We all have been told that the humble incandescent bulb is bad and the Compact Fluorescent Lamp (CFL) is good.
Why...?
Well it all has to do with how much energy is required to make light and a CFL is more energy efficient than the light bulb. So less energy, means less pollution and that's the reasoning.
That is the "dumbed down" argument fed to us from the government and the lighting industry so we would switch to CFLs with little thinking required on our part.
However...
In doing the switch from common light bulbs to CFLs do we trade one form of pollution for another one and will we have to do a complete switch over again later?
In short, Yes.
Mercury is necessary for any fluorescent lamp whether it is the familiar fluorescent tube lamp or CFL. Batteries containing mercury were banned as they pollute landfills hence our environment and people just didn't dispose or recycle them properly enough to protect the environment. Keep that last bit in mind.
The argument that the use of CFLs are safe has been their proper disposal and handling. Keep this also in mind - when a common light bulb burns out or breaks just clean it up and toss it out - easy.
The proper way to handle a broken CFL
Open the windows and let the room air out for 15 to 30 minutes, then remove as much material as possible without a vacuum cleaner. Using disposable gloves, scoop the glass onto a piece of cardboard and wipe the area with a wet paper towel. For smaller pieces of glass and powder, use duct tape to pull up the fragments and wash your hands after cleaning up the debris.
HAZMAT suits would seem to be a plus in this situation! Check ebay and get the family to suit up!
Reach for the disposable gloves, cardboard, duct tape and paper towels...? Not only do they have a "carbon footprint" which must be factored in but they are also contaminated and will need processing before recycling, so what of that energy? Isn't that wasted?
What of the energy required to take the broken CFL to the recycling centre? Are we meant to walk or ride a bike or should we have a Hazardous waste disposal unit in our house - and what of the energy to create that? its plastic after all...
What if its winter or summer and in the process of "airing out the room for 15~30 minutes" we have to then re-heat or cool the room later...what about that energy? Isn't that energy wasted? Best be careful with CFLs - think C4.
Light bulbs are looking better...
The proper method to dispose a CFL
Check if your local recycling centre has services available for CFL disposal by calling directly, or such retail giants such as Home Depot and Wal-Mart, IKEA and so on accept them. It is illegal to dispose of them in the rubbish in many countries
So now how do we get the burned out CFLs to Home Depot and Wal-Mart, IKEA and so on - they won't come to you so hop in the car and drive over there! What about that energy? Isn't that wasted? Oh - we are meant to take them with us next time we shop there...sounds like they also like getting us in the door. Better be careful transporting them, you don't want them to break - so for you and your family's safety as well as the environment you better bring your HAZMAT gear along as well.
What about China, India and other developing countries? Don't even think for a second that there are any special handling or disposal methods for CFLs - they just get tossed in with all the other rubbish - millions of them.
Seems that batteries containing mercury were so much easier to handle and dispose of. In volume batteries are so much less than lights to worry about for the average family. Additionally, batteries don't break like a CFL requiring HAZMAT like procedures for clean up. Nevertheless enough people still could not be bothered to dispose of them properly that so they were banned - outright - end of story.
Another concern is the demand for mercury - it's mined. Enter the CFL - a new industry with millions of CFLs produced per day - all needing mercury. You might say the mercury is recycled - think back to China and India...CFLs not recycled. Good, after a while mercury could be mined from the land fills.
Seems when we "un-dumb" the argument for the wholesale switching from the common light bulb (even the banning of same) to CFLs there are many things that haven't been thought out well enough - by us, the consumer.
So are we now looking through the crystal ball to a time when we will have to yet again switch from environment polluting CFLs to yet another form of lighting?
All hail, we welcome the LED* overlords!
Cheers
*Even more polluting!
Instead of putting the cart in front of the horse - non polluting energy is the solution.
Well
Even if consumers stop buying CFLs for use in their own homes, corporations will still be buying fluorescent tubes to light offices and factories. There is simply no way to avert that, because if you would want to switch those tubes for good ol' incandescent bulbs, it would not only increase energy consumption because of the ineficciency of the bulbs, but also you would have to increase the Air Conditioning on account of the heat these lights generate.
And what about the mercury in the LCD monitor of your computer?
But let's study this: What's the amount of mercury these CFLs have? Philips' homepage states their CFLs have less than 1.4mg. Regulations state the lights cannot have more than 5mg, and the goal is to have mercury-free CFLs by 2020.
By comparison, how many tons of carbon does a single incandescent bulb consumes during its lifetime?
As in anything the human race does, there are no perfect solutions, for anything. You want a completely energy-free lighting source? Read your newspaper sitting on a park bench on a sunny day. And when night falls, go to sleep.
I do not know if the grudge towards CFLs stems from their imperfection, which is nevertheless a valid argument, or rather the annoyance in the thought that corporations profit from consumers' decission, something they will always do anyway, no matter they sell you energy-efficient cars, cigarettes or alcohol beverages.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
mercury
Dentists used to fill your teeth with silvery looking stuff, that turned black after some years.
This stuff consisted in large part of mercury. In your mouth. The various dental researchers said that this material does no corrode. With my 2nd year college chemistry, I must ask them, if it does not corrode, why does it turn from silver to black?
There was a law in Germany that when you pulled out a tooth, filled with this compound, it had to be disposed of properly. In a toxic waste site. But at the same time, the recommended treatment was filling holes in patients' teeth with this toxic stuff.
Why? Because it was the cheapest method.
Also my father, a dentist, drilled out a lot of these things with high speed drills. 500,000 rpm. He did this to replace the fillings with a more benign material.
You cannot tell me that the material does not evaporate with that force. He was breathing mercury.
My dad died of something that seemed like Alzheimer's. But it also was quite consistent with heavy metal poisoning.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Trial and error
All human endeavours advance from trial and error.
When Americans first discovered oil in the West, they didn't first make the Energy connection. Instead they seeked to profit from it in a more American way: They bottled it and sold it as a health tonic.
Thousands of bottles were sold. And possibly consumed.
PS: I'm sorry about your father
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Still
Commercial use of fluorescents is a given, and has been for years and years. Businesses are more apt to conform to disposal regulations than consumers - except in India and China (what'l gonna do...Duh-Oh)
The point being made is now there is a large usage spike for fluorescent lighting that wasn't there before and in an area of society - consumers - who are not know for following disposal regulations. :|
It is better to keep the fluorescent lamps in the commercial arena and not allow it to percolate into common home usage for all reasons previously stated.
You quote Phillips CFLs mercury dosage which is fine however not all CFLs are made by Philips. The issue with that is what regulations do China CFL manufactures follow? For the average Chinese person Phillips CFLs or its equivalent are not even considered as they are too expensive. They buy "Hu-Nos" CFLs which are very cheap and nasty. What of the factories producing the "Hu-Nos" CFLs? I am sure they are following regulations. (Yeah sure - I work in China).
Is the damage wrought on our environment by CFLs less than the damage by incandescent lamps? What is the "carbon footprint" of CFL manufacture AND disposal compared to incandescent lamps?
Its simple to make a light bulb: glass envelope, glass stem, filament, "dumet" (copper/nickel or Iron) wire, brass base, tin solder.
Its more complex for a CFL - circuit board with discrete electronic components, plastic - or composite housing, electrode assemblies, halophosphors, glass tube, base, tin solder and mercury.
It is commonly argued that the use incandescent lamps causes more mercury in the environment from coal burning power generation than the mercury contained in a CFL.
What is not mentioned:
1/ Is that in the US (for example) not all power generation comes from coal fired power plants - so there is no mercury from a power generation source.
2/ CFL life is significantly shorter if it is turned off and on often as one would do with a incandescent lamp when entering and leaving a room. In fact with cheaper CFLs the burnout time if used in this manner is equal to incandescent lamps! (Try a flasher on a CFL to see this in action)
3/ The "carbon footprint" comparison for the manufacture and disposal of CFLs and incandescent lamps.
4/ The increase of "electronic waste" in landfills - circuit boards and their components
Yes we are living in an imperfect world, however do we need to make it more imperfect? We are adept in working around problems instead of solving them. The problem is power generation - fix that instead of creating more problems with "work arounds".
Mercury free CFLs?
That is not possible in a phosphor coated glass discharge tube. The mercury, as a vapour, when ionised emits strong UV lines with the 254nm line one of the strongest (UVC). The phosphor coating the inside of the tube absorbs the UV and emits visible light. This is called UV conversion in the industry. Unless there is another source of UV for the phosphors other than mercury the phosphors will not emit light, excepting electron impacts from the lamp current.
There are hybrid CFLs - conventional fluorescent discharge tube and LED. LEDs are semiconductors and their manufacture involves the use of some of the nastiest chemical processes known. Anyone who works in the semiconductor industry knows this.
So what happens when billions of CFLs are swaped for even billions more LEDs? What is there to recycle in a LED? Nothing - its epoxy - off to the land fills with you.
Nothing like treating the symptoms and not the disease, isn't there?
Cheers
I get snarky ...
... when humble home-owners are constantly told how wasteful they are being in using incandescent lights and how we should all 'help the environment' by using CFLs. In a fit of zeal I bought a few once, put them in my lamps, and gave them away the next day. They were the strongest I could buy (supposedly equivalent to 100W output), but they turned my house into something resembling a third-rate doss-house saving money with 40W bulbs.
Why don't they target all those city office tower blocks that are lit up like Christmas trees 24/7 (with all the computers running as well, even though the staff have gone home)? That would sure reduce the demand on power, and ordinary people could be left with a decent incandescent light.
Regards, Kathrinn
24/7 Office lighting
The light from a CFL only approximate the light from an incandescent lamp. For example butter has a greenish hue under CFL light.
CLFs and fluorescent lighting have filaments which are the electrodes in which an electric current passes through argon gas and mercury vapour. These electrodes are called "hot cathode electrodes". Every time you turn on a CFL or fluorescent lamp these hot cathode electrodes heat up before the current can flow through the argon / mercury vapour. In doing this the hot cathode electrode wears so eventually it will fail.
The more on / off cycles for a florescent lamp the quicker it will fail - and significantly so! If you turn a CFL lamp on and off 10 times a day it will "burn out" in a very short time.
If however the florescent lamp is not switched off it's life is greatly increased, so much so that the cost of the electricity is much less than the cost of replacing the lamp. This is why office buildings and large stores keep the lights on.
Another fact regarding florescent lamps and CFLs is the light output is not constant. A new CFL will be brightest within the first 50 to 100 hours after that the light output lessens over time perhaps up to 30% of when it was new. Try it - after a few months of use compare that CFL to new CFL. Gee!
Over time the UV from the mercury discharge in the lamp slowly damages the the phosphors coating the glass wall that produce the light we see. With cheaper CFLs this happens much quicker than the high end CFLs.
The amount of mercury dosage in the CFL also greatly affects the light output. Over use the mercury is absorbed by the phosphor, glass and electrodes and as such does not participate in the production of UV which is necessary to produce the light we see. This contributes to the dimming of a CFL over time. While it is preferred to use less mercury for environmental reasons it is at the cost of brightness over the life of the lamp. The dark stains at the ends of the lamp is the metal from the electrodes and mercury.
Cheers
Treating the symptoms
Treating the symptom would be fairly easy: Use less energy. But that would mean revert to the XVIII century. Because we're not only talking about folks in their homes turning uff their TVs and fridges, but business and offices that are producing money and maintaining the economy would have to stop operating during the late hours of the night. That of course could be solved even more easily: Massive layoffs.
Businesses are more apt to conform to disposal regulations than consumers - except in India and China (what'l gonna do...Duh-Oh)
Maybe you're thinking in big-mammoth-corporation terms, but little and medium-levels offices hardly care about the disposal regulations of their waste. At least that's what I see here in Latin America.
