Banning Incandescent Light Bulbs?

[mhaze]

Then they're making a mistake. CFLs are definitely cheaper than incandescents over the lifetime of the bulb....

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?

..... 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." .....

They are not necessarily cheaper at all. In rapid cycling, lifetime is degraded 85%. Or if rarely turned on, the "savings" is a small part of a small thing. Some CFLs like upright, versus horizontal applications, some don't like an environment with high vibration.

Further, many people buy the 100w CFL where they previously had a 40 watt incandescent. That's because of several real world factors. First, many of the CFLs, regardless of their say..."40 watt equivalent" in practice don't seem to put out the same light as a 40 watt incandescent. Obviously, if a consumer replaces a 40 with a 100, there is no savings either in purchase cost or energy costs. Then there are the issues that the CFL produced far less light than the rated amount in cold, such as a winter night. And linear degradation of light output occurs over several years of life.

So they MAY be cheaper, if used in accordance with their limitation and not otherwise. But people don't really do that. They just buy bulbs and screw them in. I doubt if in practice, many people are seeing reduced electrical bills, and if they are, it would be due to the personal judgements above mentioned.

Instead of authoritarian control "helping them", it would be in spite of those controls.

Next, you make the same incredible blunder Bri did, of trying to average mercury contamination across the whole country or world based on alleged lower electrical utilization. That's a statistical error, otherwise known as lying by statistics. It has NOTHING TO DO with localized mercury contamination of a city's landfill, or a recycling facility. Or of lakes and rivers downstream from such a landfill.

Again. The EPA safe limit for mercury is 1/500 of that contained in a single CFL.

Finally, Jevons Paradox will likely mean that electrical utilization for lighting will go up, not down, as a result of the efficient bulbs (LED) opening new market areas. I don't think CFL has opened any new market areas, they have just made the existing one more miserable.

One more thing. The very terminology used by the resident tree huggers makes the CFL disposal problem worse, not better. Bri, and Joe, use the phrase "recycling CFLs". They are not "recycled", that is just politically correct words. But using that phrase will cause people to toss them in the recycling box, where mercury then then contaminate the entire process line of that system. In my opinion, the regular trash is superior because it goes direct to a landfill.

For a recycling line to be safe at the 1st level from higher levels of mercury resulting from CFLs, you would need all personnel to wear not just gloves but masks, then have the line and facility periodically washed down, and have chemical hood style airflow over that entire line, which directs the harmful chemicals away from the personnel.

That's not adequate in my opinion, yet it isn't being done.

Here is a sample a part of the procedures of what to do if you are exposed to ONE BROKEN CFL and it's mercury:

• Remove contaminated shoes and clothing and place them in the trash bag. Seal the bag.
• Dispose of clothing properly and shower well.

When the law was passed in 2007, the dangers of mercury in CFLs were really not well understood. Now they are, and those who were big supporters of CFLs based on the myth that it would have a positive environmental impact are now just engaged in damage control...eg, lying.

 

[Furcifer]

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.

That presumes they get to the landfill intact. I have trouble getting them in from the car, in the clamshell packaging without breaking at least 1

They hit the curb, first time the garbage truck goes through a compression cycle they break open and it's a mystery where they wind up. Kinda like tire treads.

 

[Bri]

That presumes they get to the landfill intact. I have trouble getting them in from the car, in the clamshell packaging without breaking at least 1

Actually, it assumes just the opposite. It assumes that the mercury in the bulbs is released into the environment. Remember that CFL's save a huge amount of electricity over incandescents. That electricity is produced by power plants that emit mercury. The mercury emitted by those power plants to produce the electricity saved by a CFL is far more than the tiny amount of mercury in the CFL.

They hit the curb, first time the garbage truck goes through a compression cycle they break open and it's a mystery where they wind up. Kinda like tire treads.

