CFL's the next environmental disaster?

Jayman, aren't those inorganic levels quite high? I thought arsenic was limited to .01 and chromium to .10?

Tom

 

The net savings in mercury released to the environment isn't that straightforward. If X number of total kilowatt-hours are saved by replacing an incandescent bulb with a CFL, it is not guaranteed that the electric company will choose to purchase X fewer kilowatt-hours from a coal plant. Granted, I have little knowledge about the electric energy market, but I do understand that electric companies can buy electricity from almost any source as long as they can pay for it. They move electricity around as easily as electronically moving money around. If an electric company were solely motivated by profit, then I would think that they would reduce their electricity purchase of X kilowatt-hours from the most expensive source of electricity. That most expensive source is probably nuclear-generated electricity, much cleaner than coal. So, unless there are some other motivating factors for the electric company, it seems likely that the coal plant ends up producing just as much electricity.

 

The sky is falling, The sky is falling!!!
Just wait till 12/21/2012 and you'll see!
"Mr. Natural" was asked "What does it all mean?
Well he says, it don't mean shit!!!!

 

Depends on whether you're talkiing about ppb or mg/L. Recall that mg/L approximates ppm

So in mg/L, the MCL for arsenic is 10, and the MCL for chromium is 100. According to the results, Tampa Bay water tests at 0.48 for arsenic and 0.85 for chromium

Since Tampa uses a fresh water river, storage reservoirs, and a separate well system from Tampa Bay Water, one can expect arsenic from well water. It's naturally occuring in most well water out there

You'll notice the sodium is at the upper MCL allowable range. There is probably salt water intrustion into the wells operated by Tampa Bay Water. I would expect that in a coastal area

 

I agree. It's difficult to "throttle" a coal plant, they are most efficient at their design capacity. Short cycling and staging can actually cause stress cracks in boilers and turbines

 

Carz89,

While your analysis may be technically correct on any given hour/day etc, the reality is that if we were to all drop our average peak consumption X% by using CFLs the opportunity to shut down a number of coal plants exists due to decreased peak demand.

I don't know what percentage of residential electrical consumption is as a result of lighting,, but let's assume that it is ~30%. Dropping that 30% by 75% is about a 10% total reduction in consumption (if my math is near accurate)!

The real answer is if you don't consume it,, you don't have to generate it! Don't consume often enough in this context,, and the on line capacity can shrink,,, along with harmful emissions,, like mercury.

Icarus

 

I think the main concern over CFL's, at least my only concern, is the release of the mercury vapors into the air when one breaks, especially if they are over head. Ingestion and skin absorption is low, but inhaling the vapors can be bad.

Elemental mercury is a neurotoxin, interfering with the growth and function of nerve cells. It is especially dangerous to young developing children. Twice now I have had a CFL pop, where the glass tube separated from the ballast, releasing the Mercury vapors into the air, while my kids were in the room playing, and this room doesn't have windows.

In general, I do believe they are a great idea, but in certain circumstances, I feel they pose a health hazard.

 

RE Zythryn and Icarus:
Actually that is outdated... also from EPA and DOE


Why CFL mercury is worse than coal power mercury

Greater coal power mercury problem was only ever true where untreated coal power dominated, and is not true any longer.

New injection and photochemical techniques along with conventional gasification and wet scrubber use have -and will- dramatically reduce all coal power mercury emissions.

USA Government EPA (Environmental Protection Agency):
90% mercury emission reduction by 2018 (phase 1 = 21% reduction by 2010, phase 2 = 69% further reduction by 2018):
"On March 15, 2005, EPA issued the Clean Air Mercury Rule to permanently cap and reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants for the first time ever. This rule makes the United States the first country in the world to regulate mercury emissions from utilities."
(new EPA administrator Lisa Jackson early 2009 confirmed the vigorous reduction policy)

All about mercury and CFLs and emissions including EPA links and other references: ceolas.net/#li19x


In a nutshell:
1. We know where the ever decreasing 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 are, and so we can't do anything about them.


Also: The China Factor
ceolas.net/#li193x onwards
Mining, Manufacturing and Intercontinental Transport (shipping, from bunker oil) release of mercury and CO2 emissions, adding further to the CFL side in mercury release.


Re LEDS:
If new LED lights are good, people might actually buy them, unlike CFLs - no need to ban ordinary light bulbs.
The arrival of the transistor didn't mean that more energy using radio tubes had to be banned... they were bought less anyway.

If LEDs are not good, people will not buy them - no point in banning ordinary light bulbs either.

 

RE Breakage of CFLs

Obviously official info is always going to err on the side of caution...legal reasons and all that

Still, Maine state government breakage testing
( maine.gov/dep/rwm/homeowner/cflreport.htm )
in 2008 found worries to be justified, and has led to Maine becoming the first state to pass a law (May 2009) requiring manufacturers to limit mercury levels in the bulbs and pay for recycling them. CFL manufacturers will have to provide free collection of household CFLs by 2011, though the precise way is not specified. Note that similar free collection schemes in shops etc of CFLs (and batteries) in the EU has not given much result.

 

Actually, it would be much more sensible to have the beer tested. (How else do you think I was able to do the 24 hour test?)

Back to being serious. It definitely is not the wise one of the family trying to do me in, but wow, everyone, including the doctor had that thought.

As for the water quality, the destruction of the aquifer water levels is really bad. Salt water intrusion is forcing taking water from the rivers directly.

 

Lghthouse,

You make some interesting points. First,, clearly, good LED would be a way better alternative than cfls, but the reality is that given proper management/disposal/recycling cfls net/net are better than incandecents lumen for lumen.

The reality is,,yes if you throw your stuff in the trash with little regard for how it effects others it is a problem. Mandating that manufactures and retailers accept returns and recycle the bulbs in such a way that end users will do it is a great step forward. I applaud Maine for doing so,, as well as places like home depot for accepting bulbs for recycling.

As for the transport issue. If you are going to have national or international trade you are going to have emissions from shipping. The best we can do is work to reduce it by limiting our consumption and buying local as much as practicable.

As for coal emissions,, while I concede the point that "we know where the smoke stacks are" (sic) there is more to coal emissions than just mercury,, so even if cfls were a wash in terms of mercury,, they are a huge net gain in terms of other environmental issues.

Do I think that they are the solution to all that is wrong with the world?, no. Do I think that LEDs are really a better solution? you bet. Do I think that there is virtually no place in this world for incandescent bulbs? I do. Banning their manufacture, import and sale is a giant step forward to getting people to change their perceptions and indeed their habits.

Icarus

 

There are a number of problems with the mercury scare scenarios for CFL's. Several have been covered at length, but even in a localized setting the amount of mercury exposure is likely to be miniscule.
1. Not all of the mercury in the tube is vaporized while operating anyway.
2. When a vacuum tube cracks, air rushes in, that cools the gas rapidly...condensation occurs making it less likely that the mercury will escape.
3. What I've read indicates very little of the mercury actually escapes during the first 8 hours after breakage (this was however based on standard fluorescents).
4. CFL's I use advertise ~2 mg of mercury.

icarus is correct that CFL's will back out coal over the long haul. It is not immediate, but electrical efficiency improvement will generally back out the less favored coal in the form of plant retirements or unbuilt facilities.

Despite acdii's repeated expressions of great concern over CFL's, has he ever bothered to tell us what brand and model of CFL popped? One would think that if this really was a safety issue, he would be eager to warn us what brand to avoid... Instead he maligns CFL's as a whole.

 

Aaaahhh ! !
That explains a LOT of things

yea, me too.

 

don't know if this has been discussed in this thread... but does anyone have PF measurements for LEDs. Shawn has mentioned the crappy PF of CFLs and I confirmed this remarkable discovery with my own Kill-a-watt. I measured PF between .58 and .61. Pretty lousy. That's still better than using incandescent bulbs, but leaves a lot to be desired.

 

I don't malign CFL's! I use them in about 85% of the fixtures in my house, the other 15% they don't make CFL's for. I don't know what the brand was, they were purchased from Home Depot, and they are long gone.

Applications where CFL's do not work. Garage door openers, halogen light fixtures, candelabra lilght fixtures, certain wall fixtures that use small bulbs. They definately do not work in my power tools. They totally suck at being spot lights for outdoor lighting. I tried a cuple different brands in my motion sensor spot light and they took too long to produce enough light to be effective, unlike the regular bulbs which light up the area nicely and quickly. Ceiling fans, the verdict is still out, I replaced half of the bulbs in two fans with CFL's and seeing how long they last compared to actual ceiling fan bulbs.

My main concern that I have has always been the release of the mercury vapors when one of these breaks while in use, and those that have broken have all been in a room occupied by my 2 and 4 YO children, other than that I prefer their use in all the light fixtures that they fit in.

The problem I have with Halogens, they burn out way to fast. I have 3 light bars in my kitchen with the small Halogen spot light bulbs, each has 4 bulbs, and so far in the past year I have had to replace a dozen of them, some of them twice, and they have only been up for a couple years.

 

LEDs are not a reactive load, and so by themselves are not a PF problem. However, LEDs are not AC devices.

Simple LED lamps, such as Christmas tree lights, are driven directly from the AC mains. In this case the LEDs are wired in series and only draw at the peak of a half wave. While not reactive, this peak-half-wave draw is rather odd and could cause trouble if used for large loads.

Better LED lamps have active driver circuitry that converts AC into PWM DC. It is this driver circuitry that can cause PF problems. Newer driver chips are PF corrected, but many of the older ones are not very good.

Tom

 

acdii
You seem to burn out a lot of bulbs of all sorts.
I would look into any wiring/electrical issues your house may have.
In 2 and a half years I have broken one CFL and have had one burn out (out of about 45). The one that broke, broke when I tried removing it and slipped.
Yes, LEDs are better than CFLs (I use about 20 of those), but CFLs even with the minute amount of mercury they contain, are better than incandescants.
As for the mercury regulations someone mentioned earlier, that is great to hear. However, it doesn't change the fact that in the past, and present, that mercury is not regulated.

 

How is that pf better than incandescent light bulbs?

 

Incandescent bulbs have a power factor or 1.00.

Icarus

 

the PF isn't but the overall energy use is still superior. Am I not understanding something here? Remember, I know almost nowt about electricity so you have to be patient.

So PF is an issue with AC devices, not DC then, Tom? Must have something to do with the switching (the alternating bit). I remember some of you talking about a swing or a water wheel and having to overcome an electrical inertia of sorts being sort of a way to visualize what PF is. Is that roughly accurate?