I'm not sold on "twisty bulbs" at all! They don't give the equivalent light output that they state and they often don't last long enough to reach their payback. The cost of replacing them under warranty is just one more variable to add into the equation. They are certainly attractive when you "do the math", but in practice (at least IMHO) they don't "hold up", figuratively or literally.
I use a number of CFLs in several "non-critical" applications around my house, but I definitely prefer the good old incandescents for most other uses, especially where I need good lighting for visual acuity like at my work bench or my favorite reading chair. In those applications with only intermittent use it is really hard to justify the CFL equivalent on the energy payback basis.
And altho' CFLs are more "green" from the reduced energy consumption standpoint, they do contain phosphors and especially mercury that require special disposal considerations... (If your power comes from coal, the Hg emitted from the coal used to light the CFL over its life could exceed what's in the lamp.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent
I use a number of CFLs in several "non-critical" applications around my house, but I definitely prefer the good old incandescents for most other uses, especially where I need good lighting for visual acuity like at my work bench or my favorite reading chair. In those applications with only intermittent use it is really hard to justify the CFL equivalent on the energy payback basis.
And altho' CFLs are more "green" from the reduced energy consumption standpoint, they do contain phosphors and especially mercury that require special disposal considerations... (If your power comes from coal, the Hg emitted from the coal used to light the CFL over its life could exceed what's in the lamp.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent