1. The factor in whether a fluorescent fixture is dimmable is the ballast, not the lamp itself. Normally the ballast comes with the fixture - so the fixture has to be a dimmable type.

2. In theory one would think that a dedicated CF can would have a more efficient reflector. However, I suspect that if retrofit CFs with R-reflectors are used, the difference is minimal in most cases.

3. AFAIK, dedicated fluorescent cans are currently more expensive than incandescent cans with retrofits.

4. Remember that a retrofit CF is actually lamp and ballast combined. A dedicated fixture thus could be considered more environmentally responsible, because when the lamp fails you change the lamp only. With a retrofit, you junk both lamp and ballast, no matter which one has failed. Greenness aside, in the long run, being able to change only the lamp as necessary will probably save money.

5. There are so many different sizes of retrofit CFs these days that you're unlikely to have much trouble with them not fitting or sticking out. You can use plain helicals, not in a R-reflector; they're cheaper, but may not be as efficient at distributing the light (depending on your fixture design). A friend of mine does this and is satisfied with it.

6. Using retrofits gives you a bit more flexibility in replacments. Normally with dedicated fixtures you have to use the same brightness of lamp when you replace - there's usually little or no flexibility to fit a brighter or dimmer lamp. (Though you do usually get a choice of color temperature.)

7. Finally, you really should consider different fixtures. Cans are good for accent lighting, but probably the worst possible fixtures for general or task lighting. It's a mystery to me why people want to use them everywhere these days.

Here is the bottom line as I see it.

Retrofits :

Lower initial cost
Probably higher long-term cost
More flexibility
More solid waste long term(including lead content)

Dedicated :

Higher initial cost
Probably lower long term cost
Less flexibility
Less solid waste long term

I don't know whether this has really helped, but maybe it gives you more information for your decision. Good luck with your building project.

Davidr,
Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed response.

I've read a little more on GW about retro CFL's, and was directed to Environmental Defense.org (link below). It's a very informative website, re Energy Star ratings, original magnetic ballasts vs. new electronic ballasts, flickering bulbs, etc.

You said I "really should consider different fixtures [other than recessed cans] ... for task lighting." ...What would you suggest?

The kitchen is 13.5x18, with a 4x12 island, which creates an L-shaped work area, open on one end to the FR. The island will have two 5-lite incandescent chandeliers, and the 3 perimeter wall cabinets (7' total) will have UC fluorescent. I think cans, in front of the wall cabinets, are the only fixture that will keep me from working in my own shadow. Many years ago I had a surface mounted box w/ 4 ft fluorescent tubes and I was always in my own shadow - it was awful.

I'm open to any suggestions, short of a fluorescent light box or exposed fluorescent tubes.

Thank you again for detailing the pros/cons of dedicated CFL (Title 24) and retro CFL (incandescent).

Here is a link that might be useful: Environmental Defense: energy efficient bulbs

You may not agree, but my personal preference is for good old fashioned (some people would probably say "ugly" ;-) linear fluorescent ceiling fixtures.

We work in our kitchen. Its purpose is to prepare good meals. Seeing is more important to me than having attractive light fixtures (I don't really think nice fluorescents are necessarily unattractive, but I know that some people approach them with certain preconceived notions). I find that good linear fluorescents provide ample light for my (our) middle-aged eyes, and the evenness of the light combined with some indirect light reflected from the ceiling reduces shadow.

Of course, they have to be placed correctly or you WILL be in your own shadow. Combine them with undercabinet lights and you have good lighting, IMO.

I've seen pictures of setups with linear fluorescents either behind a cove or on top of cabinets, bounced off a white ceiling. I can't imagine that's as efficient as combined direct and indirect, but I'm still a strong proponent of at least some indirect lighting. Again, it reduces shadowing. This was a principle of (IMO) sensible lighting designers already 50 or 60 years ago, but many seem to have forgotten it in the last 10 or 20. (Of course I'm not a lighting designer myself, so perhaps I'm talking through my hat.)

Recessed lights, OTOH, have zero indirect component by design and are a near point source, so they produce very strong shadows. This kind of light is great for bringing out the grain of wood and the texture of expensive counters. Thus cans are ideal for people who entertain in their kitchens, but seldom do the actual work of food preparation there. They are also good for highlighting decorative accents and room features.

However, cans are one of the least efficient ways to provide general illumination of a space. Because they're lousy at light distribution, you need a LOT of them. This is an energy consumption disaster with incandescents; at least using fluorescent cans (or retrofits) is an improvement in that regard. But they are still not as efficient as surface mounted linear fluorescents.

Most of the glossy home improvement magazines you find at the counter of the big box stores show recessed lighting, or did the last time I looked at one. I think this may be one reason that a lot of people don't think of much else. (Also, from what I hear, contractors seem to assume that everyone wants them.)

Perhaps some combination of these lighting systems could produce a winner for you - a few cans in strategic areas, some direct/indirect linear fluorescents over most of the food preparation areas, and indirect flos on top of cabinets.

I recommend modern electronic ballasts and 3000K, 82+ CRI lamps for warm light, but some like 3500K for whiter lght. Which works for you depends to some extent on the colors you use in your kitchen.

Again, hope this helps. Best to you in your project.

Davidr,
Thanks for your suggestions, but I'm one of those people who would say surface mounted fluorescent linear fixtures are UGLY. Think I'll stick with some retro CFL cans, UC fluorescent, and a couple of small chandeliers.
Thanks for your help.

I'm with you David - I find it frustrating to hear constantly about a need for good quality light, without shadows and glare, yet kitchen remodelers seem to think that recessed cans are the only option. I can't think of a method that produces more shadows and more glare. I am using a nice lithonia octagonal surface mounted fixture with a crown trim that I'd painted antique white to match my cabinets. The quality of light is good, and aesthetically I think it looks better than punching a bunch of holes in the ceiling and creating the downlight cave effect.

I will say, however, that the LED retrofit fixture I saw two weeks ago didn't produce much of a scallop image on the wall. I think this will wind up being the solution of choice for people in napagirl's situation.

FYI napagirl, how high is your ceiling? David mentioned indirect lighting, and that combined with task lighting is the best way to avoid shadows if that is your primary concern.

Here is a link that might be useful: A decorative linear fluorescent fixture that I like.

I wonder whether larger linear fluorescent fixtures don't suffer most from being associated with workplaces. They're so much more efficient that fluorescents are a no-brainer for most businesses, but few people want home to feel like work.

Another thing is that, while most people have negative associations with the terms 'shadows' and 'glare,' these qualities aren't always bad. Shadows also can provide a sense of depth and texture, and a little bit of glare can also be called 'sparkle.' I disagree with the implication that even, shadowless light is somehow the be-all and end-all of artificial lighting.

That said, one of the best-lit kitchens I've ever been in is owned by my brother's in-laws. It's a U-shaped kitchen about 10' square, built in the early '70s or late '60s. The cabinets are hung under soffits, and on the soffits are old T12 tubes that go all the way around the room. The soffits themselves are completely hidden behind rice paper-like diffusers supported by a delicate wood structure. The structure is shaped such that the diffusers protrude horizontally about 6", then angle towards the ceiling at maybe a 70 degree angle; you might say it looks as if the cabinets were suspended from a giant Frank Lloyd Wright-inspired light fixture. Light goes both out into the room and straight down onto the counters. It feels like being outdoors, with light coming from everywhere.

danimal,
Thanks for your comments and the link to the surface mounted fixture. While it is an improvement over the fixture my mother had in 1956, its still not what I want to see in my kitchen. FYI, my ceilings are 8', room is 13.5 x 18, and only 3 small wall cabinets.

Jon1270,
Appreciate your response and description of your BIL's kitchen lighting system.

Jon,

I think you're on to something with the "office associations." I have no clue how to fix that, but your brother in law's scheme sounds AWFULLY nice.

You're right that shadows can be a good thing. As I said above, direct light is just the ticket for making wood grain look gorgeous and deep. Cans are thus good for accents.

Maybe it's my age that causes me to be so strongly in favor of even light. When I was younger I loved the "cave" look (good term!). They are still OK for some rooms. But increasingly as I make my way though my fifties, I find more and more times that dang it, I can't see! I want more light, and little pools of brightness just don't do the job. I want to walk over and flip on an overhead fluorescent so I can bloody well SEE what I'm doing.

So, you 20-somethings and 30-somethings building your house ... all I can say is that in 20-30 years you'll be ready to re-do your lighting, and NOT because fashions will have changed! ;-)

In this case, since flos are right out, I'd suggest more hanging and/or surface fixtures to produce more indirect light.

Actually it's my brother's in-laws' kitchen, i.e. my brother's MIL and FIL. Anyhow, the sad thing is that the MIL has become rather bored with the lovely lighting she's got. She's lived with it for years, raised her kids in the house and is looking for a change. At one point she was thinking of tearing it all out and putting in cans. (Go ahead and groan, David. I did.)

A big difference I see between incandescent and fluorescent cans is that fluorescents distribute light more evenly, meaning a higher proportion of their light goes towards the walls and cabinets rather than straight down onto the counter. In lighting-speak: if you were to compare the output of a can using a cfl with one using a halogen PAR lamp, both with the same lumen output, the CFL would have a lower candlepower at the middle of its "beam" and higher towards the edges. This is potentially beneficial insofar as it reduces the hotspot/scallop effect and makes it easier to see into upper cabinets, but also means that they don't give you the intensely lit work surface that incandescent reflector bulbs can. I think (though I haven't tried it yet) that a combination of fluorescents overhead with incandescent undercabinet lights could be a nice compromise; a flood of cheap, even light when you want it, and plenty of sparkle and depth and dimmability down by the counters where it does the most good.

RE: "This is potentially beneficial insofar as it reduces the hotspot/scallop effect and makes it easier to see into upper cabinets, but also means that they don't give you the intensely lit work surface that incandescent reflector bulbs can. I think (though I haven't tried it yet) that a combination of fluorescents overhead with incandescent undercabinet lights could be a nice compromise; a flood of cheap, even light when you want it, and plenty of sparkle and depth and dimmability down by the counters where it does the most good."

That's exactly what we found after we replaced the incandescent R30s with CFLs in our kitchen.

This is a lousy shot, but it shows the 4 cans for fill, accent and mood, under-counter mini-halogen task for work at the sides and back, and the pendants (with Edison replica carbon filament bulbs) for task at the island, when needed.

I have recently replaced R20 incandescent bulbs in 4" recessed cans with R20 CFLs in a couple of rooms (not the kitchen) and could find NO R20 CFLs that are instant-on. So when the switch is flipped, there is a quick, bright flash of light, then the bulbs go very dim and slowly (60-90 sec., seems like forever) return to full brightness. DH HATES these bulbs, but I like that they are cooler and more energy efficient. Hopefully bulbs will be developed in the near future that fix this issue, but for now, this "feature" should be added to the negatives for using replacement CFLs.

I do understand the issues raised about aging eyes and appreciate my overhead fluorescents in the kitchen more than ever (I just dislike the look now instead of hating them) LOL. In shopping for new fixtures to update our mid-80s home, I've noticed the puff cloud fluorescents are pretty decent looking, at least for a contemporary home.

Variety of ceiling-mount fluorescents available

Finally, here is a link to some very creative kitchen lighting ideas that may inspire you.

Creative kitchen lighting ideas

Good luck!