According to this article there is a downside to fluorescent light bulbs; they have small quantities of toxic mercury that are hard to remove. Goes to show that sometimes working on one dimension of environmental quality exacerbates another. It's also why I don't like the idea of government mandates in favor of fluorescent bulbs.
Unintended consequences? 46
-
Posted 11:30 PM on 27 Mar 2007
by Jason D Scorse -
Posted in
-
Read More About
Jason Scorse, PhD
Associate Professor
Chair of the International Environmental Policy Program
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Institute Webpage: http://www.miis.edu/academics/faculty/node/936
Related Stories
Slideshow: Reinventing the JP Green House
Ask Umbra on shower caps, computers, and junk mail
A surprising sneak peek at the clothesline revolution
Add a Comment
You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
Comments
View as Flat
GreenEngineer Posted 4:22 pm
27 Mar 2007
I am eagerly awaiting the widespread availability of decent LED bulbs. High embodied energy but extremely long life, and no toxics that I'm aware of. They're out there now, but they're really expensive (e.g. $500 desk lamp).
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:32 pm
27 Mar 2007
Incandescent bulbs are heaters that give off a tiny fraction of their output in the visible spectrum. In the absence of serious carbon taxes and power plant Hg controls (90% reductions), mandates against inferior but cheapter technologies are the only way to reduce the rate of introduction of Hg into the atmosphere.
Besides, big florescent tubes also require Hg--if we're concerned about it then essentially all the industrial and commercial lighting in America needs to go.
Of course, the other huge benefit of CFLs is the dramatic reduction in greenhouse gases.
Catalytic converters require lots of exotic heavy metals--against mandates requiring them?
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 5:28 pm
27 Mar 2007
Programmed-start ballasts solve the lamp-life problem:
universalballast.com/literature/programmed.html
Accelerated cycle testing of the instant, rapid, and programmed starting methods has yielded surprising results (Figure 3). In 15 minute on / 5 minute off cycles, most rapid and instant start ballasts supply about 16,000 starts with a 50 percent lamp survival rate. The programmed start ballasts, however, exceed 40,000 starts..
They are not available for compact-fluorescents, though.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 5:59 pm
27 Mar 2007
The principle of unintended consequence resulting from well intended actions also apply the world's climate.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 11:58 pm
27 Mar 2007
The mercury issue was dealt with elsewhere on the Grist site. Even if everybody tossed the fluorescent bulbs in the trash, there would be a net reduction in mercury emissions... reduced burning of coal... as mentioned above by JMG.
As an economist, you might want to include other benefits in your calculations...some obvious, some not so obvious...
Assume energy required for lighting drops by 50-70%. Deployment of wind-power and photovoltaics for meeting residential energy demand suddenly becomes more practical because smaller systems are required. This stimulates investment in those technologies.
The bulbs not only consume less energy, but are also cooler. Less energy will be consumed to cool structures requiring large amounts of lighting. A reduced demand for cooling, means reduced consumption of material for manufacture, installation, and maintenance of cooling equipment. Businesses can install smaller systems. This reduces other pollutants, as well as the cost of construction and maintenance. This permits businesses to use their limited financial resources elsewhere... wages, healthcare? There is also a reduction in noise pollution.
This illustrates the major problem I have with economists -- though I very much appreciate their other contributions keeping civilization afloat and I realize there are economists with very different views, so I shouldn't generalize. They TEND to look only at the immediate costs and benefits of a decision. They TEND to neglect the long-range consquences that reverberate through the economy or the entire web of life we all depend on.
(I highly recommend you get a copy of "Wild Solutions" from the library. Just page through it and let me know whether economics can be used to justify discarding even a single element, a single species, even a diatom, found in the natural world. You might change your view regardig the acceptabiltiy of adapting to global climate change.)
Forward!
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:40 am
28 Mar 2007
Also, what bothers me about many environmentalists is that they are often so eager to find the "magic pill" that they endorse solutions without thinking them through- we see this just about everywhere. And they are very eager to tell everywhere to follow along and they want to enact new laws right away mandating their perceived solutions.
Bottom line: complex problems require complex solutions, and we all would benefit from a little more humility.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 2:56 am
28 Mar 2007
This is a general rule of design that has few if any exceptions, in my experience. It's one that all the green policy wonks out there (both armchair and professional) would do well to internalize.
