasiEvil (74356) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:31PM (#16002773)
          Actually there are dimmable CFLs. I have three of them in my kitchen over my table - they're some off-breed, but I see that Philips has recently started making name-brand dimmables as well.
          • Mercury (Score:5, Informative)

            by Ironsides (739422) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:40PM (#16002879) Homepage Journal
            From Wiki:
            Note that coal power plants are the single largest source of mercury emissions into the environment. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (when coal power is used) the mercury released from powering an incandescent bulb for five years exceeds the sum of the mercury released by powering a comparably luminous CFL for the same period and the mercury contained in the lamp.

            Given that, and that the Incandescents use 4-5 times as much electricity as Flourescents, that meanst that switching to a Flourescent, even though it contains mercury, will actually reduce mercury emmisions, if you get power from coal.

            So remember, if you want to reduce mercury, you should first work to eliminate coal power plants.
              • Re:Mercury (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Scrameustache (459504) * on Tuesday August 29 2006, @05:44PM (#16003379) Homepage Journal
                I know it's rather selfish, but I'd rather reduce the risk of spilled mercury in my home than reduce mercury emmissions in the environment.

                Selfish, short-sighted, delusional... the list goes on.

                It's not as though your home wasn't in the environment.
    • by SpyPlane (733043) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:17PM (#16002629)
      If you RTFA, you'd see that they broke it down very nicely. The fact that these bulbs can last up to 10 years, saves WAY more energy and materials than the regular bulbs they replace. They even go into how many less Walmart trucks will be needed to haul lightbulbs around. Really, sometimes the articles do give important information!
      • Except that they don't last 10 years. I've been using CFLs for at least 5 years (back when they used to cost 10 or 15$ each). I've yet to have one last more than two years, and I'd say most don't last more than one.
        • I'll back you up on that - I have them go bad all the damn time, probably faster than regular bulbs in some cases. It's frustrating, seeing a big "Guarnteed to last 7 years" sticker on the box, and only getting 15 months out of them on average.
        • I've discovered that quality matters a lot with CFLs, unlike regular light blubs where even the off brand guys do a reasonable job. For instance, the "America Something" brand that Wal*Mart sells is complete trash. Their colors are all over the map, they flicker, and they rarely last more than a couple of years. Half of the time the instant on stuff doesn't even work properly with them.

          I have been very impressed with the Commercial Electric brand sold by Home Depot however. I installed a ton of them 5 years ago when I bought my house and thus far only one has failed. They aren't even all that expensive, you can sometimes find 6 packs of 15 watt bulbs for ~$10-$15 on sale. I redid my Mother-in-Laws place with a couple of those packs and saved her a bunch on her power bill because she has this annoying habit of never turning lights off. Plus, I was tired of changing half of her bulbs everytime we went over there.

          I've also experimented with the GE brand and a few others, but that was back before isntant on was common and many of them take several seconds to light, which turned me off on them.
    • Re:The trade off (Score:5, Informative)

      by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Tuesday August 29 2006, @04:51PM (#16002996)
      This sheet [nema.org] may prove helpful. In summary, CFLs prevent enough mercury emissions (from coal power) to offset their own mercury content. A typical CFL contains 4mg of mercury, over 100x less than a typical thermometer and almost 1000x less than the mercury switches frequently used in older thermostats.