Incandescent bulb ban thread:4-25 Canada becomes second country to ban the bulbs

[NTB]

The bulbs *can* be recycled - you know that, right? Unfortunately the company actively doing this right now is IKEA.

Nathan

 

[highwire]

I have a solution.

Since almost every element - good or bad - is in every shovelful of dirt if you are talking about parts per trillion, don't worry about throwing cfl's away. Just refrain from eating them. And, don't OD on ocean fish either. Both contain mercury.

 

[dmcowen674]

Canada latest to ban incandescent light bulbs:

4-25-2007Canada joins incandescent light bulb ban

Canada will ban the sale of inefficient incandescent light bulbs by 2012 as part of a plan to cut down on emissions of greenhouse gases, Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn said on Wednesday.

Canada is the second country in the world to announce such a ban. Australia said in February it would get rid of all incandescent bulbs by 2009.

By banning inefficient lighting, we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by more than 6 million tonnes per year," Lunn said.

 

[shira]

My understanding is that mercury is used in CFLs because it enhances their energy efficiency. So the solution is obvious: Find a substitute for mercury in CFLs OR come up with an efficient CFL design that doesn't require mercury.

I'll bet this is a non-issue within two years.

 

[Zedtom]

I see a disturbing trend in new innovations triggering legislative actions. There are lawmakers jumping on this CFL bandwagon and rushing to ban incandescents. Then GE announces new technologies that can extend the life of the old bulbs.

I'm wondering if there are many products out there that could be produced with different components to make them last longer. Planned obsolescence is pervasive in the electronics field due to new breakthroughs, but what if manufacturer's were holding back on revamping old inventions?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
I see a disturbing trend in new innovations triggering legislative actions. There are lawmakers jumping on this CFL bandwagon and rushing to ban incandescents. Then GE announces new technologies that can extend the life of the old bulbs.

I'm wondering if there are many products out there that could be produced with different components to make them last longer. Planned obsolescence is pervasive in the electronics field due to new breakthroughs, but what if manufacturer's were holding back on revamping old inventions?

The problem with incandescents is energy use, not bulb life - they're so cheap no one cares how long they last, and I'm pretty sure they *could* be recycled, again, if anyone cared.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zedtom
I see a disturbing trend in new innovations triggering legislative actions. There are lawmakers jumping on this CFL bandwagon and rushing to ban incandescents. Then GE announces new technologies that can extend the life of the old bulbs.

I'm wondering if there are many products out there that could be produced with different components to make them last longer. Planned obsolescence is pervasive in the electronics field due to new breakthroughs, but what if manufacturer's were holding back on revamping old inventions?

Cars are the biggest "hold backs" of all.

We went form 50 mpg back to 20-30 on purpose.

 

[FoBoT]

i throw all my CFL's into the trash

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is stupid. In every situation, all the options will have certain drawbacks. That's not the point. The point is whether or not those drawbacks are worse or better than the drawbacks you get with the other options. The anti-environmentalist folks are getting a good chuckle out of this, but considering that CFC bulbs are about 4x as efficient as the best incandescents on the market, and considering that most of our power is generated by profoundly dirty technologies, I'd still say it counts as a win.

The problem here is that environmentlist are often their own worst enemy as they are unable to accept any better technology because they are unable any thing that is bad for the environment. And considering wal-mart is planning to sell a 100M of these bulbs this year, i think there is going to be plenty of chuckles to go around.

Yes I think this is a win and any mercury problems could be easily solved with education and recycling.

I'm sure every environmentalist has been holding 'break your CFL' parties. :roll:

Industry caused the problem in much the same way that electronics manufacturers have. They have no concern for the toxic nature of their products at the end of a useful cycle. More often than not they then RESIST initiatives that require them to plan for disposal. In essence, the problems:
1) lack of accountability by manufacturers
2) ignorant society
3) government that fails miserably at oversight for #1 and accurate information for #2

Most Americans (that don't support BS agendas) would do the right thing if they were well informed. It's a shame you couldn't limit your post to the final sentence (without the preceding trollage).