Think of it like a mantra. Complex problems require complex solutions... OMMMM :)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 2:58 am
28 Mar 2007
A somewhat ironic comment, given that the comments on your post show that environmentalists have thought this through -- more, it appears, than you have. Why always the knee-jerk resort to insulting environmentalists and the other readers of this site?
www.grist.org
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:11 am
28 Mar 2007
You're right, I'm knee-jerk and everyone else has comprehensive, thorough, workable solutions that take into account all perspectives.
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:23 am
28 Mar 2007
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 3:56 am
28 Mar 2007
A four foot linear T12 40W (1" dia) tube until the mid 90's contained about 40 mg of mercury, newer ones around 20 mg. Energy efficient T8 32W (5/8" dia) replacements contain about 10-15 mg.
A typical CFL contains 5-10 mg.
Given the amount of commercial lighting compared to residential, the potential impact of mercury from CFL's is small.
Recycle! As far as the cost of recycling, our local landfills take residential quantities of paint, used oil, etc. at no cost, they could add no cost drop off of burned out fluorescents as well.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:33 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 4:36 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:03 am
28 Mar 2007
A lot less mercury is going up from coal fired power plants.
And atleast this mercury, while present, is contained.
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:37 am
28 Mar 2007
But I have still managed to find uses for them for nearly 20 years; one is on a timer on a living room light that I set to come on at dark every night and go off at bedtime; the other two are in desklights that, when used, burn for hours. I'm pleased at how long they have lasted and how much energy they've saved. They are quite bright, and at only 27w power consumption, provide a noticeably cooler workspace over the desk.
Also, LED lamps are not $500. Nextten has a floor-model reading lamp and a similar desk model for under $200 (I have the floor model next to my reading chair). Although LEDs currenly only useful in applications like this (task lighting), I hope they will destroy sales of halogens.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:47 am
28 Mar 2007
If they reduce mercury in the air, great. If they increase it in ground water, not good. They do save people money and they do statistically last a lot longer, reducing the number of trips up a ladder. Those reasons alone make them worth it to many (myself included). I would probably continue to use them even if they prove to be less environmentally friendly. If your source of power does not come from coal then certainly your bulbs will represent a net mercury gain to the environment. Also, air-conditioning savings from them burning cooler are likely to be offset by higher heating needs.
I don't intend to look into the issue of compact bulbs in any detail, but I would not be surprised to find that they have downsides we are unaware of, and I wouldn't trust the government to know, they are busy promoting things like corn ethanol and soy-based biodiesel, and although the tide seems to be turning, these are examples of products that are still warmly embraced by many environmentalists, if not most.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:53 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
JMG Posted 5:54 am
28 Mar 2007
(In fact, complexity in a proposed solution is not only NOT a mantra, but is instead one of the indicia of a bad solution that won't, in fact, solve the problem.)
To risk a generalization, a complex solution is one that doesn't get at the root causes of a complex problem but, rather, tries to deal with the undesired consequences without getting at those root causes. That's why the solution has to be complex.
Example:
Problem: corporations fouling streams and rivers with effluvia. This is considered a complex problem of the first magnitude--a "problem from hell," in fact, because there are thousands of polluters, streams, chemicals being discharged, etc. A bewildering variety of variables emerge when one tries to approach the problem in all its complexity.
As a result, a ginormous bureaucratic machinery has been devised to deal (ineffectually) with this problem, the result of which is, perversely to embed the problem into the fabric of society, creating a legally unassailable right to pollute streams and rivers and to do things like create gigantic dead zones in places where life should be most abundant.
The failure is in accepting the design of the problem as given, and in not seeing that the underlying problem is that Actor A is able to impose costs on Actors B-Z that A doesn't experience.
Once you recognize the pattern, the real solution becomes quite simple:
You require that anyone discharging anything into stream or river take their own input water DOWNSTREAM of their own discharge (or from near the point of discharge for lakes).
At which point Actor A suddenly finds that, lo and behold, there ARE alternative processes available that don't result in the need for discharging the effluvia in the first place.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 6:01 am
28 Mar 2007
And yes, our passive solar home is noticeably less warm in the dead of winter when we use efficient lamps. Firewood makes up the deficit.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:09 am
28 Mar 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 6:27 am
28 Mar 2007
You only have to look at a CF bulb to see they're trouble...look at the base...it's gotta be full of nasty stuff. Now take a light bulb -- regular style -- not much there right?
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services. http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:31 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:36 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 6:38 am
28 Mar 2007
I wonder at what point the troll patrol becomes active around here... Ad hominem attacks and broad generalizations don't seem to be enough, sadly.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:06 am
28 Mar 2007
GreenEngineer, thank you for bringing this up. Perhaps one of the top Grist contributors can take this ball and run with it. An entire thread should be devoted to it... the problem in trying to solve problems is the tendency to look for a silver bullet... the one-size-fits-all solution. Certainly, if one can identify a root cause and take care of it, good. But all too often, what appears to be a simple problem is actually quite complex and demands multiple approaches and solutions.
Energy, for example. Conservation alone won't solve the problem, wind alone will not work, photovoltaics alone will not work, ethanol alone will not work, replacing all sources of light with LEDs will not work, et cetera. But each is valuable in a certain context and, together, conservation and all the different forms of alternative energy can liberate us from fossil fuel.
This desire for one-size-fits-all solutions is apparent throughout our culture... all the purists... technophiles, political parties, economic philosophies, religions, extreme environmentalists... I could go on and offend pretty much everyone. And it is bringing us all down.
Everyone knows this. I'm not saying anything new. But I could not resist. Along side the proposals of the spiritual, mystical, and religious folks I've criticized too much -- yes, I tend to cross the line a bit often and will do it again -- here is my own pie-in-the-sky wish... we need a dramatic shift in our culture, a shift that encourages people to be less ideological and more accepting of solutions that do not quite fit one's world view, more accepting of a combination of different solutions.
A shift from reliance on the philosophical equivalent of a genetically engineered monoculture to the philosophical equivalent of a tropical rain forest is the only thing that will provide our civilization with some stability. Otherwise, however much we try to prevent it, we are all effed.
Forward!
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 7:14 am
28 Mar 2007
But I'm not ruling anything out. Lighting technology is developing rapidly with potentially far-reaching consequences, and we should all be very happy about the full range of excellent options that are now becoming available for improving the quality and energy-efficiency of residential lighting. Early adopters who were disappointed by the first-generation CFL's, please come back. You'll be glad you did.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:36 am
28 Mar 2007
I installed them as soon as I got home and learned there are two disadvantages.
(1) We just didn't like looking in the bathroom mirror and seeing green flesh. That was disturbing.
(2) If one steps into the bathroom for a moment, you are done and have washed your hands before the bulbs warm up enough to emit a useful amount of light.
No way to overcome the spectrum issue. Perhaps I'll be able to find a couple affordable LED arrays for the bathroom someday.
Regarding the other problem, I think the bulbs took a long time to brighten up because the light fixtures -- which are in the ceiling -- are cold during the winter. I hope this is the case because I would like to install recessed light fixtures in the basement and it would be nice to be able to use long-lasting low-energy CFL bulbs. I can't really insulate the existing cans because -- besides being a major code violation -- someone could put a regular bulb in there someday and burn the house down.
We decided to skip the CFLs in the bathroom, not practical, But we left the one over the kitchen sink because we don't mind the time it takes to warm up and tend to leave it on for long period of time.
The Lesson: Each problem has a different solution.
Forward!
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 7:57 am
28 Mar 2007
What about the concept of relationships which incorporates feedback, blowback, and competitition between alternation solutions.
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 8:03 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:15 am
28 Mar 2007
Feedback... good.
Competition... good.
Blowback? Isn't that what we are doing now? GW, for example, had an idea on how to cope with Muslim Fundamentalism. Now we get to evaluate it via analysis of "blowback"?! Same with global climate change?!
I was wishing for something a little more benign.
Forward!
Permalink
JMG Posted 8:15 am
28 Mar 2007
Yes and no--the other side of this coin is treating each problem as a mass of unique details without noticing the underlying structural similarities it shares with other, superficially different ones.
Another difficult aspect of is implicit in phrase "problem with proposed solutions"--the usual order of things being that we have a habit of forgetting that the people who cause what others see as 'problems' often are the best suited to solving them, even as they are most resistant to solutions imposed on them.
An important technique environmentalists can learn is how NOT to become enmeshed in the details of particular cases so much that we forget to notice the fundamentals common to any environmental problem:
Someone is using a resource in an unsustainable way, which also means they are using more than their fair share that resource (whether that resource is a supply of desired goods or a sink for undesired "bads").
They do that because doing that (the unsustainable use) pays better than doing it differently. Shooting Hg up a smokestack is cheaper than gasifying coal and burning only the gases, retaining the Hg; drag nets are cheaper than fishing sustainably, etc. etc. etc.
The trick is finding ways to get the people involved to want to solve the problem themselves, which is always more effective than when a solution is imposed on them. As Lovins would put it, it's about helping people enjoy their hot showers and cold beer, not telling them they can't have either one.
Thus, Scorse picked the exact wrong example by saying that CFL mandates are a bad thing, because it (lighting) is one of the areas where there is a good replacement that provides the desired service (lighting) a dramatically lower environmental cost and, over time, monetary cost.
It's not like anyone woke up and said "By God, I've just got to have a technology that makes me waste 95% of the energy I devote to lighting, and I'd also like to waste another 7% of my total power use removing all that excess heat from my building."
No, it's simply that people in rich countries were born into a world of Edison bulbs and expect to die in that world. They prefer to rail against mandates from living legislators who can be reasoned with while they are happy to accept mandates in the form of design compromises and kludges made by long-dead inventors and engineers who, were they alive today, would be the first to say "get rid of that crap, there's a better tool now."
So we accept, in effect, a "mandate" passed on to us from the past, a mandate to use inferior technology and to ignore the consequences of that mandate, all the while rationalizing that we must oppose "government mandates" that would require that superior technologies supplant the inferior ones.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:20 am
28 Mar 2007
An EXCELLENT communication tool... one that a person focused only on economic growth should be able to wrap their mind around. GreenEngineer, thank you again.
There is also the concept of a "market place of ideas", as long as it is involves real competition... based on the quality of the idea, not just marketing hype and burying the opponent's message in a load of... well... never mind.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:31 am
28 Mar 2007
Then we would not have to resort to a patchwork of laws to tweek the patterns of consumption and compensate people for damage long after the folks who created the problem have retired to their homes in Dubai.
A simple law might be... all water leaving your property must be as clean as when it entered. Simple for industry to follow. Easy to monitor. Cost of producing waste is internalize at the manufacturig facility and can be passed on to exactly who wishes to consume the product.
This approach does not work for everything, but it would allow us to get past a few major issues and focus on other more-complex problems.
Forward!
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 8:35 am
28 Mar 2007
A lot of this discussion is about parsing how we conceptualize 'solutions' - should we aim for silver bullets, deux ex machinas, or are partial solutions acceptable.
"Relationship" is a way to rephrase the 'problem' instead of the 'solution'. A relationship, (as opposed to a problem) is not static. It can be improved or worsened, has a time dimension and incorporates the idea that one is dealing with a dynamic, responsive system.
An attempt to improve our "relationship" with artificial light and it plays in our lives, would lead to different approaches than the original formulation of the problem. Namely, any approach to manage this relationship they will take into account the possibility of feedback, blowback, or using trial-and-error as an effort to improve upon the current approach. Something GW did not do when he defined 'Saddam Hussein and WMD' as the problem.'
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:52 am
28 Mar 2007
When usually you're only given a choice of something which is merely better than the status quo, but not perfect.
Frankly, avoiding tons of mercurcy in the air and water is far better than a few kilograms encased in plastic and glass.
Especially since industrial mercury isn't so bad as methylated mercury, which is what it becomes after it's been in the environment for a while.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 8:54 am
28 Mar 2007
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:55 am
28 Mar 2007
My relationship with Mercury is not going so well.
She helps illuminate my world, but has a destructive side. And when she is on the prowl, she is downright toxic... killing people, poisoning children, lashing out at poor defenseless animals. She gives you light to read by, but takes away the neurons you need for understanding what you read! This has to end.
Do I really need Mercury? Isn't there another element or compound that can light up a CFL bulb without poisoning people when she's done? Is there anyone looking for a solution to this problem? Who or what is standing in the way?
Sincere in Wisconsin
Forward!
Permalink
Mmimika Posted 9:24 am
28 Mar 2007
Best,
Dr. Mimi "Alofa" Kavale
PS... uhh, maybe this isn't a productive thought experiment after all...
Permalink
Engineer Posted 10:02 am
28 Mar 2007
You may have to talk to a more savvy supplier than Home Depot, but ask for a bulb with a Color Rendering Index (CRI - a visual comparision to the 'equivalence' to incandescent) above 80 and/or a color temperature of 4100 Kelvin (K) or higher.
