Nothing beats the CFL's (compact fluorescent lamps) for lumens per watt. So in terms of energy efficiency it's the best bet. Other considerations would include LED's. Gaiam sells a 3w led that is perfect for a porch light... esp if you feel compelled to have it on a bunch. It doesn't throw a lot of light... and wouldn't be recommended for space lighting (maybe a focused reading lamp) but is great for the porch because (unlike CFLs) it will run even in very cold and is a third of the wattage of even the smallest CFL's. And it absolutely does the trick of marking the house... In fact, with it's lower output it reduces light pollution. For space lighting, though, nothing beats the CFL's.

As for the light quality... look at the Kelvin "temperature"... this is a color rating. Most CFL's are going to be down around 2700K, this should produce the yellow light that we've grown accustomed to w/ incandescent bulbs. In fact, years ago when I was embarking on the change of one light at a time, I'd test people asking which of the lamps in the living room had the "awful fluorescent" and which had the "normal" bulb. No one could tell! If you find the light disconcerting, you're likely the proud owner of a "natural spectrum" lamp. These guys, with a kelvin of 5000+, produce a white-toward-blue light. Technically speaking, this is better light. It mimics light at noon on a cloudy day. It reduces glare, renders color better etc. These are the best bulbs for reading lamps, desk lamps, work and art stations etc. but they're blue and cold and have the tendency to dig up flashbacks of the worst elementary school experiences. If you experience these symptoms, immediately find yourself a 2700K bulb... often sold as "warm glow" and breathe deeply.

Another hint. Keep those cheap incandescents around too. No need to ever change that closet light or hall light that is only on for a few minutes a week. Change only those bulbs that exceed, say, an hour a week. And START with those that exceed an hour a day!

That's good enough!  Thanks, SB!

---

On May 20, 2007 7:29:54 PM SlickBiggy wrote:

I am fairly certain that they do not exist. That said, I believe there is now a "3-way" so you can go 50/100/150 depending on needs...

---

Edited by: chinchillables on Jun 4, 2008 10:47:31 AM

---

On Jun 10, 2008 5:04:43 PM Sunny wrote:

I was watching the Channel 24 (NBC) medical segment yesterday and there seems to be some controversy over CFLs being linked to migraines.. The segment was by a neurologist who himself noticed the correlation between his use of CFLs and the recurrence of his migraines. The segment didn't seem conclusive, and the use of CFLs and their effects on human physiology is being studied at this time. The other thing that concerns me about CFLs is their mercury content, I have concerns about their safe disposal....

---

---

I always turn to Snopes, a website with a group of journalists that investigate urban legends. Here's what they had to say on this topic:

Claim: When broken, energy-saving light bulbs (CFLs) loose dangerous amounts of mercury into a home.

Status: Multiple:

• CFLs contain mercury, a dangerous substance: True.




• While mercury stays safely contained in intact CFLs, it escapes from broken CFLs into the immediate surroundings: True.




• The amount of mercury contained in one CFL bulb poses a grave danger to a home's inhabitants: False.




• An environmental clean-up crew needs be called in to deal with the mercury dispersed by one broken CFL bulb: False.
  

Here's a bit more information about the benefits of CFL bulbs and the hazards associated with them:

Shedding Light on Energy-Saving Bulb Options

Why switch to compact fluorescents? Watch this.

NPR: CFL Bulbs Have One Hitch: Toxic Mercury

Ask TreeHugger: Is Mercury from a Broken CFL Dangerous?

Mercury Fears in CFL Bulbs Overblown?

Lamp Recycling Info

EPA Fact Sheet on Mercury in CFLs

---

I've just recently had reason to visit the forums here, so I haven't been reading earlier posts on the subject of CFLs, mainly as I work full time, and don't have much time to be online.  (I'm off work for a week, before I return to my 53hr. per wk. job)   The mercury in CFLs (whether their mercury content is or isn't negligible, or poses a hazard) wasn't the only reason why I won't buy them; it was a combination of that possibility coupled with the segment on CFLs and migraines, that caused me to decide to wait on purchasing them; LEDs are a viable option until further studies are done on the health issues.  I'm a reasonably patient person, and prefer to wait til the results of studies are in, before getting more of these bulbs.

---

On Jun 11, 2008 11:00:03 PM Sunny wrote:

I've just recently had reason to visit the forums here, so I haven't been reading earlier posts on the subject of CFLs, mainly as I work full time, and don't have much time to be online. (I'm off work for a week, before I return to my 53hr. per wk. job) The mercury in CFLs (whether their mercury content is or isn't negligible, or poses a hazard) wasn't the only reason why I won't buy them; it was a combination of that possibility coupled with the segment on CFLs and migraines, that caused me to decide to wait on purchasing them; LEDs are a viable option until further studies are done on the health issues. I'm a reasonably patient person, and prefer to wait til the results of studies are in, before getting more of these bulbs.

---

I wasn't implying that you needed to read other threads - the reason I said that I was reposting information was a disclaimer to let you know that you might stumble across the same post on another thread. It was merely to state that I was copying myself, essentially.

If you can buy LED bulbs, I'd say go for them over CFLs. LEDs are the future of lighting.If you can buy LED bulbs, I'd say go for them over CFLs. LEDs are the future of lighting.,

***********************************************************************************************

Not a problem, Granola Joe; (re: first sentence of yr. post), and thank you for your courtesy, regarding the repeated information.

Regarding the actual lighting, am comparison shopping this weekend, as LEDs are somewhat pricey....(in the short run.)

Tree Hugger  website has good info on this subject. The CFL's are greener in that there are less carbon emmissions in their production and their usage rate is about 13 to 1. Safe disposal is an issue.  Carbon being the single greatest threat to our health. 

In my opinion our biggest challenge, besides carbon emissons, is ridding ourselves of the petrochemical influences in our world. We talk of oil dependence in relation to transportation but in reality soooooo many of the things in our world are petrochemical in nature. I'd venture a guess that the increased cancer rate could be directly linked to petrochemical products. I can remember the advent of Tupperware in the fifties. I think on many levels  that things started going down hill from there.  Processed foods, making things quick and easy.  It's heartening to see the tide turning back to a healthier world. Having these conversations  is an example .

Good stuff  !!