Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: dayglored; Dallas59; SunkenCiv; Bellflower
The lesson here is: Don't confuse the social/political aspect of CFLs (having them crammed down our throats by bureaucrats) with the technical/scientific aspect which is the same-old-thing as with the long tubes.

I doubt we have very many Luddites here on FR. If our fascist government wants to shove Volts and CFL's down our throats, the most we workers should expect is that THEY have thought through the "technical/scientific" and pragmatic aspects of the products of their green agenda.

When superior products are introduced, consumers generally buy them, assuming they are affordable.

Admittedly, I have a fierce prejudice against the CFL. I don't consider it a scientific/technological advancement, and esthetically (and for reading, practically), the garage is the only "room" in my house I would tolerate having that special supermarket, factory, office "feel"---as long as I have a choice.

Nevertheless, while not presuming to speak for Dallas59, my skepticism about the merits of the CFL is more statistical---a matter of scale.

What has been the ratio of lightbulbs to fluorescent bulbs in the average home? I have about 50 incandescent bulbs to 3 long fluorescent tubes.

I can't find any statistics that quantify how many incandescent bulbs vs fluorescent tubes are currently in use in the US. I would like to see those statistics. How much more mercury will we introduce into our environment if every incandescent bulb is converted to a CFL? Has the government provided that information? I haven't seen it and can't find it.

The only reason I think CFL's are not likely to be a mercury problem is because I believe the public will probably reject them ---particularly if the price of LED's continue to decline and assuming we can't get the bill repealed.
~~~~~~~~~

"If a compact fluorescent lamp breaks in your home, open nearby windows immediately to disperse any mercury vapor that may escape, carefully sweep up the glass fragments, and wipe the area with a disposable paper towel to remove any remaining fragments. Do not try to pick up glass fragments with your hands, and do not use a vacuum. Place all glass fragments in a sealed plastic bag and dispose of them with your other household trash. "

from a CFL- and green-friendly source

If that's not possible, call the Hazmat crew. /sarc/

35 posted on 01/07/2012 9:02:08 PM PST by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: thouworm
> What has been the ratio of lightbulbs to fluorescent bulbs in the average home? I have about 50 incandescent bulbs to 3 long fluorescent tubes. I can't find any statistics that quantify how many incandescent bulbs vs fluorescent tubes are currently in use in the US. I would like to see those statistics. How much more mercury will we introduce into our environment if every incandescent bulb is converted to a CFL? Has the government provided that information? I haven't seen it and can't find it.

Those are legitimate questions. Let me give you what information I have.

The mercury in a fluorescent bulb is excited by applied electrical current to produce UV radiation, which in turn causes the coating of the bulb to "fluoresce" -- to give off the visible light we see from the bulb. Roughly, the amount of mercury in the bulb is proportional to the amount of light expected from the bulb, which is in turn proportional to its wattage. So one would expect a standard 4-foot long 40-watt tube fluorescent to contain perhaps four times as much mercury as a 9-watt CFL (the "40W-incandescent equiv."). The CFL considered equivalent to a 100W incandescent is about 25W, so about half the mercury of the 4-foot 40-watt fluorescent tube.

That approximation is "with all other things being equal". They're not -- CFLs are in general designed to use less mercury than the older styles of bulbs, for the same output, in that they only use enough mercury to last the expected lifetime of the bulb, with no excess. Older bulbs were typically manufactured with extra mercury. How much extra? I don't know offhand, probably could find out.

So it is NOT correct to merely count bulbs. A CFL contains much less mercury than a 4-foot tube. Unfortunately I do not have exact figures, because they vary with style of bulb, manufacturer, etc. But given the environmental regulations now in effect, I have to believe those numbers are available from the manufacturers as a matter of public interest.

> Admittedly, I have a fierce prejudice against the CFL.

I don't share your bias, largely because I have used CFLs exclusively for 20 years in my off-grid, extremely low-power-budget PV-powered house. I used the early OSRAM bulbs (awful) and Philips bulbs (also awful) and a variety of others (varied but mostly awful). But I have seen them improve over those 20 years to the point where I consider them pretty damn good, the last 5 years or so.

That said, I still prefer the warm glow of an incandescent for certain activities, and I am anything but a purist about CFLs. And I especially dislike the government forcing this issue, and resent it even though I'm already using the things.

37 posted on 01/07/2012 9:31:35 PM PST by dayglored (Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson