Lights, Camera...Wait, Check the Lights: NYTimes on Fluorescent Light Bulbs
William L. Hamilton writes in interesting cover page article in "Week in Review" section of this Sunday's New York Times about the rise (and the limitations) of energy saving fluorescent light-bulbs.
WHEN I found out last week that Wal-Mart, America’s biggest company, was putting a push on compact fluorescent light bulbs, hoping to make them a new lighting standard at home because they use 75 percent less energy, last 10 times longer and would save me $30 over the life of each bulb, I thought to myself, what’s not to like?
Well, fluorescent light’s not to like, many people might say.
What’s the problem? For one, it’s not incandescent.
The article goes on to discuss the evolution of fluorescent lighting -- its energy efficiency, its longevity, recent advances in fluorescent coating to make the light almost indistinguishable from incandescent light. At least until you look at yourself under it.
The problem, and Hamilton would argue, the barrier to the widespread adoption of fluorescent light bulbs for home use, is that it makes people look sickly, cool, and, well, industrial, instead of healthy, warm and homey.
Hamilton urges scientists and home designers to look for ways to make the lighting more palatable for home use. In the meantime, he says, don't expect to find it lighting the dressing rooms at The Gap (never mind your neighbor's living room).
Read the full article at NYTimes.com.
Read More in: Energy Savers | Green Homes
Related Articles:
Came straight to this page? Visit Really Natural for all the latest news.
Want to share this post with others? digg this and Add to del.icio.us
Posted by Jess Brooks at January 8, 2007 8:05 AM
Mailing List
Site Navigation
Timbeland Tote Bag Made From Earthkeepers Billboards
Archives
