The posive and negative affects of CFL light bulbs?

Question

See Following Articles for Reference:

http://www.slate.com/id/2183699

I would like those who answer to provide new ideas not mentioned in the artile above.

Answer 1

Well, I read the article. Very informative. Thanks for the ref.

We use CFL. Only positive thing that might not have been mentioned was their 5 year life expectancy. And, it didn't say if they just just go off or slowly get dimmer. Guess I'll know in 4 years.

The only negative I can come up with is their shape. Some lamp shades need a round surface to clamp to.

I think that in the not too distant future, LEDs will be competing with CFLs for market share. The use even less power. Lot of work being done on LEDs.

Answer 2

pow

Let me start off by saying we (my family and I) live 100% off of the grid and are completely self-sufficient with a 0% Carbon footprint. I believe this is the first step anyone can make “help the environment”. Once you convert your own life style to a greener more eco friendly route, you can start helping others.

Compact fluorescent light bulbs, right now, are more " eco-wise" then anything else most consumers can get a hold of (ie. incandescent) and currently save over 2000 times their own weight in greenhouse gases.

But since my house is completely on solar / wind and we REALLY need to watch usage, every light is fitted with s***w type (typical 110v lamp socket style) LED bulbs. They emit the same luminosity (typically 45) but at only 1watt rather then a 45w compact or 10w CFL. However they usually cost twice as much as CFLs which is twice as much (or more) as compacts. Still LEDs would be the way to go by far.

As for the second part of your question...

Mercury IS the lesser of the evils, without getting toooo elaborate discussing specifics (ie. which burns ozone faster, other layer's besides ozone, disposing locations, methods, wind conditions, etc), one needs less mercury gas then most others, to obtain the same luminosity in a vacuum because of mercury's longer agitated spectral wavelength. Mercury's wavelength is more blue which is a longer more "luminous" or brighter light to say sodium, which is a more light orange or shorter less bright (red being the shortest) wavelength. so you'd need more sodium or other, in the tube or more electricity to the tube, to create the same luminosity as mercury.

so mercury wins out only because the sheer volume needed is less then the others.

Hope this helped, feel free to contact me personally if you have any questions if you’d like assistance in making your first self sufficient steps, I’m willing to walk you step by step threw the process. I’ve written several how-to DIY guides available at  www agua-luna com on the subject. I also offer online and on-site workshops, seminars and internships to help others help the environment.

Dan Martin

Living 100% on Alternative & Author of How One Simple Yet Incredibly Powerful Resource Is Transforming The Lives of Regular People From All Over The World... Instantly Elevating Their Income & Lowering Their Debt, While Saving The Environment by Using FREE ENERGY... All With Just One Click of A Mouse...For more info Visit:  

www AGUA-LUNA com

Stop Global Warming, Receive a FREE Solar Panels Now!!!