Toxic lightbulbs???

I haven't read anything about this issue. But it seems you are drawing very broad conclusions based on very limited facts/evidence. You may be right (about the lightbulbs, not the environmentalists "hidden" agenda), but let's get some more intel first. (Not trying to provoke you, just my observation based on knowing nothing more than what you put in your post)

It is about the lesser of two evils... the amount if mercury and noble gas in the tubes that can be potentially released weighed against the toxic chemicals being released into the environment to power the old kind from coal fired plants or poor nuclear waste storage, etc, etc, etc.

Environmentalists are not stupid Herb. Most live here, in the real world. There is no perfect solution, so you choose the one that does the least damage to the economy and environment both.

edit - here is one reason to use less power from coal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_mine_drainage

It is interesting that you talk about loosing freedom, but at the same time blame environmentalists instead of the people who throw light bulbs out - why do you not blame the consumers for their excesses? Because that is the real problem... not light bulbs and not the people trying to keep the damage these people cause to a minimum.

I know that this is not obvious but, burning coal actually liberates mercury. If you crunch the numbers (and do the mass balance), the reduction in electricity consumption via the use of CFLs reduces the net amount of mercury released into the environment even though a typical CFL contains 5 mg of Hg.

I know that this is not obvious but, burning coal actually liberates mercury. If you crunch the numbers (and do the mass balance), the reduction in electricity consumption via the use of CFLs reduces the net amount of mercury released into the environment even though a typical CFL contains 5 mg of Hg.

Very true, and a good point, although liquid mercury is known to end up at the bottom of waste sites, and can collect that way, so I wouldn't discount it altogether.

There's a few sites in Holland that used to have that, and since mercury is mutagenic I believe the stories from people seeing rabbits around them in the past, with wrong numbers of legs and even heads etc. This was way before Chernobyl, we're talking mid-seventies.

There is a difference between numbers atomized globally, and having a few hectoliters under your backyard. Minamata isn't as well known a name as Hiroshima, but the pics could be swapped, at times.

edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease

ORIGINAL: quantumeffect

I know that this is not obvious but, burning coal actually liberates mercury. If you crunch the numbers (and do the mass balance), the reduction in electricity consumption via the use of CFLs reduces the net amount of mercury released into the environment even though a typical CFL contains 5 mg of Hg.

I accept that as fact.

But, you might consider that like or not we are going to burn all that coal any way.

Then we'll finally focus enough funding to move on to a better technology.

Then we will regret burning all the coal and absolutely ruining the Appalachians.


Two wrongs do not make a right... no matter how fancy the math!!!

very best regards,
mike



edit spelling

I was kind of thinking that I don't like the idea of CFL's being imposed on us, it's happening here too Herb except we're being fed them as very properly 'Energy Efficient Lamps'... I'll be honest I knew nothing of their mecury content until you mentioned it here. It seems funny how we are told we are kept 'informed' when such an issue can be overlooked as we're ushered toward the Energy Efficiency aspect.

But then we've known for a long time about the innefficiency of incandescent (filament) lamps for years and done nothing about addressing it as individual citizens of the world preferring the cheap short term convience of these short circuit fuel burners, inevitably something had to give and now we get these 'government directive/issue' alternatives so I guess any imposition has been brought upon us by our own collective choices (or perhaps more accuratly lack of making a choice).

I pretty much agree with your summary at ramping up R&D in other areas of fuel production although for me fossil fuels need to be treated as sacred resources and nuclear should be pretty much ruled out until somebody discovers a way of actually dealing with the by-product now rather than letting the kids clear up the crap we left in the corner in years to come.

Perhaps it will take something like war time Britain when folk learned to grow their own produce from their own back yards to appreciate the REAL value of what we'll happily throw away with an appliance needlessy left on. I'd wager we'd all get pretty smart, a lot smarter than now, about our own private energy production/conservation real quick when there becomes a real and imminent threat to it showing up as easily as it does today.

Then we'll see the real innovators innovating.

Shad,
Is this going in the direction you have suggested you will prefer?

It seems like you've just initiated a conversation that you claim to not want to witness. Do you see what I mean?

