adric22 said:
I would also like to interject that anyone who expects to see a big drop in their electric bill has been very misguided. For most people, especially people who have electric heat in their homes, 95% of their electric bill comes from stuff like A/C, heat, hot water heater, refrigerator, and electric clothes dryer. So you can probably expect replacing all of your bulbs to save you about $5 per month on electricity. Over a year that works out to $60 per year or $180 over the course of 3 years which is the expected lifespan of most of these cheap CFLs.
FWIW, I have no central electric heat (it's natural gas; but do have electric space heaters), no AC (other than a portable 1-room rolling AC unit that's almost never used) and a natural gas water heater.
Electricity in CA is way more expensive than TX.
Incadescents are very inefficient. A few months ago replaced 10 candelabra incadescents totaling ~400 watts w/a combination of 1 LED + a few CFLs, totaling <50 watts.
My most recent electricity bill covering 10/12/12 to 11/9/12 was $36.31 for 268 kwh. Even though I was under my joke of a baseline of 325 kwh, my cost was 13.5 cents/kwh. Try plugging in your monthly electric use into http://www.pge.com/myhome/myaccount/charges/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; w/the 95136 zip, gas and no for CARE to see what I mean.
bowthom said:
When I switched to CFL they only lasted a few months, frequent cycling popped them. I'm in Oregon and prefer incandescent bulbs. They are cheaper, contain no hazardous materials and last around 3 years.
FWIW, re: hazardous substances, http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; has a comparison of mercury from running CFLs vs. incandescent. I will grant you that your area use gets way more electricity from hydroelectric and way less from coal than the national average.