Less expensive CFL's tend to have a CRI in the 70's and a color temperature in the 2800-3200 range.
Those should improve the quality of the light output.
Regarding the other problem, I think the bulbs took a long time to brighten up because the light fixtures -- which are in the ceiling -- are cold during the winter. I hope this is the case because I would like to install recessed light fixtures in the basement and it would be nice to be able to use long-lasting low-energy CFL bulbs. I can't really insulate the existing cans because -- besides being a major code violation -- someone could put a regular bulb in there someday and burn the house down.
Electronically ballasted CFL's (most newer models) usually don't have the warm up problem you mention. If the cans are typically that cold, you can also ask for cold start ballasts.
If the cans are accessible, you can replace them with a Insulation Contact (IC) rated can, which will be rated to have insulation (duh...) installed over it. Typically they allow less air loss through the can, reducing your heat loss.
Replacing exisiting cans isn't always possible, but another option if you can (or for the new recessed fixtures in your basement), is to look for 'hardwired' CFL fixtures with the ballast built in and a replaceable tube.
The reflector will be optimized to get the light out of the fixture and you won't have to worry about a new owner going to an incandescent.
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 10:04 am
28 Mar 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Engineer Posted 10:12 am
28 Mar 2007
Scientific studies have not found those claims to be true so far...
Recent Full-Spectrum Lighting Studies
-In a counterbalanced, longitudinal design, no statistically significant differences in any learning or health measures for 4, 5 and 6th grade children were found between the use of cool-white, warm-white or daylight simulating lamps (Landrus and Larkin, 1990).
-In a carefully controlled experimental study of 208 subjects, no statistically significant differences between cool-white and full-spectrum lamps (Veitch, 1997).
-No significant differences in preferences for full-spectrum, polarized and conventional fluorescent lighting in 2 office lighting experiments (Boyce et al., 2002).
Professor Alan Hedge, Cornell University, January 2007
The Lighting Research Center - http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/NLPIP/publicationDetails. ...
A Canadian Study -
http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/pubs/fulltext/prac/nrcc44747/nr ...
Common sense is an oxymoron...
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:07 am
28 Mar 2007
===
"Relationship" is a way to rephrase the 'problem' instead of the 'solution'. A relationship, (as opposed to a problem) is not static. It can be improved or worsened, has a time dimension and incorporates the idea that one is dealing with a dynamic, responsive system.
====
This is exactly right and leads to even more fruitful thinking. Where you said
"An attempt to improve our "relationship" with artificial light and it plays in our lives, would lead to different approaches than the original formulation of the problem."
Someone else could note that even the qualifier "artificial" need not be present, and we could think about our relationship with the basics (light, heat, airflow) without automatically assuming that our task is to replace, 24/7, what nature provides for free much of the time.
For example, with good design, a lot of buildings don't need nearly as much artificial light as builders provide, because they aren't intended for night/evening use anyway. Then we get hared off chasing the hydra (are we using the right bulbs, Joe Executive demands that his office be taken off the motion sensor, the hallways look like tombs unless overlit, etc.) because we forgot to think about the building as regulating our "relationship" (thank you again) with those elements of comfort.
Please post more.
Permalink
Stephanie Ogburn Posted 11:23 am
28 Mar 2007
Cronon also made interesting points about how, starting with Silent Spring (but perhaps even earlier), the environmental movement has used new Science to point out the problems with older Science (such as DDT is bad b/c it kills birds and all bugs, vs. DDT kills all bad bugs and saves our crops which is good), and based its solutions in the new and better science. Which he viewed as interesting, in that the search for solutions is basically continuous and neverending, within this paradigm, as new knowledge is always being created. The talk was really excellent, and I imagine the book will be too.
Stephanie
http://www.stephaniepaigeogburn.com
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 12:05 pm
28 Mar 2007
Believe it not there is a very simple and easily implementable solution to global climate change.
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 3:35 pm
28 Mar 2007
When David talks about enviro's he means the professional types whose job is getting policy objectives done.
If we understand what they mean, there is not so much difference. If we explain what we mean a little more clearly there would be less conflict.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:05 pm
29 Mar 2007
J.S.
I teach environmental economics and blog at http://www.voicesofreason.info. I am a proud liberal, who stands on the shoulders of giants.
Permalink