Submitted by John C. Briggs (not verified) on Tue, 04/15/2008 - 12:16.
Screw based (Edison bulb) dimmable CFLs are available. These also save electricity when they are dimmed. So a dimmed CFL is much more efficient than a dimmed incandescent.
However, there are limitations to dimmable CFLs. They are expensive (~US$12), physically larger than non-dimmable CFLs, some have terrible dimming characteristics, and the slow start of CFLs make dimming a challenge. Basically the bulb turns on at about 50% brightness and in 30 seconds achieves 90% brightness (for the good bulbs that is, bad bulbs take longer). So if you want the bulb dimmed to 50% brightness, you have to turn it on, wait 30 seconds, and then dim it.
If you want to try dimmable bulbs, I suggest you start with
GE 89623 DIMMABLE CFL LIGHT BULB 60 watt
GE 89624 DIMMABLE CFL LIGHT BULB 100 watt
These are the best of the four brands that I have tried. But personally, I don't recommend dimmables CFLs at this time. Note that I have nothing against CFLs and personally use all CFLs and LED lighting in my home.
I find the whole CFL debate and interesting study in human nature. We humans are greatly opposed to change. There must be some Darwinian value in this. Perhaps resistance to change is a real survival skill that we learned long ago when we lived in caves. We will latch on to the smallest scrap of evidence and use it as an excuse not to change.
The CFL excuse that always amuses me is "CFLs have mercury and therefore I will not use them". True, mercury is a serious toxin and should be managed carefully. But what amuses me is that people act like this is a new problem. People go to work every day, or to school, or to church, or to a public building illuminated by fluorescent lighting containing mercury. No one ever notices that these are fluorescent bulbs versus incandescent bulbs (unless they are flickering). No one thinks about the mercury. They are content with the light they have. But when it comes to their own home, all of a sudden, mercury is this enormous problem. We have been managing the mercury issue for years with commercial buildings, we can also manage it in our homes.
For me, I have reduced my electricity consumption from 12,000 KWH/year down to 3800 KWH/year and CFLs were an important piece of that. This saves me US$1600/year and I have little doubt that there are significant environmental benefits as well.
I would like to encourage everyone to find at least one place in their homes where they can try a CFL bulb or two. This might be in some non-critical place like a hallway light that is often turned on, or outside lights that are often left on all night.
Re: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs – A Tale From Dust to Dust
Screw based (Edison bulb) dimmable CFLs are available. These also save electricity when they are dimmed. So a dimmed CFL is much more efficient than a dimmed incandescent.
However, there are limitations to dimmable CFLs. They are expensive (~US$12), physically larger than non-dimmable CFLs, some have terrible dimming characteristics, and the slow start of CFLs make dimming a challenge. Basically the bulb turns on at about 50% brightness and in 30 seconds achieves 90% brightness (for the good bulbs that is, bad bulbs take longer). So if you want the bulb dimmed to 50% brightness, you have to turn it on, wait 30 seconds, and then dim it.
If you want to try dimmable bulbs, I suggest you start with
GE 89623 DIMMABLE CFL LIGHT BULB 60 watt
GE 89624 DIMMABLE CFL LIGHT BULB 100 watt
These are the best of the four brands that I have tried. But personally, I don't recommend dimmables CFLs at this time. Note that I have nothing against CFLs and personally use all CFLs and LED lighting in my home.
I find the whole CFL debate and interesting study in human nature. We humans are greatly opposed to change. There must be some Darwinian value in this. Perhaps resistance to change is a real survival skill that we learned long ago when we lived in caves. We will latch on to the smallest scrap of evidence and use it as an excuse not to change.
The CFL excuse that always amuses me is "CFLs have mercury and therefore I will not use them". True, mercury is a serious toxin and should be managed carefully. But what amuses me is that people act like this is a new problem. People go to work every day, or to school, or to church, or to a public building illuminated by fluorescent lighting containing mercury. No one ever notices that these are fluorescent bulbs versus incandescent bulbs (unless they are flickering). No one thinks about the mercury. They are content with the light they have. But when it comes to their own home, all of a sudden, mercury is this enormous problem. We have been managing the mercury issue for years with commercial buildings, we can also manage it in our homes.
For me, I have reduced my electricity consumption from 12,000 KWH/year down to 3800 KWH/year and CFLs were an important piece of that. This saves me US$1600/year and I have little doubt that there are significant environmental benefits as well.
I would like to encourage everyone to find at least one place in their homes where they can try a CFL bulb or two. This might be in some non-critical place like a hallway light that is often turned on, or outside lights that are often left on all night.