Re: Digital Tools Help Users Save Energy, Study Finds

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"John J. Bengii" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:-pWdncaLBIHvKRfanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> So creating more mercury contamination justifies a poor source of
> energy?
>
> Me thinks we need to improve at both ends. Your mercury saving logic
> is very short termed thinking. I agree that CFL lamps may be a good
> thing in the short run but not the best in the long. The creation of
> electrical energy in an irresponsible (for the era) way, cannot and
> should not justify a product that can harm our environment.

It's typical of carbon offset thinking.  Some people honestly believe that
if they plant a few trees, it's just fine to spew pollution high in the
atmosphere via jet exhaust.  It presumes processes and links that may not be
real.  A recent article in the NYT pointed out that no one is certain if
planting 100 trees really offsets the damage of jet aircraft flying arctic
circle routes and dumping ice-darkening exhaust on the arctic ice.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/09/business/09offsets.html

"Carbon offsets are essentially promises to use money in a way that will
reduce carbon emissions. Panelists at the F.T.C.?s session on Tuesday raised
a number of questions about certifications behind the claims, wondering if
the offset companies might be double-counting carbon reductions that would
have happened even without their efforts.

There is even disagreement over how much carbon dioxide can be neutralized
by tree-planting, which is the type of offset that is easiest to grasp."

It's appeasement and rationalization.  Worse, still, the carbon offset
market is already rife with fraud and people trying to game the system.  The
problem needs control right at the source - at the tailpipe and the
smokestack.   There was already a scandal in the EU about companies claiming
credits they didn't earn or deserve.

People claim that the amount of mercury that's prevented from reaching the
air by using CFLs is much greater than what will end up trickling into our
aquifers from end users failing to recycle them.  Unfortunately, of the few
precise figures I've seen bandied about, it's an assumption based on the
future behavior of a population of people who already are not well-known for
their ability to recycle religiously.  Sadly, we do have some pretty good
figures about how good we are at recycling certain goods:

"In 2005 less than 6% of the plastic from America's municipal waste stream
was recovered."

source: http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9249262

One of the reasons that these threads quickly degrade is that people shoot
from the hip, create whatever numbers they feel support their claims and
denigrate anyone who disagrees with their assumptions with insults about
their IQ, condescending explanations and very few verifiable facts.  My New
Year's resolution is to simple not engage in conversation with anyone who
makes the discussion personal and not factual.

I've heard the oft-repeated claim that CFL bulbs produce negative net
mercury pollution.  That assertion is usually accompanied by the
statistically verifiable fairy-tale that most dead CFL bulbs will go to
landfills where they will magically not leak their contents into the
groundwater.

There are two very big problems with those claims.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the peak load problem is almost always a daytime
problem and a summer problem.  That tends to imply that indoor lights won't
be used to the extent they might in the darker, winter months.  That means
the "offset" is not nearly as much as claimed. Much more importantly, if
only 6% of the CFL bulbs end up being recycled (I'm using the number for
plastics from the Economist) then the claims of the negative mercury offset
simply evaporate.

All the above means that the numbers are quite a bit "softer" than some
people cite (when they bother to cite any numbers or sources at all).  The
problem has to be tackled right at the source, not by an indirect scheme.
It's nice to hope that we can reduce peak loads with bulbs that are
hopefully going to be recycled so religiously that none of their mercury
will end up in our trout.  But the numbers we have from years of studying
recycling tells us that won't be what happens.  The bulbs will be burned,
dumped in lakes, on railroad tracks, etc.

Yes, CFL bulbs do save money, and I use them, but I don't want the slight
reduction in peak loads that they offer to obscure or delay the need to
scrub all power plants at the stack.  And I certainly don't want anyone
telling me I HAVE to use CFL's in places where they just don't work well.
I doubt if the law will stick.

--
Bobby G.