Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

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.



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.



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

basically, you don't get anywhere by saying 'most experts'. Quote an actual source if you want to make a claim of that sort, othetwise you make a classical logical fallacy.

Thr rest of yout comment simply shows an ignorance about mercury, mercury poisoning and environmental impacts. No big deal, except it is a subject that you are lecturing others about.

 

[Bri]

basically, you don't get anywhere by saying 'most experts'. Quote an actual source if you want to make a claim of that sort, othetwise you make a classical logical fallacy.

The claim I made is that experts estimate that CFL's result in less mercury released into the environment than incandescents. If you're denying this fact, then I'll gladly provide some references, otherwise I'd prefer not to waste my time.

You then made a counter-claim, which (I think) went along the lines of "yes, but the mercury released by CFL's is worse for the environment than the mercury released by power plants because it is concentrated into landfills." Or something like that. If that wasn't your argument, please clarify and provide evidence of your claim. If it was, then I asked for some evidence.

Thr rest of yout comment simply shows an ignorance about mercury, mercury poisoning and environmental impacts. No big deal, except it is a subject that you are lecturing others about.

Evidence please. Specifically, provide evidence that a majority of recyclers are coming down with mercury poisoning even while taking recommended precautions.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

What 'recommended precautions'? If an area is contaminated it can't be safely worked in. What would keep the sorting line in a city recycling facility free of contamination? EPA max recommended injestion is 1/500th the amount in just one bulb.

No more unnamed 'experts claim' please.

 

[Bri]

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?"

If the experts haven't weighed in, then how can you claim that the studies are flawed? One of the most-cited studies was done by the EPA. To my knowledge, you are correct that experts haven't weighted in to indicate that the EPA study was flawed. So can you present some actual evidence that this study is wrong?

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

Yes, and even if ALL went into the trash, the net result would still be less mercury in the environment compared to incandescents:

Electricity use is the main source of mercury emissions in the U.S. CFLs use less electricity than incandescent lights, meaning CFLs reduce the amount of mercury into the environment. As shown in the table below, a 13-watt, 8,000-rated-hour-life CFL (60-watt equivalent; a common light bulb type) will save 376 kWh over its lifetime, thus avoiding 4.3 mg of mercury. If the bulb goes to a landfill, overall emissions savings would drop a little, to 3.9 mg. EPA recommends that CFLs are recycled where possible, to maximize mercury savings.​

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/promotions/change_light/downloads/Fact_Sheet_Mercury.pdf

(bold mine) Certainly recycling efforts should be improved, but the evidence seems to indicate that CFL's release far less mercury when you take into account the energy savings and the mercury released by power plants to produce this energy.

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.

Whether the legislation "works" depends on which of its stated goals (decreased energy use, decreased greenhouse gasses, and increased savings) you're looking at. Given that incandescent bulbs are still prevalent in this country, it remains to be seen how successful the legislation is.

Nonetheless, my opinion is that it has been successful already in another way: it has sparked a significant increase in research and development of high-efficiency lighting.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What 'recommended precautions'? If an area is contaminated it can't be safely worked in. What would keep the sorting line in a city recycling facility free of contamination? EPA max recommended injestion is 1/500th the amount in just one bulb.

An area would only become contaminated if a CFL broke and wasn't properly cleaned up. There are regulations and guidelines for cleaning up broken CFL bulbs in recycling facilities.

Unless you have some evidence that recycling facilities don't follow guidelines for safely handling CFL's, I suggest you call up your local city recycling facility and ask them what precautions they take.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

An area would only become contaminated if a CFL broke and wasn't properly cleaned up. There are regulations and guidelines for cleaning up broken CFL bulbs in recycling facilities.

Unless you have some evidence that recycling facilities don't follow guidelines for safely handling CFL's, I suggest you call up your local city recycling facility and ask them what precautions they take.

-Bri

LOL....I thought YOU could support some of your assertions and claims, instead of just (yet again) shrugging it off on some unnamed, vauge "expert".

Oh....and you are wrong, the bulbs are often broken when they are tossed into the trash, in the trash when other things fall on them, when the can is dumped in the truck, etc. Sheesh...they are fragile, any thing like a beer bottle hitting them shatters them right away. Unlike good old incandescents.

In other words, you don't know and can't enunciate any set of safe guidelines for handling a recycling sort line relevant to this problem..

I'm seeing faith and belief systems at work, not critical thinking.

 

[Bri]

LOL....I thought YOU could support some of your assertions and claims, instead of just (yet again) shrugging it off on some unnamed, vauge "expert".

It was your claim, not mine. You brought up recycling facility workers getting mercury poisoning after 2 years. I asked for evidence, which you have yet to provide.

Since you claim that recycling facilities don't have any guidelines for dealing with broken bulbs, and as you pointed out they break all the time, it should be easy for you to show evidence of the thousands of recycling facility workers who are now suffering from mercury poisoning.

-Bri

 

[This is The End]

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

(The below speaks only of the US.)

Even though I haven't seen a 'study' in particular, I would be willing to bet nearly any amount that it is much higher. Somewhere around only 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 being recycled.

1 in 7 is just a joke. I doubt 1 in 7 people even know that they are supposed to be recycled. People just don't read and they also don't care.

Perhaps the 1 in 7 includes countries where it is illegal to not recycle them, but I still doubt it.

The reason is that CFL's contain less mercury than would be emitted by power plants to produce the extra energy required for incandescents.

Bri, I know people keep making you say this, but you have said that at least 10 times in this thread so far . There are so many unknowns involved that I wouldn't put that much weight in that study.

 

[Bri]

1 in 7 is just a joke. I doubt 1 in 7 people even know that they are supposed to be recycled. People just don't read and they also don't care.

I tend to agree with you on the number of people who recycle. However, I'm not sure you can extrapolate from the number of people who recycle in general to the number of people who recycle CFL's. I'm guessing that since incandescents are readily available, people who have CFL's tend to be more environmentally conscious, and therefore may recycle more than the general population.

But like I said, the available evidence would indicate that CFL's are likely far better than incandescents as far as mercury emitted into the atmosphere, even if nobody recycled them. Still, the government should make it easier to recycle them (at least until they are replaced with LED's).

Bri, I know people keep making you say this, but you have said that at least 10 times in this thread so far .

Sure, but like you said people are making me say it. You're about to do it too...

There are so many unknowns involved that I wouldn't put that much weight in that study.

Unless you can demonstrate that the study is wrong, it's the best evidence there is. And I haven't seen a lot of reputable experts say that it's wrong.

In order to make the point that CFL's result in more mercury than incandescents, it seems that the study would have to be so far off in its calculations that the errors would be blatantly easy to spot.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

I.... I'm guessing that since incandescents are readily available, people who have CFL's tend to be more environmentally conscious, and therefore may recycle more than the general population.....

hang on a minute, okay? I gotta go throw a CFL in the trash. I'll be back...

 

[Furcifer]

If the experts haven't weighed in, then how can you claim that the studies are flawed? One of the most-cited studies was done by the EPA. To my knowledge, you are correct that experts haven't weighted in to indicate that the EPA study was flawed. So can you present some actual evidence that this study is wrong?

Yes, I think there was 1 from the EPA and one from some California based green group.
A government body confirming what the government did after the fact doesn't seem "reliable", at least to me. YMMV.
What's wrong with the study? I'd say improperly estimating the amount of mercury from the number of coal plants for starters. The fact they used the manufacturers service life rating, and not real world conditions (I'm going from memory here). Oh, and they didn't look at previous studies showing people tend to use more when they think they are conserving. I mean they should at least draw from the studies that were already undertaken shouldn't they?

(bold mine) Certainly recycling efforts should be improved, but the evidence seems to indicate that CFL's release far less mercury when you take into account the energy savings and the mercury released by power plants to produce this energy.

Where there are coal plants.

I'm just curious if you think a lot of mercury near a coal plant is better or worse than a little mercury every where? These bulbs are introducing mercury into places it wasn't before the ban. It's trace amounts, but it's a heavy metal so...

Whether the legislation "works" depends on which of its stated goals (decreased energy use, decreased greenhouse gasses, and increased savings) you're looking at. Given that incandescent bulbs are still prevalent in this country, it remains to be seen how successful the legislation is.

Evidence? At least from what I've seen and read here most people have CFL's or something besides incandescent lights. I'd guess it's as high as 75%, maybe as low as 50%, but I think most people have mostly CFL's.

Nonetheless, my opinion is that it has been successful already in another way: it has sparked a significant increase in research and development of high-efficiency lighting.

-Bri

Evidence? What wasn't on the drawing board when the ban was introduced that otherwise wouldn't if not for the ban? "Sparks" are funny things to quantify

 

[Bri]

I'm just curious if you think a lot of mercury near a coal plant is better or worse than a little mercury every where? These bulbs are introducing mercury into places it wasn't before the ban. It's trace amounts, but it's a heavy metal so...

I don't know. Do you? Most of the opinions on this that I've read say that mercury is worse when released into the air. But I don't know how you would go about quantifying it. mhaze made the claim that less mercury in landfills was worse than more mercury released into the air from power plants, and I asked him for some evidence so maybe he'll actually post some. I won't hold my breath though.

Evidence? At least from what I've seen and read here most people have CFL's or something besides incandescent lights. I'd guess it's as high as 75%, maybe as low as 50%, but I think most people have mostly CFL's.

I don't know how many CFL's there are compared to incandescents in people's homes, which is why I didn't cite any statistics. Evidence that incandescents are still available? Go to a hardware store and you're sure to find some.

Evidence? What wasn't on the drawing board when the ban was introduced that otherwise wouldn't if not for the ban? "Sparks" are funny things to quantify

I was clear that this was just my opinion. It's mainly based on articles about research being done, in which the company or a researcher states that they started or increased the research because of the 2007 legislation.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

.....like I said, the available evidence would indicate that CFL's are likely far better than incandescents as far as mercury emitted into the atmosphere, even if nobody recycled them. ....

Since 1/500 of the mercury in just one bulb is beyond the safe limits, how could this be? I take it you have not worked around a variety of hazardous chemicals, where every day one reads MSDS sheets and assembles proper clothing, gear and protective suits, reviews safety procedures with the group, and checks the eye wash and shower before beginning work. This ain't my first rodeo.

BY your logic, bullets fired by guns are NOT DANGEROUS, and lead poisoning from lead gas is of course, dangerous Lead from bullets in the air at any given time is so small a quantity as to be statistically insignificant.

Tsunamis, also, are NOT DANGEROUS because the sum of forces in them, spread over the entire body of water of the planet, is a triffle.

The hydrogen bomb, also, is NOT DANGEROUS in comparison to the total solar energy received every day on the planet.

I feel so very comfortable now. There are so many things that are not dangerous. I will be devout in my faith to GAIA.

 

[Bri]

mhaze, what does any of what you said have anything to do with what I said?

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

(The below speaks only of the US.)

Even though I haven't seen a 'study' in particular, I would be willing to bet nearly any amount that it is much higher. Somewhere around only 1 in 50 to 1 in 100 being recycled.

1 in 7 is just a joke. I doubt 1 in 7 people even know that they are supposed to be recycled. People just don't read and they also don't care.

Perhaps the 1 in 7 includes countries where it is illegal to not recycle them, but I still doubt it.

I'm pretty sure that was the number someone cited in the other thread. I thought it came from a "study" so I didn't argue, but yah I bet it's a lot less. I'm sure the question asked was "Did you know CFL's are supposed to be recycled because the mercury vapour is harmful" and 6 out of 7 people said "Oh yah, I know that".

 

[Furcifer]

I don't know. Do you? Most of the opinions on this that I've read say that mercury is worse when released into the air. But I don't know how you would go about quantifying it. mhaze made the claim that less mercury in landfills was worse than more mercury released into the air from power plants, and I asked him for some evidence so maybe he'll actually post some. I won't hold my breath though.

No I don't know. That's my point, have you seen a study that actually looks at this? It seems relevant to me from what I know of chemicals. I high concentration away from the public seems to me to be better than a low concentration in the public. I know you don't want it in the water.

I don't know how many CFL's there are compared to incandescents in people's homes, which is why I didn't cite any statistics. Evidence that incandescents are still available? Go to a hardware store and you're sure to find some.

Yah oddly enough their still available and people are turning to them not because of the ban, but because they want to save money.

I was clear that this was just my opinion. It's mainly based on articles about research being done, in which the company or a researcher states that they started or increased the research because of the 2007 legislation.

-Bri

That's fine and I respect it. It's a minor issue for me, at least the lights themselves. The fact that they banned them without public input and a real thorough look at the issue is what bugs me.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yah oddly enough their still available and people are turning to them not because of the ban, but because they want to save money.

Then they're making a mistake. CFLs are definitely cheaper than incandescents over the lifetime of the bulb. And the difference in upfront cost, these days, isn't nearly what it was a couple of years ago.

-------

There's an inconsistency in haze's mercury argument. He's the one claiming the law is an authoritarian liberal thing--Al Gore stuff. And now he's worried about trace amounts of mercury getting into the environment?

I've got an old-fashioned thermostat that has more mercury in it than you'll find in probably a hundred CFLs.

I just checked, and my guess was right. Also, even within that small amount of mercury in CFLs, most of it remains stuck to the inside of the glass. The EPA estimates only about 11 percent of it will escape to air or water. From the same source: "Therefore, if all 272 million CFLs3 sold in 2009 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.12 metric tons, or 0.12 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans."

