I use them in about half the fixtures in my house. Mainly in fixtures where the bulb itself will not be seen, or doesn't matter (like the basement work room or garage). Also, I use them in recessed fixtures with covers - these are a pain to change, so having a long lasting bulb in them is great. The cover hides the bulb, and tones down the stark bright white light given off. I also use them in reverse pendant style fixtures where the glass shade opens toward the ceiling.

Where I WON'T use them (admittedly, for purely vain reasons) - in my $300 dining room chandelier. It takes standard bulbs, but the glass shades face down. Stark white light on the table top, and ugly squiggly bulbs ruin the fixture completely. I also won't use them in certain lamps with "traditional" shades. Again, the light is too bright, and the bulb is ugly.

So - that's my $.02.

PS - I do care about the planet, but I really don't believe government regulation of household lightbulbs is the answer to the energy crisis.

The light being "too bright" seems to be easy to correct, buy a lower wattage... as for ugly, it's all a matter of just getting used to it. I'm personally wondering why they don't make a variety of shapes and designs... it's basically a tube, you can make it whatever patern you want. However, once you are used to a squiggly tube you'll think of simple bulbs as boring... Tastes are always subjective, and easy to change.

Energy use, carbon footprints, environmental burden, etc... These things are not subjective. :)

Just food for thought. I imagine every time something inside the house changed it was originally thought of as "ugly".

I've bought quite a few over the years (i tend to leave them behind when i move out of an apartment. Some of them do have a pretty atrocious color, but not all. These days there are plenty of variations, so you might want to head back to the store and check out different spectrums and wattages.

I agree, they are ugly. Also, the light they emit often gives everything a different color. Not sure what the right word is, but the colors seem wrong. But worst of all is that it seems impossible to find a CFL that can be used with a dimmer. I heard they exist, but I've never seen one yet. I've also heard those that can dim are very expensive, but again, no idea how expensive they could be. Or perhaps I heard wrong and they don't exist at all. At any rate, that's a BIG strike against the CFL for me. I put dimmers in a few key places like my computer room and bed room that I'm just not willing to do without. I know CFLs are better for the environment, but I think banning the Edison bulb is a big mistake. If they do decide to ban it, I think I'll just buy a couple of crates and keep them handy. I'm sick and tired of the government telling me what to do.

- Mike

I would note that not all CFLs are created equal. IKEA bulbs -- which also have the plus of being overwhelmingly cheap -- match incandescents almost perfectly in their hue and they turn on instantly. Sylvania CFLs take a little while to to get to their full light power, but they have a great crisp, white light and are available in a dimmable form.

General Electric bulbs are by far the worst I've seen... they seem to take a minute or more to fully illuminate, they have an icky yellow buzzy light, and they're the least efficient. It'd be great if Slate's shopping column would do a more thorough comparison of these lights.

As for the bulb being ugly (which I agree with, though a regular pear shape isn't much better), why not use the covered kind? Most any brand offers them.

Mike,
As I wrote, Sylvania sells dimmables. I should note, though, that though they technically dim, they don't do a very good job. They turn a creepily pure shade of white -- think SciFi movie alien abduction.

As for governmental involvement, how is it any different the CAFE standards for automobiles? I don't think they should outright say "incandescent" bulbs are not allowed, but I have no problem with demanding a certain watt-to-lumen ratio, much like CAFE demands MPG (though unlike CAFE, I don't think it should be a corporate average: I think it should be for each individual product).

I'm a conservative. I used to commute in a big luxury car 40 miles (one way) to work without a single passenger. I don't care a dime about carbon footprints, global warming or acid rain. I certainly do NOT think the government should require the use of CFLs.

But I use them in every fixture they will fit into (I have a couple of light fixtures that are two narrow at the base to accept the CFL's wide ceramic fixture). Given my almost "anti-environment" politics why do I use them?

Because I don't have to change the damn things every other whipstitch. I'm probably saving a small amount of money on my electrical bill by using them, but I'm saving myself a dozen cusswords everytime I turn the light on and it doesn't burn out. In 10 years, I think I've had to replace exactly one CFL bulb because of a failure (and I broke one, moving a lamp, but that shouldn't count). I use them as a convenience, a luxury. The fact that prices are falling on them makes it even better.

you are referring to is a rated statistic: CRI, or Color Resolution Index. See my post "to those who complain about quality".

Many CFL's have "better" light than incandescents. Many don't. Being an informed consumer can aleviate some of these difficulties... and I will go ahead and state that the info is not well distributed for that industry.