Re: d-day

[Lewis Gardner <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave Houston wrote:
> If you "look it up", you'll learn that the EPA says...
>
> "Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal,
> which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are
> the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the
> United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool.

Both you and I live in coal country. Mercury spewing from the numerous
power plants in our area continues to pollute our soil and water.

CFLs reduce the amount of mercury in the environment. ANY reduction is
good, one that saves money is better.


> Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources
> -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500
> tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account
> for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants
> are estimated to account for only about 1 percent."
>
> http://www.epa.gov/air/mercuryrule/basic.htm#global  (an inconvenient URL)

It may be "inconvenient" or it may be "Bushed". Either way it makes no
difference to the core of the issue. Mercury is poison and vaporized
mercury from burning coal is especially problematic.

These same sort of arguments were made during the lead up to the Clean
Water Act and they hold no more value now than they did then.


> About 50% of US electricity is generated by coal-fired plants (although many
> more coal-fired plants are planned) so your "guess" is a million miles or so
> wide of the mark.

What "guess"?

Most studies put the environmental mercury reduction per CFL at 50%-75%.
I think that figure is high but not by a "million miles". I still can't
figure how a unit of distance and percent reductions correlate but I
guess that when arguing the illogical it all makes sense to you.


> Eliminating all coal-fired generating plants in the US would reduce
 > mercury by 1/2 of 1% while driving electricity rates sky-high
> but who's counting (other than utility company stockholders)?

HUH?

Now you are talking about eliminating all coal fired plants?

Aside from that, how are CFLs going to drive "electricity rates sky-high"?

If the load is less the power plant consumes less fuel and generation
costs go down. Best case, fewer power plants have to be built. Worst
case, peaking plants (fuel=$$$$) don't have to run as much.

You have made a big part of your argument that the change from
incandescent to CFLs won't make a big difference in power consumption.
If so how will a switch to CFLs effect the price of electricity?

You can't have it both ways...


> Mercury emissions from US generating plants are dwarfed by those from China.

So what Dave!

China will be China and we have little control over what they do. We
need to put our own house in order.

For you to continue on this bizarre quest to argue the superior
qualities of incandescent lighting is BEYOND my comprehension. I am sure
you have something better on which to spend your time.

Conservation is good and CFLs conserve energy PERIOD.