Re: Fluorescent Bulbs Are Known to Zap Domestic Tranquillity; Energy-Savers a Turnoff for Wives

["Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms>]

>>> The EPA has a step-by-step procedure
>>> for cleaning up after breaking a fluorescent.
>>
>> According to that same EPA document,
>> mercury in CFL's is not the problem.
>
> Not the problem . . . YET.

Not the major problem, period.  The major problem
is mercury from coal burning power generating
plants.  You've been told this repeatedly but you
choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit your dislike
for CFLs.

> They, like the FDA, have been gutted over the
> last decade.  Both agencies, like the FAA and
> numerous others pretty much represent industry,
> not the consumer...

That is a direct result of the Bush administration's
policy of installing incompetents whose only
qualification is loyalty to Bush and a willingness
to do whatever Bush's industrialist and energy
company pals want.

> How else would an Arabian horseman end up
> running FEMA?

By doing a "heck of a job?"  :^)

What you miss is that it's not just US agencies that
are saying we need to cut back on pollution caused
by coal generating plants.  This is a matter which
has garnered pretty much world-wide scientific
consensus.

> No one is denying that mercury from coal-fired
> plants is indeed a problem.

It is in fact a many fold greater problem than mercury
in CFLs.

> So is CO2.  But the simple, common sense solution
> is to fix the problem where it occurs...

If the fix were simple we wouldn't be having this
discussion.  Unfortunately, it's not as easy as you
might think.  There are three major types of coal
used for electric generation -- bituminous, subbituminous
and lignite.  Current scrubber technology removes
anywhere from none to one third of the mercury in lignite
plants.  Precipitators used on the other types remove
between 3% and one third of the mercury from
bituminous and subbituminous coal.

Fabric filers are more effective but they tend to break
down, releasing 100% of the mercury, sulfur dioxide
and other nasty stuff.

> at the smokestacks of the coal fired plants.
> Certain very powerful financial interests don't
> like that idea because the money would
> come out of *their* pockets, not yours...

No matter what we do the public pays for it.
Any and every cost is passed along.  Bush
calls it trickle-down.  Don't ask what color is
the liquid you feel trickling down on you.  :^)

> There's one very important fact to remember
> because it's at the foundation of the problem:
> No amount of CFL bulb use by anyone will
> scrub one atom of mercury from power plant
> emissions.

The problem with that statement is it misses
the point.  By reducing power demand you reduce
pollution.

> CFL proponents are quite hopeful that by making
> electricity cheaper and more plentiful (by reducing
> the consumption from tungsten bulbs)  that people
> will magically not make up the consumption in
> other ways...

You misunderstand energy usage.  No matter
whether we use CFL, incandescent or whatever else
is developed, other energy demands will certainly
increase over time.  They don't "take up the slack."
They simply use a given amount of energy.  Suppose
all other users together require a total of N megawatts
and electric lighting requires L megawatts.  The total
is N+L megawatts.  Reducing L does not increase N.
It simply reduces the total.

> I say that's remarkably flawed reasoning...

And I say that your reasoning is flawed (no offense;
we simply disagree about how things work).

> given what we've seen in other areas (think
> freeways)...

Good example.  We have built the world's most
advanced highway system in this country.  There
are multi-lane roads to go from any major city to
any other in the mainland USA.  In spite of that
the traffic in some areas is a mess, especially
during rush hour.

Our traffic increases because Americans love cars.
We drive to work.  We drive to the store.  We drive
everywhere.  I read online that in 1988 Americans
drove about 18,600 miles per household.  By 1994
we were averaging 21,100 miles per household.
This is more significant than the number of vehicles
since there's a correlation to highway crowding.
During those years the US spent billions improving
roads -- adding lanes, improving freeway design,
etc.

Had we not continued to maintain and improve the
roads we would not have seen a decrease in miles
driven or even in the number of vehicles per
household.  We'd simply have more congestion.

> It's particularly flawed when it comes to the problem
> at hand: reducing overall mercury emission *both*
> airborne and *all other* kinds...

