Got a CFL?

[neon9]

this needs to be mandated, plain and simple. it doesn't need subsidies, it just needs a mandate with regulation (perhaps even regulation over how much of that extra cost can be passed down to the consumers). clean up or stop what you're doing. it might mean higher costs for us, but this is where we've brought ourselves.

this is really the main point i've been trying to make. we need to go after the source. the source is the biggest offender here and until that changes, we're not going to be changing a whole lot. i wouldn't mind coal power plants if they worked to make them cleaner. i am also not entirely opposed to nuclear power.

[runawayjim]

So it's ok to mandate lower profits for shareholders yet force them to invest in new sources of power, but mandating CFL's is not?

The source is power. Right now the power is generally produced from coal. So it seems to me that the quicker return is in reducing new demand by installing CFL's and insulating homes. Otherwise we're going to be building lots of new coal plants. We're too far behind to just say 'let's build solar panels'. They are too busy installing them in Germany and other places and there is already a global silicon shortage.

[neon9]

One thing to keep in mind, you can't really store electricity. Small scale you can use batteries, but large scale there are few ways. The only viable one I know of, in fact, is where they use the excess power in the evening to pump water up to a reservoir that in the day is able to be used in turn for hydro-electric.

since power can't be stored, power generation has to be built for the maximum usage. Agreed, you can turn generators off etc, but it is hard to quickly turn off a boiler on a day to day basis. CFs in the home don't make as huge an impact as other daytime needs. I think the focus really needs to be on better industrial reductions.

[Captain Worley]

I've noticed something weird with one of my CFLs. I have it outside on the front porch. Within the past month or so, on days below 50 degrees it will very briefly produce a bright flash (brighter than normal output) before settling into its low light ramp up to full lumens stage. The bulb is maybe 6 month old. Has anyone else noticed this?

It came from Wallyworld, if that makes any sort of difference

[Captain Worley]

A friend of mine designs water treatment plants. They had a presentation about increased use of CFLs and mercury contamination. This was one of the slides from the presentation.

[runawayjim]

A friend of mine designs water treatment plants. They had a presentation about increased use of CFLs and mercury contamination. This was one of the slides from the presentation.

[Captain Worley]

runaway, I think the last part was a reference to being 'given a pass by the media' like Obama was (remember the SNL skit).

Least, that's the way I took it.

[Nitro]

[Captain Worley]

You might not like it, but it isn't BS.

[Nitro]

You might not like it, but it isn't BS.

[Captain Worley]

It's kinda ridiculous to compare one CFL to a powerplant, don't you think?

The sole point of the cartoon was to point out what many don't know. It is gonna be a big problem for guys designing water treatment plants.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the 'which puts out more mercury' issue.

[monsoon]

It's kinda ridiculous to compare one CFL to a powerplant, don't you think?

[Captain Worley]

Well, as I said before, the cartoon was presented during a presentation for designers of water treatment facilities, so, yeah, it was to a target audience interested in contamination.

A little off topic, but Obama was getting a free pass until recently, as you notes, monsoon.

Here's a good question, though, now that you mention it. How many CFLs disposed = 1 kW of coal generated power in terms of mercury put into the environment?

I support CFLs, been using them since 1998 or so. I'm just curious.

[monsoon]

.....

.....

Here's a good question, though, now that you mention it. How many CFLs disposed = 1 kW of coal generated power in terms of mercury put into the environment? .....

[Captain Worley]

However I have discovered that power plants put 50 tons of mercury into the environment every year.

[Neo]

I'm rying to see if CFLs are lower mercury generaors than the amount of energy they save generates.

You must not forget to factor in the percentage of CFL's that actually get recycled. I can't imagine this being more than 2% or 3% but even at that low of a number it would certainly give a little more credit to the CFL when you compare expelled mercury.

[runawayjim]

i wish the no nukes folks would give up and we start building more nuclear power plants. i'm a hippie at heart, but i'm not kidding. in the long run, they're cleaner than the coal powered plants we rely on now.

[Captain Worley]

I do, too, runaway. I never have understood the bias against nukes.

I'm off to run down those numbers....

[monsoon]

I do, too, runaway. I never have understood the bias against nukes....

[Captain Worley]

Mercury: CFL

[Neo]

Thanks for crunching those numbers! That is certainly a telling tale but it pretty much renders the cartoon posted irrelevant IMO since CFL is overall a better technology for the environment given that coal is used to produce the power (which isn't 100% correct given there are other technologies in use producing power here in the US, but it most certainly is the majority of the plants).

[Captain Worley]

Yeah, for a nuke, hydo or gas fired plant, the CFLs would be dirtier, but I think the energy savings makes up for it.

No problem with the number crunching. I enjoyed doing it and proving to myself that CFLs were still a better deal, mercury-wise.

[monsoon]

Thanks for crunching those numbers as they tell an interesting tale. Of course burning coal releases a lot of other bad things into the environment, least of which the stuff that produces acid rain and particulates that cause asthma.

[Captain Worley]

The EPA documents I found do have the SO4/tons of coal burned, so I could calculated that too for grins. Since I have to back into the amount of coal/ kW-hr, it'll take a little more to do. If I get motivated and some free time, I'll post that as well.

It really helps me get a grasp on what's going on when I can see things in a per unit basis.

BTW, the EPA restriction for mercury release will fall to 20 tons in 2010 (if Clear Skies passes), so then CFLs won't have as large an advantage, but they will still have some.

[Neo]

BTW, the EPA restriction for mercury release will fall to 20 tons in 2010 (if Clear Skies passes), so then CFLs won't have as large an advantage, but they will still have some.

Although it isn't an environmental impact, the fact that you do end up saving money by using a CFL over incandescent is a huge added benefit IMO. A CFL will also need replacing much less thus saving waste which is an environmental impact, regardless of mercury.