Yup. Even if all the mercury from all CFL's escaped into the environment, CFL's still result in a net decrease in mercury emission, according to the best evidence available.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

So they MAY be cheaper, if used in accordance with their limitation and not otherwise. But people don't really do that. They just buy bulbs and screw them in. I doubt if in practice, many people are seeing reduced electrical bills, and if they are, it would be due to the personal judgements above mentioned.

(bolding mine) Evidence please. All of the situations you listed where CFL's may not be cheaper are exceptions to common usage. So the statements "people don't use them in accordance with their limitation" and "They just buy bulbs and screw them in" are in opposition. On average, CFL's are significantly cheaper than incandescents over the life of the bulb if you "just buy bulbs and screw them in."

Next, you make the same incredible blunder Bri did, of trying to average mercury contamination across the whole country or world based on alleged lower electrical utilization. That's a statistical error, otherwise known as lying by statistics.

Again, this is not my calculation, but the calculation used by experts. Please provide evidence that it's a statistical error.

It has NOTHING TO DO with localized mercury contamination of a city's landfill, or a recycling facility. Or of lakes and rivers downstream from such a landfill.

Of course my argument (that CFL's result in more mercury emissions overall) has nothing to do with the differences between mercury in a landfill and mercury released into the air. YOU were the one who brought this up by claiming that a smaller amount of mercury from CFL's is worse for the environment than the much larger amount from power plants because it's concentrated in landfills instead of emitted into the air. But you have yet to provide evidence to support your claim. Instead, you falsely accused me of making the opposite claim, which I never did.

Then you made a claim about workers in recycling facilities not having any procedures or guidelines to follow in dealing with broken CFL bulbs, which again you never substantiated with any evidence.

One more thing. The very terminology used by the resident tree huggers makes the CFL disposal problem worse, not better. Bri, and Joe, use the phrase "recycling CFLs". They are not "recycled", that is just politically correct words. But using that phrase will cause people to toss them in the recycling box, where mercury then then contaminate the entire process line of that system. In my opinion, the regular trash is superior because it goes direct to a landfill.

Evidence please. The evidence that I've already posted indicates that you're wrong. According to the EPA, glass, metal, and other components including mercury are recycled. The recycled mercury is sold to companies like Sylvania to make more light bulbs.

Here is a sample a part of the procedures of what to do if you are exposed to ONE BROKEN CFL and it's mercury:

• Remove contaminated shoes and clothing and place them in the trash bag. Seal the bag.
• Dispose of clothing properly and shower well.

Source please. These appear to be guidelines for cleaning up larger mercury spills from mercury thermometers and the like. CFL's have different guidelines. Here's a document containing CFL guidelines:

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

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

(bolding mine)....Again, this is not my calculation, but the calculation used by experts. Please provide evidence that it's a statistical error.....

Please stop ignoring contrary evidence. I've already shown this a half a dozen times but here's three more.

• By your logic, anthrax releases into the environment are irrelevant because the amount of anthrax in the atmosphere remains vanishingly small.
• By your logic, my throwing CFL into the trash is perfectly fine, so there is no reason to worry about cleanup or "recycling".
• By your logic, someone going into a crowded room and throwing CFLs around presents no health problem.

You simply can't have it both ways. They are dangerous, because the amount of mercury released from one bulb is 500 times the safe limit. Anyone exposed repeatedly to broken CFLs is likely to be in trouble from mercury poisoning.

Atmospheric mercury has different effects, namely biomagnification which results in health problems from eating too much fish.

Get your facts straight.

Addendum. The mercury from just 200 CFLs (1 gram), carried downstream from a landfill or recycling center into a 30 acre lake, is enough to contaminate all the fish beyond safe eating levels.

"Recycling of mercury". The commodity value of mercury is less than $30 USD/kilogram. That's equal to 200,000 bulbs, which would need to be gathered (by robots, no person could pick those out of trash due to the percentage which would be already broken), crushed, rinsed, and the wash separated to get the mercury out. Maybe by centrifugation, if not, chemical process. Big money, million dollar machines, no profit.