Otherwise, I see the humor in it :-)

In any event, compact fluorescent bulbs are bad for music recording.... they buzz all over your guitar. Let's stay on topic :-) :-)


best regards,
mike

Jonbouy,

Thanks for sharing. As a child of the 60-70s in Florida EVERYONE knew about how bad flourescent tubes are. There was a decade where eating to much local fish could make you very very sick.

Most Floridians (and their land fill trash) live about 5 feet above our aquifer... and that aquifer quickly discharges right out into the bays and estuaries.

We had friends down in the keys living the life. It was a great mystery when they started showing up in Miami with chronic illness. Later the issue became very well known and we have large signs posted at all our land fills and all our public fishing access points. ( boat ramps, fishing piers, marinas. etc. )

It's a shame most of our access to communication is sponsored by corporate conglomerations. When you are inundated with propaganda it's difficult to stumble upon info that's not distributed for profit.

best regards,
mike

You guys inspired me to blog on this today, thanks: http://tabulacrypticum.wordpress.com/2009/04/01/a-compact-conundrum/

Plus, what is the energy required to produce a CFL vs a traditional incandescent? I don't have the numbers but it is a lot more. On balance... which is worse? I don't know. Plus CFLs never give the energy savings they claim except under specific lab conditions. In actual use they may last only 3-4x as long as incandescents. To top it off, they need proper ventilation to prevent overheating, and almost no one has them installed like that--with enough airflow over the top to vent away heat. Putting them in enclosed fixtures is a fire hazard as mike_mccue witnessed. Incansescents can withstand far higher temps than CFLs.

More broadly speaking, I suppose I'm what you'd call a 'greenie' but I also suspect that paper recycling produces more damaging chemicals as waste than making new paper. It's entirely possible that throwing away paper into a modern landfill is far better for the environment than recycling it. I've also heard it said that the only things that are actually beneficial to recycle are aluminum cans. On balance, everything else is a net loss in terms of economics and environmental damage. Do I believe it? I haven't decided. But there's a good case to be made. It's a complex issue.

You guys are looking at Coal. There is an abundance of natural gas and it is clean.

Doing the right thing is always good. However, there are environmentalists that say they are environmental just for the sake of making money. Nothing wrong with making money mind you.

Consider the electric car. Great idea right? But you have to charge the batteries.

How do you charge a battery?
You make electricity. Lets forget about coal for a minute and look at natural gas.
You make electricity from natural gas by burning gas to heat water to make steam to drive a turbine that generates AC electricity.
To charge a battery, you need DC. To effectively turn an axle, you need AC.

So, there are a bunch of steps in there. Conservation of energy. Anything given off as heat, sound... is all a loss in the process.

By comparison, you can convert cars to compressed natural gas or propane for about $2k. It is existing technology. It is clean.
But most importantly, the natural gas drives the engine directly as upposed to the gas->heat->steam->turbine->AC->DC-AC process. I have seen estimates that say that for every Mcf of natural gas used in a CNG powered vehicle, it would take 4-8x that much natural gas to create the electricity to charge a battery powered vehicle. AND - you dont have lead and other toxic issues to deal with in the disposal.

I know that the environmentalists are going to say "Wind, Solar..." But they are missing the point that if you doubled the installed base of wind and solar every year in the US (a very difficult task to double EVERY YEAR - try doing that with your paycheck), it would take between 15-30 years to power the country. AND you would still need natural gas when the wind wasn't blowing and the sun wasn't shining.

So the environmental efforts behind the battery powered car totally miss the point on where electricity comes from. It is a huge waste of natural gas that could be used on the car directly instead of indirectly.

There are lots of valid points made by some of the environmental groups. But they are very guilty of omitting the facts that do not support their case. Like the fact that Mars has global warming that follows Earth exactly. That argues that Global Warming is not entirely man made - unless we really do have people on Mars driving Tahoes.

Or the fact that glaciers around the world are growing - despite the Global Warming threats. Ditto for polar bear populations.

There is a lot of pop science in this. Yes CO2 is up. But the cause and effect of Global Warming - if it is a permanent straight line - have NEVER EVER been proven. And, when I was about 20, people were screaming about the pending ice age.