 

[Jiggz]

I don't understand what's the big deal with mercury in CFL's! We've been using regular fluorescent bulbs for more than 100 years and it contains more mercury than CFL's! We recycled the regular fluorescents so why can't we do the same with CFL'? Office buildings and most hotels still use the regular fluorescent bulbs, but I have yet to read or hear about someone dying of mercury poisoning from fluorescent bulbs, let alone CFL's.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: Rainsford
This is stupid. In every situation, all the options will have certain drawbacks. That's not the point. The point is whether or not those drawbacks are worse or better than the drawbacks you get with the other options. The anti-environmentalist folks are getting a good chuckle out of this, but considering that CFC bulbs are about 4x as efficient as the best incandescents on the market, and considering that most of our power is generated by profoundly dirty technologies, I'd still say it counts as a win.

The problem here is that environmentlist are often their own worst enemy as they are unable to accept any better technology because they are unable any thing that is bad for the environment. And considering wal-mart is planning to sell a 100M of these bulbs this year, i think there is going to be plenty of chuckles to go around.

Yes I think this is a win and any mercury problems could be easily solved with education and recycling.

I'm sure every environmentalist has been holding 'break your CFL' parties. :roll:

Industry caused the problem in much the same way that electronics manufacturers have. They have no concern for the toxic nature of their products at the end of a useful cycle. More often than not they then RESIST initiatives that require them to plan for disposal. In essence, the problems:
1) lack of accountability by manufacturers
2) ignorant society
3) government that fails miserably at oversight for #1 and accurate information for #2

Most Americans (that don't support BS agendas) would do the right thing if they were well informed. It's a shame you couldn't limit your post to the final sentence (without the preceding trollage).

That was truth, not trollage.

Wind power, kills birds
solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)
hydro, causes problems with fish
CFL, mercury problems
.....
do you get my point yet, or do you want me to continue?

 

[Colt45]

Normal fluorescent bulbs have mercury too. Don't see the breakthrough here.

 

[tw1164]

Just take your bulbs to Ikea for recycling.

 

[Mxylplyx]

So....if we cant throw them away when we're done with them, what exactly are we supposed to do with them? I dont recall ever seeing a CFL disposal site.

 

[tw1164]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So....if we cant throw them away when we're done with them, what exactly are we supposed to do with them? I dont recall ever seeing a CFL disposal site.

Read the post above your's

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: tw1164

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
So....if we cant throw them away when we're done with them, what exactly are we supposed to do with them? I dont recall ever seeing a CFL disposal site.

Read the post above your's

Oh, I only have to drive 2 1/2 hrs to dispose of them. Nevermind then.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: charrison
That was truth, not trollage.

Wind power, kills birds
solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)
hydro, causes problems with fish
CFL, mercury problems
.....
do you get my point yet, or do you want me to continue?

Anything is better tahn oil at this point, anything.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
That was truth, not trollage.

Wind power, kills birds
solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)
hydro, causes problems with fish
CFL, mercury problems
.....
do you get my point yet, or do you want me to continue?

Anything is better tahn oil at this point, anything.

I agree. We should be building nuclear plants left and right, and investing heavily in research on next generation batteries, but dont think we should just push ahead with whatever alternative energy resource looks good on the surface. It seems like every time environmentalists rush ahead with something without much study, unintended consequences slap them in the face.

 

[manowar821]

Stupid SOBs, there's just as much poisonous materials in an incandescent. Look it up for yourselves, I'm tired of trying to convince arrogant a-holes.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Stupid SOBs, there's just as much poisonous materials in an incandescent. Look it up for yourselves, I'm tired of trying to convince arrogant a-holes.

Angry much??

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
That was truth, not trollage.

Wind power, kills birds
solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)
hydro, causes problems with fish
CFL, mercury problems
.....
do you get my point yet, or do you want me to continue?

Anything is better tahn oil at this point, anything.