Therefore, no recycling operation is going to reclaim mercury and mercury is not recycled. That's improper use of terms and contributes to the problem greatly, in my opinion.

 

[Bri]

Please stop ignoring contrary evidence. I've already shown this a half a dozen times but here's three more.

No, you've provided unsubstantiated claims, but no evidence to back them up. Usually, when one presents evidence, one cites a reliable source rather than pulling random statements out of their own bottom. Case in point...

• By your logic, anthrax releases into the environment are irrelevant because the amount of anthrax in the atmosphere remains vanishingly small.
• By your logic, my throwing CFL into the trash is perfectly fine, so there is no reason to worry about cleanup or "recycling".
• By your logic, someone going into a crowded room and throwing CFLs around presents no health problem.

As you know, I never made any claim similar to any of these.

What I did say was that of course CFL's should be recycled and disposed of properly, but even if they aren't CFL's result in less mercury emitted into the environment than incandescents.

What you posted above is not evidence that the studies upon which I base my statement contain statistical errors as you claimed.

You simply can't have it both ways. They are dangerous, because the amount of mercury released from one bulb is 500 times the safe limit. Anyone exposed repeatedly to broken CFLs is likely to be in trouble from mercury poisoning.

Nobody said they wouldn't be dangerous if you were to be repeatedly exposed to a lot of broken CFL's.

But I did ask for evidence that recycling facilities don't take precautions to prevent direct exposure to mercury by their workers. I'm still waiting.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

...As you know, I never made any claim similar to any of these.....

No you have not claimed these specific things. I've taken your logic, and applied it to other cases, to show how ridiculous it was.

....Nobody said they wouldn't be dangerous if you were to be repeatedly exposed to a lot of broken CFL's.

But I did ask for evidence that recycling facilities don't take precautions to prevent direct exposure to mercury by their workers. I'm still waiting.

-Bri

Because I've already cited what safety protocols have to be, and even those are clearly inadequate. If some number of people bought into the green religion, and figured that the sheeple would follow the party line and dutifully and properly "recycle their CFLs" then those people are responsible for the consequences when the sheeple do not.

The authoritarian liberal controller response to this problem is "We made a law, and it created some issues, so we need ANOTHER LAW to fix those issues".

Suurrrreee...

 

[Bri]

No you have not claimed these specific things. I've taken your logic, and applied it to other cases, to show how ridiculous it was.

No you haven't. What you listed had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite of the second two things you listed.

Because I've already cited what safety protocols have to be, and even those are clearly inadequate.

Except that you claimed there were no safety protocols for recycling facilities. Rather than presenting evidence, you're now changing your claim with another unsubstantiated claim.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

No you haven't. What you listed had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I explicitly said the opposite of the second two things you listed.....

Looks very similar to me. Why don't you explain the logic in your statement, and how it differs from the analogous situations I mentioned?

...Except that you claimed there were no safety protocols for recycling facilities. Rather than presenting evidence, you're now changing your claim with another unsubstantiated claim.

-Bri

No adequate safety protocols, yes. It's a simple case of area contamination. I talked about the matter sufficiently.

And to put it bluntly, you are ignoring contrary evidence. There is NO FIX to this problem except to ban CFLs, and there should be no problem with doing that, since LED is coming along nicely, and many traditional bulbs are still available (and others are being provided through marketing the "rough service bulbs" as regular bulbs).

The mercury from just 200 CFLs (1 gram), carried downstream from a landfill or recycling center into a 30 acre lake, is enough to contaminate all the fish beyond safe eating levels.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here is the claim and the reasoning as to why the use of CFLs rather than traditional incandescent bulbs will result in less mercury emissions:

How do CFLs result in less mercury in the environment compared to traditional light
bulbs?
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.

Linky.

As I showed earlier, the energy savings would only have to result in a 0.12% decrease in mercury emissions to offset mercury from CFL bulbs even if every single CFL sold in 2009 were immediately tossed into the trash. (And I know for a fact that at least some people are properly disposing of them.)

