Source of lighting table: online version of the WSJ article cited below.
I’ve been using some of the compact fluorescent light bulbs for a few years. They’re very slightly slower to turn on, and I don’t like the quality of light quite as well, but the money I figure I save is enough, for me, to outweigh the minor disadvantages. But I can easily imagine a rational person viewing the trade-offs differently. So it galls me that some environmentalists want to force us to fluoresce.
If enough people are willing to pay the higher energy costs of incandescent light, then we should let private enterprise build more nuclear power plants to provide consumers what they should be free to buy.
(p. A1) WASHINGTON — Manufacturers and environmentalists are hammering out a nationwide energy-saving lighting standard that, if enacted by Congress, would effectively phase out the common household light bulb in about 10 years. That in turn could produce major cuts in the nation’s electricity costs and greenhouse-gas emissions.
The new standard is expected to compel a huge shift by American consumers and businesses away from incandescent bulbs to more efficient — but also more expensive — fluorescent models, by requiring more light per energy unit than is yielded by most incandescents in use. The winner, at least in the near term, likely would be the compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL.
For the full story, see:
JOHN J. FIALKA and KATHRYN KRANHOLD. "Households Would Need New Bulbs To Meet Lighting-Efficiency Rule." The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 5, 2007): A1 & A5.
The bulb I like, but don’t want to be forced to use. Source of image: online version of the WSJ article cited above.
One thought on “We Should Not Be Forced to Fluoresce”
I’ve heard that if you break one of these compact fluorescent lights, you could be in for a costly ‘toxic waste’ cleanup. Minuscule amounts of mercury is the worry.