Left almost gets it on CFLs

Well the tide is sort of changing. The New York times has started to question CFLs (Compact Florescent Bulbs).

They cover the basics and the facts are pretty valid. A HUGE step for the New York Times. The speed at which they gloss over things is amazing. A few interesting pacts from the article and the video that parallels.

1. CFLS are not for all locations. They take 15-20 minutes to reach full light and if shut off before then it will drastically shorten their life span. Locations such as stairwells, hallways and outdoor sensored areas are not recommended. They are also not recommended for enclosed locations [because they do not tolerate heat well]. They are also not good for dimming (editor edition...though there are some rated for that use, at a higher price) OK good information. Never hear that much from the advocates and does not appear on the labels.

2. They cover the mercury risk and clean up of these bulbs. You can read more detail on this at the EPA web site. Also rarely mentioned by the advocates. They right is off as only 3-5 mg of mercury. If you check the numbers for fish you will find that 4 parts per million in food leads to the recommendation "Do not eat Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, or Tilefish because they contain high levels of mercury." Seems a bit incongruent that 4 parts per million in fish leads to "DO NOT EAT IT" and 5 milligrams in dozens of bulbs through the house comes with no warning what so ever from the same advocates.

3. Let's continue to the last line of the video. Consumers may have to adjust to these limitations because the government has moved to outlaw incandescent lights by 2012. Huh? So they should not be used in certain locations yet you will have to. So though you may not be saving money you will be using less energy. And that is all that matters. Again proof that liberals will seek activism by law when they cannot create a better product that people would actually want.

4. This leads to my final point. The prices on these have come down from the $30 each range to a more acceptable $1-$2 range. This helps mitigate one of the concerns above. But let's find this little nugget nestled in the article...Some experts who study the issue blame the government for the quality problems, saying an intensive federal push to lower the price essentially backfired by encouraging manufacturers to use cheap components. and followed by this...Much of the credit for that sharp cost decline goes to the Energy Department. The agency asked manufacturers in 1998 to create cheaper models and then helped find large-volume buyers, like universities and utilities, to buy them.

Yep and there the truth shines through. Government jumped on board with a potentially better product, picked a winner and drove quality standards down to make it affordable. Thus ruining the potential of a more efficient bulb actually being a better product and a better financial decision as well. So wehn do not all run out an buy it, they require that we use it. So now we await their "help" in new cars and health care. History would teach us to expect the same result. A higher priced , less appealing model being forced upon the American public by legal fiat.