And why are we limited to comparing the amount of mercury pollution from improperly disposed CFLs to only the mercury pollution in wasted electricity generation? Why not consider ALL the environmental effects of coal burning to ALL the environmental effects of using CFLs rather than traditional incandescents?

I know haze is a climate change denier, but the fact is, carbon emissions are kind of a big problem.

 

[Furcifer]

Then they're making a mistake. CFLs are definitely cheaper than incandescents over the lifetime of the bulb. And the difference in upfront cost, these days, isn't nearly what it was a couple of years ago.

-------

There's an inconsistency in haze's mercury argument. He's the one claiming the law is an authoritarian liberal thing--Al Gore stuff. And now he's worried about trace amounts of mercury getting into the environment?

I've got an old-fashioned thermostat that has more mercury in it than you'll find in probably a hundred CFLs.

I just checked, and my guess was right. Also, even within that small amount of mercury in CFLs, most of it remains stuck to the inside of the glass. The EPA estimates only about 11 percent of it will escape to air or water. From the same source: "Therefore, if all 272 million CFLs3 sold in 2009 were sent to a landfill (versus recycled, as a worst case) – they would add 0.12 metric tons, or 0.12 percent, to U.S. mercury emissions caused by humans."

And why are we limited to comparing the amount of mercury pollution from improperly disposed CFLs to only the mercury pollution in wasted electricity generation? Why not consider ALL the environmental effects of coal burning to ALL the environmental effects of using CFLs rather than traditional incandescents?

I know haze is a climate change denier, but the fact is, carbon emissions are kind of a big problem.

Er, I kinda worded that wrong, I meant people are buying CFL's even if there are incandescent lights available.

I just don't think you'll ever realize any reduction in mercury due to CFL's. It's just going to spread it out a little thinner over a bigger area. It sucks because the LED's I've been looking at contain no mercury and get more lumens per watt. They totally missed the boat on this one.

 

[Bri]

No I don't know. That's my point, have you seen a study that actually looks at this? It seems relevant to me from what I know of chemicals. I high concentration away from the public seems to me to be better than a low concentration in the public. I know you don't want it in the water.

As far as I know, landfills tend to be away from the public whereas power plants tend to be near the public. Landfills also deal with toxic wastes other than mercury, and tend to have provisions to prevent runoff, whereas power plants are putting the mercury directly into the air. I haven't seen a comprehensive study, but I also haven't seen a lot of experts saying that CFL's are worse for the environment than power plants (in fact, the opposite, and by far).

Perhaps mhaze will post some evidence to the contrary.

Yah oddly enough their still available and people are turning to them not because of the ban, but because they want to save money.

You mean people who think incandescents are cheaper because they're only looking at upfront costs and not costs over the life of the bulb. That's true.

That's fine and I respect it. It's a minor issue for me, at least the lights themselves. The fact that they banned them without public input and a real thorough look at the issue is what bugs me.

I disagree with you somewhat here. I don't know how much public input there was, but not much legislation in this country is passed with public input, and it would be impractical to do so (that's why we have elected representation). I think they took a fairly thorough a look at the issue. The efficiency standards are really fairly uncontroversial -- it passed with bipartisan report. The light bulb industry supported it too. Not that many people mind having standards on light bulb efficiency, although you might think otherwise from the vocal opposition on this thread.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Er, I kinda worded that wrong, I meant people are buying CFL's even if there are incandescent lights available.

Oh, OK. Sure, CFL's are selling. My point was that statistics on the prevalence of incandescents are hard to come by, but my guess is that there are still plenty of them being sold and plenty of them in use, which means that it's going to be a few years before we know whether there has been an actual reduction in energy usage or greenhouse emissions as a result of the standards.

I just don't think you'll ever realize any reduction in mercury due to CFL's. It's just going to spread it out a little thinner over a bigger area.

I disagree, I think that CFL's will result in a net reduction of mercury, and probably not by a trivial amount.

It sucks because the LED's I've been looking at contain no mercury and get more lumens per watt. They totally missed the boat on this one.

Missed the boat in what way? The standards don't specify any particular technology, so LED's certainly comply. My guess is that LED's will take over the market at some point. Right now the fact that they are much more expensive than CFL's is preventing that, but they'll go down in price and the technology will continue to improve. In my opinion (and this is just my opinion), I don't think that LED technology would have improved as much as it has in the past few years without the legislation.

-Bri