Conceptually most people understand that over the life of a CFL they're going to save money, but they still have problems parting with $3 to $5 or more for one when an incandescent bulb is under a dollar. Doesn't matter that in the long run the CFL will end up saving them far more than the initial cost of the bulb. I'm a fan of CFLs and I still have issues with spending the money at times.
Conceptual is one thing, reality is another. I have yet to have a single CFL last the advertised time. They last about as long as incandescents, 'round here. I have used GE, Philips, and about 4 off-brands in search of a CFL that will not burn out "prematurely."
So, CFL TCO is a whole lot more than incandescents at Casa jfruser.
I really would like to switch CFLs for many of the bulbs in my house, but can not justify it.
I have, however, had success with old-school fluorescent bulbs in some applications. The recessed fixtures behind the baffle/plastic lens in the kitchen and guest bath were serviced by twin 100 watt rated incandescent sockets. I tried using CFLs, but they would burn out as often as incandescents and in some cases I really mean
burn, as the plastic part of the CFL was somewhat melted & scorched. Sorry, but no CFLs for THAT application!
I replaced them with old-style fixtures which have performed much better than incandescents or CFLs.
My incentive is not necessarily tree-huggery or even cost savings, but I need to monitor my current draw. My electrical box is an ancient Federal Pacific rated for something goddawfully low. Until I can re-wire some bits and get another box installed, I must soldier on with a box chosen to reflect the use of electricity in 1959.