ETA: And the EPA is saying pretty much the same thing:
http://www.epa.gov/mercury/cfl.html

BTW, if a CFL is thrown away intact, no mercury is released unless or until it is broken. And then, the release is immediate--mercury vapor being released into the atmosphere, accounting for about 11% of the mercury in the CFL bulb. The rest is stuck to the inside of the glass. (I haven't read anything about whether or not that mercury will eventually be leached into the water supply in a landfill. If so, I suspect it's not something that happens all at once.) So a bulb broken in the home, the release has already happened. For an intact, burned out bulb, there is no release, and if that bulb is brought to a recycling point (such as Home Depot), all the mercury will be recycled and none released into the environment.

 

[Bri]

Looks very similar to me. Why don't you explain the logic in your statement, and how it differs from the analogous situations I mentioned?

Sure. My position from the beginning is that even if CFL's aren't recycled or disposed of correctly, they still result in less mercury emitted into the environment than incandescents. Less mercury is a good thing because mercury is hazardous to humans. I also said that we should recycle CFL's, because recycling them results in even less mercury emitted into the environment than not recycling them. So in order to minimize the mercury in the environment, we should use CFL's and we should recycle them.

To which you said:

By your logic, my throwing CFL into the trash is perfectly fine, so there is no reason to worry about cleanup or "recycling".​

Clearly I didn't say it was perfectly fine to throw CFL's into the trash, nor did I say that there is no reason to worry about cleanup or recycling. I said the opposite -- that we should recycle CFL's.

You also said this:

By your logic, someone going into a crowded room and throwing CFLs around presents no health problem.​

Again, my position suggests that it's best to reduce mercury because it's hazardous to humans. Which again, is the opposite of "presents no health problem."

So I don't know what kind of logic you're referring to, but under most circumstances A is not the same as ~A.

No adequate safety protocols, yes. It's a simple case of area contamination. I talked about the matter sufficiently.

So where's the evidence that recommended safety protocols for recycling facilities aren't adequate? Where are the reports of hundreds of recycling facility workers coming down with mercury poisoning?

-Bri

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

They are dangerous, because the amount of mercury released from one bulb is 500 times the safe limit.

What is the source of this information?

Everything I read says otherwise. From what I've read, only about 11% of the mercury (as mercury vapor) in a CFL bulb is released if the bulb is broken. If you open windows for a while, maybe even turn on a fan, it's almost certain that there won't be toxic concentrations of mercury vapor. Wiki mentions an article that found one-time exposure to mercury vapor to be dangerous (not deadly, however), but that was in concentrations of 1.1 to 44 mg per cubic meter. If you broke a bulb inside a sealed container 1 cubic meter in volume, you'd have less than the lower end of that concentration range. Studies showing toxicity at lower concentrations (in the micrograms per cubic meter range) showed toxicity from chronic (not acute) exposure.

At any rate, if the bulb fails passively ("burns out" without breaking), then no mercury is released at all. GE says the majority of CFLs fail passively. Just bring the intact bulb to Home Depot for recycling. Not a big deal.

ETA: Also manufacturers have been able to reduce the quantity of mercury in CFLs pretty dramatically the last few years. Some now contain less than 1 mg each.

 

[mhaze]

Sure. My position from the beginning <<irrelevant stuff>> So I don't know what kind of logic you're referring to........

And I agree with that.

What is the source of this information?

Everything I read says otherwise. From what I've read<<lecturing from unnamed "sources">>

There's likely nobody on this forum that can benefit from your lecturing, and none of what you've said about "proper behavior" matters one bit. Regular consumers are not trained, and likely are not trainable, in safe handling of dangerous chemicals. Waste of time to try.

Here's your MSDS. That would be the standard industry reference. It is right on track with what I said about safety procedures because they are frikkin' obvious.

http://fscimage.fishersci.com/msds/96252.htm

Oh, and by the way.....it's not really good idea to take your information about handling of any dangerous chemicals from politically aligned sources of any sort. That's a bit like asking the cigarette company if it's healthy to smoke, isn't it?

