Re: N:Vision CFL's

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:07:34 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<Z4WdnYqfQd2K9JjbnZ2dnUVZ_tqnnZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:bria0351tue3v354oo0v0k72vjpjipecp1@xxxxxxxxxx
>> On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 05:42:11 -0400, "Robert Green"
>> <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> <7JidnR3oxIIFb5nbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:
>>
>> >It seems that the cost equations are still being worked on!
>>
>> Not really. The _data_ used in the equations is changing to reflect
>changes
>> in the actual characteristics of actual CFLs in use. The form of the
>> equation, by and large, stays the same.
>
>I was referring to what happens in areas that use no coal.  It complicates
>the mercury equation in Norway, at least.  They were putting no mercury in
>the environment before but the use of CFL bulbs gives them a recycling
>issue.

WRONG. This is factually incorrect. Conventional fluorescents contain _more_
mercury per lumen output than modern CFLs. Had you read the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) reference I provided earlier, you
would know this. So "[t]hey were putting ... mercury in
the environment before" in the same way, and amenable to the same solutions.

THERE IS NO NEW FLUORESCENT LAMP 'RECYCLING ISSUE' (imho).

Rather, there are modern fluorescents that contain much less mercury than
previous generations of fluorescents that _also_ *should* be recycled (along
with batteries, thermostats, thermometers, old ammunition, and so on) but
even if they aren't do less harm than the mercury in the coal that would
otherwise be burnt. And where coal isn't burnt in the immediate vicinity for
power generation (eg US Pacific NW) the grid system largely makes that point
moot.

And temporal (timing) considerations are but another of the many factors that
can be quantitatively estimated with meaningful models.

And where nuclear and hydro- power are the sources of electricity, are you
asserting that dams and nukes have no environmental consequences ? (Or just
not in the particular, small environmental box you are thinking about now.)

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. In that order.

>I was also thinking about what John said about CFL's tending to be
>used during off peak hours, and those are typically not fueled by coal as
>much as other sources.  I don't believe there's really solid data on
>recycling yet, either, since so many bulbs are new.  We don't know if their
>owners will recycle them responsibly.  Those unknowable events are still in
>the future and can't really be "solved for" can they?

Yes they can, in a real and meaningful way.

One need look no further down the periodic table from mercury (Hg, Atomic
Weight = 80) than lead (Pb, AW = 82) and the great reduction of the
proliferation of that comparably toxic metal from dispersed atmospheric (eg
car exhaust) and stationary (eg paint) sources.

Bobby: I am entirely convinced that you mean well. But you assert as fact
stuff that is flat-out wrong that others have spent life-times actually
dealing with. This isn't "helpful" in my opinion.

Had you read and understood my previous post, you would understand that I
assert, on the basis of 35 years of experience in hazardous waste hydrology,
that a CFL deposited in a landfill is vastly less mobile in the environment
(and therefore less harmful) than mercury that is put into the atmosphere by
the burning of coal. Think of it as an increase in entropy if you will.

>> The complete absence of meaning _data_ and subsequent numerical analysis
>> ("equations") in CHA is what has changed through several actual analyses
>> of actual costs and benefits of actual CFLs in actual use in an actual
>> home (like mine).
>
>Did you mean "meaningful?"  (-:

Yes. A typo. Not my last either.  (I hope ! ;-)

>There's no doubt in my mind that
>circumstances dictate certain decisions.  If someone's using so little juice
>they're being charged extra, they aren't going to see much benefit.  If
>someone like me sees the highest bill they've ever seen for electricity,
>it's going to mean CFL's *have* to come on line.

Environmentally, the watt Dave wastes negates the watt you do save. Not
everyone is cool with that. The effort I put into picking up around my house
and Boy Scout Plaza is required because of slobs who throw it there. I'm not
OK with that.

It does not cost Dave's power utility $0.00006 to provide him the first watt.
there is a non-zero y-intercept on the cost-KW curve. IOW, it costs some
minimum monthly charge, just like my land-line phone does even if I don't use
it. Dave's argument is intellectually, economically, and mathematically
bankrupt in my opinion. Posturing without substance.


>> The CHA CFL naysayers (as in "CFLS are a really bad idea") post vague,
>> false information because up-to-date, real data does not support the
>> conclusions they want to promote. Here's an analogy they would understand:
>> "They bet against the winning horse and are trying to sell you their
>> losing tickets after the race is over".
>
>I prefer to think it's merely a case of YMMV.  For the sake of peace as much
>as anything else.

The current administration would like to kick the can down the road for the
sake of war and peace too.

But it is a Good Thing that you cannot legally discharge pollutants to waters
of the United States through a pipe without a permit.

And ultimately there will need to be collective limits on the amount of
pollutants we discharge to the atmosphere.  (Re)Read Garrett Hardin's 1968
article in _Science_  "The Tragedy of the Commons " to refresh your memory
why this is so.

So it's not "_their_" mileage that is at stake. If the naysayers were content
to do what they wanted in the privacy of their own apartments, and only
impact themselves, I would not take issue.

The problem is that they proselytize falsely and thus undo in part the real
work that actually has to be done by real people who really want to address
and really solve the problem  --- not jist satisfy their own curmudgeonly
ideas.

>> >There are lots of competing claims, the most interesting among them being
>> >CFL equivalency ratings are overblown.  A poster to the discussion at
>> >wikipedia says that his tests show that CFL's claimed to be equivalent to
>> a100W lightbulb are actually noticeably dimmer.
>>
>> There is lotsa junk out there. Buy junk; get taken.
>
>This is something I intend to test, and believe that can be tested rather
>easily.  More importantly it can be tested with standardized equipment
>(assuming neither your 'scope card nor my Luna Pro have dematerialized) and
>visually with a simple underexposed photograph of both sources side by side
>as I explained elsewhere.

Note that I did that already. One very small, but quantitative data set,
'published' in CHA, and subject to corroboration and(or) refutation. Not
entirely rigorous, but 'infinitely' better than generalization and conjecture
in my opinion.

And actually the memory gods have smiled on me today. The PCMCIA card was in
the case where it was supposed to be ...;-)

Is your Luna Pro one of the ones that needs the now-banned mercury batteries
? (Marc asks, running out and ducking to avoid potentially thrown objects ;-)

Take Care -- Thanks for the 'vent'... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org