Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Fierce Allegiance
The light seems weird, too, and they suck in the cold. Thse differences aside, they are great.

Sort of "Aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

I did some serious bulb changeout to cut down on the heat from the incandescents. But 13 watts (= 60 watts?) doesn't quite cut the mustard when I'm trying to read. I finally changed all the bulbs back to incandescents. The danged fluorescents blacked up pretty quickly too.

We now have installed overhead fluorescents in our kitchen and in the computer/TV room. The overheads are quite satisfactory and our electric bill is reasonable even in the summer.

But when I need a 200 watt bulb for a specific purpose, I have no intention of replacing same with a 13 watt fluorescent .

83 posted on 01/02/2007 9:23:47 AM PST by Ole Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: Ole Okie
But when I need a 200 watt bulb for a specific purpose, I have no intention of replacing same with a 13 watt fluorescent .

Of course not. You'd need a 50-watt fluorescent for that.

Here's the good news, in spite of all the nay-sayers. They use about 1/4 the electricity of an incandescent bulb. They have improved their quality a great deal in the past couple of years. And, they aren't anywhere near the $8.00 per bulb that some people are quoting. They were 2 years ago, but not now.

And the save you a LOT on your electric bill, even if you just put 'em in the 3 or 4 lights that get the most use in your home.

207 posted on 01/02/2007 11:31:22 AM PST by Kenton (All vices in moderation. I don't want to overdo any but I don't want to skip any either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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