What you do is get an MSDS, and follow the procedures outlined there. Pretty simple, really. That keeps you out of trouble for the most part.

 

[Bri]

And I agree with that.

Hmmmm...then maybe I should rethink it!

-Bri

 

[Belz...]

And I agree with that.

Amazing. You think that his explanation is irrelevant ? He's directly answering your request !

 

[Bri]

Here's your MSDS. That would be the standard industry reference. It is right on track with what I said about safety procedures because they are frikkin' obvious.

I'm a little confused as to what the MSDS you posted is evidence of.

The MSDS you linked to is for nearly pure mercury, not for CFL's. Here's a MSDS for CFL bulbs:

http://www.tcpi.com/PDF/2007_40495 TCP MSDS CFL rev SS.pdf

Oh, and by the way.....it's not really good idea to take your information about handling of any dangerous chemicals from politically aligned sources of any sort. That's a bit like asking the cigarette company if it's healthy to smoke, isn't it?

The EPA isn't a company that produces mercury. These Material Safety Data Sheets are written by companies that produce mercury, but outline procedures that correspond with EPA recommended procedures.

What you do is get an MSDS, and follow the procedures outlined there. Pretty simple, really. That keeps you out of trouble for the most part.

From the MSDS concerning CFL's:

HEALTH CONCERNS

THERE ARE NO KNOWN HEALTH HAZARDS FROM EXPOSURE TO LAMPS THAT INTACT. No adverse effects are expected from occasional exposure to broken lamps. As a matter of good practice, avoid prolonged or frequent exposure to broken lamps unless there is adequate ventilation. The major hazard form broken lamps is the possibility of sustaining glass cuts.

...

MERCURY

The mercury in the air as a result of breaking one or a small number of fluorescent lamps should not result in significant exposures to an individual. However, when breaking a large number of lamps for disposal, appropriate industrial hygiene monitoring and controls should be implemented to minimize airborne levels or surface contamination. We recommend a well-ventilated area, and local exhaust ventilation or personal protective equipment.

...

PROCEDURES FOR DISPOSAL OF LAMPS

Take usual precautions for collection of broken glass. Place materials in closed containers to avoid generating dust. A Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) was conducted on these products showing a result of mercury content that is not considered hazardous waste. For field disposal the lead in the soldering is considered hazardous waste and must be disposed of by applicable federal, state and local regulations.
​

This seems to be evidence against your statement that "the amount of mercury released from one bulb is 500 times the safe limit." In fact, it says that the "major hazard form broken lamps is the possibility of sustaining glass cuts." Even looking at the one you posted I don't see how you obtained your numbers. Could you post the math you used?

And can you provide evidence that the procedures are inadequate for preventing mercury poisoning in recycling facilities?

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

BRI:

Sure. My position from the beginning is that even if CFL's aren't recycled or disposed of correctly, they still result in less mercury emitted into the environment than incandescents. Less mercury is a good thing because mercury is hazardous to humans. I also said that we should recycle CFL's, because recycling them results in even less mercury emitted into the environment than not recycling them. So in order to minimize the mercury in the environment, we should use CFL's and we should recycle them.

Amazing. You think that his explanation is irrelevant ? He's directly answering your request !

Because he argues the general issue when it suits his conclusion, ignores contrary evidence, and ignoresspecific issues that do not jive with his desired conclusion.

1. Ignore that some applications, incandescent are better because "overall"....

2. Ignore that some people, who are going to throw them into the trash, should not be forced to buy CFL because "overall"....

3. Ignore the high number of local contaminated areas resulting from use of CFL because "overall"....

4. Ignore the possibility that Jevons Paradox results in more energy usage instead of less in this case

5. Ignore the fact that in numerous areas, the entire premise of the argument is false, because coal "overall" is the problem.

