I was appalled at the May 1 article on CFLs. Global warming can no longer be denied; we should be doing everything we can as individuals to conserve energy and reduce carbon emissions. Yet The N&O chose to print an article that was more human interest than fact, discouraging people from using CFLs. CFLs now come in a variety of shapes, including one that’s almost the same shape as standard incandescent bulbs, globes and candles. There are even three-way CFLs. Many have electronic ballasts instead of magnetic ballasts so they no longer take time to come on and no longer flicker visibly. They now come in a variety of colors, including full-spectrum and soft white.
According to the Department of Energy Energy Star Web site: “If every American home replaced just one light bulb with an ENERGY STAR [CFL], we would save enough energy to light more than 2.5 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions of nearly 800,000 cars.”
All for only a few dollars, which you make back in energy savings over the life of a bulb. How much easier can it get?
The CFL article that you reprinted May 1 from The Washington Post is humorous but inaccurate. The story’s CFLs flicker; mine don’t. The story’s CFLs are slow to warm up; mine aren’t. The story’s CFLs are a weird color; I choose my CFLs so they give off the color I like. The story’s CFLs are expensive; mine aren’t.
Different people like different colors in light. You can buy where there’s a display that shows the color of each type of bulb. Or check the degrees Kelvin printed on the ceramic base of the bulb. For a north-type light (greyish-white), look for degrees in the 5,000s. For a south-type light (yellowish), look for degrees in the 2,000s.
In a time of global climate change and rising energy costs, it’s a disservice to pass along out-of-date information that discourages people from adopting energy-saving and cost-saving measures. Please run another article with corrected information.