apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Don't CFLs pose more of a risk to the environment with the mercury content? I for one, hate the type of light that comes from CFLs... it's never bright enough. Why haven't LEDs become more popular?

LEDs are expensive to manufacture, thus they are expensive.

Also, the amount of mercury produced in the process of preparing and burning coal in the average coal-fired plant in the U. S. (and yes, most people are getting energy from these) just to keep an incandescent lit over its lifetime releases far more mercury into the environment than a CFL. If you don't routinely break light bulbs, you don't release any mercury. It frustrates me that people still have this sort of reaction to CFLs when the mercury content is so low. You should be more worried about the mercury that comes from the coal that lets you use that much power for your incandescents.

That said, I do wish CFLs had a bit better quality of light. Though LEDs are no better. They are not good for brightness over a large area, making them quite terrible for regular lamps. For task lighting and night lights they are great (my night lights are LEDs), but for regular purposes they are too dim unless you want to shell out $120 for a Geobulb.

Australia's ban on incandescents isn't actually in force yet.

No one I know has had a problem with switching all their bulbs to CFLs. The CFL will get better in time. The reasons that article gives for people not wanting to give up their precious incandescent bulbs are ridiculous. They're acting as if the government is forcing them to revert to candle light. They need to think more about the their children's future. Their worries about how it will effect them in the present are selfish.

@shabadeux

Mercury and CFLs

A.
Mercury as a health problem

Sometimes ridiculed, stringent EPA recommendations of what to do when a bulb breaks was more than confirmed by recent Maine state testing
See http://www.ceolas.net/#li191x

B
Why mercury in CFLs is a much bigger problem than coal power mercury

For some reason the "coal power mercury emissions are worse" tale keeps doing the rounds:
This was only ever true where untreated coal power dominated, as the 2005 EPA diagram (commonly used) itself shows.

In the USA like the EU and Canada,
vigorous mercury emission control programs are in place
(using new injection and photochemical techniques as well as so-called wet scrubbers)
= USA EPA for example overseeing
90% mercury emission reduction by 2018, as confirmed by new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson early 2009.
More: http://www.ceolas.net/#li198x

In a nutshell:
1. We know where the ever decreasing local coal power stations chimneys are and we can treat their emissions with ever increasing efficiency at lower costs.
2. Compare that with billions of scattered broken lights on dump sites, when we do not know where the broken lights will be, and so we can't do anything about them
The notion that "mercury is deposited on the glass so is not all released as vapor" is true, but is then leeched into the ground, potentially contaminating river systems, water supplies etc instead.

CFL refund schemes would alleviate but not solve the problem, as shown by low European compliancy.

Unlike many people here in Europe against the ban,
I agree with the need to do something about emissions
(for all they contain, whatever about CO2)

But banning light bulbs is not the way forward,
and I think people who are less in agreement with
the background arguments will just be turned off from cooperating in more important environmental measures.

Let's think a little about this!

Europeans (like Americans) choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (European Commission and light industry data 2007-8)
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings - no point in banning an impopular product!

If new LED lights - or improved CFLs etc - are good,
people will buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves/tubes were banned… they were bought less anyway.


The need to save energy?
Advice is good and welcome, but bans are another matter...
people -not politicians – pay for energy and how they wish to use it.
There is no energy shortage - on the contrary, more and more renewable sources are being developed -
and if there was an energy shortage, the price rise would lead to more demand for efficient products – no need to legislate for it.

Supposed savings don’t hold up anyway, for many reasons:
http://www.ceolas.net#li13x
onwards
about CFL brightness, lifespan, power factor, lifecycle, heat effect of ordinary bulbs, and other referenced research


Effect on Electricity Bills

If energy use does indeed fall with light bulb and other proposed efficiency bans,
electricity companies make less money,
and they’ll simply push up the electricity bills to compensate
(especially since power companies often have their own grids with little supply competition)
Energy regulators can hardly deny any such cost covering exercise...
- in which case money savings affected

Conversely:
Since energy efficiency in effect means cheaper energy,
people simply leave appliances on more than before
(in the case of CFLs they're supposed to be left on more anyway, to avoid cutting down on their lifespan)
- in which case energy savings affected

The only real "energy saving" going on is in the mental activity of politicians in Brussels.. London... Dublin...


Emissions?
Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households already dominate some regions, and will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology and/or energy substitution.

Direct ways to deal with emissions (for all else they contain too, whatever about CO2):
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc10x

The Taxation alternative
A ban on light bulbs is extraordinary, in being on a product safe to use.
We are not talking about banning lead paint here.
This is simply a ban to reduce electricity consumption.

Even for those who remain pro-ban, taxation to reduce the consumption would be fairer and make more sense, also since governments can use the income to reduce emissions (home insulation schemes, renewable projects etc) more than any remaining product use causes such problems.

A few dollars tax that reduces the current sales (EU like the USA 2 billion sales per annum, UK 250-300 million pa)
raises future billions, and would retain consumer choice.
It could also be revenue neutral, lowering any sales tax on efficient products.
When sufficent low emission electricity delivery is in place, the ban can be lifted
http://www.ceolas.net/LightBulbTax.html

Taxation is itself unjustified, it is simply a better alternative for all concerned than bans.

Of course an EU ban is underway, but in phases, supposedly with reviews in a couple of years time...

maybe the debate in USA and Canada will be affected by the issues being raised over here?