• My area uses a large amount of nuclear, which is the case because we INVESTED in it.
• California, a net importer of energy, uses only 15% coal

6. Ignore the fact that as Ziggarat mentioned, saving money using CFL even if it occurs, does not necessarily lead to lower electric usage.

7. Ignore the fact that although in this case when serving a liberal goal, the general good is argued against the specific, while in many other cases serving a liberal goal, the specific is argued against the general. (nuclear plants cause lower mercury directly, and put coal plants out of commission.)

8. Ignore the fact that specific consumers who do not follow all the guidelines for CFL disposal simply put themselves and their family at risk of mercury poisoning through direct contact, while environmental mercury's primary effect is on fish and that's controllable by limiting fish intake.

Thus I argue that Bri's argument that "overall, mercury to the environment is less with CFL in use and thus CFL should be promoted and legislation passed that set efficiency standards beyond that which can be achieved with incandescent bulbs" is false both on it's premises, and in the logic leading to it's conclusion.

 

[Bri]

Because he argues the general issue when it suits his conclusion, ignores contrary evidence, and ignoresspecific issues that do not jive with his desired conclusion.

I haven't been ignoring the "specific issues" you've listed. I've asked for evidence that they're prevalent. Your own characterization seems to indicate that they are exceptions rather than the rule.

Thus I argue that Bri's argument that "overall, mercury to the environment is less with CFL in use and thus CFL should be promoted and legislation passed that set efficiency standards beyond that which can be achieved with incandescent bulbs" is false both on it's premises, and in the logic leading to it's conclusion.

I can point to a very small percentage of accidents where the use of a seat belt prevented a victim from being thrown clear and therefore resulted in injuries that might not otherwise have occurred. However, in the vast majority of accidents the use of seat belts clearly prevent injuries. So would you consider it "false both on it's premises, and in the logic leading to it's conclusion" that overall it's better to wear seat belts to prevent injuries in accidents?

ETA: Usually, when you put something in quotes and attribute it to someone like that, it indicates a direct quote. But that's not a quote of my argument -- it appears that you made it up and attributed it to me.

-Bri

 

[mhaze]

Oh, and one more thing. You and Joe have repeatedly ad nauseum argued that the EISA law isn't a "ban on incadescent bulbs", but just sets "efficiency standards". But you neither chose to tell us about the effect of the 2020 standards (or their very existence) OR

The fact that the DOE, the regulatory agency, is given by the legislation to enact outright bans on the sale of any type of bulb they choose.

Why?

 

[Bri]

Oh, and one more thing. You and Joe have repeatedly ad nauseum argued that the EISA law isn't a "ban on incadescent bulbs", but just sets "efficiency standards". But you neither chose to tell us about the effect of the 2020 standards (or their very existence)...

Back to this? Really?

It is demonstrably false that "neither chose to tell us about the effect of the 2020 standards" and you know it. We have talked about the increased requirements that come into effect in 2020 several times in this thread, as well as its effects and why the phrase "ban on incandescents" will be as inaccurate and misleading in 2020 as it is now.

To recap: While currently-available incandescent bulbs won't meet the more stringent requirements after 2020, any incandescent bulb that is developed that complies with the requirements will be allowed. Even if, as you contend, it is impossible even in theory for incandescent bulbs to meet the requirements (it's not, but let's pretend that you are correct and it is), there are incandescent bulbs that are exempt from those requirements. So no matter how you look at it, to say that the law bans incandescents now or after 2020 is inaccurate and misleading.

Furthermore, the use of the word "ban" is suspect because it is not illegal to use incandescents that you have on hand, even after 2020. And "phased out" would be preferable to "banned" because the requirements are incremental over time rather than coming into effect immediately.

The fact that the DOE, the regulatory agency, is given by the legislation to enact outright bans on the sale of any type of bulb they choose.

No. My understanding is that the regulatory agency can (under specific conditions) change the status of certain categories of bulbs that are currently exempt, making them no longer exempt. They cannot enact an outright ban on the sale of any type of bulb they choose. It would take an act of Congress to do that.

-Bri