I’m in northern Illinois. The winters can get brutal, with temps dropping well below zero at times. I’ve got four lights on the front of my house (two by the door, two by the garage door)that are left on all night, as there are no streetlights on my street.

I know the fluorescent shop lights in my garage don’t want to get going in the winter. I’d like to permanently replace the outside lights with CFLs since they are left on all night.

Am I going to have to use CFLs in warm weather and go back to incandescents in the winter?

As far as lumens go, I agree that on paper they are equivalent. I don’t know if my wavelength sensitivity is different than normal, or if perhaps the CFL spiral is less efficient in the distribution/throwing of light in a normal application. Either way I admit it’s a minor nitpick since going up a couple watts fixes the brightness perception and still saves a ton of energy.

One other thing I forgot to mention is that CFLs are not very tolerant of vibration and/or “rapid” on-off cycling. I think the standard definition of rapid is 15 minutes. So a bathroom or a closet application will generally shorten (often significantly) the lifespan of a CFL.

I still think CFLs are a great idea, I just like to point out the cons

I also realized I mispelled incandescent through the whole last post. Doh!

1) The color characteristics of CFLs still “dim” compared to incandescant. I know there are warm CFLs available and the color of them is definitely better than the older ones that look like fluorescent tubes. It’s still not quite up to par, IMHO. Also, CFLs’ CRI (color rendering index) still sucks compared to incandescant. Have you ever noticed how all color mushes together under the high-pressure sodium vapor (orange) or mercury-halide (whitish-blue) highway lights? That is because they have a CRI in the 20-40 range. I have not seen CFLs above 80. Sunlight is 100 and incandescant bulbs are 95-100.

2) I think the charts matching CFL to incandescent are skewed so the CFL can claim to use less energy. I know it’s subjective but to me a 27W CFL doesn’t match a 100-W traditional bulb. You need to get to 32W or so, again in my opinion.

3) Mercury contamination from CFL breakage. The EPA even has a post about it: http://www.epa.gov/mercury/spills/. I won’t go through it all but highlights include getting everyone out of the room, opening a window or door for at least 15 minutes, and turning off HVAC. The next time you vacuum after the initial cleanup you are supposed to turn off the HVAC again. Now hopefully this is just overly safe bordering on neurotic, but wow!

http://www.ccrane.com/geobulb/index.aspx

Once they come down in price, I believe that they will replace all blubs, incandescent and CFL.

I’m especially excited about changing out the bulbs in our can lights in our basement. When we flip on the basement lights, 9 bulbs light up. At 75 to 100 watts each, that’s major power usage (and makes the family room really hot in the summer). I have now switched 6 of those bulbs for CFLs.

Look for good deals on the bulbs themselves and you can cut the costs a lot. I got a 10-pack of 65-watt replacement bulbs at Costco last year for $13 — with a $10 instant rebate from our power company. That came out to $0.30 a bulb and they are nice bulbs. I just got a multipack of CFL floods there, too, for about $2.70 per bulb vs. the $7 they cost at Wal-Mart or the hardware store.

Also, CFL recycling is becoming more available. IKEA and now ACE Hardware are recycling CFLs to properly manage the mercury issue.

It may not save much on your heating bill since the heat doesn’t circulate, but it can make a huge difference in the small area that you are using it. We keep our house around 55° in the Winter (no kids yet) so having an incandescent bulb in a nearby reading lamp can provide a little extra warmth. And since we’d only have it on when we were sitting right next to it anyway…

Great point by the commenter above regarding the disposal issues…

Also, I know it wasn’t the specific focus of the article, but if this had been a holistic perspective on CLFs, then I think it’d be worth noting at the bottom of the article that the math used assumes a fairly high level of usage of the bulbs (8 hours a day). If we assume a more realistic amount of usage, say 4 hours, then those savings sure do dip down.

And it also costs money to buy those bulbs, so one might not come out ahead in the first year.

Finally, if you’re going to claim less heat during the summer as icing, then you have to consider the heat in the winter for regular bulbs as icing as well. Or just ignore that factor totally.

[...] I am less enthusiastic than most about compact fluorescent bulbs. This is due to the fact that the ones currently available contain significant amounts of mercury. If one of these bulbs should break inside of a person’s home, it could cause a challenging disposal situation. It is my belief that the technology should progress to a point at which the mercury levels are low or nonexistent before people changeover their entire homes. Another consideration is that as these bulbs burn out, they will most likely be thrown away as though they are normal rubbish and landfills will have incredibly high levels of mercury in their soil as a result.