Moderators: Three Stars, dagny, pfim, netwolf
Sarcastic wrote:So is the longevity claim a big scam?
mac5155 wrote:Sarcastic wrote:So is the longevity claim a big scam?
If you burn them for 3 hours, you won't get longevity out of them. If you never shut them off, you'll get a lot more n time out of them
steelhammer wrote:It's not just the length of service; the CFLs are 4 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs. That means you use 4x less electricity with CFLs by using a 22W bulb instead of a 100W bulb.
Shyster wrote:steelhammer wrote:It's not just the length of service; the CFLs are 4 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs. That means you use 4x less electricity with CFLs by using a 22W bulb instead of a 100W bulb.
They may be 4x more efficient, but they often cost 4x as much, if not more, than inexpensive incandescents. And LED bulbs cost even more than CFLs. If all one cares about is using less electricity, then non-incandescent bulbs are the way to go. But if it's a question of cost, then factors like longevity strongly come into play. A CFL that croaks in a year because it's constantly being cycled on and off won't live long enough to recoup its greater initial cost through efficiency savings.
shafnutz05 wrote:http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/01/02/study-eco-friendly-light-bulbs-may-put-health-at-risk/
Study: New eco-friendly light bulbs leak more UV radiation than initially thought, enough to result in skin cell damage and death, and possibly melanoma.
Sarcastic wrote:"Stony Brook researches advised that customers exercise caution and stay two feet away from the bulbs at all times, while storing them in an overhead fixture or lamp."
That is absurd, if true.
bhaw wrote:Thank God for high ceilings?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests