- ‹ previous
- 740 of 1518
- next ›
Are Fluorescents Really Better?
Not necessarily. Not all parts of the world stand to benefit by switching from incandescent lightbulbs to compact fluorescents (CFLs). California does not. New Mexico does. Much of South America does not. Estonia does. Why? Because some places produce more mercury emissions by switching to fluorescent lighting, thereby trading fewer greenhouse gas emissions for more toxic mercury pollution.
A Yale study found the effectiveness of the switch varies by region depending on how heavily each area depends on coal, on the chemical makeup of the coal by region (some coal has mercury), and whether or not recycling programs exist for CFLs. In general, the cleaner the energy environment already in place the more detrimental the switch to CFLs. Youch.
Compact fluorescents are four times more energy-efficient than incandescent and last up to 10 times longer. But they also contain mercury, a toxin that can be released during manufacturing and disposal.
The authors examined all 50 states and 130 countries and found that Estonia, which relies heavily on coal-powered energy generation, tops the list as the country that would see the greatest reduction in mercury emissions for every incandescent bulb it replaces with a CFL. Yet given its reliance on coal plus its huge population, China stands to reduce its mercury emissions by the greatest overall amount. Other countries near the top of the list include Romania, Bulgaria, and Greece. The US states with the most to gain by switching are North Dakota, New Mexico, and West Virginia.
Meanwhile much of South America, Africa, the Middle East and parts of Europe, along with Alaska, California, Oregon, Idaho and several New England states, would actually increase their mercury emissions by switching to fluorescent lighting.
The researchers stress their study isn't an excuse to ignore the energy problem and stick with inefficient technologies. But they caution that blanket strategies such as recent bans on incandescent bulbs, adopted by several countries including the US, may be too general. All sustainability issues are local. The better answer: LEDs. The paper is available online at Environmental Science & Technology.
Julia Whitty is Mother Jones' environmental correspondent, lecturer, and 2008 winner of the Kiriyama Prize and the John Burroughs Medal Award.
There is no information in the linked article about the mercury levels in question, nor is there a discussion of why these mercury levels pose a risk. I would hope that the Yale technical article contains such an analysis, with a rigorous risk assessment. The key question here is whether the additional mercury poses enough of a danger to human health and the eco-system to offset the benefits of energy savings. My first guess is that the mercury contribution from the CFLs is probably pretty small compared to other sources of mercury in the environment, and not enough to pose a significant risk. If that assumption were to be correct, the use of CFLs would be completely justifiable in all cases, based on the energy savings.
Basically, CFLs contain mercury. Coal fired power generation generates mercury. So, if one uses power from coal one adds mercury to the planet. In that case, a CFL makes sense since the amount of mercury in a CFL is less than what coal fired power would generate provided disposal of the CFL is in place. Otherwise, the mercury in CFLs go right back into the planet. Obviously, for the most part, if power generation is done without coal then CFLs may indeed be less beneficial. But, CFLs do use less power and last longer. So, there is an economic benefit of some amount.
fyi, the actual amounts of mercury are probably in the 6mg (CFL) and 10mg (coal power). These numbers sometimes tend to be spun by spin masters from both sides.
In the grand scheme, power is supplied over a grid. Sometimes the grid to one area runs low. Power is then brought into the area via the grid. In that case, one could be getting power from both coal and non-coal power plants. In my opinion, the issue is disposal of CFLs is the key decision point. I believe certain retailers take the old CFLs. Then again, some do last 10 years. So, we could be creating a monster downstream.
Tim O'Neill is correct. "The key question here is whether the additional mercury poses enough of a danger to human health and the eco-system to offset the benefits of energy savings."
There are at least 3 issues that are not addressed in Julia Whitty's blog or in the comments: 1) what is the equivalent environmental content of an incandescent bulb? It is simply assumed that these are benign. Are they? What are the life cycle environmental impacts of producing and disposing of incandescent bulbs, and how do they compare to CFLs?
2) How much of the mercury (and other trace elements, because there are, in fact, many) in a CFL is released into the environment if, as assumed, it is thrown away rather than recycled. Burying the bulb puts the bulb and its mercury content into a landfill. Do all the bulbs break? (Presumably those that don't break don't release mercury). Does mercury combine readily with water or is there another pathway into the environment? Is the landfill lined? The article and comments address the mercury in the bulbs; what they need to address is how much of that mercury, under the worst circumstances assumed to be the case, reach the environment.
3) As O'Neill points out, we can then compare the total environmental impact of the CFL including its mercury pollution impact to the total environmental impact of producing and wasting energy by burning coal, fossil fuel, or nuclear power, all of which pollute directly into the atmosphere along with any potential impact of the incandescent bulbs which are simply assumed to be benign.
All of this also assumes that, where there is no recycling available, that it cannot be put in place. That would seem a fairly simple solution.
I cannot provide a detailed response to any of these questions, but I can suggest that the common sense answer is pretty obvious once the questions are asked.
Mothers with active children or pets have experienced the lamp falling over and the bulb breaking releasing all the mercury on the young child or pet. This is very dangerous folks. These bulbs are a danger to children and the environmentalists are responsible for many children growing up with learning disabilities.
Our electric bills have gone down considerably by replacing most of our light bulbs with CFLs. The nearby hardware store accepts CFLs for proper disposal.
Betty, do you have any data on children growing up with learning disabilities due to mercury exposure from CFLs? Your comment seems to place blame on generic "environmentalists" for a charge that needs to be backed up with some hard facts if we are to take you seriously.
In my opinion, child proofing a home by ensuring CFLs are not within reach of a child is as important as covering electrical outlets too. I have found that there are many bulbs in a home that are out of reach of a child. Others such as table lamps etc are obvious candidates for the incandescent bulbs. As far as safe levels of mercury, a google search would provide some raw data facts on its impact on children. It does seem that a lot of fish these days have a level of mercury that when consumed at certain levels could be a problem too. This mercury probably enters the water system from somewhere, including the coal power plants. My approach is to use CFLs where they are "safe", dispose properly and "eat" a safe amount of fish.
Until the silicon-based LEDs are actually on market, I've no problem using CFLs, and Texas is a relatively low-coal electricity state.
Julia also overlooks that, over the past several years, CFLs have improved in quality and reduced their mercury content. LEDs aren't chasing a static target.
Remember also that some children and adults have a serious condition called Irlen Syndrome and experience serious neurological difficulties, when exposed to the frequencies of light in fluorescent bulbs. The condition can be partially controlled using eyeglasses that are specially tinted to filter out the offending frequencies. If incandescent light bulbs are banned and one cant get away from fluorescent lights, it puts quite a burden on the individual. There needs to be accommodation for these individuals, not a total ban on incandescent bulbs.
Carolyn, I use tin foil hats to counter the beams. It really works. I use my cfl's to be socially responsible. I also made a helmet for my cat.
If you want to pursue analysis like this start by looking at the expected global population of nine billion people by 2050. Anything you are discussing, the living standard you expect your country to provide you, whatever emissions target of whatever pollutant you care to name, divide it up per capita from whatever you use in whatever state you live in then multiply by nine billion people. I would almost guarantee you that anyone with a global perspective will inform you that you'd need several more planets to provide everyone with that level of waste emissions.
Going back to fluorescents. Its insane to say people should think incandescents are preferable in some areas. Why not just control the mercury release by manufacturing and recycling them correctly? How hard can that be? LEDs at the moment are extremely costly for the same amount of light a flourescent puts out and the efficiency is similar. They aren't ready for prime time.
It is good to consider things in the way you have with this though. I'm saying the problems are so great now that anyone I've ever known who has looked deeply into them is experiencing an inner despair that comes only to those forced to give up all hope. We need to find a way where no serious analyst believes one can be found. I'm not saying one will not be found, but this is only because I have faith in human beings that if they ever did wake up to how serious this running out of planet problem is and started working on it, a solution would suddenly be possible.
"environmentalists are responsible for many children growing up with learning disabilities."
What a boneheaded comment. Environmentalists? Seriously, now. How about factories, chemical plants, fertilizers, and radiation. Better get your information straight.
When it comes to bulb efficiency, what's the verdict on halogen bulbs? They put out a brilliant light at low wattage. Can we use these instead? Because frankly, I can't stand CFLs. The "white light CFL" is a myth, and their sickly yellow-green glow makes me ill. I'd rather light my house by gas lamps than those things, and I do not use them.
Environmental mercury causing learning deficits? Then, by that reasoning, everyone in Virginia and most of my friends in ND would have had learning disabilities. I and much of my family grew up using a coal-burning stove - we all were honor roll students.
Irlen Syndrome is ALL light, not just fluorescent. Yellow-green glow? Sheesh, that's idiotic, the spectrum CAN BE MEASURED - fluorescent tends toward violet, incandescent emits infrared, halogen can be tuned to whatever you want.
There are dozens of environmental sources of mercury, do a Google search and go pick on - oh, BULLET or marine paint manufacturers.
MOJOs ignorance is amazing.