Re: Anyone moved to LED Lighting?

["Robert Green" <robert_green1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Don Klipstein" <don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> >  The true cost/benefits of CFLs over tungsten bulbs are incredibly
> >complex and that allows either side of the argument to spout nearly any
> >numbers they feel like.  All they need do is adjust the underlying
> >parameters or ignore facts like the future cost of removing mercury from
the
> >environment the same way we're now removing asbestos.
>
>   Compared to incandescent, on average use of CFLs actually reduces
> mercury pollution, because burning coal releases so much mercury into the
> environment.

Ouch!  Don't tell me after all the intelligent posts you've made, that you
actually buy into that "new math" version of reality?   Don, you're breaking
my heart!

A few questions as we work through the contention that adding a new vector
for mercury distrubution decreases its environmental release.

1) How does that tradeoff work with hydroelectric, nuclear, solar or wind
power?

It doesn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sources_of_electricity_in_the_USA_2006.png

shows that less than half of the US's energy comes from coal.  So the
tradeoff only works for half of the US's power plants.  For the other half,
it represents a new vector for mercury poisoning that didn't exist before
the CFL revolution.

2) Why don't we install scrubbers on the few hundred power plants that are
the major emitters of mercury instead of relying on Rube Goldberg tradeoffs
like distributing mercury in billions of light bulbs?

Because Big Power doesn't want to dig into corporate profits to clean up
their power plants when they can convince people that these tradeoffs are
workable.  The smartest guys in the room also told us that credit default
swaps would reduce trading risks.  I guess we know how that worked out.

3) Does this tradeoff take into account that light bulbs are mostly used at
night, when the generator turbines are running anyway, and would be
generating X amount of "baseload" power anyway?

No, all we see are equations that say CFLs use less electricity than
tungsten bulbs, so therefore they must result in equally less emissions.  If
the home lighting load is 7% of the total electrical use, what does a
reduction in that small number really amount to?  Is it enough to enable
plants to shut down a generator?  I've never seen the "adding mercury to
subtract mercury" theorists ever get into the real mechanics of electricity
generation to demonstrate exactly how the process works.  I don't think many
people are familiar with the "baseload" concept of power generation and why
the all the claims of CFLs reducing emissions have to be taken with a large
grain of salt:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_load_power_plant

These plants are on line 24x7 generating power whether anyone uses it or
not.  I've not seen one CFL "savings equation" take the baseload function
into account.  Why?  Because it would quite obviously show that much of the
alleged emission reductions claimed are in people's heads, not at the smoke
stacks.

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.

5) Does this alleged tradeoff work when you substitute LEDs for tungsten
bulbs?

Yes.  LEDs provide the same alleged reduction in emissions, and they do it
WITHOUT adding mercury to hundreds of thousands of homes in billions of
light bulbs.  If anyone really cares about the environment, they won't
poison it further by using mercury-laced CFL bulbs instead of LEDs.

6) Are CFL bulb makers serious about recycling used bulbs?

Hell no.  We have deposit laws for mostly inert glass soda bottles but NOT
environmentally hazardous CFL bulbs.  Studies estimate that perhaps as few
as 10% of all CFL bulbs get recycled.

7) Do people get suckered by quick fixes and miracle cures?

Absolutely.  Take a look at the dietary supplement industry.  Study after
study shows that supplements can actually be quite harmful but folks buy and
ingest them by the billion-dollar load.  As for quick cures, Congress bought
into the TARP, didn't it?  Adding mercury to reduce mercury doesn't pass the
common sense "sniff" test.  And it shouldn't, it's a devil's bargain, one of
many we're foisting on the next generation.

8) What happens when power plant smokestacks all get proper scrubbing
equipment?

The alleged tradeoff falls flat on its face, leaving us with a gigantic
mercury-laced CFL distribution network and nothing to counterbalance it.

The problem with CFLs is that the deeper one delves into this diabolical
bargain, the worse things look.  The savings are weak to begin with, and
they're offset by the potential damage mercury poisoning can do.  Sadly,
we've shown time and time again that short term gains are considered way
ahead of any long term costs.  Look at Congress if you doubt that assertion.
(-:

The right way to control emissions is by controlling the emitters.
Pollutants need to be trapped at the smokestack that creates them, not on
the shelves of Wal-Mart through a complex, poorly understood "tradeoff."
Like a skilled magician, Big Power has managed to use misdirection to great
advantage.  Instead of clamoring for them to reduce the poison in their
emissions, we've bought into a complex scheme to reduce pollutants by adding
them to commonplace consumables.

It's a fool's game, just like Obama's claim that the war in Afghanistan is
necessary to deny terrorists a place to plan their next attack.  The second
worst terrorist attack on the US came from within.  Are we going to bomb all
the states the Timothy McVeigh lived in so that we prevent other terrorists
like him from "having a base of operations?"  That would be stupid, but
we've apparently bought into the plan,  I suspect it's because there aren't
too many critical thinkers left in the US press willing to say: "Mr.
President, how does attacking Afghanistan prevent Al-Queda from basing its
operations in Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Indonesia or any other spot in the
world?"

--
Bobby G.