You say that as if airborne mercury was not the
greatest part of the problem.  Unfortunately, it
is by far the worst part.  Following is a quote from
Senator Patrick Leahy's website which discusses
the issue:

"While national policies have been successful at
reducing mercury emissions from medical and
municipal waste incinerators by over 90 percent
since 1990, mercury pollution from coal-fired power
plants (the largest remaining sources) remains
completely unregulated.  As our country continues
to grow mercury pollution from power plants is
predicted to increase with increased electrica
 demand, which is why it is so important that we do
something now to reduce this pollution.  Up until
the spring of 2003, EPA was working toward finalizing
an effective regulatory policy to reduce mercury from
power plants by over 90 percent beginning in 2008.
Unfortunately, the Bush Administration unilaterally
derailed this goal and EPA instead proposed a rule
in January 2004 that rolls back the progress and will
at best reduce emissions by 70 percent but not until
2018.  Under the Bush proposal yet another entire
generation will have to be exposed to unhealthy levels
of mercury and women and pregnant mothers will
continue to worry about safety of the fish they want
to feed their family."

> CFL's fails that test because they add to the general
> "mercury load" of the environment...

You've already been told by more than one person
that this is wrong math.  CFLs introduce far less
mercury than what they save and what they do
introduce is in a more contained condition.  It isn't
the existence of mercury that's at issue but *where*
the mercury goes.  Neither the manufacture of
CFLs nor the burning of coal creates a single drop of
mercury.  It's already present.  The problem is that
coal fired electrical plants throw mercury into the
atmosphere, from whence it finds its way into the food
chain.

> My feeling is that whenever you propose to fix a
> problem with a different problem, you're cane-toading.

Perhaps an analogy will help explain my position.
I have monthly expenses for telephone, broadband
Internet access and CATV.  Base charges for each
phone line are $65 per month, including unlimited
calls anywhere in the USA.  CATV is about $100 a
month.  Cable Internet is anouther $65.  DSL backup
is another $240 a month.  That's $470 a month plus
taxes and fees.

To reduce expenses I opted for fiber optic services
from Verizon.  They will charge me $126 a month
for all three services.  That's a $126 monthly load
on my wallet.  However, I'm eliminating a $470 load
for a net reduction of $344 per month (plus tax).

CFLs do the same thing with mercury.  They add
a small load on the environment while decresing a
bigger one.

> Proponents merely hope that the reduction in
> overall electrical demand will result in those
> coal-fired plants emitting less mercury.  It depends
> on the flawed assumption that there won't be any
> increase in demand to offset those savings...

This is where your assumption is flawed.  You
mistakenly believe that any savings will be taken
up by other uses.  The truth is that those other uses
will increase *regardless* whether we economize on
lighting.  The one doesn't cause the other.

> That's where the proposed CFL solution falls flat...

No, that is where your argument falls flat.  You equate
energy usage to a cookie jar.  You figure if you don't
eat the cookie, Houston will so there's no point in
dieting.  That is flawed logic.  Electric generation is
demand based.  The more we use the more the plants
will generate.  Saving in one area doesn't create
waste in another.

> There's absolutely no proof that the demand for
> electricity won't keep rising anyway, as it always
> has...

The goal is to reduce total demand.  Regardless what
one user demands, if we reduce another usage we
reduce the total demand.

> Capture at the stack is the right answer.

If scrubbing worked well enough it would be the answer.
Unfortunately, it only captures a portion of the mercury
and other noxious gases from two of the three types of
coal and none of it from the other type -- lignite.

> The CFL solution is merely a stopgap that helps
> avoid a course of action power plant owners don't
> want to implement: a reduction of profits and
> increased expenditure on stack scrubbing and more
> research into pollution control...

