Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: InvisibleChurch

We were told (lied to) that CFLs would last many times longer then incandescents, whic justifies the higher costs.

My experience with CFLs is that they last just about as long, or maybe slightly less, than incandescents. Thus, the extra cost is not justified. I later learned that you need to keep the CFLs on all the time to acheive the added life, which can negate the hyped electricity savings.

CFLs are a poor replacement for outdoor lights (porch garage, etc) as they take at least 10 minutes to become fully bright in cold weather.

CFLs are not available for specialty applications (decorative lighting, appliance lighting).

And they represent a lead-poisoning hazard if they break.

I tried CFLs. I don’t like them. I might try LEDs for some of the harder to change bulbs, but I am done with CFLs.


28 posted on 11/08/2013 6:18:33 AM PST by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: kidd
And they represent a lead-poisoning hazard if they break.

CFLs contain mercury, not lead. They contain far less mercury than the straight tube florescent used for many decades.

57 posted on 11/08/2013 7:17:39 AM PST by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson