Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

...You claimed, "The law has the actual effect of handing the entire decision making process over to a regulatory agency of what light bulbs you can or cannot use. Congress is out of the loop." I pointed out that the law does no such thing. Instead it lays out a lot of very specific regulation. Congress actually wrote and passed all these details.
......

Doesn't matter what 99% of the law says if 1% of the text hands power over the specification of bulbs banned to a regulatory agency.

Basically, that is the end of that subject.

 

[Bri]

Peak demand isn't met by coal plants, they carry baseload. Peakers are primarily natural gas fired plants which don't emit mercury. It's not as easy as saying 48% of the country gets its electric from coal, therefore the reduced demand will result in less coal being burned.

Do you have a reference to a study that shows that incandescent bulbs would result in less mercury overall due to the use of peakers? My understanding is that coal plants aren't shut down during peak demand, but that natural gas peakers (which can be fired up and shut down quickly) are used to supplement energy production during heat waves and the like. Furthermore, peak demand usually occurs during the daytime during heat waves, which would not occur all that often and wouldn't correspond to the times when light bulbs would be used the most. So I would think that peak demand wouldn't really affect much, and that overall mercury would still be reduced through the use of CFL bulbs compared to incandescents.

It doesn't take a study to show that if you get 90% of your electric from hydro you don't get 48% from coal (which is the figure those mercury studies use if I remember correctly)
None the less these areas that don't get 48% of their electric from coal are seeing the same ban as areas that get +90% from coal.

Since the standards in question only affect the United States, I'm not sure what you're saying or asking here. Perhaps CFL's don't make as much sense there. Or perhaps other reasons for reducing energy consumption outweigh the added mercury. Perhaps more aggressive recycling would mitigate mercury from CFL's. Perhaps CFL's are only a bridge until LED or other mercury-free technologies improve.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I didn't say they were harmless and that nobody should recycle them. I said that overall CFL's result in a significant net reduction of mercury in the environment, and that most experts agree that they are far better for the environment than incandescents.

Again CFL's are better than incandescents as far as mercury in the environment, but of course it's better to recycle CFL's than not.-Bri

Like I said, this has got to be the poorest argument presented in this entire thread. You allege an argument from expert, you make several unsubstantiated claims, and you completely ignore the actual argument that I presented twice, about serious levels of local contamination.

 

[Bri]

Doesn't matter what 99% of the law says if 1% of the text hands power over the specification of bulbs banned to a regulatory agency.

Basically, that is the end of that subject.

Are you saying that Congress can't repeal or change the law? Or restrict the regulatory agency? Or remove the regulatory agency entirely?

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Like I said, this has got to be the poorest argument presented in this entire thread. You allege an argument from expert, you make several unsubstantiated claims, and you completely ignore the actual argument that I presented twice, about serious levels of local contamination.

The expert opinions are substantiated. Do you have a reference to a scientific study that shows that these levels of local contamination have had or will have a greater environmental impact than a much greater amount of mercury released by power plants? Or are you just pulling this out of your bottom?

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Do you have a reference to a study that shows that incandescent bulbs would result in less mercury overall due to the use of peakers?

No, and that's the criticism. All of the studies (I believe there are only 2) just use a basic percentage of coal plants, calculate the energy saved and turn it into tons of coal, then figure out the mercury.
The studies aren't very thorough to say the least.

My understanding is that coal plants aren't shut down during peak demand, but that natural gas peakers (which can be fired up and shut down quickly) are used to supplement energy production during heat waves and the like. Furthermore, peak demand usually occurs during the daytime during heat waves, which would not occur all that often and wouldn't correspond to the times when light bulbs would be used the most. So I would think that peak demand wouldn't really affect much, and that overall mercury would still be reduced through the use of CFL bulbs compared to incandescents.

Peak hours are 7am-7pm Monday to Friday.

Put it this way, coal plants run all the time. No amount of CFL's or LED's is going to change that. Given the fact that coal plants are still slated for commissioning it stands to reason this measure didn't have any effect on the amount of coal being burned in the US or Canada. In theory it may mean that less are actually built, but none have shut down because of it.

Since the standards in question only affect the United States, I'm not sure what you're saying or asking here. Perhaps CFL's don't make as much sense there. Or perhaps other reasons for reducing energy consumption outweigh the added mercury. Perhaps more aggressive recycling would mitigate mercury from CFL's. Perhaps CFL's are only a bridge until LED or other mercury-free technologies improve.

-Bri

Canada adopted similar legislation. It makes even less sense here. The ban would have been most effective along the eastern US where the coal is mined and burnt. For the rest of the US is doesn't make much sense.

The ban may be well intentioned, but it's ineffective. To take the decision out of the hands of the public it should have had a much more profound effect IMO. There's very little accountability AFAIC, it's sad to see here in Canada and even worse to see it happen in the US.

That's just my opinion.

 

[Muldur]

That is wrong on every count. Taxes are not levied in proportion to services received.

Those who have more receive more value in the protection that gov't services provide. Therefore it is just that they be asked to contribute more towards supporting those services. This is known as "ability to pay".

A good, if approximate analogy is insurance premiums, specifically property insurance. An insurance policy to protect $500,000 in assets costs more than one protecting $50,000 or $5,000. That is because there is more property at risk that the insurer is responsible to make whole in the event of loss.

In many cases, such differences are an intended consequence of the tax structure and not simply incidental.

How dare people expect the well-off to contribute more to the common good than they do? Don't those dirty peasants know that the rich have no more obligation than the poor to pay for gov't even though the rich get far MORE from it?

Furthermore, while the voters in toto may have determined what they want government to do and what to charge, *I* sure as hell can't decide what services government provids or what I should pay for those services, which makes it entirely unlike a market transaction.

You vote, you organize and advocate for your position and attempt to persuade others to support you, just like any other person or group does. That is how you "decide" what gov't does and how you pay.

You seem to be ignoring the rather central role that coercion plays. Payments for services rendered in the private market are not coerced. If I don't want to pay for a service, I simply don't get it. But I have no choice with taxes. I can't opt out of government services in exchange for paying no taxes.

Yes you can. You can leave and move somewhere where your opinions are the prevalent ones and gov't is more to your liking.

Coercion is what makes taxation an evil, and while I can see no method of avoiding this evil (as in, it's a lesser evil than the alternatives), it is an evil nonetheless.

No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to live in any particular free nation (such as the US). YOU chose to live here, and accept the benefits thereof in terms of prosperity and security. Therefore YOU CHOSE to accept your rightful share of the costs via taxes as democratically voted.

And everyone else behaves just like you? That's not a safe assumption.

Normal people do. You seem to be afraid that there will be mass unnecessary use of lightbulbs if law mandates they be efficient ones. That is an absurd notion.

 

[Muldur]

And no, I don't and I don't think other people will toss CFLs into the garbage out of protest. I'm simply not going to waste 3 seconds or 3 minutes doing something special with them.

I think it speaks volumes about your (lack of) character that you consider being ecologically responsible to be a "waste" of time.

And that's the way most people are. The ones that know about the mercury, or half way care about it, and a lot don't.

That's a matter of education. Start with the kids, get them brought up in a recycling culture, and let the archaic "trash it" culture die the death it deserves.

 

[Bri]

No, and that's the criticism. All of the studies (I believe there are only 2) just use a basic percentage of coal plants, calculate the energy saved and turn it into tons of coal, then figure out the mercury.
The studies aren't very thorough to say the least.

Your criticism of the studies might be valid, but I've not seen a lot of experts speak out against the results so I'm not sure.

Peak hours are 7am-7pm Monday to Friday.

Put it this way, coal plants run all the time. No amount of CFL's or LED's is going to change that. Given the fact that coal plants are still slated for commissioning it stands to reason this measure didn't have any effect on the amount of coal being burned in the US or Canada. In theory it may mean that less are actually built, but none have shut down because of it.

I don't know that much about energy production from coal, but I'm guessing that they can be made to produce less energy rather than shutting down entirely if demand were to decrease. Nonetheless, in the U.S. it's too soon to tell what the results will be. Incandescent bulbs are still readily available here, and most people are still using them.

Canada adopted similar legislation. It makes even less sense here. The ban would have been most effective along the eastern US where the coal is mined and burnt. For the rest of the US is doesn't make much sense.

There are other benefits to energy reduction than a decrease in mercury. In addition, there are other light bulb types that comply with the standards and don't contain mercury (personally I think CFL's as an interim technology that will probably be replaced by LED technology). Furthermore, when CFL's are recycled, the mercury isn't introduced into the environment at all, so the net mercury in the environment will also depend on how successful recycling programs are.

The ban may be well intentioned, but it's ineffective. To take the decision out of the hands of the public it should have had a much more profound effect IMO. There's very little accountability AFAIC, it's sad to see here in Canada and even worse to see it happen in the US.

That's just my opinion.

It's a valid opinion, although I'm not sure I agree entirely that the standards have been ineffective. I think that the standards in the United States have already had a large impact on the development, improvement, and manufacturing of new types of bulbs, especially LED's and improvement in CFL's, neither of which would probably have happened at the current rate without the looming standards.

