good article.
look over your decrease in lumens section again. the 60 watts to 30 watts doesn't fit with the 70-80% from the wikipedia article, unless there are logarithms involved or something I'm not catching.
performs poorly in the first two minutes: that was my favorite part about fluorescent
lights. turning on bathroom lights in the middle of the night, or kitchen lights way too early in the morning, was much nicer with fluorescents that started dim and slowly got brighter. not really a problem with your article, though.
rants about mercury: the block quote formatting is a little weird. just a style issue.
incandescent and
electric heat: your math there doesn't check out. incandescent
light bulbs are designed to put out more energy as light than electric heater elements are and less energy into heat. electric motors (vacuum cleaner) turn more energy into motion (and noise) than heater elements and less energy into heat. you have a good point to be made there: that the amount of energy used as heat in a
light bulb doesn't have to be wasted. but don't overstate it. as it stands now, I don't think your "laws of physics" are the same as the universe's laws of physics. yes, heat is kinetic energy just like motion and sound, but I still don't think it checks out. I'm open to being exactly wrong, though.
other suggestions: could take more time than you're interested in, but calling around to state and
local governments to find out about subsidies would strengthen the article a lot. I'm also interested in the embodied energy of the two types of bulbs. I'm certain it takes more energy, and therefore more hypothetical mercury from coal, to build a fluorescent, but I have no idea how much more. also, since you seem to have a fondness for wikipedia, have a look at
this incandescent bulb for an example of how long they can last.
good article. you're going to catch some flak, for sure, but probably only from the folks who are already hassling you. I will be interested to see if any of that flak has substance.
