Rulvy’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Here's a little more

  The issues involved in shifting from incandescent to fluorescent bulbs are not simple. I'm glad you appreciate that.

  There is no doubt that an incandescent bulb will require more electricty and if the electricity that is powering the bulb comes from a plant that burns coal it will necessarily creaate more mercury pollution because coal fired plants generate lots of mercury.

  However, that only covers the issue of mercury created through the energy used. when it comes to mercury created by the spent bulbs, the fluorescents are worse becasue incandescents contain no mercury. it is true that the amount of mercury in fluorescent bulbs has been decreasing, but I'm unfamiliar with the bottom line of whetehr that reduction is significant or not. Further research would ahve to be done to determine whether the additional increment of mercury created by increased energy usage outweighs the increment caused by the bulbs themselves.

  Furthermore, the source of the energy at the palnt theat powers the bulb is another consideration. If the plant is hydroelectric (Australia has tons of hydro plants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Hydroelectric_power ... ), wind, solar (Australia is good on this count too http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15413317/ ) or nuclear, then there would be little if any CO2 generated. I couldn't find what percentage of Australian power comes from coal, but one site said they had 24 coal plants while the wiki site for hydro plants show more than 50. of course we don't know how much power is generated by these plants.

  Yet another consideration is the path the mercury takes. Usually when i read about the harm from mercury pollution it is described as a problem with it getting in water and massing in predator fish that are then eaten by people. So mercury is a localized rathe than an area wide pollutant (which is why it is inappropriate for the "cap and trade" ideas proposed by the Bush administration.

  Finally, and this is a new point, I would prefer to see a tax on all electric consumption imp[osed on coal-fired plants so that customers would pay the full price imposed on society (with minimum guarantees for the poor so they aren't priced out). That way consumer choice can be maximized and people can determine for themselves whether the incandescent bulbs are necessary to protect their eyesight.

  The real answer is to get off fossil fuels rather than to make common people lower their standard of living and limit their choices.

  The issue is not as clear cut as it might seem.

  `On They've Had Their Filament posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Mandating fluorescent bulbs?

  I've had lengthy debates with a friend of mine who could not understand why I could disagree with him on an "environmental" issue. There is no doubt that global warming is a giant problem and that burning fossil fuels in our cars and at our power plants is a major cause of the problem. There is also no doubt that the automobile and fossil fuel industry are doing everything they can to keep their milk train running.

  However, just jumping at every idea that visible environmentalists suggest or that are presented by our political compatriots is not good for the environment. The environment deserves our careful and thoughtful consideration of all the pluses and minuses of a policy proposal. It is the environment that matters, not the team.

  The commercially available alternative to incandescent bulbs are fluorescent bulbs. Fluorescent bulbs cost more, but they last much longer, and they use less electricity. Sounds like a winner all around, but more analysis is needed. The best light for eyesight is full spectrum incandescent light. That is why many people who work in offices bring in their own incandescent lamps. Fluorescent bulbs also increase the frequency and severity of vitreal floats in the eye.

  Perhaps most important, incandescent bulbs contain no hazardous wastes and may be disposed of as normal trash. Fluorescents, on the other hand, contain mercury and have to be disposed of carefully. With existing fluorescent bulbs only 23% are disposed of properly. If incandescent bulbs have a significant presence in society(which one would assume is true, otherwise the ban would be insignificant) then the amount of mercury in every household, every trash can, and ever landfill will significantly increase.

  Outlawing incandescents is not an easy decision to make, and probably a bad one.

  If we had power plants that did not use fossil fuels, there would be no problem with the extra electricity used by incandescent bulbs. Light bulbs, even incandescent bulbs aren't that big an energy consumer anyway (dishwashing drying cycle, clothes dryers, air conditioners, and even aquariums use more). the problem is with the power plant and the car.

  The cost of switching to mercury-filled lightbulbs and possibly hurting the eyesight of citizens are costs that must be weighed in.On They've Had Their Filament posted 2 years, 8 months ago 8 Responses