-Bri

 

[Ziggurat]

Those who have more receive more value in the protection that gov't services provide.

And often less in entitlement or social services. And often not the same as others who are taxed exactly as much.

Therefore it is just that they be asked to contribute more towards supporting those services. This is known as "ability to pay".

No. Ability to pay is known as "ability to pay". You can conclude that those with more ability to pay should pay more BECAUSE they have more ability to pay, but this is not, and NEVER WAS, the same thing as receiving more.

How dare people expect the well-off to contribute more to the common good than they do?

Again, this is a different argument. I do not take exception to the argument that those with more should pay more because they can. I never have, and you would know this if you had paid attention. But tax payments are not levied in proportion to government services. That simply isn't the case. It never has been. And in many cases, the explicit goal of our tax and spending policies. You can argue all you want to about how things SHOULD be, but that simply isn't the way things are. You're just completely (and obviously) wrong about that.

Don't those dirty peasants know that the rich have no more obligation than the poor to pay for gov't even though the rich get far MORE from it?

It is you, not me, whose ideas would hurt the poor the most. It is your ideas, not mine, that would eliminate so many forms of government assistance to the poor. It is your ideas, not mine, that would deprive the helpless of government services they need but cannot pay for. Don't play the moral card with me. You are far more heartless than I.

Or maybe you're not. Maybe you're just completely dishonest.

 

[Noztradamus]

Again CFL's are better than incandescents as far as mercury in the environment, but of course it's better to recycle CFL's than not.
-Bri

Highly dubious. No scarce resources are recovered and the energy budget is more likely to be negative than positive.

This is one case where ending is better than mending.

 

[mhaze]

I think it speaks volumes about your (lack of) character that you consider being ecologically responsible to be a "waste" of time.

That's a matter of education. Start with the kids, get them brought up in a recycling culture, and let the archaic "trash it" culture die the death it deserves.

Which is why I brought up the subject of exactly what I do with CFL bulbs, and what lots of other people do. Obviously, this opens me up to criticism, and it's not ad hominem. It's a justifiable criticism. But that's simply what I do. So I'm being honest about it.

I realize that you and others would like severe guilt pain in any that disrespect Gaia. I have no guilt about it. Rather, my question remains a valid question:

IF that's what I'm going to do, why would you want to push me to buy CFL? Doesn't it make sense to say "Don't buy CFL unless you will dispose of it properly?"

 

[Bri]

Highly dubious. No scarce resources are recovered and the energy budget is more likely to be negative than positive.

This is one case where ending is better than mending.

According to most experts, the use of CFL's in the United States would reduce the overall amount of mercury released into the environment because there is more mercury released by the power plant in producing the energy that would be saved by a CFL than the tiny amount contained in a CFL bulb. And of course the amount released by CFL's is reduced the more people recycle.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

(A) The expert opinions are substantiated. (B) Do you have a reference to a scientific study that shows that these levels of local contamination have had or will have a greater environmental impact than a much greater amount of mercury released by power plants? -Bri

(A) argument by expert opinion is UNSUBSTANTIATED claim.
(B) is completely illogical. Of course the local impact will predominate any global or statistical average.

A city of 1M people, some tossing broken bulbs or bulbs that subsequently break into the recycling bin? Everyone sorting that trash has mercury poisoning before too long.

Which is no fun. But you are the true believer, you go take a job sorting the recycling goods and report back in a couple of years. That's not even considering the effects of biomagnification.

 

[mhaze]

Peak demand isn't met by coal plants, they carry baseload. Peakers are primarily natural gas fired plants which don't emit mercury. It's not as easy as saying 48% of the country gets its electric from coal, therefore the reduced demand will result in less coal being burned.

It doesn't take a study to show that if you get 90% of your electric from hydro you don't get 48% from coal (which is the figure those mercury studies use if I remember correctly)
None the less these areas that don't get 48% of their electric from coal are seeing the same ban as areas that get +90% from coal.

Consider for example our supposedly green friends in California. Here's their energy source breakdown:

Nuclear ~15%
Natural Gas ~46.5%
Large Hydro ~ 9.5%
Coal~15.5%
Renewable~13.5%

Separate from the US law that this thread discusses, CA state law has a similar ban on incandescent bulbs (or requirement for "energy efficient bulbs" if you like that jargon as a means of banning....).

