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

[BrownTown]

Actually there was a good graph on wiki about this and according to it the extra amount of mercury released from the coal plants powering the incandescent is more than the CF bulb contains, so really you aren't getting any more than normal. But like others have said, EVERYTHING can kill you, at some point you just gotta way "this is the best we have" and live with the consequences.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: 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.

:thumbsup:

I used to work at a hazardous waste 'broker' in Tulsa. We used to get thousands of normal fluorescent bulbs every month. They are way more fragile than CFL and we never had any problem handling them and getting them recycled.

CFL should be recycled for their ballasts as well as the mercury.

 

[Zorba]

As someone else already pointed out, burning coal to generate power produces a lot of mercury waste (as well as a lot of other crap).

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Zorba
As someone else already pointed out, burning coal to generate power produces a lot of mercury waste (as well as a lot of other crap).

I read somewhere that 96% of world mercury emissions are natural and seep out of the ocean. Humans only account for 4%. I think I read that in an article talking about how the mercury scare about fish is a bunch of crap.

 

[Zorba]

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.

Your local town or some town nearby probably has a 'Household Hazardous Waste' (or HHW) event at least once a year. You could take your CFLs, as well as any other chemical, there for free.

Originally posted by: 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.

The mercury in fluorescent bulb is what actually creates the light. The mercury is vaporized within the bulb, when they are exposed to an electrical current the atoms get 'excited' and produce light.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Zorba
As someone else already pointed out, burning coal to generate power produces a lot of mercury waste (as well as a lot of other crap).

I read somewhere that 96% of world mercury emissions are natural and seep out of the ocean. Humans only account for 4%. I think I read that in an article talking about how the mercury scare about fish is a bunch of crap.

You need to read a higher quality of material.

DHHS EPA

EPA FDA Advisory for Fertile Women, Pregnant Women, Nursing Mothers, and young Children

Why the Bush Regime sux!

* Also on March 15, 2005, in a separate but related action, EPA revised and reversed its December 2000 finding that it was ?appropriate and necessary? to regulate coal- and oil-fired coal-fired power plants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act. We are taking this action because we now believe that the December 2000 finding lacked foundation and because recent information demonstrates that it is not appropriate or necessary to regulate coal- and oil-fired utility units under section 112.

* EPA nevertheless believes it is important to regulate mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. For that reason EPA has signed two complementary rules ? CAIR and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, issued under sections 110(a)(2)(D) and 111 of the law, respectively. These rules will allow us to more effectively limit mercury emissions from these plants.

Thank goodness for environmentalists (and their legal teams) holding EPA's feet to the fire. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any regulations of substance.

 

[bsobel]

solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)

If your going to argue about solar, it should be that solar cells take more energy to produce (currently) than their usefull output over their lifetime (so your trading up front eneration for future generation). Saying that they take 'too much space' seems to suggest that efficency is ok only if no sacrafices need to be made.

Dislaimer, I run a solar system at the ranch (average about 4200kwh per month generation) and almost everthing is on CFL's (the Philip ALTO's which are low mercury, and dimmable) (<-- this must confuse Dave alot). I'm currently working on getting solar installed at the compound as well, albeit I have to reroof one of the builds before I can start.

Bill

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: bsobel

solar power, will take up too much land area(if not done a rooftop solar)

If your going to argue about solar, it should be that solar cells take more energy to produce (currently) than their usefull output over their lifetime (so your trading up front eneration for future generation). Saying that they take 'too much space' seems to suggest that efficency is ok only if no sacrafices need to be made.

Dislaimer, I run a solar system at the ranch (average about 4200kwh per month generation) and almost everthing is on CFL's (the Philip ALTO's which are low mercury, and dimmable) (<-- this must confuse Dave alot). I'm currently working on getting solar installed at the compound as well, albeit I have to reroof one of the builds before I can start.

Very nice :thumbsup:

Philips Alto Lamp Technology

You don't seem to support the oil barons, that has me

 

[Jiggz]

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.

It looks like you have the magic potion to all of the above, well let's hear about your magic potion with oil and petroleum, so we can continue to use oil without having to re-invent or re-discover what you mentioned above!