That is wrong.  High efficiency lighting is one part of
what needs to be a multi-faceted solution.  No single
solution exists.  Each effort will help alleviate the problem.
With improved scrubbing and efficient usage we can gain
more than with scrubbers alone.  Scrubbing technology
is nowhere near the level it needs to reach.  We agree
that polluters, including energy giants need to do more
to solve the problems they create.  But that alone isn't
going to save the planet.  Ignoring other things *we* need
to do to improve the situation while demanding that
*they* fix it is no more realistic than the typical bullshit
we get from the Bush administration.

> Worse, still, it fools people into thinking that the
> problem is somehow solved when in fact, more
> and more mercury is entering the air and, as a
> result of the "CFL solution" the landfills and
> incinerators as well.

You're wrong on this count again.  While coal burning
plants are the major source of mercury pollution,
incinerators are not.  Those have been pretty much 100%
clean of mercury pollution for some time now.

>> Coal fired power plants emit vast amounts of
>> mercury into the atmosphere in the process
>> of providing electricity for conventional bulbs.
>
> No argument there.  So why not catch it at the
> stack instead of depending on Rube Goldberg
> schemes that "hopefully" reduce the amount of
> mercury by "hopefully" reducing the overall
> demand for electricity, something that historically
> has never happened?

Try not throwing around denegrating but irrelevant
terms like "Rube Goldberg".  It muddies the argument
and does nothing to prove your point.

The fact is that reducind total demand can and does
help reduce pollution.

> Until some posts a reputable figure for how many
> grams of mercury are emitted for every tungsten
> watt or CFL watt, we're arguing in a factual vacuum.

That's a red herring.  We don't need the precise numbers
to know that reducing electrical demand will reduce the
amount of toxins spewed into the atmosphere.  Your
problem is you dfon't understand (or are deliberately
ignoring) the economics of energy usage.

> Hell, we can't even determine how much juice is
> used for lighting.

We know for a fact that CFLs use far less current than
incandescents.  We know that every watt used adds
to the amount of mercury in our food.  We know that
by reducing the demand we can reduce the amount
of poison in the air.

> There are far too many "soft points" in the
> numbers.  CFL's don't last as long as claimed...

They last significantly longer than incandescants.
They use far less power per lumen, reducing the
mercury in the air far more than the miniscule
amount they place in landfills.

>> Energy efficient CFLs present an opportunity
>> to prevent mercury emissions from entering
>> the environment because they help to reduce
>> emissions from coal-fired power plants.
>
> "Present an opportunity?"  That's a "we hope it
> works out" weasel-sort of wording...

No, it's not.  It's a clear statement that by using
CFLs instead of incandescants we can reduce
the amount of poison in the food supply.  You
do nothing to advance your position with such
meaningless remarks.

> Be afraid, be very afraid...

Of whom?

> Replacing one form of mercury pollution with
> another, no matter how allegedly "benign" the
> second form, is a bad idea.

Again you miss the point.  CFL usage reduces
the total amount of mercury pollution.  This is a
good thing.  Furthermore, the small amount CFLs
do use is nowhere near as harmful as airborne
mercury which we know for  fact winds up in
our food.

> "Present an opportunity to prevent?"  Wouldn't
> it just be better to prevent?

Yes, if there was a way to prevent.  There isn't.
There are only ways to reduce.  CFLs are one of
them.  Insisting on using wasteful lighting is one
of the things you can do to make the world a little
worse every day.

>> Coal-fired power generation accounts for
>> roughly 40 percent of the mercury emissions
>> in the U.S."
>
> Which means that we should catch the mercury
> at the stack...

I think I've answered that enough times.

> These new technologies are coming on line too
> slowly because we apparently would rather make
> war on Iraq than declare war on the serious
> problems facing us here at home...

On that score we agree 100%.  The Bush
administration and it's ultra-right wing supporters
have buried their collective, empty heads in the
Iraqi sand for years.  Sadly, they've also managed
to ruin our economy, set us back decades on the
environment, stacked the US Supreme Court and
many appellate districts with incompetent fools,
burned virtually all of our allies and turned our
Constitution and the Bill of Rights upside down.
Other than that, you have to like them, eh.  :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-925-8650
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>