You know what worries me more than GHG emissions?

[cybercoma]

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs.

You know, those twisty spiral bulbs that every store in the country is now carrying.

They're fantastic, they last at least 4 times as long as conventional lightbulbs and they use 75% less energy. Although some cheap brands that weren't CSA approved were starting fires, good brands (like Philips for instance) uses materials that do not burn and plastics that won't drip and melt.

So what's my point?

They're fluorescent bulbs. Fluorescent lighting works by passing electricity through mercury gas which causes phosphors to glow.

That's right...

MERCURY.

All CFL bulbs contain mercury and should be recycled properly. I guarantee that's not happening. People and businesses are going to be filling the landfills with these bulbs that contain mercury.

I'm glad people are bringing energy consumption down, but polluting the environment with mercury is hardly the answer.

Manufacturers know how to make bulbs from LEDs, but very few companies are releasing this technology. They use very little energy (as compared to CFLs even) and last almost 3 times as long as the CFLs (which last 3 times longer than incandescent bulbs). LED bulbs will last nearly 20 years. This is why the companies have yet to mass market them. They're overcharging for them (almost $50 per bulbs if you can find the companies that do have them).

As consumers we should be demanding affordable pollutant free LED bulbs, rather than mercury filled compact fluorsecent bulbs.

Buying CFLs will actually do more harm than good in the long run, it's too bad the move is on to require people to change over to them.

[leonardcohen]

I'm sorry i can't provide a link,but i read

in Todays' Citizen or Sun ,that there are recycling

Depots in Ottawa for that very thing.

Other Cities i'm not sure about.

[cybercoma]

I'm sorry i can't provide a link,but i read

in Todays' Citizen or Sun ,that there are recycling

Depots in Ottawa for that very thing.

Other Cities i'm not sure about.

Most of the bulbs have an 800 number on them where you can find out how and where to recycle the bulbs; however, for every person that recycles there's more than likely a number who don't. It's just like cellphones. You're supposed to recycle them because of the toxic chemicals they (and especially their batteries) contain, but I'm sure a lot still end up in landfills.

[Riverwind]

Most of the bulbs have an 800 number on them where you can find out how and where to recycle the bulbs; however, for every person that recycles there's more than likely a number who don't. It's just like cellphones. You're supposed to recycle them because of the toxic chemicals they (and especially their batteries) contain, but I'm sure a lot still end up in landfills.

To be fair: these numbers will often expect you to mail the junk somewhere or spending 1 hour in the car driving to the only depot in a large urban area. Not many people are going to be willing to pay money for postage to get rid of garbage. I will recycle everything that I can put in a bluebox or drop at a depot within a 15 minute drive.

[cybercoma]

My point exactly. Most people aren't going to recycle these things.

So what's worse? Toxic chemicals polluting the earth, such as the mercury found in these fluorescent bulbs or the amount of GHG emissions created by the difference in energy consumption?

[Riverwind]

So what's worse? Toxic chemicals polluting the earth, such as the mercury found in these fluorescent bulbs or the amount of GHG emissions created by the difference in energy consumption?

We have widespread bluebox programs now which means we could make it easy to collect hazzardous waste such as batteries, fluorescent bulbs and others. The government does not do it today because the cost exceeds the benefit. That could change in the future if fluorescent bulbs are used everywhere.

You can also look at this another way: the government could have increased residential hydro rates and provide an incentive to conserve. This would encourage many people to use the fluorescent bulbs even if they were not banned which means the toxic waste problem would still exist.

[Charles Anthony]

Tories get a bright idea print this article

Feds ban century-old incandescent bulb to help save energy

The ban on light bulbs will not bring a major reduction in Canada's total emissions - probably less than one per cent. But it is still seen as significant because it signals a willingness by the government to impose binding regulations rather than relying on voluntary efforts to cut emissions.

It also allows the government to tap into a strong desire by voters to do something practical to contribute to environmental well-being.

The Daily News -- Halifax

I do not know what to think! Is this an other PR stunt like subsidizing hybrid vehicles???

Why focus on lights??? Many different things use electricity -- not only incandescent light bulbs.

If it is the consumption I would like to suggest that the price of electricity service be raised instead of banning something.

[cybercoma]

Why focus on lights??? Many different things use electricity -- not only incandescent light bulbs.

If it is the consumption I would like to suggest that the price of electricity service be raised instead of banning something.

Lightbulbs are the quickest easiest way to save a ton on hydro. CFLs use 1/4 the electricity as incandescent bulbs, so if everyone in the country switched over, it'd be like taking thousands of cars off the road as far as GHG emissions go.

Unfortunately, the bulbs will only serve to pollute the environment when they break and mercury is spread everywhere.

[M.Dancer]

How much mercury is in compact fluorescent bulbs

A compact fluorescent (CFL) contains a small amount of mercury that is necessary to produce the light – one-fifth of the mercury found in a wristwatch battery or 1/100 of the mercury contained in a dental amalgam. The chart below compares the mercury content in a CFL to other household items.

