CFL Light Bulbs are Toxic

[TimG]

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

WTF? Bonam is no lefty and if anyone understands this kind of stuff on this board its him.

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.

That is not what was said. Efficiency is a measure of energy in vs heat out and the furnace is more efficient by that measure. Now if you want to look at specific scenarios where you are fine with a freezing house but you only want to heat the inside of a box then you could argue that a light bulb would use less energy even though it is less efficient. But that is a scenario that simply does not exist in the real world. Edited January 29, 2015 by TimG

[Bryan]

WTF? Bonam is no lefty and if anyone understands this kind of stuff on this board its him.

The shit he just posted is left wing propaganda. If he believes a word of it, then he doesn't understand any of it.

But that is a scenario that simply does not exist in the real world.

Sure it does. Every day. Keep the heat lower than 20C in the house, because you know the actual heat in the room you're using with the lights on will be warmer.

[TimG]

Sure it does. Every day. Keep the heat lower than 20C in the house, because you know the actual heat in the room you're using with the lights on will be warmer.

Sure. But you will be using more energy to heat the room with lights than you would if you used LED lights and a space heater to heat the room to the same temp. That is what efficiency means. Edited January 29, 2015 by TimG

[Bryan]

Sure. But you will be using more energy to heat the room with lights than you would if you used LED lights and a space heater to heat the room to the same temp. That is what efficiency means.

Let me get this straight. You think a space heater plus an LED bulb combined uses less energy than an incandescent bulb by itself?

[Bonam]

Hah thanks TimG. It's always good for a laugh when someone accuses me of being a "lefty" I'm sure it's also humorous for the actual lefties on this board.

[Bryan]

Hah thanks TimG. It's always good for a laugh when someone accuses me of being a "lefty" I'm sure it's also humorous for the actual lefties on this board.

LOL. Sorry about that, I mistook you for a different poster. My apologies!

My point still stands about your position on energy efficiency. It is a pretty bizarre piece of twisted logic that fits right in with the left-wing "anti-carbon" narrative.

[TimG]

Let me get this straight. You think a space heater plus an LED bulb combined uses less energy than an incandescent bulb by itself?

If you want to heat the room to a *given temperature* then a space heater + LED will use less energy that a bank of incandescent bulbs.

[Bryan]

If you want to heat the room to a *given temperature* then a space heater + LED will use less energy that a bank of incandescent bulbs.

ONE incandescent bulb is usually more than enough to make up the difference. Seriously, give your head a shake, you're starting to sound like David Suzuki.

[Bonam]

LOL. Sorry about that, I mistook you for a different poster. My apologies!

My point still stands about your position on energy efficiency. It is a pretty bizarre piece of twisted logic that fits right in with the left-wing "anti-carbon" narrative.

There's nothing bizarre or twisted, it's just very basic information. An incandescent bulb is a decent heater, but not as good as something specifically designed to be a heater. And your lights working as heaters is also the last thing you want when it's already hot and you are running the AC anyway, which only has to work even harder to remove the extra heat. Anyway, there's nothing "left-wing" about embracing new technology when it works well; that's just pragmatism. I don't harken back to the good old days of rotary phones, and neither do I miss incandescent light bulbs.

LEDs are freaking awesome, and in all likelihood many of the LED bulbs made today will outlast their owners. Most of the LEDs in electronic equipment from the 1960s and 1970s still work without a hickup.

[Bonam]

ONE incandescent bulb is usually more than enough to make up the difference.

If all you need is 100 W of extra heat, and your heater has a thermostat, then your heater will also automatically provide just the amount of heat you need. You are aware that heaters automatically turn on and off over time to hit the target temperature you want, yes? If you have a 1 kW heater but only need 100 W of extra heat to get the temperature you set as its target, it will turn itself on and off over time so that it is on 10% of the time overall, and therefore just provide those needed 100 W and not more. And, it will provide those 100 W of heat more efficiently. Where a light bulb pulls 100 W of electricity from the wall to provide ~ 100 W of heat, a good heat pump will only take ~30 W to provide you the same heat output, since it has a CoP of around 3-4.

[Boges]

Not seeing much defence for CFL bulbs.

So it's reasonable to say that pushing CFL bulbs was the wrong move by governments.

Now LEDs different story. It would be nice if they were pushed in the same manor to bring pricing down.

I'm guessing it's because LED really do last for a very long time and there's no realistic chance of them burning out any time soon.

[cybercoma]

There is a chart on this information sheet ( http://www.cnpower.com/assets/news/cfl_info.pdf )explaining the mercury content of CFL bulbs compared to other household items. I don't use the bulbs because they don't last as long as advertised. In fact, I have regular bulbs that have lasted longer. The mercury content, however, is not as bad as you guys are making it seem:

1 watch battery = 5 CFL bulbs

1 dental amalgam = 100 CFL bulbs

1 home thermometer = 100-400 CFL bulbs

1 sump pump float switch = 400 CFL bulbs

1 tilt thermostat = 600 CFL bulbs

1 electrical tilt switch or relays = 600-700 CFL bulbs

Not to mention the countless laptops, ipods, cellphones and cordless phones out there with more mercury in them than CFL bulbs, yet no one avoids using them for that reason.

Having said that, you do need to be careful with them, clean up properly and recycle them even if they are broken (Home Depot and Walmarts have drop boxes).

[cybercoma]

CFLs should be recycled, but they're not the most significant source of lead in the environment. That probably goes to electronic devices, e.g., ipads, iphones, laptops, cordless phones, televisions.

Edited January 29, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

The question is why are we more concerned about CFLs than these other things when we should be concerned about all of it and even more concerned about the worse pollutants? Is it just that the government legislated CFLs as mandatory?

[Mighty AC]

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.

It depends on the material and the process used. All recycling reduces the use of virgin materials and almost all reduces energy use. Paper and metals both save significant energy and are very profitable. Glass recycling reduces energy use by about 20% but is not profitable, thus bottle returns are the way to go. Recycling plastics like PET (soft drink and water bottles) and PS (yogurt containers) save roughly 80% on energy and the resulting product is profitable. The downside is that sorting is tough and eats into the profit. New infrared scanners have solved this issue but aren't in widespread use yet. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/recycling/4291576

That being said, the profitability of one or two materials isn't what prevents people from recycling, it's laziness. This 'can't be bothered' attitude is often most prevalent in older generations that like to comment on the selfishness of the young.

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).

Both LED and CFL bulbs come in the full range from bright white to the more traditional yellowish light of incandescent bulbs. Lighting represents 14% of electricity use, which is not insignificant.

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.

I'm all for more materials collected and more separation required at curbside. However, keeping used batteries in a bag and dropping them off once per year is hardly a chore. This is just another point that highlights the selfishness and laziness of people. It's also interesting that many of the same people that bemoan government programs 'can't be bothered' to spend a few minutes reducing the need for some.

[Mighty AC]

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.

They don't use very little energy, they are horribly inefficient. Why is it that we try to avoid installing heat sources on the ceiling again? Edited January 29, 2015 by Mighty AC

[TimG]

All recycling reduces the use of virgin materials and almost all reduces energy use.

This depends entirely on whether there is a demand for the materials generated by the recycling process because when it comes to glass and plastics it is often not practical or possible to use the recycled materials to create new containers. Some cities end up throwing recycled plastic waste into a landfill for this reason. Also your link does not explain how the numbers were calculated so I can't assess whether they included things like transportation/sorting energy use. You also cannot simply dismiss the cost factor. When recycling costs more than producing new materials that means resources are diverted away from more productive uses to subsidize an inefficient process.

That being said, the profitability of one or two materials isn't what prevents people from recycling, it's laziness.

So if people don't go to church on Sunday does that mean they are lazy? Recycling is not that different. It is quite unreasonable to expect everyone to adopt your religious beliefs.

Both LED and CFL bulbs come in the full range from bright white to the more traditional yellowish light of incandescent bulbs.

I said, "subjective comfort". That means the comfort that people perceive - not what you think they should perceive. And there are many situations where people "waste" energy for subjective comfort (e.g. air conditioning, heating, etc).

Lighting represents 14% of electricity use, which is not insignificant.

And electricity only provides part of a persons energy requirements. Spending 10% more on a monthly electricity bill is not a big deal for most people.

However, keeping used batteries in a bag and dropping them off once per year is hardly a chore.

You have obviously not seen the mess that can be created when a bag of batteries starts leaking. Edited January 29, 2015 by TimG

[Mighty AC]

John Kenneth Galbraith said "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." Here you are trying to justify laziness.

So if people don't go to church on Sunday does that mean they are lazy? Recycling is not that different. It is quite unreasonable to expect everyone to adopt your religious beliefs.

Second hand smoke would be a better analogy. The action, or in this case inaction, of one does harm others. People aren't simply choosing not to compost unprofitable materials, they can't be bothered to do it at all. The majority of our waste stream is easily diverted, processed and either cost saving or profitable.

Regions and municipalities setup waste diversion programs for reasons. They want to prolong the use of existing landfill sites and they want recyclable materials. There is a cost to running separate trucks to collect diverted waste. Everyone that does not participate reduces collection efficiency and adds volume to the landfill.

Highly profitable and energy saving paper and metals represent 36% of all waste. Recycling these materials alone is extremely important . Yard waste, food waste and compostables are easily diverted and cheaply composted, through ubiquitous yard waste and green bin programs. These programs divert an additional 35% of waste. 70% of all waste is reduced before even dealing with glass and plastics.

This depends entirely on whether there is a demand for the materials generated by the recycling process because when it comes to glass and plastics it is often not practical or possible to use the recycled materials to create new containers. Some cities end up throwing recycled plastic waste into a landfill for this reason.

This is somewhat true but a little outdated. Plastics are often downcycled into less useful material; however, more plastics (including the 2 most prevalent) are now able to be recycled into the same material again. For this reason and rising oil prices (the current temporary low prices are an anomaly) more plastics than ever are being reclaimed. Additionally, glass and plastics combined represent only 18% of all waste. Not recycling because glass and some plastics shouldn't be processed makes very little sense.