Ignore my above comment; apparently the comment system here is borked, and typing the 'less-than' symbol breaks your comment. Here's the entire thing, edited:
Yeah, this is another bit of regulation that I personally find rather silly. I personally don't feel that climate change is drastic enough to warrant this equally-drastic ban; it's basically like using a whole can of spray to kill a single ant; sure, the ant's gone, but you've done untold damage elsewhere.
I do agree that CFLs are generally superior lamps; MODERN, non-crappy lamps lack the flicker problem, and still light up in a short enough time that a typical human can't perceive the difference. (less than 250 ms) They DO save a bit of energy, but typically not a huge amount; you're only talking around half as much or so consumed for the light produced.
Some people do have issues, at least in getting used to the different spectrum that flourescents of all types produce; incandescents have a very smoothed curve with a heavy bias in the red/infrared (IR release is a major reason they're less efficient than FL) compared to a much narrower, sharper range with some spikes in the green area. CFLs produce what generally better mimics the sun's spectrum in the visible range, (where the sun likewise is strongest in green) but given the low power, it seems unnaturally to most humans; the red-biased incandescents seem more natural for the dimmer lighting we get from lamps as opposed to the sun.
All told, I don't think that a blanket ban is the right idea. Personally, I favor CFLs, but their strongest point is the one most-oft overlooked: they don't burn out every couple months. You won't really see a CFL readily pay for itself in energy bills, (lights tend to be a tiny fraction of one's electricity consumption) but pretty much anyone WILL see them soon pay for themselves simply by that you won't have to replace them for a few years, saving not just the money of buying more lamps, but also the time and effort to change out the lamps.
Facebook
Twitter