Re: CFL v. Tungsten - what are the REAL costs? (was Re: N:Vision CFL's)

[Marc_F_Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 06:38:39 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<pLednWVXYL2kaZXbnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@xxxxxxx>:

>"Marc_F_Hult" <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
>Thread subject changed to reflect the descent into a grammatical, rather
>that a substantive, quibble and to spare the poor people looking for purely
>technical information about the N:Voice bulbs.

I did not, of course,  write that.

And  I wrote nothing whatsoever on the topic of Norway in the post that you
criticize.  What I did was to defer discussion of Norway energy and mercury
in the environment in the context of CFLs to a later time.

What did in fact write in the thread was more detailed and closer to "purely
technical information than anything I can recall your posting.

Namely (in part), Quote:

Spectral response of the meter is important esp wrt fluorescents. The spectra
of  5500K and 3500K n:vision compact fluorescents are here:

http://ledmuseum.home.att.net/spectra7.htm

Using a Zone VI-modified Pentax spotmeter, in a windowless bathroom with
off-white walls, in 1/3 stop increments relative to incandescent,  I
measured:
                                 Incident   Reflected    Reflected
				 on axis,   off wall,    off wall,
                                 1 minute   ~5 seconds   1 minute warmup
GE 60 watt 820(?) lumen incand.      0        0             0
n:vision Soft White ~2700K           +1       0            +1
n:vision Bright White ~3500K	     +1       0            +1
n:vision Day Light ~5500K 	     +2       -2           +2


End Quote:

So your assertion that I descended into grammatical quibble is plain old
nonsense.

The rest of my second post was an explanation of my decision to defer my
response of Norway energy to a later time and an attempt to cheerfully
deflect your outrageous personal attack.

Go back and read it if you've forgotten.


>> >> [Mercury discussion unrelated to subject deleted]
>> >
>> >[More that just "mercury" discussion unrelated to subject restored!!!!]
>> >
>> ><<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.
>>
>> First a response to the substance of the discussion in brief:  As I posted
>in
>> part earlier, this is incorrect in part:
>
>Yes, I could have written more precisely and said "for every tungsten bulb
>replaced by a CFL in Norway they are adding mercury to their environment
>where they were not because they do not generate much electricity from
>coal."

Please don't purposely misquote and expect to have a conversation with me.

What I was responding to was this statement:

	"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."

>I had hoped that meaning was self-evident from the context.
>remember to write for you accordingly and as if a team of editors and
>Philadelphia lawyers were going to parse my every word.  Or not.  (-:

>Is it possible a man with a CV as long as my arm didn't know that we were
>talking about tungsten v. CFL replacement cost equations?

Yes, because I surely did *not* think so. And it is *still* unclear to me.

You wrote "putting no mercury".

You wrote "mercury equation" by which most folks would think you mean an
equation that deals with mercury (eg, the mass balance of mercury in the
environment) not consumer costs, _especially_ in the context in which you
wrote it which dealt with the source terms (CFLs, coal) of the amount of
mercury in the environment, not consumer cost ($ euros krone

But now you write in clarification :

"tungsten v. CFL replacement cost equations"

which to me means something quite different.

So which "cost" are you talking about? This is a plain-English, good-faith,
not snide, not bile, attempt to understand what you mean.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The conventional way of analyzing this sort of problem is, as you suggest, to
write a mathematical relationship ("equation") between the variables in order
to solve for what you want to know. Examples include:  mercury in the
environment OR impact on consumer cash budget OR Energy balance  OR carbon
balance   and so on.


I recently outlined what the major steps are. I wrote:

	" ... construct even the simplest conceptual model, and then
	develop even the simplest mathematical relationship of that model,
 	and then use even flat-out guesses of the constants and variables "

So please consider describing what it is that you want to know (in other
words, the left hand side of the equation) and if you like, I will work with
you to develop the conceptual model, write the equation, and estimate some
values. Fair enough? It will take time, concentration, and discipline.

You might want to start different threads under this subject in a controlled
way (consumer costs, need/benefits of fluorescent recycling, environmental
effects of mercury, and so on)

Note, though, that some important questions resist solution by this sort of
analysis (hence a whole fields in economics).

For example, 'balancing' between competing goals (which by and large have
their own equations)

Here is a pertinent subset:

1) Elimination of CO2 emissions
2) Elimination of Nuclear waste
3) Elimination of Environmental Damage from Mining
4) Elimination of Hydropower Dams
5) Elimination of Toxic Metals in Environment

Eliminating CFLs may allow progress towards 5) but require "backsliding" on
1-4 , because of increased energy use.  Norway has reduced 1-3 because they
rely on hydropower which competes with goal 4).

Because there is already so much mercury already in the (eg Norway's)
environment,  eliminating a minor new source of mercury may not even be
quantitatively important toward achieving the mercury-related goal.. We could
have that discussion too if you like. But this is way far removed from
comp.home.automation IMO.

(Aside: In the US, there is a 35-year history of  tension between 'Reduce'
and 'Eliminate' as codified in the US. National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) which has
not, and never will 'eliminate' _all_ water pollution.)

I think that this exercise might be useful to CHA because it shows the way to
quantitative analysis of things that _are_ directly HA-related like home
energy balance (Eg, the "Can I save energy by turning off the hot water"
FAQ.)

[Rest deleted for clarity. Bobby: If you want to pick up on any of the other
topics or discussion, please do so. I will not be offended. I suggest that
for clarity you deleted most everything in this post and focus on working out
the answer to this particular question, at least in this thread.  OK? ]

I Hope This Helps ...

... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org