Monday, January 14, 2008

Reader Comments

at 1/16/2008 3:54:05 AM, irked said:
CFL's have a long way to go when it comes to quality/color of light. I use them when energy is the primary concern, such as for outdoor coachlights that tend to be on for many hours/day. I've tried them in the home and hate the way they look. Cool white/Warm white/Daylight, they all look bad. Start-up time is another problem. I've yet to see a CFL that produces decent light output when 1st switched on. This makes them a poor choice for rooms where you tend to turn the light on to pass thru and then turn off again. They also work poorly with occupancy sensor controls. Radio Interferrence continues to be a problem with affordably-priced units. What good is a CFL that you have to turn off in order to watch TV? Finally, disposal is a looming nightmare. I expect the waste companies are going to get nasty about placing these in your household garbage soon. Hearing that this legislation was passed irritates me greatly. If these new bulbs (CFL and otherwise) produce real benefits and operate satisfactorily, market forces will lead people to adopt them. BUT, as they stand today, people don't want them, and forcing them down our throats with legislation is not an acceptable solution.

at 1/23/2008 3:55:34 PM, David H said:
I agree with the previous comments. I'm a custom builder and very open minded to building "Green". I build 5 star energy star rated homes. Personally I placed CFL im my own home and have slowly changed the majority back to incadescent. The light is very unnatural and not artchitecturally flattering. I would never use them in accent situations, and could only suggest using them in a hybrid fashion such as in flush mounts with halogen cans or low volt halogen as the bright natural light offseting the CFL's washed out look. LED seems promising, but they are still advancing the technology to produce a lighting quality closer to incadescent. I think the legislature is premature and should be put in place once an acceptable replacement is available with respect to light quality. Mandating new furnaces of at least 92% efficiency be used is a much wiser decision if your looking at energy consumption and a great available alternative to inefficient units.

at 1/30/2008 3:00:14 PM, Cornstoves said:
CFL lighting is bad for the environment. GE PAC in conjunction with The Sierra Club, US Congress, and Ms President once again duped the public and took premature action to stimulate the economy by forcing hazardous CFL into the lime light. LED lighting is much superior to CFL. The GE PAC did not forsee LED competition. Unfortunately, we are forced to use CFL until LED output meets demand. Development of white LED SSL has surpassed CFL but unfortunately knowledge of SSL LED developments is lacking, CREE and other LED owners are difficult to deal with and therefore SSL LED production capability is not adequate to meet demand. Technically the LED drivers generate excessive heat, cause excessive LED failures, and defeat LED lighting and life efficiency

at 1/30/2008 4:41:00 PM, Richard W said:
If any technology is going to garner wide acceptance it has to be compatible with the huge installed base of conventional incandescent dimmers. Standard fluorescent lamps can be dimmed with the proper ballast and an expensive dimmer and there may be some compact fluorescent lamps that can be dimmed but only the upscale market can bear the costs. Meanwhile the great unwashed masses will continue to buy the least cost technology - incandescent. Mandating the use of high tech (read: expensive) lamps is just collusion between the politicians and the manufactures to line each others pockets.

Post a comment

Display Name
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above: