CFL Light Bulbs are Toxic

[Boges]

Approximately 90 per cent of compact fluorescent light bulbs are being tossed in the trash, potentially contaminating the environment with mercury, CTV Toronto has learned.

According to the Recycling Council of Ontario, most consumers are not safely disposing the energy-efficient bulbs that contain approximately five milligrams of mercury each. The heavy metal has been shown to cause brain damage if inhaled or ingested.

"I don't think most consumers know that there's potentially hazardous material inside a bulb," Jo-Anne St. Godard, the executive director of the recycling council, told CTV Toronto on Tuesday.

Read more: http://toronto.ctvnews.ca/energy-saving-bulbs-tossed-in-trash-leaking-mercury-into-environment-1.2209110#ixzz3Q873onbO

I remember I hoarded these things after they died (plenty are duds and don't last as long as they should) knowing that they were toxic. I assembled them with a bunch of electronic waste and took it to a local Best Buy thinking they'd take it. They wouldn't, Into the Trash it goes.

If governments are going to wag their fingers at the population saying you need to use these bulbs, then they should make disposing them easier than looking up a depot to dispose of a FLIPPING LIGHTBULB!!!!

And under what other excuse than environmentalism would using a known brain toxin incased in a think layer of glass be considered a "good thing".

I guess these are all being phased out for LEDs. But considering the risks, costs and effort required to dispose them. Wouldn't it be reasonable to opine that CFL Bulbs do more harm than good?

[Mighty AC]

I guess these are all being phased out for LEDs. But considering the risks, costs and effort required to dispose them. Wouldn't it be reasonable to opine that CFL Bulbs do more harm than good?

Batteries should be disposed of the same way, but would you conclude they do more harm than good?

All landfills, most Home Depot, Lowes and Rona stores accept both CFL bulbs and batteries. I find it odd that you would make the effort to check one Best Buy store and then toss them when it didn't work out. A simple Google search could have found a convenient location in seconds.

[Boges]

Batteries should be disposed of the same way, but would you conclude they do more harm than good?

All landfills, most Home Depot, Lowes and Rona stores accept both CFL bulbs and batteries. I find it odd that you would make the effort to check one Best Buy store and then toss them when it didn't work out. A simple Google search could have found a convenient location in seconds.

Batteries don't have mercury in them do they?

Of all the Nanny State things our government does. Wouldn't keeping mercury out of the landfill be top of mind? Don't put the burden on the population to take care of that especially since they're pushing their use so hard.

We can't they be recycled in the Blue Bin?

[Boges]

And what if you don't have a car? Like all the environmentalists tell us are the Devil. So you're expected to get on a bus with a backpack full of delicate mercury filled vessels to your nearest Hardware store?

As opposed to throwing them in the garbage and not having to think about it again.

[Mighty AC]

And what if you don't have a car? Like all the environmentalists tell us are the Devil. So you're expected to get on a bus with a backpack full of delicate mercury filled vessels to your nearest Hardware store?

As opposed to throwing them in the garbage and not having to think about it again.

I guess it depends on your character. Some people still dump paint and chemicals down the drain. I expect those people would also just throw batteries, CFL bulbs and electronics in the trash.

However, those wanting to dispose of such products correctly can visit the landfill, a hardware store or Ikea. It seems nonsensical to make a special trip to dispose of toxic items for those with or without a car. I expect most would just bring them when they are already out.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Boges]

I guess it depends on your character. Some people still dump paint and chemicals down the drain. I expect those people would also just throw batteries, CFL bulbs and electronics in the trash.

However, those wanting to dispose of such products correctly can visit the landfill, a hardware store or Ikea. It seems nonsensical to make a special trip to dispose of toxic items for those with or without a car. I expect most would just bring them when they are already out.

Clearly 90% of people are "those" people.

Perhaps with results like that the government, who initially pushed these stupid things, should rethink how they ask people to dispose of them.

The bigger issue however is, why are we thinking such a toxic product would be the answer to our environmental problems?

Edited January 28, 2015 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Better for the environment they say because it saves on electricity. But then you have to treat it like hazardous waste after it's use. I am sure someone did not think this all the way through.

[Boges]

Also the CFL Bulbs are only effective in saving large amounts of hydro when they're on for long periods of time. Which is great for commercial use but not so great in the house.

I notice this because the lights outside my house have lasted years but ones in my kitchen and bathroom that are always being turned on and off don't last nearly as long.

[Bonam]

Meh, LEDs are available now, and they are way more awesome. I've been slowly converting to them as other light bulbs have died out and about half my bulbs are LEDs now.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Bonam

[Boges]

Meh, LEDs are available now, and they are way more awesome. I've been slowly converting to them as other light bulbs have died out and about half my bulbs are LEDs now.

This is obviously the answer. But they're still quite expensive. Perhaps if Hydro companies started pimping them like they did with the CFLs the price would come down.

I notice street lights are being slowly phased over LEDs.

[The_Squid]

I don't use CFLs because of the mercury. LEDs are much better.

[bush_cheney2004]

LEDs and CFLs are crappy in my Easy Bake Oven...that's why I hoarded lots of incandescents.

[Guest]

Me too. I have more than enough incandescents to last me until they put me in a home.

[AngusThermopyle]

Us too. We have a stock of the good old ones. Studies have shown that CFL's and LED's in regular home use save miniscule amounts of energy.

[Mighty AC]

Clearly 90% of people are "those" people.

Perhaps with results like that the government, who initially pushed these stupid things, should rethink how they ask people to dispose of them.

How can people be expected to behave responsibly?

"If they expect me to do X, then the government should Y" That's really the source of many problems isn't it?

How can people be expected to: vote, read, stay informed, handle chemicals, batteries, medications, vaccinations schedules, CFL bulbs, etc.

The bigger issue however is, why are we thinking such a toxic product would be the answer to our environmental problems?

What? It would take 9 billion improperly disposed of bulbs to equal the mercury released by coal power in just one year. Keep in mind that broken bulbs only release between .05 and .7 mg in the first 24 hours and properly disposed of bulbs release zero mercury.

Reducing energy use reduces mercury pollution. http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

[Bonam]

Studies have shown that CFL's and LED's in regular home use save miniscule amounts of energy.

It's true that more home energy is used on heating/cooling, cooking, and washing/drying. But LED lights do make a considerable difference.

For example, a single bulb at home might be on say 6 hours a day on average. A 60 W incandescent will use 0.36 kWh/day, or 10.8 kWh/month, or 131 kWh/year. At $0.05/kWh that's $6.55/year in energy. An equivalent LED is about 8 W and will therefore cost about $0.87 per year in energy. An LED bulb costs typically costs ~$10, so it'll make back the investment in it in 2 years (and faster in areas with higher electricity costs).

What does all this work out to on a national scale? There's about 120 million households in the US. If you assume that in a given household about 10 bulbs are being used at a given time for those 6 hours/day average, you get a total power of:

P = 60W/bulb * 6/24 hours duty cycle * 10 bulbs/household * 120 million households = 18 GW (gigawatts).

Replacing those all with LEDs saves about 16 of those 18 GW, reducing the residential lighting energy requirement to 2.4 GW.

16 GW savings is equivalent to the output of about 30 nuclear reactors (~0.5 GW each).

It saves about 16 GW * 24 hours * 365 days = ~140 billion kWh of energy per year, at the US average cost of ~$0.11/ kWh, that's about $15 billion/year savings nationwide.

Edited January 28, 2015 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

Yes and no...the heat generated by incandescents (and my huge plasma television) contribute to heating and cooling needs. Some lighting fixtures actually cause premature CFL failure for cheap, electronic ballast, hurting their already grossly exaggerated longevity. Some older electronic controls and dimmer switches are not compatible with CFL/LED lighting.

This is what happened when city crews changed out street lights to LEDs in colder climes....not enough heat to melt ice and snow.

Edited January 28, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

What? It would take 9 billion improperly disposed of bulbs to equal the mercury released by coal power in just one year. Keep in mind that broken bulbs only release between .05 and .7 mg in the first 24 hours and properly disposed of bulbs release zero mercury.

Reducing energy use reduces mercury pollution. http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/reviews/news/4217864

Approximately 0.0234 mg of mercury—plus carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide—releases into the air per 1 kwh of electricity that a coal-fired power plant generates. Over the 7500-hour average range of one CFL, then, a plant will emit 13.16 mg of mercury to sustain a 75-watt incandescent bulb but only 3.51 mg of mercury to sustain a 20-watt CFL (the lightning equivalent of a 75-watt traditional bulb). Even if the mercury contained in a CFL was directly released into the atmosphere, an incandescent would still contribute 4.65 more milligrams of mercury into the environment over its lifetime.

So then would shouldn't be panicking about people tossing them into the trash.

[Moonlight Graham]

Studies have shown that CFL's and LED's in regular home use save miniscule amounts of energy.

Link?

[Big Guy]

I am disappointed. I opened this thread anticipating to find a reason why the Canadian Football League (CFL) has a lot of dim bulbs running the organizations. BUMMER!

[Bryan]

The alternative bulbs are a solution without a problem. Regular incandescents are safe, inexpensive, last a long time, and use very little energy. Added bonus for cold climates, they warm up a room slightly.

I'm just glad incandescents are still much easier to find than they're supposed to be. Most stores around here at least still have a lot of even the 100 watt ones in stock.

[Bonam]

The alternative bulbs are a solution without a problem. Regular incandescents are safe, inexpensive, last a long time, and use very little energy. Added bonus for cold climates, they warm up a room slightly.

I'm just glad incandescents are still much easier to find than they're supposed to be. Most stores around here at least still have a lot of even the 100 watt ones in stock.

Incandescents emit the majority of their energy as heat (infrared radiation) rather than visible light. They are not efficient as light sources. They ARE alright as heat sources. In applications where heating is a useful byproduct (or even a useful primary function as in heat lamps) they are great. In applications where excess heat is a problem (such as in the summer when you are air conditioning a building anyway), they are a doubly bad solution (since every Watt of heat radiated by the light bulb is another Watt of heat that the air conditioner has to get rid of). Air conditioning uses about 5% of all electricity in the US, while heating is 6%... so the effects basically cancel out.

Furthermore, if your lights aren't putting out enough heat and you need to turn on your heater in the winter... guess what, the heater is actually more efficient at heating your place than the lights. That means you get the same amount of heat for less energy use if you run LED lights + a heater compared to just running incandescents. On the other hand, when it's too hot because of your lights and you turn on your air conditioner, that energy is completely wasted.

Lastly, the statement that they "use very little energy" is without substance. Very little compared to what? Energy is a mathematically quantifiable thing, it's not a wishy-washy touchy-feely opinion. Incandescents use 7-8x more energy to emit the same amount of visible light as LEDs. Like I said above, residential lighting in the US uses the amount of energy equivalent to the output of ~30 nuclear reactors. Is that "very little"? As energy needs in other areas grow, is it a better idea to build 30 new reactors or to swap out some light bulbs?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Bonam

[Mighty AC]

So then would shouldn't be panicking about people tossing them into the trash.

Pissing in your pool isn't a problem either until everybody does it. The old like to criticize younger generations for being lazy and selfish, yet it is often the old that embody that jibe. "I can't be bothered" is a phrase almost completely owned by the aging.

I can't be bothered to recycle.

I can't be bothered to use the green bin.

I can't be bothered to switch from horribly inefficient incandescent bulbs.

I can't be bothered to drop off used bulbs and batteries at one of many ubiquitous locations.

If the government cared about getting this right they'd send somebody to pick them up for me.

Pull your weight, you're part of a society. When did people become so proud of being selfish?

[TimG]

I can't be bothered to recycle.

Recycling materials other than metals is a wasteful process that can consume more energy than simply throwing stuff away and creating new materials. Recycling plastics is more like to going to church on sunday than an action that provides a collective benefit.

I can't be bothered to switch from horribly inefficient incandescent bulbs.

Lighting is a tiny fraction of energy that most people require and there are material differences between a the light produced by an incandescent bulb and a florescent bulb. You can't really criticize people preferring incandescent bulbs unless you criticize every use of energy for subjective comfort (e.g. air conditioning).

I can't be bothered to drop off used bulbs and batteries at one of many ubiquitous locations.

I live in Vancouver and it has only been convenient to get rid of batteries for the last 3-4 years. Prior to that you really had to hunt for a depot and even then you have to drive to them (which wastes energy). In Japan you could drop batteries in their blue boxes. Edited January 29, 2015 by TimG

[Bryan]

Incandescents emit the majority of their energy as heat (infrared radiation) rather than visible light. They are not efficient as light sources. They ARE alright as heat sources. In applications where heating is a useful byproduct (or even a useful primary function as in heat lamps) they are great. In applications where excess heat is a problem (such as in the summer when you are air conditioning a building anyway), they are a doubly bad solution (since every Watt of heat radiated by the light bulb is another Watt of heat that the air conditioner has to get rid of). Air conditioning uses about 5% of all electricity in the US, while heating is 6%... so the effects basically cancel out.

Furthermore, if your lights aren't putting out enough heat and you need to turn on your heater in the winter... guess what, the heater is actually more efficient at heating your place than the lights. That means you get the same amount of heat for less energy use if you run LED lights + a heater compared to just running incandescents. On the other hand, when it's too hot basically of your lights and you turn on your air conditioner, that energy is completely wasted.

Lastly, the statement that they "use very little energy" is without substance. Very little compared to what? Energy is a mathematically quantifiable thing, it's not a wishy-washy touchy-feely opinion. Incandescents use 7-8x more energy to emit the same amount of visible light as LEDs. Like I said above, residential lighting in the US uses the amount of energy equivalent to the output of ~30 nuclear reactors. Is that "very little"? As energy needs in other areas grow, is it a better idea to build 30 new reactors or to swap out some light bulbs?

Oh goodie. The leftie knows how to cut and paste a bunch of stuff he doesn't even understand. Good for you.

Any attempt to try to paint a furnace that heats a whole building as more efficient or using less energy than a light bulb is dishonest at best, and is most likely being expressed by someone who failed basic math.