I agree. We should be building nuclear plants left and right, and investing heavily in research on next generation batteries, but dont think we should just push ahead with whatever alternative energy resource looks good on the surface. It seems like every time environmentalists rush ahead with something without much study, unintended consequences slap them in the face.

Sacrebleu!

Wind power kills birds so you alter designs to minimize collisions (height, sonic deterrence, lights at night) and avoid nesting/migration areas.

Solar power takes up too much land? Wow! That's rich . . . trollage. If you ask groups such as the Sierra Club I imagine they are MUCH stronger advocates for passive solar home designs and use of panels on homes. I'm sure they would like improved commercial solar energy production but I doubt they would advocate cutting down a forest to do it.:roll:

Hydroelectric harms ecosystems so you design in mitigation and avoid certain rivers altogether.

CFLs have mercury so you levy a fee on production to pay for disposal and you educate the public. I'm sure some people still pour motor oil on the ground or down a drain so I guess we should all just walk? Hmm . . . that's not a bad idea.

It's beyond ignorant to claim environmentalists are to blame for what the 'typical' power company or light bulb manufacturer chooses to do.

Environmentalists and public health advocates did NOT put mercury in thermometers . . . but they did get it OUT of thermometers. Some of you really need to get a clue. Making arguments of idiocy just prove your competence at nonsense.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: charrison
That was truth, not trollage.

Wind power, kills birds
solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)
hydro, causes problems with fish
CFL, mercury problems
.....
do you get my point yet, or do you want me to continue?

Anything is better tahn oil at this point, anything.

I agree. We should be building nuclear plants left and right, and investing heavily in research on next generation batteries, but dont think we should just push ahead with whatever alternative energy resource looks good on the surface. It seems like every time environmentalists rush ahead with something without much study, unintended consequences slap them in the face.

Sacrebleu!

Wind power kills birds so you alter designs to minimize collisions (height, sonic deterrence, lights at night) and avoid nesting/migration areas.

Solar power takes up too much land? Wow! That's rich . . . trollage. If you ask groups such as the Sierra Club I imagine they are MUCH stronger advocates for passive solar home designs and use of panels on homes. I'm sure they would like improved commercial solar energy production but I doubt they would advocate cutting down a forest to do it.:roll:

Hydroelectric harms ecosystems so you design in mitigation and avoid certain rivers altogether.

CFLs have mercury so you levy a fee on production to pay for disposal and you educate the public. I'm sure some people still pour motor oil on the ground or down a drain so I guess we should all just walk? Hmm . . . that's not a bad idea.

It's beyond ignorant to claim environmentalists are to blame for what the 'typical' power company or light bulb manufacturer chooses to do.

Environmentalists and public health advocates did NOT put mercury in thermometers . . . but they did get it OUT of thermometers. Some of you really need to get a clue. Making arguments of idiocy just prove your competence at nonsense.

Many environmentalists have a knee jerk reaction to something, and push for an alternative without studying about or caring about the consequences. A slow, measured approach needs to be taken when changing an entire society over to a new technology. Mercury problems with CFL's might not be a huge issue now, but if every single bulb in this country were converted to it, it could become a major problem. Hell, just look at the kneejerk reaction to ban DDT. Millions of people, mostly poor Africans, have paid for that one with their lives, since they banned it without developing an effective alternative. The push for corn based ethanol, which given it's low energy yield is probabably worse for the environment than oil after the cultivation is factored in, has raised the prices of corn, the staple of Mexico's diet, out of the reach of many of it's poor. Just because something is an alternative to what we have, doesnt mean it's better and without it's own problems.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: manowar821
Stupid SOBs, there's just as much poisonous materials in an incandescent. Look it up for yourselves, I'm tired of trying to convince arrogant a-holes.

Angry much??

Yeah...

I don't like when people start complaining about things they know nothing about.

 

[piasabird]

Maybe we should reengineer houses so the lights are 12 volts.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: piasabird
Maybe we should reengineer houses so the lights are 12 volts.

That would be too much work.