But to be fair, you have to agree that CFLs are sturdier than a regular bulb. Harder to break.
They buy "Hu-Nos" CFLs which are very cheap and nasty. What of the factories producing the "Hu-Nos" CFLs? I am sure they are following regulations. (Yeah sure - I work in China).
Agreed, but here we're talking of a different, or perhaps broader issue. One that really has nothing to do with CFLs, but with corrupt governments who only care about maintaining an steady economy no matter what. I see that in Latin America aswell, and so things that should work in a real democracy end up screwed up when "tropicalized" toother nations. It's an endemic problem that goes far beyond enviromental issues and CFL technology.
Its simple to make a light bulb: glass envelope, glass stem, filament, "dumet" (copper/nickel or Iron) wire, brass base, tin solder.
Err... no. The "filament" is made of a metal called tungsten or wolfram. From Wikipedia we read:
See? Even your good ole Edisonian light bulbs have their own skeletons in the closet ;-)
Its more complex for a CFL - circuit board with discrete electronic components, plastic - or composite housing, electrode assemblies, halophosphors, glass tube, base, tin solder and mercury.
I agree 100% with the circuit-board issue. It is a problem that goes beyond CFLs. Indeed even if we dumped those we still have the problem of all our beloved electronic gadgets we've grown so dependent on. This is a high-priority problem that most be solved.
It's not that I'm a CFL advocate or anything. What I'm trying to say here is that, as you said in the end, we humans are short-sighted animals. We create a problem and usually go for the quickest solution without actually going to the root of the issue. CFLs were not the solution, but were a palliative until we solved the other larger problems like energy generation or finding better thecnology. LEDs really are a better approach. Once again not perfect, but as I said earlier, nothing we humans do is perfect.
So we have 2 choices: either we go back to the stone age and generate the kind of pollution our cousins the Neandertals used to do when cooking their mammoth ribs, or we use our brains to slowly—and thorugh trial & error—solve the problem.
But as you and I have already glimpsed. The REAL problem here is not pollution. The real core of it all is greed and the lack of care for our fellow human beings, that's what brought us up until this point. That's an issue that won't be solved with any amount of R&D.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Still treating the symtoms...
With reference to the incadecent light bulb and their skeletons in the closet.
CFLs have two of them...with barium strontium carbonates as an emission coating. In fact there is just as much tungsten in a CFL as a incandescent bulb as the electrodes in a CFL have to be rather robust than a incandescent lamp which is thin.
I should point out about now I have worked in the lighting, neon and fluorescent industry for about 25 years. :)
The treatment of the disease is consumption and that genie cannot be put back into the bottle without a fight.
The fight is if we can as consumers start using our brains so we can stop being the sheep that the government and industries think we are. We need to stand up and say "BULLSHIT we aren't buying this line any more!"
If CFLs are really the answer then let the government pay us to use them instead of light bulbs. Thats right, let the government put its money where its mouth is - if CFLs are the replacement for light bulbs then they should cost the same and they should take them away when they are burned out.
It will never happen because it is all BULLSHIT and they know it! LOL! Australia actually has stated that CFLs will be the only light available in the future and the light bulb will be no more! Gee-whiz!
Is this what we really want? Baaaaaa Baaaaa greeen greeen bah! bullshit! Democratic governments are the will of the people - look that up in Wiki. "People" being the operative word not "sheep".
So there! I haven't had my coffee yet... :)
Cheers
I hear you
And I do understand your argument. Believe me.
So the main question is this: How do we, consumers, express our opinions to the governments and the powers at be, in a way that really works and actually produces a perceivable change?
Right now we're having a "democratic" discussion about the oil crisis hre in Mexico. We need to have some foreign (or private) investment injected into the federal oil industry, but some politicians are quickly playing the fear card on many poorly-educated citizens to prevent that. It is really laughable, they say protecting the oil industry is Paramount to our national sovereignity, and yet the Cuban government has had the insight to permit foreign invesment inside their energy infrastructure. The Cubans!
