The recent "Light Bulb Debate" article (Readers' Forum Nov. 20) doesn't provide the full compact fluorescent bulb (CFL) story. First, using CFLs actually contributes less mercury to the environment compared to standard incandescent bulbs — a savings of 4.6 mg of mercury per bulb in areas of Utah with coal-fired power.
Second, CFLs are less expensive to buy overall. We had two 13 watt Philips CFLs turned on at the front of our home every night for 13 years before they burned out. That saved us from buying at least 24 incandescent bulbs plus $322 in total electrical cost savings over those 13 years. We could have saved even more if LED lighting technology had been available.
Finally, to clarify from that earlier article, one study suggests that it takes 3.9 times more energy to produce the equivalent number of incandescent bulbs compared to each of our CFL bulbs (including the CFL recycling costs). There is no grand conspiracy here. CFLs and LED-based lighting technologies make sense for America.
- In our opinion: U.S. needs immigration...
- How America feels about Mitt Romney right now
- Letter: Acting on immigration
- Greg Bell: It's time to raise the gas tax
- My view: Remembering JFK 51 years later
- In our opinion: 70 mph — driving at the...
- Michael Gerson: Obama’s executive order...
- Dan Liljenquist: Obamacare was a rude...
- Letter: Where jobs come from 65
- In our opinion: U.S. needs immigration... 64
- Dan Liljenquist: Obamacare was a rude... 61
- Letter: Growing party divide 52
- Michael Gerson: Obama’s executive... 44
- How America feels about Mitt Romney... 40
- In our opinion: When it comes to... 40
- Letter: Acting on immigration 34