 

[Noztradamus]

According to most experts, the use of CFL's in the United States would reduce the overall amount of mercury released into the environment because there is more mercury released by the power plant in producing the energy that would be saved by a CFL than the tiny amount contained in a CFL bulb. And of course the amount released by CFL's is reduced the more people recycle.

-Bri

1. you were claiming that recycling was good. Any mercury emmission reduction by the power power use from CFLs is not affected by their eventual fate.

2. "And of course the amount released by CFL's is reduced the more people recycle". No it isn't. The mercury is not recovered for reuse.

 

[Bri]

(A) argument by expert opinion is UNSUBSTANTIATED claim.

Are you claiming that there is no evidence that experts are of that opinion? Or are you claiming that experts who are of that opinion have no evidence to back up their opinion? I really don't understand.

(B) is completely illogical. Of course the local impact will predominate any global or statistical average.

I may very well be misunderstanding your argument concerning "serious levels of local contamination" caused by CFL's. I think what you were trying to say is that mercury from CFL's would get concentrated in landfills, and that this would have a bigger impact on the environment than mercury released by power plants (even though the latter would release more mercury overall).

I was asking if you have some evidence that this would be the case. Specifically, I think you're ignoring the fact that power plants have their own local impacts, and you're making some unsubstantiated assumptions about the impacts of mercury in landfills compared to the impacts of mercury released into the air by power plants.

Again, most experts apparently disagree with your conclusion that the impact of the smaller amounts of mercury in CFL's is actually greater than the impact of larger amounts of mercury from power plants.

A city of 1M people, some tossing broken bulbs or bulbs that subsequently break into the recycling bin? Everyone sorting that trash has mercury poisoning before too long.

Which is no fun. But you are the true believer, you go take a job sorting the recycling goods and report back in a couple of years. That's not even considering the effects of biomagnification.

So now your argument is that you're concerned about people who recycle light bulbs? People who recycle light bulbs take adequate precautions. I would have no problem doing that job as long as I took the same precautions. I would hazard to guess (pun intended) that people who recycle light bulbs are less at risk than people living near coal-burning power plants.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

1. you were claiming that recycling was good. Any mercury emmission reduction by the power power use from CFLs is not affected by their eventual fate.

I said that even if all the mercury from CFL bulbs was released into the air after use, it would result in less mercury in the air than from using incandescents. The reason is that CFL's contain less mercury than would be emitted by power plants to produce the extra energy required for incandescents.

But of course recycling CFL's will prevent the mercury they contain from being released into the environment, resulting in an even greater decrease in overall mercury emissions compared to incandescents.

2. "And of course the amount released by CFL's is reduced the more people recycle". No it isn't. The mercury is not recovered for reuse.

(bold mine) According to the EPA, you're incorrect:

Recycling prevents the release of mercury into the environment. Fluorescent and other mercury-containing bulbs often break when thrown into a dumpster, trash can or compactor, or when they end up in a landfill or incinerator. To prevent the release of mercury, these bulbs should be taken to a recycler before they break. Recyclers recover the mercury and other components for reuse.​

http://www.epa.gov/waste/hazard/wastetypes/universal/lamps/basic.htm

(bold mine) Even if the mercury wasn't reused when you recycle (it is, but even if it wasn't), it would be contained so that it didn't get into the environment. But according to the EPA, the mercury actually is reused.

-Bri

 

[DC]

1. you were claiming that recycling was good. Any mercury emmission reduction by the power power use from CFLs is not affected by their eventual fate.

2. "And of course the amount released by CFL's is reduced the more people recycle". No it isn't. The mercury is not recovered for reuse.

source?

 

[Furcifer]

Your criticism of the studies might be valid, but I've not seen a lot of experts speak out against the results so I'm not sure.

The "experts" really haven't weighed in. The studies I've seen were conducted after the legislation and by groups with a strong "green" agenda. There isn't much to whine about really, I think it's a matter of "was this necessary?"

Furthermore, when CFL's are recycled, the mercury isn't introduced into the environment at all, so the net mercury in the environment will also depend on how successful recycling programs are.

The study I saw said something like 1 in 7 are recycled. A lot go into the trash.

It's a valid opinion, although I'm not sure I agree entirely that the standards have been ineffective. I think that the standards in the United States have already had a large impact on the development, improvement, and manufacturing of new types of bulbs, especially LED's and improvement in CFL's, neither of which would probably have happened at the current rate without the looming standards.

-Bri

Your don't seem to have the same burden of proof here when it comes to proving the legislation works. The only actual study I've seen that shows the usage of electricity when using CFL's was old, but it showed a net increase in usage. The other studies were whipped together and are based on theory, not empirical evidence.