Here is the published letter.
Dear Editor
I am responding to the New Haven Register's recent Editorial about energy efficiency legislation and light bulb technology. Take what side you will on the legislation, but please get the facts straight. First, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) cost less than incandescents -- both at the counter and on your electric bill. A CFL is rated to last about eight times longer than an incandescent in the same application. For equivalent life, incandescent bulbs will total $.25x8=$2 at the counter. That's twice as expensive as the $1 CFLs I recently purchased. More significantly, efficient CFLs offer much higher savings through an immediate reductions on your electricity bill. At today's electric rates, each 60W bulb replaced with an equivalent CFL can save more than $70 over the life of the bulb.
The claim that CFLs emit less light is simply not true. Light output, measured in "lumens", can be found right on the package. Just select an output to meet your needs. You will find ratings to match equivalent incandescents. If you like the yellow color of incandescents, try a "soft white" CFL and/or use an appropriate lampshade. There have been improvements in this area so give it another go if you have been turned off in the past.
Most importantly, the notion that any incandescent can possibly compete with a CFL in terms of efficiency is laughable. An incandescent bulb is a resistance heater that sheds a little light in the process: for every 10 Watts of electricity in, 9 are shed as heat and 1 converted to visible light. The Phillips bulb referenced in your article has gained a respectable 30 percent in efficiency over a standard bulb. However, a typical CFL is 700 percent more efficient than an incandescent (10W input = 7W light + 3W heat). Is there really any contest here?
If you oppose CFL legislation because you don't like being told what to buy then so be it. But please don't throw money down the toilet because of myths and misinformation.
