Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

[bud-- <remove.budnews@xxxxxxx>]

David Nebenzahl wrote:
> On 12/31/2009 3:07 AM salty@xxxxxxx spake thus:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 03:18:55 -0500, "Robert Green"
>> <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> 4) Does it take into account the addition of mercury to
>>> environments where most of the energy developed is from hydro or
>>> nuclear power?
>>>
>>> No. CFL bulbs are poised to bring significant mercury pollution
>>> issues to areas where there isn't any mercury pollution from nearby
>>> coal plants because there AREN'T any nearby coal plants.
>>
>> Do you have ANY idea how long florescent's have been in wide use?
>> Where do you see them? How about ALL large buildings being almost
>> completely lit with full sized florescent's which contain FAR more
>> mercury than CFL's?  When you flip the typical light switch in a home,
>> maybe 1-4 lights are powered up. When you flip a switch in a
>> supermarket, there may be hundreds of lights lit up. All Florescent.
>>
>> Any idea why they use florescent's ?
>
> Of course he knows this; that's implicit in his arguments. He's not stupid.
>
> What he's saying, which I agree with, is that the use of CFLs, primarily
> for *residential* lighting (not commercial, which as you point out has
> already been using fluorescents for many decades) will result in a
> massive upsurge in the amount of mercury in transit out there, some of
> which will escape into the environment. This is the 900-pound gorilla of
> CFL usage which isn't getting nearly as much attention as it should, and
> makes the claims that Don K. and others have made about how much CFLs
> will result in *reduced* mercury emissions dubious at best.
>

I find Don's arguments entirely reasonable. Our power comes from a few
national grids. Reduction of power on a TVA hydro plant allows TVA to
sell power elsewhere.

And I have no problem getting both CFLs and linear tubes recycled.

--
bud--