CFL -- The facts

CFL's- COMPACT FLOURECSENT LIGHTS

Rush has stumbled on the science here as well.

There is no doubt they save electricity over incandescents. It will save a lot of money if implemented.

Oh yeah, and energy too. If you are worried about the CO2, nuclear power would have a much more significant impact to reduce overall CO2 emissions.

Biggest downside technically is they take time to warm up to full brightness.

Compared to incandescent lamps of the same luminous flux, CFLs have a longer rated life and use less energy. A CFL can save over US$30 in electricity costs over the lamp’s lifetime comparing to an incandescent lamp.[2]

On the other hand, initial purchase cost of a CFL is often significantly more expensive, and CFLs exhibit a different visible spectrum of light than incandescent lamps.[3] CFLs may also be inconvenient due to size or incompatibility with existing light fixtures or dimmer controls.

The mercury issue is real and a real health hazard. The advocates claim they put less mercury in the environment than the fumes from burning coal. This is a bit deceiving. At least when burning coal it is deposited outside, where it can be converted to a sulfide. Not really a good option when it is spilled on my floor when I drop the bulb. The best way to reduce the mercury is to use NUCLEAR POWER and encapsulate the CFL bulbs.

Polymer wrap is a possible solution to contain the mercury and the glass shards.

How about those shop fluorescents that have been around for years?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp