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

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Lewis Gardner" <lgardner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46627590$0$16254$d94e5ade@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert Green wrote:
>
> > I still think it's critical to reduce, in any way we can, the noxious
> > material that coal produces.
>
> True and this is the point of most of the sane responses to this thread.

There's been insanity?  Perhaps the political gridlock of the nation has
something to do with the way differences of opinion are handled these days
as in "anyone who doesn't think like I do is crazy."  It's not the ideal
foundation for compromise or even intelligent discussion.

> That is why CFLs are an important part of any conservation solution.
> They are simple to install and reduce electrical demand allowing both
> base load and peaking plants to use less fuel. Since most base load
> plants in the US use coal then less "noxious material" is created along
> the entire coal process. Will the substitution of CFLs "fix" the coal
> problem? For course not. But they are a simple step that could shave a
> few percentage points off of the coal problem.

"Could" shave.  It's pretty obvious where we disagree.  You hope the that
reduced demand trickles up the smokestacks, I fear that the mercury added to
millions of lamps will trickle down into the groundwater.  We've had our
national share of infatuation with "miracle" substances that turn out to be
curses, from DDT to asbestos.  We know mercury is bad.  We've made great
strides in reducing mercury contamination from alkaline batteries and dental
amalgam.  Why would we want to institutionalize a new source of it with the
*hope* that it reduces demand?

Why not push R&D on non-mercury high-efficiency light sources?  As more and
more CFL plants come on line, they'll be as hard to retire as the coal
burning power plants, even if something better comes along.  That model of
industrial behavior is already pretty clearly established and it's precisely
why we're stuck with coal plants that will run until they rust.  People
really need to be wary of "hair of the dog that bit you" solutions.

Why not push mercury recovery at the source so that you don't have to depend
on people's recycling behavior or whether the reduced demand really cuts
significant amounts of pollution?  Historically, in America, if *you* reduce
demand, there are probably at least two or three other people more than
willing to make it up.  And the mercury then still flows from the
smokestacks.  There's only one way to deal with issue and it's at the
stacks.   It's just silly to disperse millions and millions of
mercury-containing lightbulbs into the environment because we're unwilling
to catch the mercury at several hundred plants where it's emitted.  It's the
magician's classic misdirection, meant to keep Congress from imposing hard
medicine on people and power plants.

> My problem is with those that introduce doubt that CFLs are a useful
> technology for retrofitting the millions of Edison base light fixtures
> that exist across the world. Fear mongering about light quality, mercury
> and other quibbles will keep thousands from adopting this simple method
> of reducing man's footprint on Earth.

I suspect I don't have to do a single thing to discourage their use.  I fear
that lots and lots of people have tried them, experienced one of those
"quibbles" whether it be emitting acrid, toxic smoke in the failure more or
just not fitting into a standard fixture, and then abandoned the whole idea.

In the spirit of *trying* hard to make CFL's work, I just bought one of the
Greenlite dimmable fluorescents ($17!) that Smarthome sells.  It's got 5
year guarantee, but the touted savings are only $35 per bulb, a far cry from
the absolute fairytales previously printed on CFL packages.  While this 23W
bulb just managed to fit in my desklamp, it's 6.25" long, a full 2" longer
than the 75W incandescent bulb it's replacing.

While it may be dimmable, the local sense feature of the lamp module driving
it no longer seems to function.  With the brightest part of the bulb
extending 2" beyond the reflector, the bulb casts garish shadows and
produces a quality of light that makes normal deskwork impossible.  I have
to point the light away from me and against the wall to light the desk area
indirectly.  Those may be quibbles to you, but I must be a tougher customer.
I consider it unacceptable lighting quality.

Now I have to add the cost of a new lamp fixture to the equation.  I wonder
how much electricity the forge that created that new lamp used or how much
it will cost to recycle my old one?  The savings from CFL's just seem to get
wispier and wispier when you begin looking closely.  No one's saying high
efficiency lamps aren't a good idea.  When the LED bulb arrives that looks,
acts and lights like a tungsten bulb, and doesn't cost 1000X as much,  I
will embrace it.  But love the mercury-based CFL with all its warts?  No
thanks. I suspect that in ten years, the CFL will be looked on as the
8-track tape player of our age.

> A penny saved is a penny saved. Therefore a kw/h saved is an average of
> 8 cents saved AND less pollution created. There is no amount of rhetoric
> that will change this fact.

It's just that you're achieving those savings at a cost of putting more
mercury into the environment and at a cost of anywhere from 5 to 50 times a
tungsten bulb.  In addition to gambling that all the bulbs going into
landfills won't be a future issue, you're also betting that the Chinese
plants making those bulbs are handling the mercury they're using in an
environmentally responsible way (think pet food!).  You've got to wonder
when a company like Walmart, with a history of social munificence just short
of the Huns, decides to start hawking CFL's.  I'd bet they'd get behind
*anything* they could sell where they could quintuple the base price.

--
Bobby G.