On 28 Dec 2005 20:54:21 -0800, wrote:

Is that correct??

Yep - if it says 23 watts, that's all it's using. With incandescent
bulbs, most of that 100 watts (about 97 percent of the energy, IIRC) is
just turned into heat. CFLs are obviously more efficient, turning more
of the energy into light instead of heat. As you pointed out, they're
about 4 times more efficient (1/4 the wattage for roughly the same
light output), so you're still only getting about 90% of the electrical
energy turned into light, but it's a lot better. And the color and
warm-up time of CFLs has increased dramatically over the last few
years, while price has decreased. I've gotten them on sale at Home
Depot etc. for about $10 for a pack of 4, and some electric companies
have rebates. LEDs are the next step - not many available for home use
yet that I know of, (more in flashlights etc), but they're somewhere
around 10-15 times more efficient than incandescents. I recently read
something about micro-LEDs incorporated into wall paint, so a small
current could be applied to a whole wall, which would give off a soft
glow and almost no heat. No telling when or if that will become
practical, but that's probably what people said about hybrid cars a
while back...

I'd like to see a TV that you apply to a wall like paint, and could be
as big as the wall. Maybe not so impossible with modern technology.

I almost exclusively use CFLs at home (incandescents for porch/garage,
where cold temps can interfere with most CFLs), and I think they're
definitely the way to go.

Although there's a problem using them with X10 (the normal X10 light
switches are actually dimmers, the relay-type switches require a
neutral wire).

Good luck,
Andy
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.laughingsquid.com

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin