Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[Bri]

Could you supply the evidence for that claim, please? Because so far i never came across that evidence.

Evidence has been cited multiple times in this thread, most recently an article linked to a few posts prior to yours.

And to make sure: I am not talking about just the energy it consumes during its lifetime, nor the mercury it contains. See, most of the CFL's are produced in China and are shipped from from there. Without any exception they all contain electronics, and also i have never seen a CFL that did not have a plastic base containing that electronics.

Incandescent bulbs are also not without some pollution during the manufacturing process, and certainly shipping produces pollution. From what I understand, CFL bulbs apparently do produce slightly more pollution during manufacturing, but remember that they last much longer than incandescent bulbs, and therefore you need to compare the pollution from the manufacture and shipping of several incandescent bulbs to a single CFL.

So, care to share the study/comparison, which you seem to have, that can say for sure that overall CFL's pollute less?

The study linked to above apparently takes all that into account. On average, in the United States the pollutants produced by coal-fired power plants for the difference in energy consumed are apparently still greater than any increase in pollutants from the manufacture and use of CFL bulbs.

-Bri

 

[Christian Klippel]

Evidence has been cited multiple times in this thread, most recently an article linked to a few posts prior to yours.

That link points only to an article. Furthermore, it only talks about mercury. Going to pubs.acs.org and searching for "yale report" there did not directly show up that report.

Incandescent bulbs are also not without some pollution during the manufacturing process, and certainly shipping produces pollution. From what I understand, CFL bulbs apparently do produce slightly more pollution during manufacturing, but remember that they last much longer than incandescent bulbs, and therefore you need to compare the pollution from the manufacture and shipping of several incandescent bulbs to a single CFL.

Of course does the production and shipping of incadescents create pollutants. I never claimed or implied otherwise. But the fact still remains that CFL's use much, much more parts, that the manufacture of electronics needs a lot of energy and materials, while creating a lot of nasty waste. Also, CFL's weigh more than incadescents, so that transporting them is likely to produce more pollution than transporting an equivalent number of incadescents.

The study linked to above apparently takes all that into account. On average, in the United States the pollutants produced by coal-fired power plants for the difference in energy consumed are apparently still greater than any increase in pollutants from the manufacture and use of CFL bulbs.
-Bri

As said, there is no study linked above, only an article. And that article talks about mercury and not about the overall requirement for energy, material and transportation. Nor does it talk about the cost and impact to safely dispose/recycle them.

I'm not saying that CFL is bad, i myself use some of them in some places. However, i am highly sceptical of the claims that in general they produce less pollution. Simply because since many years i am simply unable to find any evidence supporting that.

Also, your wording of "On average, in the United States the pollutants produced by coal-fired power plants for the difference in energy consumed are apparently still greater than any increase in pollutants from the manufacture and use of CFL bulbs." sounds a bit weasly to me. Do you mean pollution in the US, due to use and production? If so, how can that be a valid comparison? Sure, if i buy something that was made in China, the amount of pollution created at my place for production is lower. But that pollution still exists, just not here but in China. And i highly recommend you to take a look and check what environmental regulations exists in China compared to Europe (where i live) or the US (where you seem to live).

So, do you have a direct link to said study/report? Because i am unable to find it directly.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Furcifer]

Incandescent bulbs are also not without some pollution during the manufacturing process, and certainly shipping produces pollution. From what I understand, CFL bulbs apparently do produce slightly more pollution during manufacturing, but remember that they last much longer than incandescent bulbs, and therefore you need to compare the pollution from the manufacture and shipping of several incandescent bulbs to a single CFL.

What about the cost? It seems to me if I buy a bulb for $0.25 I only have to do so much "polluting" to earn that $0.25, but if I have to buy a $10 light bulb I have to do a lot more.

 

[Christian Klippel]

What about the cost? It seems to me if I buy a bulb for $0.25 I only have to do so much "polluting" to earn that $0.25, but if I have to buy a $10 light bulb I have to do a lot more.

Yes, it's pretty funny.

it may very well be that i am too stupid to find the right studies/reports. But so far, all i ever see talks mainly about reduction of pollution during the lifetime of the CFL, due to it needing less power. But for that i don't need a study, the simplest mathematics and common sense makes that clear already.

And of course they all end more or less with "and you can throw them into recycling", but that's simply not the end of it in reality. Recycling again costs energy and pollutes.

As said, i may be too stupid to find things that take all that into account. But for the last 8+ years i simply can't find a single study or report that really details all that. Not in German and not in English. Which makes me rather suspect, because the topic of resource usage, energy for production/distribution, etc. isn't something new that just popped up yesterday.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Furcifer]

I'm not saying that CFL is bad, i myself use some of them in some places. However, i am highly sceptical of the claims that in general they produce less pollution. Simply because since many years i am simply unable to find any evidence supporting that.

Also, your wording of "On average, in the United States the pollutants produced by coal-fired power plants for the difference in energy consumed are apparently still greater than any increase in pollutants from the manufacture and use of CFL bulbs." sounds a bit weasly to me. Do you mean pollution in the US, due to use and production? If so, how can that be a valid comparison? Sure, if i buy something that was made in China, the amount of pollution created at my place for production is lower. But that pollution still exists, just not here but in China. And i highly recommend you to take a look and check what environmental regulations exists in China compared to Europe (where i live) or the US (where you seem to live).

So, do you have a direct link to said study/report? Because i am unable to find it directly.

Greetings,

Chris

Well did you see the article I linked? The author claims half of the mercury deposited on the US comes from Asian plants.

Again, I demand empirical evidence. In 2006 there were x number of CFL's in use, and there was y mg of mercury deposited over a 1km² area. In 2008 there were z number of CFL's in use and there was Z mg of mercury deposited over a 1km². (we'll ignore the downturn in the economy over that period for the time being)

I suspect we will find very little reduction in Hg in the US and an increase in China that probably doesn't offset the reduction in the US.

 

[Bri]

That link points only to an article. Furthermore, it only talks about mercury. Going to pubs.acs.org and searching for "yale report" there did not directly show up that report.

It's there, but the full text isn't available. I did find the full text of the study here.

But the fact still remains that CFL's use much, much more parts, that the manufacture of electronics needs a lot of energy and materials, while creating a lot of nasty waste.

Apparently the small amount of increased pollution to manufacture a CFL doesn't even come close to mitigating the amount of pollution from the multiple incandescent bulbs that it would replace:

Because of the longer lifetimes of fluorescent bulbs compared to incandescents, fewer physical bulbs are needed to provide equivalent lighting services. Thus, fewer bulbs need to be manufactured, leading to a decrease in mercury emissions, primarily from the reduction of coal‐fired electricity used in production and fabrication of these avoided bulbs. Based on studies of direct and indirect mercury emissions from the manufacture of fluorescent and incandescent bulbs (22, 23), the slight increase in emissions of mercury during fluorescent rather than incandescent lamp manufacturing is assumed to be insignificant compared with other life cycle stages.​

Unfortunately, the version of the study that I found online is missing the references, therefore I don't know what studies "22, 23" refers to.

Also, your wording of "On average, in the United States the pollutants produced by coal-fired power plants for the difference in energy consumed are apparently still greater than any increase in pollutants from the manufacture and use of CFL bulbs." sounds a bit weasly to me.

The study is taking into account all pollution during the life cycle of the bulbs from production to disposal, regardless of where the bulb is produced, used, or disposed of. I wrote "on average" because, as the study points out, there are some places in the United States that get electricity from cleaner sources than coal, and therefore in those places the use of CFL bulbs may result in a slight net increase in pollution compared to incandescent bulbs. But on average, CFL's result in a significant decrease in pollution in the United States.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

What about the cost? It seems to me if I buy a bulb for $0.25 I only have to do so much "polluting" to earn that $0.25, but if I have to buy a $10 light bulb I have to do a lot more.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

The other problem Bri is the fact that the energy profile during the night isn't the same as during the day or "peak" hours.

Just because half of the capacity in the US is met by burning coal doesn't mean half of the electricity during the night, which I would assume is prime time for most light bulbs, is met by burning coal.

It could be higher, but I'm pretty sure it's lower because there's more natural gas plants operated as "peakers". It's hard to say without knowing exactly what time of day most light bulbs are on and for how long in the home.

The case being made for CFL's when it comes to pollution is strung together with a lot of "ifs". Why not just say they will save people money on their electric bill? That's a provable truth.

 

[Christian Klippel]

It's there, but the full text isn't available. I did find the full text of the study here.

Thanks. However, the title already say that this is not what i am looking for: "Spatial Assessment of Net Mercury Emissions from the Use of Fluorescent Bulbs".

I am looking for the complete picture. As i have said, there are many different things needed to make a CFL, a lot of transportation required, etc. Again, for example semiconductor production requires lots of energy, produces nasty toxic waste, and the recycling of electronic components is another nasty thing again.

Etching PCB's means that copper(ions) are taken up by the etchant. Copper is toxic as well, it is actually used in organic and wine farming as a pesticide.

Apparently the small amount of increased pollution to manufacture a CFL doesn't even come close to mitigating the amount of pollution from the multiple incandescent bulbs that it would replace:

I have the impression that you are dishonest here by saying "small amount of increased pollution to manufacture a CFL", making it sound as if all sources of pollution are meant, while the study you linked to expressively says:

"... however, this study focuses on mercury only."

Because of the longer lifetimes of fluorescent bulbs compared to incandescents, fewer physical bulbs are needed to provide equivalent lighting services. Thus, fewer bulbs need to be manufactured, leading to a decrease in mercury emissions, primarily from the reduction of coal‐fired electricity used in production and fabrication of these avoided bulbs. Based on studies of direct and indirect mercury emissions from the manufacture of fluorescent and incandescent bulbs (22, 23), the slight increase in emissions of mercury during fluorescent rather than incandescent lamp manufacturing is assumed to be insignificant compared with other life cycle stages.​

Unfortunately, the version of the study that I found online is missing the references, therefore I don't know what studies "22, 23" refers to.

I call shenanigans on that, because what you quoted is highly misleading and utterly incomplete. Simply saying "You only need to produce 1 of X to get the same as you would by producing 5 of Y, thus you save a lot because because you did not need to produce the extra 4 Y's" is funny at best.

It completely neglects the fact that CFL's reequire far, far more materials, productions steps, etc.

The study is taking into account all pollution during the life cycle of the bulbs from production to disposal, regardless of where the bulb is produced, used, or disposed of.

It does not do that at all. Again, in the hope that you will grasp it this time, this study _explicitely_ says:

"... however, this study focuses on mercury only."

That is a very far stretch from "taking into account all pollution during the life cycle of the bulbs from production to disposal".

While i thank you for digging up that study in a readable format for me, i have to say that it simply fails to answer my original questions and concerns.

Therefore i maintain my massive doubt that overall CFL's produce less pollution and require less energy than conventional incadescent bulbs.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Furcifer]

I don't understand what you're saying here.

-Bri

Well I make electricity for a living so that makes this a bit more complicated. Let's pretend I'm a truck driver.

In order to make $0.25 to buy a regular light bulb I need to drive about 1/4 mile. In order to make $10 I have to drive about 10 miles.

Essentially it takes more energy to make more money, and making more money makes more pollution. (I have to burn more natural gas to make more money, but I make more electricity. Same thing but slightly more confusing)

 

[Bri]

The other problem Bri is the fact that the energy profile during the night isn't the same as during the day or "peak" hours.

They apparently took into consideration the use of gas-fired peak generators in the study you referenced.

The case being made for CFL's when it comes to pollution is strung together with a lot of "ifs". Why not just say they will save people money on their electric bill? That's a provable truth.

Apparently, when taking into account as many "if's" as feasible, studies indicate that they both save people money due to a decrease in electricity use, and on average in the United States (and other areas that burn coal for electricity) result in a net reduction of mercury and other pollutants.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Thanks. However, the title already say that this is not what i am looking for: "Spatial Assessment of Net Mercury Emissions from the Use of Fluorescent Bulbs".

I don't know of any studies that look at other pollutants since the main concern with CFL's is the mercury they contain. However, coal-fired power plants also produce all sorts of other pollutants which could be considered.

If there are other pollutants that are emitted during the manufacturing process for CFL's but not for incandescent bulbs, and those pollutants aren't also emitted from coal-fired power plants, then I suspect that CFL's would result in more of those pollutants. Otherwise, probably not.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Well I make electricity for a living so that makes this a bit more complicated. Let's pretend I'm a truck driver.

In order to make $0.25 to buy a regular light bulb I need to drive about 1/4 mile. In order to make $10 I have to drive about 10 miles.

Essentially it takes more energy to make more money, and making more money makes more pollution. (I have to burn more natural gas to make more money, but I make more electricity. Same thing but slightly more confusing)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but I'm pretty sure you're not going to get any more money by driving more than is needed to meet whatever demand you're trying to meet. If you're a truck driver, your company isn't going to pay you more by driving farther than what they need you to drive. Overall, there would probably be less demand for driving for CFL's since there are fewer needing to be shipped compared to incandescent bulbs.

Nonetheless, if the theory is that people have to pollute more to make money, and therefore that higher cost light bulbs would result in more pollution, that would actually be an argument that CFL's produce less pollution than incandescents (they cost less over the life of the bulb than an incandescent).

-Bri

 

[Christian Klippel]

I don't know of any studies that look at other pollutants since the main concern with CFL's is the mercury they contain. However, coal-fired power plants also produce all sorts of other pollutants which could be considered.

Same here, that is why i asked. And again, it is not just about energy use, so it matters very little that coal plants produces other waste as well. As mentioned by others as well, using only coal plants is of little use, since that is not the only source for energy and also the use of coal varies widely between countries.

If there are other pollutants that are emitted during the manufacturing process for CFL's but not for incandescent bulbs, and those pollutants aren't also emitted from coal-fired power plants, then I suspect that CFL's would result in more of those pollutants. Otherwise, probably not.

-Bri

Try "semiconductor production pollution" in Google to find tons of information and studies about that. And semiconductors are used in CFL's and LED lamps.

And if you are in for some giggling while reading such things, try this one from Taiwan. Note the constant uses of "the capitalist", "the capitalists", etc. But besides that, like many other papers about that topic it raises a lot of points.

For example, it says that to produce an 8" wafer, you get 9 pounds of hazardous waste, need ~3800 gallons of water, etc. You also need a few other parts, not only semiconductors, like resistors and capacitors, chokes, etc. But with the exception of capacitors, those are rather simple to produce, but nonetheless contribute to the overall.

Next read up about PCB production and the chemicals involved. However, to be fair, you must consider that usually you only have single sided PCB's in CFL's, which are easier to produce than double layer boards. However, the basics of getting the base material (epoxy and paper for cheap stuff, epxoy and glass fiber for better stuff, plus "anti-burn" stuff required for the use in CFL's), copper, etching, etc. is the same.

Then check out how fluoroescent lights are made, that is, what they require for coating, gas, glas, etc. Especially in the case of CFL's you need a somewhat thicker glas in a rather complex shape.

Finally look at production of plastic, required for the base of the lamp, but this is (to some extent) mitigated by the fact that a lot of recycling plastic is used nowdays.

And then you have the transportation required for all these components to the plant that produces the lamp or sub-assemblies (and subsequent transport to the lamp manufacturer).

While there is a lot of information about all the involved steps on the net, there seems to be no information that considers all this on CFL's (and to some extent LED lamps). This information is sorely missing. All you can get is mercury here, energy there, mostly for lifetime only and rarely for production/disposal. And if, it's again about energy and mercury only.

But that is far too short sighted and neglects a lot of important factors. Also, about end-of-life issues, google for "africa electronic recycling" to get some of the worst examples of what can and will happen to electronic waste.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Christian Klippel]

Overall, there would probably be less demand for driving for CFL's since there are fewer needing to be shipped compared to incandescent bulbs.

Quantity is one thing. Weight is another. CFL's weigh much, much more than simple incadescent bulbs, thus requiring more fuel to move them around.

Greetings,

Chris

 

[Furcifer]

Apparently, when taking into account as many "if's" as feasible, studies indicate that they both save people money due to a decrease in electricity use, and on average in the United States (and other areas that burn coal for electricity) result in a net reduction of mercury and other pollutants.

-Bri

If 51% of the electricity used to light the bulbs comes from coal, if they have 5mg (the industry average says nothing about what people are buying, cars are a great example of that) if they're disposed of properly, if we neglect the pollution involved in manufacturing and transporting them, if they last as long as the manufacturer claims, if people don't leave them on longer then they probably offset the mercury (not all pollutants) released into the environment. (which says nothing about the energy to recycle them or the pollution from disposing of them improperly)

That's quite a few "ifs".

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Shelf space at Lowes and Home Depot is about equal today and for the last year for (A) CFL (B) LED.

It's not the shelf space used that determines the competitiveness of a product, it's the price. Home Depot list 181 CFLs and 59 LED products (for comparison they also stock 125 fluorescent tubes and 247 incandescents). One of their most popular sellers is a 4-pack of 60W equivalent CFLs, which costs $3.97 or $0.99 per bulb. The cheapest 60W equivalent LED bulb they offer costs $23.97 each.

So if you want to replace your power hungry short lived 60W incandescents with more modern technology, you have to pay a premium of 24 times the price for LED vs CFL! You could replace over half the bulbs in an average home with CFL's for the same price as 1 LED!

I would be very happy to see LEDs come down to the same price as CFLs, but right now they are poles apart. CFLs are only a little more expensive than incandescents, and the advantages of lower power bills and longer lifespan are well worth paying a little more for. In comparison, LEDs are ridiculously expensive. That's OK if you are rich enough to afford them, but I suspect the resistance to changing is much higher than for CFLs.

 

[Bri]

Same here, that is why i asked. And again, it is not just about energy use, so it matters very little that coal plants produces other waste as well. As mentioned by others as well, using only coal plants is of little use, since that is not the only source for energy and also the use of coal varies widely between countries.

Which is why my comments were specific to the United States, specifically in reference to the legislation mentioned in the OP of this thread.

Try "semiconductor production pollution" in Google to find tons of information and studies about that. And semiconductors are used in CFL's and LED lamps.

At least according to the study I cited, the main pollutants in the production of light bulbs come from electricity from coal-powered plants used to manufacture them. Again, that study was mainly concerned with mercury, so maybe there are other pollutants that the study simply ignored. Unfortunately, I don't know what studies it referenced, but that would likely have been a good place to start looking.

I've seen no other studies that indicate it, but perhaps there are significant pollutants specific to the manufacture of semiconductors that would result in larger amounts of pollutants or more harmful pollutants than are produced during the manufacture of the far greater numbers of incandescent bulbs that they replace.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Quantity is one thing. Weight is another. CFL's weigh much, much more than simple incadescent bulbs, thus requiring more fuel to move them around.

I believe that a CFL will replace around 10 incandescent bulbs. I don't know which would weigh more, but both weight and volume are significant when considering shipping costs.

-Bri

 

[Furcifer]

Nonetheless, if the theory is that people have to pollute more to make money, and therefore that higher cost light bulbs would result in more pollution, that would actually be an argument that CFL's produce less pollution than incandescents (they cost less over the life of the bulb than an incandescent).

-Bri

No it depends on the cost. You have to look at the cost per hour (or year) of light.

Incidentally, you do know you can get a 25000 hour rated incandescent bulb for $1.50 right? I doubt if it gets 25000 hours under normal use, but neither do CFL's.