A lighting expert says our mandated switch to CFL will probably save "some" energy, but at too great a cost in rampant dissatisfaction with lighting:
If energy conservation were to be the sole goal of energy policy, and efficacy were to be the sole technical consideration, then why CFLs? If we really want to save energy, we would advocate high-pressure sodium lamps—those large bulbs that produce bright orangish light in many streetlights. Their efficacy is more than double what CFLs can offer. Of course this would not be tolerated by the public. This choice shows that we are willing to advocate bad lighting—but not horrible lighting.
And here comes the European Union, admitting the obvious:
Buyers of the main type of energy-saving bulb, compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), are told on the packaging that they shine as brightly as an old-fashioned bulb. For example, an 11W CFL is labelled as being the equivalent of a 60W incandescent bulb.
However, the European Commission, which was responsible for the ban, has now conceded that this is "not true" and that such claims by manufacturers are "exaggerated".
In a sane world, Congress would back off this insane mandate and leave Americans and their light-bulb preferences alone.
Holy cow. I just used "sane world" and "Congress" in the same sentence. Worst. Monday. Ever.
