Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Furcifer]

Any power plant that produces pollution will produce more pollution per incandescent bulb than per an equivalent LED or CFL bulb (which use far less electricity).

If you got 100% of your electricity from a source that produces zero pollution, you'd be the exception rather than the rule. Of course, you said that some of your electricity comes from nuclear power, which produces nuclear waste.

-Bri

Unfortunately the electricity is not the only source of pollution when it comes to these lights.

Heck, my incandescents all came in recycled cardboard, every single one of the CFL's I've purchased has come in a plastic clamshell

 

[Bri]

Unfortunately the electricity is not the only source of pollution when it comes to these lights.

If you're referring to the mercury in CFL's, the amount of mercury released from burning coal to produce the extra electricity used by an incandescent bulb exceeds the tiny amount of mercury in a CFL bulb. LED's don't contain mercury.

Heck, my incandescents all came in recycled cardboard, every single one of the CFL's I've purchased has come in a plastic clamshell

Gotta hate the plastic clamshell. The LED bulb I just bought came in cardboard.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

If you're referring to the mercury in CFL's, the amount of mercury released from burning coal to produce the extra electricity used by an incandescent bulb exceeds the tiny amount of mercury in a CFL bulb. LED's don't contain mercury.

LED's do (I forget but I think it's in the paint or maybe the plastic, it's considerably less than a CFL) and based on the information I just gave you there's more mercury from the CFL than there is from an incandescent in my home (the EPA and Sierra Club calculations are flawed and based on some faulty assumptions).

That's for me though, for someone in Pennsylvania it's different and for someone in Florida or California it's different again.

Gotta hate the plastic clamshell. The LED bulb I just bought came in cardboard.

-Bri

I have no issue with LED's, the advantages are obvious and they're demonstrably superior. AFAIC if anything should be banned it's CFL's.

 

[Mikemcc]

Manufacture of incandescents is hardly clean. They involve very powerful acids. The filament is wound as a coil around a former, which is then dissolved using the acids.

 

[Bri]

LED's do (I forget but I think it's in the paint or maybe the plastic, it's considerably less than a CFL) and based on the information I just gave you there's more mercury from the CFL than there is from an incandescent in my home (the EPA and Sierra Club calculations are flawed and based on some faulty assumptions).

Assuming you really get none of your electricity from coal, there is still less nuclear waste from a CFL than from an incandescent in your home.

The vast majority of sources I've seen agree with the EPA that on average the production of the electricity saved by a CFL would result in more mercury than is contained in the CFL.

That's for me though, for someone in Pennsylvania it's different and for someone in Florida or California it's different again.

For most Americans, a CFL will result in less mercury than an incandescent, even considering the small amount of mercury in the bulb itself (which can be recycled).

I have no issue with LED's, the advantages are obvious and they're demonstrably superior. AFAIC if anything should be banned it's CFL's.

A CFL is likely better for the environment than an incandescent and certainly uses far less electricity per lumen. But LED's are even better.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Manufacture of incandescents is hardly clean. They involve very powerful acids. The filament is wound as a coil around a former, which is then dissolved using the acids.

Indeed, "manufacturing" in and of itself is a dirty business.

That's the biggest problem with these studies on "green" technology, they say what people want them to say depending on how "forensically" we look at things. If we ignore everything and put a CFL in the socket beside an incandescent the advantages are obvious.

I have a problem with the fact that for some reason the closer we look at the incandescent/CFL debate the less advantageous CFL's become. That should be setting off some warning bells for any skeptic.

Let's face it, this is all politics. They tried to get rid of them because someone wanted to look like they were doing something for their constituents and now they're not doing anything so someone could look like they're doing something for their constituents.

 

[Furcifer]

Assuming you really get none of your electricity from coal, there is still less nuclear waste from a CFL than from an incandescent in your home.

That's an interesting point. The fact that CFL's are made in China while most incandescent bulbs were made in the US begins to play heavily into the amount of energy actually used to produce the bulb and what the source of energy is. I don't have an answer to that, but we're probably talking about picoograms of nuclear waste and micrograms of mercury. I'd rather have the nuclear waste disposed of properly rather than the mercury spread around. YMMV.

The vast majority of sources I've seen agree with the EPA that on average the production of the electricity saved by a CFL would result in more mercury than is contained in the CFL.

There's only 2 sources so I'm not sure what you've seen. Most likely just people reiterating what the EPA and Sierra Club study found (I think it's the Sierra Club)
The 3rd study I found says people with CFL's end up using more energy. That was from like 1982 so take it with a grain of salt.

For most Americans, a CFL will result in less mercury than an incandescent, even considering the small amount of mercury in the bulb itself (which can be recycled).

That hasn't been established. Again the studies are flawed and don't properly take into account the number of heating degree days and the source of electricity in a particular area.

A CFL is likely better for the environment than an incandescent and certainly uses far less electricity per lumen. But LED's are even better.

-Bri

"likely" isn't a good reason to take away people's choice and move jobs overseas.

LED's are considerably better, I believe with new LED's it's about a factor of 5.

 

[Bri]

I'd rather have the nuclear waste disposed of properly rather than the mercury spread around.

It's pretty easy to dispose of (i.e. recycle) CFL light bulbs.

There's only 2 sources so I'm not sure what you've seen. Most likely just people reiterating what the EPA and Sierra Club study found (I think it's the Sierra Club)

A lot of people have examined the EPA study to determine whether the methodology is valid or not. Most educated opinions on the matter agree that while the EPA study might not be perfect, the study is correct that CFL's are, on average, better for the environment than incandescents.

The 3rd study I found says people with CFL's end up using more energy. That was from like 1982 so take it with a grain of salt.

There have been a lot of changes in CFL's since then, especially in the amount of mercury they contain.

That hasn't been established. Again the studies are flawed and don't properly take into account the number of heating degree days and the source of electricity in a particular area.

The EPA study takes into account the source of electricity if I'm not mistaken. I don't know about heating days, but in the United States it's going to be a wash -- there are about as many heating days as cooling days, so although incandescents might heat efficiently during the winter, they will require extra air conditioning during the summer. It's far more efficient for most people to use a space heater for heat, particularly one with a thermostat and possibly a timer or switch so that it can easily be turned off when nobody is around.

"likely" isn't a good reason to take away people's choice and move jobs overseas.

"Likely" is about as good as you're ever going to get. The EPA analysis isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. Luckily, LED's will probably make the CFL question moot.

Any standards will take away people's choices if you mean the choice to use inefficient/hazardous/dangerous products.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Wait.

Hold the fascinating conversation for a moment.

Another one of these CRAP CFLs just died. I gotta go throw it in the trash. That regular trash, you know.

Thanks.

 

[Furcifer]

It's pretty easy to dispose of (i.e. recycle) CFL light bulbs.

That's not being done however.

A lot of people have examined the EPA study to determine whether the methodology is valid or not. Most educated opinions on the matter agree that while the EPA study might not be perfect, the study is correct that CFL's are, on average, better for the environment than incandescents.

Nonsense. I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's only been the two studies. And if I'm not mistaken both were conducted after the fact so talk about your confirmation bias.

There have been a lot of changes in CFL's since then, especially in the amount of mercury they contain.

There have, but not to all of them. It's fine and dandy that there's a mercury free CFL, but if no one is buying them who cares? There are cars that get 45 mpg, you don't think all the cars sold are getting 45 mpg do you?

The EPA study takes into account the source of electricity if I'm not mistaken.

They do, as an average nation wide.

I don't know about heating days, but in the United States it's going to be a wash -- there are about as many heating days as cooling days,

I don't know, but it's easy enough for the EPA to find out. They didn't. I thought of this just sitting here, no pony in the race. Somehow this fact, the fact that not all heat from light bulbs is waste, somehow slipped under the EPA's radar. I doubt it. This "comprehensive study" isn't that comprehensive. Just saying.

so although incandescents might heat efficiently during the winter, they will require extra air conditioning during the summer. It's far more efficient for most people to use a space heater for heat, particularly one with a thermostat and possibly a timer or switch so that it can easily be turned off when nobody is around.

Nobody is using a light bulb as a source of heat (except McDonalds), heat is just a beneficial byproduct.

"Likely" is about as good as you're ever going to get. The EPA analysis isn't perfect, but it's pretty good. Luckily, LED's will probably make the CFL question moot.

The EPA study is nonsense and I was surprised by how shortsighted it was.

I said it before, CFL's are the Betamax and HDVD's of the lighting world. Keep them for your great great great grand children to take to the Antiques Road Show "...it's worth about $1, but it's filled with poisonous gas and will cost you $10 to dispose of"

Any standards will take away people's choices if you mean the choice to use inefficient/hazardous/dangerous products.

-Bri

None the less there should be clear and distinct advantages for almost everyone. The ban at this time is short sighted all things considered. It's an admirable attempt at environmentalism though

 

[Bri]

That's not being done however.

Not by mhaze, but a lot of people do recycle them. CFL recycling would likely be a matter of convenience. Where I live, they've made it convenient and many people (probably most) take advantage of it. But again, the amount of mercury in a CFL, even if you throw it away, is less than the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere to produce the energy that would have been wasted with an incandescent.

Nonsense. I'm not sure where you're getting this from but there's only been the two studies. And if I'm not mistaken both were conducted after the fact so talk about your confirmation bias.

I never said there were more than two studies. I said that most environmental scientists agree with the results of the EPA study.

There have, but not to all of them. It's fine and dandy that there's a mercury free CFL, but if no one is buying them who cares? There are cars that get 45 mpg, you don't think all the cars sold are getting 45 mpg do you?

This has little to do with what I said. Most of the CFL's that are in people's homes today have far less mercury in them than CFL's that were available in 1982.

I don't know, but it's easy enough for the EPA to find out. They didn't. I thought of this just sitting here, no pony in the race. Somehow this fact, the fact that not all heat from light bulbs is waste, somehow slipped under the EPA's radar. I doubt it. This "comprehensive study" isn't that comprehensive. Just saying.

The EPA never claimed that the took every possible variable into consideration. Others have looked at the heat claim, however, and found it lacking given the climate in the United States. Yes, in extreme northern climates where you need heat nearly all year, it might make some sense. But again, whether you get heat from a light bulb or from a space heater doesn't really matter, so even in those climates a space heater should work just as well (actually better if it has a thermostat, a fan to direct the heat, etc.).

Nobody is using a light bulb as a source of heat (except McDonalds), heat is just a beneficial byproduct.

There's a reason nobody uses a light bulb for heat. And it's only a beneficial byproduct if it's relatively cold out.

The EPA study is nonsense and I was surprised by how shortsighted it was.

That would be your opinion, and the opinion of a minority of experts who have looked at it.

None the less there should be clear and distinct advantages for almost everyone. The ban at this time is short sighted all things considered. It's an admirable attempt at environmentalism though

The evidence indicates a clear and distinct advantage for the vast majority of people.

-Bri

 

[Rolfe]

Round here, if it's dark and so you need lights on, the chances that you aren't also grateful for a little bit of extra heat are small.

They banned the bulbs anyway. God knows why.

Rolfe.

 

[Furcifer]

Not by mhaze, but a lot of people do recycle them. CFL recycling would likely be a matter of convenience. Where I live, they've made it convenient and many people (probably most) take advantage of it. But again, the amount of mercury in a CFL, even if you throw it away, is less than the amount of mercury released into the atmosphere to produce the energy that would have been wasted with an incandescent.

Um, no. I don't have the cite but something like 66% or people don't know what to do with them when they break or that they're recyclable.

And you've got to keep them for something like 3 years to offset the mercury. If they break before that, which far too many people have experienced, they're a net polluter.

I don't remember all of the previous discussion Bri, but if you're interested I will dig it up. Sufficed to say you've got a very optimistic view on CFL's that has been touted but never shown with evidence.

I never said there were more than two studies. I said that most environmental scientists agree with the results of the EPA study.

I haven't seen anything like that. I'd very much like to see some sort of peer review on the EPA study.

This has little to do with what I said. Most of the CFL's that are in people's homes today have far less mercury in them than CFL's that were available in 1982.

Well I believe that personally, but it has never been proven. There's no breakdown of sales by manufacturer and Hg content. Again, I'm sure there are CFL's with very little mercury, in cardboard packaging, but most people are buying them at WalMart or the Dollar Store and I don't know what they're packing.

Others have looked at the heat claim, however, and found it lacking given the climate in the United States.

Nope. You'd think so, but there isn't a single research paper on the subject. I've searched the DOE database (Information Bridge, great site).

There's a reason nobody uses a light bulb for heat. And it's only a beneficial byproduct if it's relatively cold out.

Again, here's it's 9/12 months. I bet Michigan and most of the border states are the same. I'm guessing as far south as Georgia the heating degree days are > the cooling degree days.

That would be your opinion, and the opinion of a minority of experts who have looked at it.

I don't believe that. The EPA has a pony in the race and the Sierra Club would push cooking indoors with horse poop if they thought it would save the environment. (sorry for the horse metaphors)

The evidence indicates a clear and distinct advantage for the vast majority of people.

-Bri

Nope. The evidence suggests if 50% of the electricity during the lifetime of the bulb; as rated by the manufacturer, is derived from coal, under ideal conditions, there's a marginal offset in the release of mercury into the environment.

Averages are only useful to a point. Most homes don't actually have 1.8 kids, that would get messy

 

[Mikemcc]

Wait.

Hold the fascinating conversation for a moment.

Another one of these CRAP CFLs just died. I gotta go throw it in the trash. That regular trash, you know.

Thanks.

Then you've got a **** recycling system, or you're too damned lazy to use the one that exists. The UK has recycling for flourescent bulbs and tubes for 30+ years. You must live somewhere really backward...

 

[Furcifer]

Then you've got a **** recycling system, or you're too damned lazy to use the one that exists. The UK has recycling for flourescent bulbs and tubes for 30+ years. You must live somewhere really backward...

Really? I have to say it's backwards here in Canada as well. I'd hazard to say 99% of CFL's end up in the garbage, that includes the ones that start out in the recycle bin.
There's no doubt in my mind that if I broke a CFL right now it would end up in the dump. If it burnt out and I put it in the recycle I'm almost sure it would end up there as well.
As I sit here right now I'm not certain what I could do to ensure a broken or burned out CFL would get recycled. Honest. And I'm sure no one else in the household would either.

 

[mhaze]

....The ban at this time is short sighted all things considered. It's an admirable attempt at environmentalism though

If that's an "admirable attempt at environmentalism", I would surely hate to see the "average or botched jobs at environmentalism"....

 

[mhaze]

Then you've got a **** recycling system, or you're too damned lazy to use the one that exists. The UK has recycling for flourescent bulbs and tubes for 30+ years. You must live somewhere really backward...

I live in Texas, and I am certain that we are really advanced compared to places that prioritize use of CFLs, and disposal of them, on the ethical and moral list of attributes of good versus bad human beings.

We tend to think of things like lying, cheating and stealing as being bad, and couldn't care less what anyone did with light bulbs of one sort or another.

 

[Furcifer]

If that's an "admirable attempt at environmentalism", I would surely hate to see the "average or botched jobs at environmentalism"....

Well see the Kyoto thread for examples of the US government spending close to 100M and getting some useless real estate and some pipes. Or how about the EU losing 8B trying to trade carbon.

In 2-3 years when LED's are posed to replace incandescent bulbs I wouldn't squawk at the measure. But come one, CFL's are like a 30 year old tech. Why now?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

CFL's are like a 30 year old tech. Why now?

LEDs are a 40 year old tech. Incandescents are a 130 year old tech.

Why now? I guess people are finally starting to realize that we don't have infinite electricity generation capability. Unfortunately it seems that Luddite American consumers have yet to 'see the light', thus the necessity for more direct action.

In case you are wondering why CFLs instead of LEDs, take a look at the performance chart below. Which would you choose?

 

[mhaze]

LEDs are a 40 year old tech. Incandescents are a 130 year old tech.

Why now? I guess people are finally starting to realize that we don't have infinite electricity generation capability. Unfortunately it seems that Luddite American consumers have yet to 'see the light', thus the necessity for more direct action.

In case you are wondering why CFLs instead of LEDs, take a look at the performance chart below. Which would you choose?

For WHAT?

For outdoor lighting, always the LED. Any flourescent degrades in lumen output when it's cold, and it's coldest at night, when you want .... duhh....LIGHT.

Secondly, the hassle of replacing outside bulbs - CFL included - usually outweights initial purchase price considerations.

Thus we see that your chart - by heaping usage modes into a grand generality - lies in the particulars. Thanks, that was highly useful. Not in helping us make not so difficult purchasing decisions, but in understanding belief driven dogmatic thought processes and how lying is used for propaganda and population control. In the midst of which you accuse your "opposition" of being Luddites. Which is not only a lie, but shows a misunderstanding of what Luddites were.

But it's all fallen apart, so why keep beating a dead horse?

PS: Once I was driving through Mexico, late at night. And on the side of a mountain road, we found a horse, terribly injured, bleeding bad. Obviously it had fallen from above, or been hit by a car.

So you see, I once had an actual chance to beat a dead horse. But I turned it down.

How about you?