Ok, I'm digressing a little bit. Must be the Tequilas I had earlier ;-) So what would you propose? Use incandescent bulbs instead, and when they're not available, rely on wax candles? What is really the alternative?
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
Democracy
People get the government they deserve
For democracy to work the people for whom the government serves must be involved with what the government does.
In the US this would be writing / calling / emailing the local representative (Congressman or Senator) voicing their opinion on what they want them to vote on / or action to take on an issue.
As people tend to think "What'll gonna do, Du-oh" and do nothing they have signed over their power to the elected official to do what they wish. So no use complaining about it later...you gave that power away.
Elections have devolved from any realistic power of the people to marketing. Such as the up coming presidential election. It might as well be an advertising campaign for laundry detergent. Who knows really what each candidate stands for other than what is perceived. Better to just vote from the hip and then grumble about it later.
Case and point: George Bush is going down in history as one of the most criticised and unpopular presidents but he was elected twice! He was supposed to be a "lame duck" president because the Congress is not a republican majority...WTF happened there?
Back to CFLs if people started NOT buying them then something would happen.
Has there been any difference in anyone's electricity bill that one can see from the change over to CFLs?
I did this and I'll be damned if there is any difference I can see. Turning on your electric stove uses up more power than all the lights in your home (+2000w there that's thirty three or more 60w bulbs).
Want to save power? Modify how you use your major electrical appliances as THAT does have an impact. Hang out your clothes instead of always using a dryer (2000watts there that's thirty three 60w bulbs). People will put one shirt in a dryer - hands up who has done this...
Running the AC when it really isn't that hot outside...(+1200watts there for each unit - that's twenty 60w light bulbs right there)
Instead of using the vacuum cleaner as a broom use the broom. (1200watts there - that's twenty 60w light bulbs right there)
All the CFL power saving statistics are misleading and slanted so you buy them thinking you are saving money. Want to see real power saving statistics? Stop using a dryer three times a week.
So go on, enjoy your good old light bulbs as it really doesn't matter one bit!
Cheers
This is where I get snarky again!
I quite agree with your sentiments tihz_ho - use less electrical equipment. Point is - I do. I mostly use a carpet sweeper rather than the vacuum cleaner, no equipment is left on stand-by ever, I use the washing machine once a fortnight and my clothes are always hung on a line outside as I've never owned a drier. I don't own many electrical kitchen gadgets as old-fashioned methods work just as well and more cheaply. My only indulgence is a coffee-brewing machine. As I stay up late, I do have 3 lamps on in my living area, and long ago downgraded the 100W incandescent bulbs to 75W ones.
I didn't do this to 'save the environment' - I did it to save on the cost of electricity, as I have to be very careful how much I spend on what.
I am constantly bombarded on the (little) TV I watch on all these 'energy saving tips' - the ones I already employ for my own reasons. Who thanks me for this? No-one, damn them.
I've tried writing letters to political representatives in the past about certain matters, but for all the good it did I might just as well not have wasted my time - they do what they want anyway.
Regards from a disgruntled Kathrinn!
Keep Up the Good Fight!
People love conspiracies - who is doing what to whom et al. We have a new powerful conspiracy sneaking up on us from where we would least expect it.
Green
Sounds to strange - just too way out there to be true but if you take a deep breath, clear the head...a few OMMMs later think about it. What is the single most driven marketing campaign out there for consumers to buy buy and buy, huh?
Green
Why do manufacturers have to put energy star ratings on appliances - shouldn't ALL of them just be as energy efficient as possible? Funny how the most energy efficient models are the MOST EXPENSIVE ones. Indeed. Why give us a choice to ge good...or evil...when buying a fridge?
This is where governments need to legislate - take the power gluttons out of the market if they want to do something positive with the environment? Or maybe its not really that big of an issue...makes you think only if you do think about...with a clear head that is.
No, the government and industry want YOU to sholder the burden of doing the "responsible" thing and BUY green products...out of guilt.
So do you want to get good and snarky? Just think about all this.
When a government needs some cash to do something it wants to do...hey where's the cheque book...ah hell where's the VISA card!
How many MILLIONS does teh IRAQ "war" cost the US each week? Almost a BILLION dollars? For what reason again...?
How much did China spend for the Olympics? 47 BILLION...?? And they needed help from other countries for the earthquake relief cause China is a developing country after all. What about Chinese children schools in 80% of China which look so "National Geographic".
Yep, "Green" sure got a beating from the "spin" experts - a couple more pictures of polar bears on a ice floe...that'l do fine.
Cheers
Power gluttons?!
"This is where the governments need to legislate - take the power gluttons out of the market ..."
Man, oh man!! These are the biggest power gluttons of all!! They are making a bloody fortune out of us - they at least have enough sense not to commit suicide!
(Now I'd better put on my tin-foil hat and hide in a cupboard out of sight!)
Regards, Kathrinn
You're right there.
Governments are the biggest power gluttons of them all - what ever happen to "lead by example"?.
Or, maybe its not as bad as we are lead to believe. More my point about governments legislating for (real) power economy instead of light bulbs...really!
Here is another thing that is screwing the planet...bottled water! The biggest marketing success story of them all! Many years ago I had a conversation with a person I knew who worked at Coca-Cola Amatil who said if they could only figure out how to just sell the water without doing anything to it. Of course it was meant as a joke as it was the 80's, and we all laughed...but now... Bottled water costs the same as a Coke! Now instead of drinking water from a glass we have a disposable plastic bottles!
Howd' that jingle go...? "I'd Like (you) to Buy The World a Coke...er...bottled water"
Cheers
Hope it's not too crowded in the cupboard...
Saving energy
Good points there. One thing I have never figured out is why the companies that produce electrical appliances have never sold the issue of all the juice wasted when these appliances are turned off.
If your turn off your TV/Computer/Stereo/Hair Dryer/Whatever, but you leave it plugged in, it still sucking up juice from the grid. Somehow noone has bothered to fix this, which is quite preposterous.
If the government demanded these companies to come up with a new electric plug that would REALLY disconnect the appliance from the grid when turned off, that would really save millions, help your personal pocket, and protect the emviroment.
-----
It's not the depth of the rabbit hole that bugs me...
It's all the rabbit SH*T you stumble over on your way down!!!
Red Pill Junkie
interesting factoid
My electric bills tell me, every 2 months, how much electricity I have consumed. And of course they also tell me how much money they want, but that is separate.
For February 2008, I was out of the house for 3 out of 4 weeks. A little more actually. I turned of everything except for the fridge. And I mean unplugged it, physically disconnect things from the wall sockets.
But of course the electric company told me that my consumption went up, compared to the previous year, when in 2007 I had lights burning, multiple computers running, 2 TVs on at the same time. And also I cook with electricity.
So apparently turning off your electric appliances increases your power consumption.
----
It is not how fast you go
it is when you get there.
Great policy
They used to have a great policy here in Oz. They read your electric meter every 3 months. The first X number of watts used cost more than the next Y number which cost more than the balance, whatever that might have been.
Only problem for consumers was that after reading the meter they divided the reading by 3 and charged each month's wattage usage separately (3 high amounts, 3 medium amounts and 3 of the rest).
Thus you could go away for 2 months out of the 3 and come home to a bill higher than if you had stayed at home, as your entire consumption had been charged at the higher rate. How's that for brilliance?!
They've stopped doing that now in favour of a (probably higher) flat rate, but instead charge a monthly fee for meter reading (despite the fact that they only read it once every 3 months).
Screwed whichever way you turn.
Still disgruntled (but there's plenty of room in the cupboard, thanks!). Kathrinn.
Disgruntled
Lovely post, Kathrinn. LOL. God bless you.
Thanks, Ben
Very kind of you.
Regards, Kathrinn