cfl's are great 'only' if your one of those people committed to cutting your light usage as well. i have seen to many people in my area just replace normal light bulbs with them but leave the new ones on all the time thinking that no matter how much you use them they will still always be better then the wast full incondesents.

this is true though. You seem to be confused, the CFL may cost 1-2 $/bulb, but will last 10x longer and with 1/3rd the energy requirement, therefore so long as regular lightbulbs do not cost less than 1/30 the cost of a CFL, you win with a purchase of a CFL (in monitary terms) regardless of the use.

If you are worried about heating, insulate your home. Best investment you can make.

You seem to be confused, the CFL may cost 1-2 $/bulb, but will last 10x longer and with 1/3rd the energy requirement, therefore so long as regular lightbulbs do not cost less than 1/30 the cost of a CFL, you win with a purchase of a CFL (in monitary terms) regardless of the use.

Uh, no.

Let's take a 30W CFL against a 100W incandescent. Assume the CFL lasts 2 years @ $4, and the incan lasts 3 months @ $1, with electricity going for $0.10/kWh.

Assuming you use the light for 8 hours a day - ~3000/yr - the CFL will cost $11/yr ($9 in electricity + $2 in replacement), vs. $34 for the incan ($30 in electricity + $4 in replacement). So the CFL is a huge win in normal use.

However, if you did the silly "keep the light on all the time" thing for a light that was rarely used before, you could certainly end up spending more. If the light was normally used only 2 hours/day, the incan would be $12/yr, whereas the CFL - used 24 hours/day - would be $29/yr.

So usage matters; indeed, usage is practically all that matters - you can see here how little the purchase price of the bulbs matters compared to the electricity costs.