 

[BrownTown]

oil and petroleum have absolutely nothing to do with CFLs, I see people saying like we need nuclear or wind or solar to replace oil alot, and none of these technologies has anything to do with oil. Less than 1% of our electrical generation comes from oil, so using less electricity will do precisely nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Supporting CFLs is to get rid of COAL plants, the only way they can ever meet with oil is if we switch to electric cars.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
oil and petroleum have absolutely nothing to do with CFLs, I see people saying like we need nuclear or wind or solar to replace oil alot, and none of these technologies has anything to do with oil. Less than 1% of our electrical generation comes from oil, so using less electricity will do precisely nothing to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Supporting CFLs is to get rid of COAL plants, the only way they can ever meet with oil is if we switch to electric cars.

Oh sure use logic and actual facts in an P&N thread, how dare you

 

[bsobel]

You don't seem to support the oil barons, that has me

Of course it has you confused, you lump all people into one of two cateogories. Anyone who doesn't fit the strict molds you've defined for the 'left' or 'right' confuses you (and that is basically everyone).

Bill

 

[imported_Tango]

Does anybody know if the ban will be on normal domestic bulbs only? Will bulbs for specific uses where there isn't any alternative still be produced?

 

[Turgon77]

I exclusively use CF bulbs. I've never had one go bad in the 2 - 3 years of using them. My only problem is that they seem to take a few minutes to "warm up" and produce adequate brightness. Am I the only one that experiences this? Is there a brand that does not share this problem? I bought a generic brand (can't remember name) that Home Depot sells in a 6 pack.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Turgon77
I exclusively use CF bulbs. I've never had one go bad in the 2 - 3 years of using them. My only problem is that they seem to take a few minutes to "warm up" and produce adequate brightness.

Am I the only one that experiences this?

Is there a brand that does not share this problem? I bought a generic brand (can't remember name) that Home Depot sells in a 6 pack.

You can ask bsobel about the Philips bulbs he uses that are dimmable, maybe they fire up bright too?

Places where the warm up time is inconvenient I kepp one incadescent bulb like the three lights over the sink in the bathroom.

The center bulb I left a GE Reveal 60 watt bulb, then on each side of it have CFL's.

I suppose in the not too distant future I will be breaking a law having that GE bulb in the middle. Again I do not condone the taking away of choice.

 

[bsobel]

You can ask bsobel about the Philips bulbs he uses that are dimmable, maybe they fire up bright too?

About a 30 second warm up time total (I'd say they start at 45-50% brightness). They do warm up quick compared to many other bulbs, but not quick enough for some locations (e.g. we still have halogens in the stairway as by the time to transversed the stairs the CFL's wouldnt be 'up' yet).

Bill

 

[Turgon77]

Thanks for the replies. I guess the delay is worth the energy and cost savings. The mix idea sounds smart where instant light is needed.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Turgon77
Thanks for the replies. I guess the delay is worth the energy and cost savings.

The mix idea sounds smart where instant light is needed.

Welcome to P&N and you're welcome. :thumbsup:

 

[StageLeft]

I tried to jump on the CFL bandwagon in the past few months. Of 6 bulbs I bought, one died after about a month (so much for 7 years). The others are going, but they are still not quite as "soft" as incandescents, even though they were at the soft end of the spectrum on their packaging. Considering I live in a cooler climate and energy loss from incandescents relieves my furnace of some effort I'm in no great hurry to replace everything, though I will probably do it slowly as the Is die in my house.

I'm just being honest: when my CFLs die they will go straight to the trash just like cellphone batteries or anything else. I dispose of car oil properly, but that's it.

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Turgon77
I exclusively use CF bulbs. I've never had one go bad in the 2 - 3 years of using them. My only problem is that they seem to take a few minutes to "warm up" and produce adequate brightness. Am I the only one that experiences this? Is there a brand that does not share this problem? I bought a generic brand (can't remember name) that Home Depot sells in a 6 pack.

I have four in my dinning room. I am pretty sure they are just the cheap ones from Lowe's (come in a three pack). They require no noticeable warm up time. I can even strobe them . I'll try to find the pack to see what brand they are.

Edit: Found the package, I guess they aren't the cheapest. They are Sylvania Soft White 13W. I think they were around $9 for three (IIRC). My mom has a bunch of the same brand and they all turn on with no warm up time.