There will always be people crying "the sky is falling". It is popular to predict doom. It gets a ton of media play.

I will stand by my assertion that Al Gore plays to the heart strings of people on this subject, but makes a buttload of cash from it. There is nothing wrong with making a profit. However, when I used to be a sell-side analyst in the stock market, or even now when I get on TV and say something about stocks I believe in, I am required by law to make a full disclosure of if we own the stock, get paid by the company, have relations to the company.... in other words, if I am telling you something I stand to profit from, I have to let you know that.

That is why the movie the Inconceivable Truth bothered me. If Al had told people "Hey I am the CEO of a company that makes a killing trading carbon offset credits" before he launched into the slide show, it would have been more sincere.

And, I will stand by my belief that trading carbon offset credits does not solve the CO2 emission issue. Companies that pollute can buy credits from companies that do not pollute. That to me is analogous to being a serial rapist but donating to the National Organization of Women, or being a member of the KKK but donating to the NAACP. You are paying for your sins, but you are not stopping sinning. I totally do not get that concept, other than Al can make a fortune from it.

We should all do stuff that protects our planet. But we should do it for the right reasons and with the right consequences in mind. Pop science and media does not educate people. People educate people. Learn all of the facts you can and decide for yourself. Do not rely on other people's opinions. They could be wrong.

As for me, well the ice age I heard about in the 70s has not happened, or did i miss it?

I agree and don't agree. My only agenda is that people look at all the info. And Paid Pundits like Fox???? Uh, have you watched the other channels? Wow!.

Many glaciers are growing in the most recent two years. Ignoring it is wrong. Search Google. There are tons of threads. Some pro, some con, but enough data points that the Global shrinkage of glaciers is not a substantiable claim. BE CAREFUL OF THE DATES ON THE DATA. Some of the MOST RECENT data contradicts the popular claim. They were retreating. Is the growing a temporary phenomenon or permanent? I don't know. No one else does either. But the data from some of the biggest studies are vintage 2002-2003 - not that old, but not current either. Ignoring new data is not science. Never was and never will be. The scientific method means adjusting your thesis for new observations.

On Global Warming - Scientists do not agree on what the cause is. Again, do a Google search. It is a heated debate amongst some very smart people. The Global Warming agenda completely ignores the data on the variations in the sun's temperature and the impact it is having on Mars as well as Earth.

And No one on the Humans cause Global Warming wants to consider variability of the Sun's output. Again, do a Google search. There is a ton of info out there.

There are too many contradicting pieces of evidence to prove one side or the other is right. I am willing to go with the thesis that "Man is part of it. Nature is part of it". It is interesting how people dig in on the "Man is all of it" side and ignore other contradicting facts. But then, I spent 12 years as a scientist and understand the importance of using ALL of the info, not just that which supports my arguement.

It does not support that humans solely reponsible. I spent 12 years as an engineer. Science is a big hobby of mine. I read probably more than anyone I know.

I cannot stomach CNN. There is no balance there, but that is a different issue. I read news basically 10 hours a day. It is part of my job. I read news directly from the news wires. They are not filtered but are just the facts.

ORIGINAL: Guitarhacker

Pretty soon, we, here in the USSA are not going to have the freedom to choose and buy any type of lightbulb we desire. It seems we are being mandated to buy only the Compact Florescent Lightbulbs... aka CFL's.... incedescent lights will be unavailable soon....even though they have no toxic chemicals and metals in them..... not like the CFL's.

So, you're saying old-fashioned incandescents are going to be outlawed soon? I need to read more about this -- can you tell me where it's been reported? Not trying to be argumentative, I just don't watch television news.

Thanks Texrat. I see a link in your blog to a 2+ year-old article about California maybe considering a bill to ban incandescents. Did that bill pass? Has anybody else in the U.S. passed such a bill? A little Googling turned up a ban in Australia and others being considered in Europe and Canada.

There are a lot of applications where CFLs aren't a good choice for technical reasons, at least until the technology improves. I wonder if those uses are exempted?