On 26 Feb, 20:24, John wrote:
In article , Steve Firth
writes
On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:08:59 +0000, David Hansen wrote:

CFLs are not yet ready to replace conventional bulbs.

Incorrect.

No, he's correct. However to the hair shirt and sackcloth brigade no doubd
sitting in gloom gives them a feeling that they are "saving the planet".

to state the obvious, anyone can use as much power of CFL lighting as
one wants.


I also wonder whether they are really a green saving - what chemicals,
etc. and energy is required to make them, does the balance of life and
in use power reduction actually match the production cost? Anyone know?

The run savings in both cost and energy are many times the production
cost & energy consumption.

I do wish a BS were written for CFLs so we'd start to see many more
realistic output power claims, and lamps marked with their tip to toe
dimension. The lamps themselves are fine imho, but the industry
surrounding them could do with improving its act a bit.


NT