CFL to Halogen - Bad Comparison

The LA Times mentioned the CFL a one of the bad design trend they hope dies in 2009. The author suggested using a Halogen with a dimmer makes it better than a CFL.

That's a bit misleading...

CFL to Halogen Bulb Comparison

Positives:
2 TO 4X the life Halogens are usually 2000 hours, where a CFL is 8000. I am not sure if dimming a CFL would also extend the life.
Twice the efficiency at least (60 to 72 lumens per watt vs. 10-30 lm/W)
CFL's are not a fire danger - Halogens heat up to around 1000 Deg. F.
CFL's usually cost less than Halogens (dimmable CFL's more).

Negatives of CFL's compared to Halogen:

• Mercury
• Cheaper CFL's have poor Light Rendering
  

Varies:

• Some CFL's can be dimmed.
• Some CFL's have excellent color that are good enough for most applications.

Applications for Halogen

• Halogen - Restaurants that need perfect color, and can afford to double their electricity bill.
• Halogen - Clothing stores that need perfect color
  
• Art exhibits that don't mind the heat.
• Above Mirrors such as in bathrooms
  

CFL's

• Every place else, and if cost is more important than perfect color, in the above applications.
  

The author is an architect who is into lighting. Anyway, the article in the LA Times is a bit misleading on CFL's on their positives and negatives compared to halogen.

I used to work for International Rectifier as a Marketing Manager focusing on Lighting products, and wrote an article about DALI. DALI is a standard for controlling the dimming of fluorescent ballasts, pretty big in Europe.