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

[nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx (Dave Houston)]

"Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I'm beginning to think CFL's are the gypsy moths of the '00's.  Instead of
>catching mercury spewing out of smokestacks like we should (along with
>carbon) we're distributing toxic mercury all throughout the environment,
>hoping it's all going to be properly recycled even thought we know Americans
>aren't the best recyclers in the world.  It is pretty bizarre, when you stop
>and think about it.  Perhaps the best we can hope for from CFL's is that
>they will spur development of better alternatives that don't require
>creating mercury vapor in fragile glass tubes in our homes.

There's an article in today's NYT (by the same bozo who thinks lighting uses
over 20% of US electricity) about coal and carbon sequestration.

     http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/01/science/01coal.html?ref=science

Some chemists have developed a method to convert carbon dioxide to carbon
monoxide. The CO can then be used to make other useful things (e.g.
synfuels, ethanol).

     http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=18582