Product Amount of Mercury Number of Equivalent CFLS

Compact

fluorescent lamp 5 milligrams 1

Watch battery 25 milligrams 5

Dental amalgams 500 milligrams 100

Home thermometer 500 milligrams - 2 grams 100 - 400

Float switches in sump pumps 2 grams 400

Tilt thermostat 3 grams 600

Electrical tilt switches and relays 3.5 grams 700

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ENERGYSTAR/english/...ers.cfm#mercury

Not worried in the least

[Charles Anthony]

Lightbulbs are the quickest easiest way to save a ton on hydro.

However, it is the consumption of the electricity which is identified as the problem.

Thus, if the price of electricity was raised, there is no need to ban anything. Everything (incancescent, fluorescent, LED, toasters, micro-wave ovens, air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, fans, stereos, video games, etc. etc.) will be targetted more effectively without the need for any bureaucracy.

[Riverwind]

Thus, if the price of electricity was raised, there is no need to ban anything.

Raising the price of electricty high enough to make people switch to these bulbs en-mass would unfairly penalize people who use electricity in ways that cannot be avoided. For example, some people heat their homes with electricity and have no other alternative available. These people would bear a disproportionate share of the burden of lowing consumption while people with gas heat would likely continue to waste electricity with incandent bulbs because the extra cost is not significant to them.

This is the same problem gas prices: too many people are willing to make wasteful lifestyle choices because they can afford it. Increasing the cost of gas would simply penalize people who use more gas but are doing it as efficiently as possible. That is why the government needs to regulate the types of vehicles sold and basically tell people that they are no longer allowed to make certain kinds of wasteful decisions.

[sharkman]

Lightbulbs are the quickest easiest way to save a ton on hydro.

However, it is the consumption of the electricity which is identified as the problem.

Thus, if the price of electricity was raised, there is no need to ban anything. Everything (incancescent, fluorescent, LED, toasters, micro-wave ovens, air conditioners, vacuum cleaners, fans, stereos, video games, etc. etc.) will be targetted more effectively without the need for any bureaucracy.

I find that concept to be problematic. The poor, who can't afford any new expenses, would suffer the most with this idea. Most other people would moan and pay up, just like we do with the outrageous gas prices. And the government would find a brand new cash cow to milk. And this would have an inflationary affect on our economy as companies would have to pass on their higher costs to the customers.

Raising taxes on cigarettes is one thing because of the health issues, but to raise the costs of electricity is rather heavy handed.

[Charles Anthony]

I find that concept to be problematic. The poor, who can't afford any new expenses, would suffer the most with this idea.

That can be solved by giving them a subsidy to their income.

[Riverwind]

I find that concept to be problematic. The poor, who can't afford any new expenses, would suffer the most with this idea.

That can be solved by giving them a subsidy to their income.

An outright ban requires fewer bureaucrats than a means tested benefit program.

[sharkman]

I find that concept to be problematic. The poor, who can't afford any new expenses, would suffer the most with this idea.

That can be solved by giving them a subsidy to their income.

Ah, now you're talking about a whole new level of bureaucracy, to decide who gets what kind of subsidy for how long, etc.

[cybercoma]

How much mercury is in compact fluorescent bulbs

A compact fluorescent (CFL) contains a small amount of mercury that is necessary to produce the light – one-fifth of the mercury found in a wristwatch battery or 1/100 of the mercury contained in a dental amalgam. The chart below compares the mercury content in a CFL to other household items.

Product Amount of Mercury Number of Equivalent CFLS

Compact

fluorescent lamp 5 milligrams 1

Watch battery 25 milligrams 5

Dental amalgams 500 milligrams 100

Home thermometer 500 milligrams - 2 grams 100 - 400

Float switches in sump pumps 2 grams 400

Tilt thermostat 3 grams 600

Electrical tilt switches and relays 3.5 grams 700

http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/ENERGYSTAR/english/...ers.cfm#mercury

Not worried in the least

Thanks for that information. There's no need to worry then, since the amount is negligible. I stand corrected.

EDIT: Now that I think about it though, with the exception of watch batteries, how many homes have thermometers? And the ones that do, typically only have one. Same with sump pumps, etc. The sheer number of CFL bulbs out there may equal a higher amount of mercury in the environment overall. I'm just hypothesizing here.

What's more beneficial? The amount of hydro saved using CFLs, meanwhile creating a problem with mercury? Or using more hydro with incandescent bulbs and not having any mercury in the product whatsoever?

[Charles Anthony]

Ah, now you're talking about a whole new level of bureaucracy, to decide who gets what kind of subsidy for how long, etc.

No. We already have it in place with RevenueCanada. They can say: "Everybody below a certain income X gets the subsidy or tax credit."

An outright ban requires fewer bureaucrats than a means tested benefit program.

A subsidy can be simpler than that.

Furthermore, an outright ban of incandescent lights forces people to switch to alternatives which are very expensive.

Should we forget that added cost of fluorescent and LEDs?

[cybercoma]

Ah, now you're talking about a whole new level of bureaucracy, to decide who gets what kind of subsidy for how long, etc.

No. We already have it in place with RevenueCanada. They can say: "Everybody below a certain income X gets the subsidy or tax credit."

An outright ban requires fewer bureaucrats than a means tested benefit program.

A subsidy can be simpler than that.

Furthermore, an outright ban of incandescent lights forces people to switch to alternatives which are very expensive.

Should we forget that added cost of fluorescent and LEDs?

$15.98 for 6 soft white CFL bulbs at Home Depot vs $0.89 for 4 Incandescent Value Bulbs (at any dollar store or walmart).

It would appear as though it costs nearly 10x as much as regular bulbs.

However, CFLs last nearly 10x as long as those value bulbs. Not to mention the 75% savings in the cost of hydro as they're being used.

CFLs actually end up costing the consumer less over time.

[M.Dancer]

EDIT: Now that I think about it though, with the exception of watch batteries, how many homes have thermometers? And the ones that do, typically only have one. Same with sump pumps, etc. The sheer number of CFL bulbs out there may equal a higher amount of mercury in the environment overall. I'm just hypothesizing here.

What's more beneficial? The amount of hydro saved using CFLs, meanwhile creating a problem with mercury? Or using more hydro with incandescent bulbs and not having any mercury in the product whatsoever?

We have a thermometer, a sump and a couple of thermostats....and we also have an Ikea that has a drop off recycling box for the CFLs

[cybercoma]

EDIT: Now that I think about it though, with the exception of watch batteries, how many homes have thermometers? And the ones that do, typically only have one. Same with sump pumps, etc. The sheer number of CFL bulbs out there may equal a higher amount of mercury in the environment overall. I'm just hypothesizing here.

What's more beneficial? The amount of hydro saved using CFLs, meanwhile creating a problem with mercury? Or using more hydro with incandescent bulbs and not having any mercury in the product whatsoever?

We have a thermometer, a sump and a couple of thermostats....and we also have an Ikea that has a drop off recycling box for the CFLs

So, not a problem then. Thanks for the information. I feel better knowing that amount of mercury is nearly insignificant.

[sharkman]

Ah, now you're talking about a whole new level of bureaucracy, to decide who gets what kind of subsidy for how long, etc.

No. We already have it in place with RevenueCanada. They can say: "Everybody below a certain income X gets the subsidy or tax credit."

Nothing, and I mean nothing, involving money and a level of government would be that simple. And what about my other comments concerning the inflationary effect this would have? As well, at any time there are businesses that are on the bubble, and something like this would send them into bankruptcy.

Also, I agree with Riverwind's concern about those homes having electric heat. They would pay more than everyone else for something that is an essential need. Homes with electric heat would no doubt go down in value.

[Charles Anthony]

And what about my other comments concerning the inflationary effect this would have?

Inflation is a lot more complicated.

As well, at any time there are businesses that are on the bubble, and something like this would send them into bankruptcy.

You can not have it both ways.

Also, I agree with Riverwind's concern about those homes having electric heat. They would pay more than everyone else for something that is an essential need. Homes with electric heat would no doubt go down in value.

-- as they should -- assuming the government should be monkeying around in the market.

[Catchme]

I started using CFL's back in the mid-late 80's when they first came out. And they were a heck of a lot more expensive than today at $15.00 each, or sometimes $11.00 on sale. I bought a 3-4 a month and put them in high use areas. In the first billing period, as it is 2 months, my hydro was $60 less than the previous year at that time, and rates had even gone up. All the light bulbs were paid for within 2 billing periods by saved hydro consumption. I certainly like the money in my pocket, as opposed to wasting it on hydro, and wasting hydro.

Saving 700.00+ a year on electricity is nothing to sneeze at,, especially when you can change your home lighting system for about 45-60 bucks. And that expense is a one time thing for perhaps decades. As I still have, and am using, those very same CFL's today, I have lost 2, one through breakage when moving and the very first one burned out just a few months back. They are 20+ years old and I have never had a problem with with them. In this length of time, I would've spent 20k more on hydro, and way more on incandescent bulbs, than I did on the CFL's purchase.

Watch/hearing aid/camera batteries are replaced every year at least, the mecury threat from them is significantly higher than CFL's in fact our teeth are more polluting that CFL's.

[Wilber]

I'll be stocking up on incandescents for my outside lights. Fluorescents are useless in cold temperatures. I have fluorescents and incandescents in my unheated garage because of that.

[sharkman]

in fact our teeth are more polluting that CFL's.

Are you basing that on the above list provided by mdancer? Because a filling can last 30 years or more and CFLs maybe a couple of years, depending on use. If you have 20 bulbs on the go every 2 years, it adds up.