Huge numbers of people will only see the high price tag & funny shape.
They’ll think of it as a novelty, & never give it another glance. 
The standard base is the E26, also called the Edison base. If a standard bulb will fit your fixture, then you should be able to use a dimmable E26 CFL.
<hijack>
In some instances, the slightly larger size of some cfl’s makes it difficult to fit them into tight spaces. In this fixture, the lightbulbs are close together around a post, and the fixture hangs down, with the bulbs near the glass. Before I do anything stupid, I’ll measure everything to make sure that I don’t make toast with the fixture (I really like it!) It looks like one of these:
http://www.oldhouselights.com/gravity_hook_pendent_shades_01.htm
When we bought the house, we were blessed to find an actual original Edison-Mazda bulb in the front porch lighting fixture. Way cool.
</hijack>
Not really. I hate “upgrades” that upgrade everything but performance. Light bulbs are supposed to give off light, and if CFL’s can’t do that at as well as incandescents, yet fetch a higher price, how on Earth are they a “no-brainer” choice?
It reminds me of televisions - flat panels cost hundreds of dollars more than CRTs but offer a worse picture. Sure, they’re much lighter, use less energy, and take up less space, but that’s not what I’m buying a TV for.
What this again? Why bring CRT vs. LCD to this debate? You already hashed this out in another and got no consensus on your point of view.
CFL are already better for many applications, save a huge amount of energy and last significantly longer. There is a glare issue in some applications and the dimmables and three-ways are still very expensive. These issues need to be resolved but could be helped along by the government.
Jim
Well, they do give off light just as well (not everyone likes it, though), they cost only slightly more, they last way longer, and they are like 75% more efficient.
Twist my arm! I love saving money!
What? If you’re talking about the hijack at the end of this thread, read it again. There’s no debate about what I said about CRTs vs. flatpanels (which includes LCDs and plasmas) anywhere, let alone in that thread. That said it’s a perfectly valid analogy.
Why doesn’t everyone like it? Because the quality of the light doesn’t satisfy as much as an incandescent bulb’s does? That means the CFL’s light is not as good.
The TV thing is a completely separate debate; I recommend you start one rather than bringing it here.
As far as the CFL’s, it is your valued opinion that CFL light is not as good. This does not make it a fact or cover all CFL lighting. I would argue the fact that I can now put a 25W CFL bulb in a socket rated for 60W and get a lot of extra light with less heat and less cost. They are perfect for garages, basements, attics and in room ceiling dome lights. They are not as good in open fixtures I will concede. I only have one fan fixture that uses CFL and it is in my office. I have the CFL covered spotlights in my Family Room and I get better illumination with the trade off, of a slower startup time. The lightning is fine but these bulbs only work well in the hi-pots I have and not fan lighting kits in my kitchen and bedroom.
I am not yet ready to pay $15 for a single bulb, so I have held off on ordering the three-ways for some of my other applications. The CFL I have been using range in cost now between $1 and $2 a piece.
Jim
The light fixtures in the main rooms of my house, the ones that are on the most, are dimmable. I’d have to spend several hundred dollars to replace the bulbs with CFLs.
Those little torpedo dimmables are 9 bucks each before shipping. I can’t even find them around here, and I know why…it would cost me 50 bucks to replace the lights in ONE fixture. Yes, yes, I can save that money back over time, but it’s a huge kick in the wallet to buy them.
I would need 10 of those CFL torpedos and 8 CFL dimmable floods to replace the lights in my main rooms, and that’s nearly 200 bucks right there. That doesn’t include the bedroom lights.
It is obvious these fixtures are not good candidates at this time. This of course does not mean that CFL’s are not an excellent choice for many lightning needs.
Jim
I wasn’t starting a debate, it was just a throw-away analogy! You’re the one making a big deal about it! Here, substitute TVs for bottles, CRTs for glass, and flat panels for plastic. Happy?
& BTW, to stay on topic, nobody needs to convince anyone to switch to CFLs but the manufacturers themselves - or the wise high priests of Mother Earth if they want, but own their own dimes, if it’s that important to them.
Were you aware the US has a long tradition of propping up technologies and businesses that it feels are in the best interests of the country? (Or at least the best interest of very rich campaign contributors.)
CFLs are one small component in fighting Global Warming and reducing energy needs in the country. Incentives in the form of artificial price breaks to increase demand will decrease the time it takes to fully ramp up production of newer bulbs and to introduce to innovations. CFLs are probably going to be closely followed by LED lighting. The added bonus is if we ensure the government money goes to manufacturers in the country. We could possibly create or at least maintain some new manufacturing jobs.
Jim
So lifespan isn’t an aspect of performance? If there was a bulb that threw better light than your incandescent and cost the same, but only lasted 50 hours, would you buy it? How about one that threw slightly better light, but used five times as much energy?
Every time a bulb burns out in our house in a non-dimmable socket, I replace it with a CFL. I’ve replaced six of them so far. If all six were on, before I would be using 360 Watts of power. Now I use 68 watts. That’s a big improvement in PERFORMANCE.
Also, these bulbs last 8000 hours each, and I hate changing bulbs. The very latest ones seem to have a quality of light equal to the incandescents the replace. I’m paying $3/bulb, which makes them cost-competitive with incandescents without even considering the energy savings.
And the latest bulbs throw a very good light, don’t flicker, and don’t require a long warm-up period. In 80% of household applications, they are excellent replacements for incandescent bulbs.
I don’t understand the griping about the price of bulbs. I just bought three of them at wal mart for 10$. Thats pretty good considering it saves money on the power bill and supposedly lasts seven years! People just don’t want to put down the initial “big” investment in something that will save them money in the long run.
As far as I’m concerned there should be a tax on on the more expensive bulbs to make it more competitive. Either that or when global warming destroys the ice caps, people who use flourescents get first picks on where on the globe to settle. The bulbs I bought look EXACTLY like my old ones. And yes it takes exactly 1 second to turn entirely on…it’s an eternity.
I’m sorry, I’m fed up with humanity crapping on the environment. I just moved to teach in an oil town where everyone drives SUVs…you can guess I don’t really fit in here.
That is not true for all types of CFC lamps, in fact a few are better than the usual “yellow” incandesant bulb. Like I said, try a “natural spectrum” CFC bulb.
Australian Light bulbs get the flick
Not a single word on what measures they’ll put in place to deal with the resultant mercury problem.
Quite - they must be a bunch of Mad Hatters
Awesome, I applaud Australia. As far as the mercury, that will need to be handled with some sort of recycling program. Most countries need to step up their recycling efforts of both fluorescents and batteries.
This will mean that industry will have to create a lot more designs and sizes and improve current designs. It should bring down the price of 3-ways and dimmables.
Bravo Oz.
Jim
Huh. Screw free trade and the people (including me) who are bothered by even the supposedly “true-white” light bulbs, eh? Color me unimpressed.
Big Gummint is watching you.