Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (204367)	4/27/2007 11:06:54 AM
From: Ish	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794001

<<Also they burn dimmer for a long time as they die.>> I tried 3 of those bulbs, none lasted a year even though they are 5 year bulbs. And they do get dimmer, got to where I couldn't read the paper in the morning.

To: Rambi who wrote (204367)	4/27/2007 1:34:25 PM
From: gamesmistress	Respond to of 794001

We have replaced quite a few of our incandescents with fluorescents, now that they basically look the same. They definitely are more energy-efficient, especially in the bathroom, which used to be ablaze with light as it's quite small and has 2 3-bulb strips. You do have to get used to the slow lighting-up though. There are, as you say, always trade-offs. We have also looked into solar shingles (NOT panels) as here in CT the kw cost is 19 cents/kw. CT reimburses you half the cost if you meet certain criteria, so we started by contacting the state-approved solar contractors, but they didn't seem to want our business. Most didn't return phone calls, and one didn't show up for a site inspection. Anyway, we decided that given the current cost of $9/w for a system, it would take at least 15 years to get our money back. There are cheaper solar technolgies coming in a few years, so we'll wait a while.