Article 1014741 of alt.home.repair: Path: news.misty.com!not-for-mail From: nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu Newsgroups: alt.home.repair Subject: Re: CFL vs Incandescent Date: 27 Apr 2008 18:26:03 -0400 Organization: Villanova University Lines: 21 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: acadia.ece.villanova.edu X-Trace: max.inside.misty.com 1209331550 29692 153.104.44.130 (27 Apr 2008 21:25:50 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@misty.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2008 21:25:50 +0000 (UTC) Xref: news.misty.com alt.home.repair:1014741 bonnie wrote: >Given, CFL's are thought to be more energy efficient than incandescent >bulbs. But I heard they use more energy to turn on. The turn-on energy difference is miniscule, but each start removes about 6 minutes (0.1 hours) from a CF's typical 6000 hour lifetime at a typical $2 cost, vs a bulb's typical 750 hour lifetime at a typical 50 cent cost. >What if it is in a room that is used infrequently, a closet or guest >room for instance. In other words a room in which you would go in and >out of pretty quickly. > >How long would a CFL have to be left on to realize the net energy savings. You might better ask "How long would the CFL have to be left on per start to save money over an incandescent bulb, with 1/4 the power consumption, at 10 cents/kWh?" Nick