Arfa,

I do think you have raised some good questions. But I feel compelled to
question the energy content/usage.

Thinking *only* about the energy issues in creating and running lamps.
Let us play with some simplistic figures.

Assume:
CFL costs £1.
Tungsten costs 25p.
The costs of the lamps cover all the energy required to create and
distribute them.
A 40W CFL gives similar illumination to 100W tungsten.
Electricity is 5p per unit.
Let us continue being simplistic and assume that *all* that cost is for
extra energy usage. (Obviously, if some of that extra cost is going
towards resistors, steel wires, etc. that reduces the amount available
for energy costs.)

(Feel free to rework this with any figures you care to use.)

So we have 75p to cover the cost increment of the CFL.

Run that lamp for 1000 hours.

Running costs are 300p less for the CFL. So it ends up costing 225p less
than the tungsten for the 1000 hours of usage.

So, are we paying an extortionately high rate for the electicity we use
to run them? Or did the energy used to create the CFLs come extra cheap?

(Of course, according to CFL manufacturers, we still have another 7000
hours of usage from the CFL lamp. Whereas we would expect to have to
change the tungsten any day now...)

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org